ArticleSystematic biology2020
Systematic Exploration of the High Likelihood Set of Phylogenetic Tree Topologies.
Article in Systematic biology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Bayesian credible sets for phylogenetic tree topologies with applications to coverage analysis and cross-model comparison.Molecular biology and evolution · 2026Article
- Finding high posterior density phylogenies by systematically extending a directed acyclic graph.Algorithms for molecular biology : AMB · 2025Article
- Finding high posterior density phylogenies by systematically extending a directed acyclic graph.ArXiv · 2024Article
- How Trustworthy Is Your Tree? Bayesian Phylogenetic Effective Sample Size Through the Lens of Monte Carlo Error.Bayesian analysis · 2024Article
- Differentiable phylogeneticsBioinformatics advances · 2024Article
- Fidelity of hyperbolic space for Bayesian phylogenetic inference.PLoS computational biology · 2023Article
- Testing Phylogenetic Stability with Variable Taxon Sampling.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2022Article
- 19 Dubious Ways to Compute the Marginal Likelihood of a Phylogenetic Tree Topology.Systematic biology · 2020Article
- Evaluating probabilistic programming and fast variational Bayesian inference in phylogenetics.PeerJ · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Bayesian Markov chain Monte Carlo explores tree space slowly, in part because it frequently returns to the same tree topology. An alternative strategy would be to explore tree space systematically, and never return to the same topology. In this article, we present an efficient parallelized method to map out the high likelihood set of phylogenetic tree topologies via systematic search, which we show to be a good approximation of the high posterior set of tree topologies on the data sets analyzed. Here, "likelihood" of a topology refers to the tree likelihood for the corresponding tree with optimized branch lengths. We call this method "phylogenetic topographer" (PT). The PT strategy is very simple: starting in a number of local topology maxima (obtained by hill-climbing from random starting points), explore out using local topology rearrangements, only continuing through topologies that are better than some likelihood threshold below the best observed topology. We show that the normalized topology likelihoods are a useful proxy for the Bayesian posterior probability of those topologies. By using a nonblocking hash table keyed on unique representations of tree topologies, we avoid visiting topologies more than once across all concurrent threads exploring tree space. We demonstrate that PT can be used directly to approximate a Bayesian consensus tree topology. When combined with an accurate means of evaluating per-topology marginal likelihoods, PT gives an alternative procedure for obtaining Bayesian posterior distributions on phylogenetic tree topologies.
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.