Starless bias and parameter-estimation bias in the likelihood-based phylogenetic method
Bibliographic record
Abstract
I analyzed various site pattern combinations in a 4-OTU case to identify sources of starless bias and parameter-estimation bias in likelihood-based phylogenetic methods, and reported three significant contributions. First, the likelihood method is counterintuitive in that it may not generate a star tree with sequences that are equidistant from each other. This behaviour, dubbed starless bias, happens in a 4-OTU tree when there is an excess (i.e., more than expected from a star tree and a substitution model) of conflicting phylogenetic signals supporting the three resolved topologies equally. Special site pattern combinations leading to rejection of a star tree, when sequences are equidistant from each other, were identified. Second, fitting gamma distribution to model rate heterogeneity over sites is strongly confounded with tree topology, especially in conjunction with the starless bias. I present examples to show dramatic differences in the estimated shape parameter α between a star tree and a resolved tree. There may be no rate heterogeneity over sites (with the estimated α > 10000) when a star tree is imposed, but α < 1 (suggesting strong rate heterogeneity over sites) when an (incorrect) resolved tree is imposed. Thus, the dependence of "rate heterogeneity" on tree topology implies that "rate heterogeneity" is not a sequence-specific feature, cautioning against interpreting a small α to mean that some sites are under strong purifying selection and others not. Thirdly, because there is no existing (and working) likelihood method for evaluating a star tree with continuous gamma-distributed rate, I have implemented the method for JC69 in a self-contained R script for a four-OTU tree (star or resolved), in addition to another R script assuming a constant rate over sites. These R scripts should be useful for teaching and exploring likelihood methods in phylogenetics.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.068 | 0.283 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".