A General Birth-Death-Sampling Model for Epidemiology and Macroevolution
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Birth-death stochastic processes are the foundation of many phylogenetic models and are widely used to make inferences about epidemiological and macroevolutionary dynamics. There are a large number of birth-death model variants that have been developed; these impose different assumptions about the temporal dynamics of the parameters and about the sampling process. As each of these variants was individually derived, it has been difficult to understand the relationships between them as well as their precise biological and mathematical assumptions. Without a common mathematical foundation, deriving new models is non-trivial. Here we unify these models into a single framework, prove that many previously developed epidemiological and macroevolutionary models are all special cases of a more general model, and illustrate the connections between these variants. This framework centers around a technique for deriving likelihood functions for arbitrarily complex birth-death(-sampling) models that will allow researchers to explore a wider array of scenarios than was previously possible. We then use this frame-work to derive general model likelihoods for both the “single-type” case in which all lineages diversify according to the same process and the “multi-type” case, where there is variation in the process among lineages. By re-deriving existing single-type birth-death sampling models we clarify and synthesize the range of explicit and implicit assumptions made by these models.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".