Measuring the relative contribution to predictive power of modern nucleotide substitution modeling approaches
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Traditional approaches to probabilistic phylogenetic inference have relied on information-theoretic criteria to select among a relatively small set of substitution models. These model selection criteria have recently been called into question when applied to richer models, including models that invoke mixtures of nucleotide frequency profiles. At the nucleotide level, we are therefore left without a clear picture of mixture models' contribution to overall predictive power relative to other modeling approaches. Here, we utilize a Bayesian cross-validation method to directly measure the predictive performance of a wide range of nucleotide substitution models. We compare the relative contributions of free nucleotide exchangeability parameters, gamma-distributed rates across sites, and mixtures of nucleotide frequencies with both finite and infinite mixture frameworks. We find that the most important contributor to a model's predictive power is the use of a sufficiently rich mixture of nucleotide frequencies. These results suggest that mixture models should be given greater consideration in nucleotide-level phylogenetic inference.
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.
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 it