MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

A Bayesian Coalescent Model of the DNA Barcode Gap

2025· preprint· en· W4408035483 on OpenAlexaff
Jarrett D. Phillips, Nicolas Hubert, Robert Hanner

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicBayesian Methods and Mixture Models
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCoalescent theoryBarcodeBayesian probabilityComputational biologyDNA barcodingComputer scienceEvolutionary biologyBiologyGeneticsArtificial intelligenceGenePhylogenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A simple statistical model of the DNA barcode gap is outlined in both frequentist and Bayesian contexts. Here, accuracy of recently introduced nonparametric metrics, inspired by coalescent theory, is used to characterize the extent of proportional overlap/separation in maximum and minimum pairwise genetic distances within and among species, respectively. Using a straightforward binomial count of overlapping specimen records, probabilities of taxon distance distribution overlap/separation are directly estimated. The mean and variance are derived for edge cases of no and full overlap, and are shown to have good asymptotic properties. Further, a new way to visualize distances and the DNA barcode gap estimators via the empirical cumulative distribution function (ECDF) appears revealing. Using R and the probabilistic programming language, Stan, the proposed maximum likelihood estimators (MLEs) and Bayesian model are demonstrated on cytochrome b (CYTB) gene sequences from two Agabus diving beetle species, A. bipustulatus and A. nevadensis ( N = 701 and N = 2 individuals, respectively). Analyses clearly expose problems, showing much uncertainty in parameter estimates, particularly under the frequentist paradigm, and when specimen sample sizes for target species are small. Findings herein highlight the promise of the Bayesian approach using a conjugate beta prior for reliable posterior estimation over classical inference when available data are sparse. Obtained results can help shed light on foundational and applied research questions concerning DNA-based specimen identification and species delineation for studies in evolutionary biology and ecology, as well as biodiversity conservation, forensics, management and restoration of wide-ranging taxa.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.641
Threshold uncertainty score0.817

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0040.005
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.041
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.249 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicBayesian Methods and Mixture ModelsFrench-language works237,207