Particle Gibbs sampling for Bayesian phylogenetic inference
Bibliographic record
Abstract
MOTIVATION: The combinatorial sequential Monte Carlo (CSMC) has been demonstrated to be an efficient complementary method to the standard Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) for Bayesian phylogenetic tree inference using biological sequences. It is appealing to combine the CSMC and MCMC in the framework of the particle Gibbs (PG) sampler to jointly estimate the phylogenetic trees and evolutionary parameters. However, the Markov chain of the PG may mix poorly for high dimensional problems (e.g. phylogenetic trees). Some remedies, including the PG with ancestor sampling and the interacting particle MCMC, have been proposed to improve the PG. But they either cannot be applied to or remain inefficient for the combinatorial tree space. RESULTS: We introduce a novel CSMC method by proposing a more efficient proposal distribution. It also can be combined into the PG sampler framework to infer parameters in the evolutionary model. The new algorithm can be easily parallelized by allocating samples over different computing cores. We validate that the developed CSMC can sample trees more efficiently in various PG samplers via numerical experiments. AVAILABILITY AND IMPLEMENTATION: The implementation of our method and the data underlying this article are available at https://github.com/liangliangwangsfu/phyloPMCMC. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supplementary data are available at Bioinformatics online.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".