ArticleAnnals of statistics2018
Consistency and convergence rate of phylogenetic inference via regularization.
Article in Annals of statistics, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Revisiting Algorithms, Tools, and Applications for Sequence and Phylogenetic Analyses in the NGS-Based Omics Era.Biochemical genetics · 2026Review
- Ancestral state reconstruction with large numbers of sequences and edge-length estimation.Journal of mathematical biology · 2022Article
- ESTIMATION OF CELL LINEAGE TREES BY MAXIMUM-LIKELIHOOD PHYLOGENETICS.The annals of applied statistics · 2021Article
- Nonbifurcating Phylogenetic Tree Inference via the Adaptive LASSO.Journal of the American Statistical Association · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
It is common in phylogenetics to have some, perhaps partial, information about the overall evolutionary tree of a group of organisms and wish to find an evolutionary tree of a specific gene for those organisms. There may not be enough information in the gene sequences alone to accurately reconstruct the correct "gene tree." Although the gene tree may deviate from the "species tree" due to a variety of genetic processes, in the absence of evidence to the contrary it is parsimonious to assume that they agree. A common statistical approach in these situations is to develop a likelihood penalty to incorporate such additional information. Recent studies using simulation and empirical data suggest that a likelihood penalty quantifying concordance with a species tree can significantly improve the accuracy of gene tree reconstruction compared to using sequence data alone. However, the consistency of such an approach has not yet been established, nor have convergence rates been bounded. Because phylogenetics is a non-standard inference problem, the standard theory does not apply. In this paper, we propose a penalized maximum likelihood estimator for gene tree reconstruction, where the penalty is the square of the Billera-Holmes-Vogtmann geodesic distance from the gene tree to the species tree. We prove that this method is consistent, and derive its convergence rate for estimating the discrete gene tree structure and continuous edge lengths (representing the amount of evolution that has occurred on that branch) simultaneously. We find that the regularized estimator is "adaptive fast converging," meaning that it can reconstruct all edges of length greater than any given threshold from gene sequences of polynomial length. Our method does not require the species tree to be known exactly; in fact, our asymptotic theory holds for any such guide tree.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.