Performance of Topology Tests under Extreme Selection Bias
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Tree tests like the Kishino-Hasegawa (KH) test and chi-square test suffer a selection bias that tests like the Shimodaira-Hasegawa (SH) test and approximately unbiased test were intended to correct. We investigate tree-testing performance in the presence of severe selection bias. The SH test is found to be very conservative and, surprisingly, its uncorrected analog, the KH test has low Type I error even in the presence of extreme selection bias, leading to a recommendation that the SH test be abandoned. A chi-square test is found to usually behave well and but to require correction in extreme cases. We show how topology testing procedures can be used to get support values for splits and compare the likelihood-based support values to the approximate likelihood ratio test (aLRT) support values. We find that the aLRT support values are reasonable even in settings with severe selection bias that they were not designed for. We also show how they can be used to construct tests of topologies and, in doing so, point out a multiple comparisons issue that should be considered when looking at support values for splits.
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 | 0.056 | 0.340 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".