Computing tree size under dynamical models of diversification
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A phylogenetic tree has three types of attributes: size, shape (topology), and branch density. Phylodynamic studies are often motivated by questions regarding the size of clades, nevertheless, nearly all of the inference methods only make use of the other two attributes. In this paper, we ask whether there is additional information if we consider tree size more explicitly in phylodynamic inference methods. To address this question, we first needed to be able to compute the expected tree size distribution under a specified phylodynamic model; perhaps surprisingly, there is not a general method for doing so - it is known what this is under a Yule or constant rate birth-death model but not for the more complicated scenarios researchers are often interested in. We present three different solutions to this problem: using (i) the deterministic limit; (ii) master equations; and (iii) an ensemble moment approximation. Using simulations, we evaluate the accuracy of these three approaches under a variety of scenarios and alternative measures of tree size (i.e., sampling through time or only at the present; sampling ancestors or not). We then use the most accurate measures for the situation, to investigate the added informational content of tree size. We find that for two critical phylodynamic questions - (i) is diversification diversity dependent? and, (ii) can we distinguish between alternative diversification scenarios? - knowing the expected tree size distribution under the specified scenario provides insights that could not be gleaned from considering the expected shape and branch density alone. The contribution of this paper is both a novel set of methods for computing tree size distributions and a path forward for richer phylodynamic inference into the evolutionary and epidemiological processes that shape lineage trees.
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 | 0.003 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".