Data from: Evidence for climate-driven diversification? A caution for interpreting ABC inferences of simultaneous historical events
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Approximate Bayesian computation (ABC) is rapidly gaining popularity in population genetics. One example, msBayes, infers the distribution of divergence times among pairs of taxa, allowing phylogeographers to test hypotheses about historical causes of diversification in co-distributed groups of organisms. Using msBayes, we infer the distribution of divergence times among 22 pairs of populations of vertebrates distributed across the Philippine Archipelago. Our objective was to test whether sea-level oscillations during the Pleistocene caused diversification across the islands. To guide interpretation of our results, we perform a suite of simulation-based power analyses. Our empirical results strongly support a recent simultaneous divergence event for all 22 taxon pairs, consistent with the prediction of the Pleistocene-driven diversification hypothesis. However, our empirical estimates are sensitive to changes in prior distributions, and our simulations reveal low power of the method to detect random variation in divergence times and bias toward supporting clustered divergences. Our results demonstrate that analyses exploring power and prior sensitivity should accompany ABC model-selection inferences. The problems we identify are potentially mitigable with uniform priors over divergence models (rather than classes of models) and more flexible prior distributions on demographic and divergence-time parameters.
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 | 0.006 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".