Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38665694›Full record

ArticleBayesian analysis2024

How Trustworthy Is Your Tree? Bayesian Phylogenetic Effective Sample Size Through the Lens of Monte Carlo Error.

Andrew Magee, Michael Karcher, Frederick A Matsen, Volodymyr M Minin

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Bayesian analysis, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Biological causes and impacts of rugged tree landscapes in phylodynamic inference.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Data integration in Bayesian phylogenetics.Annual review of statistics and its application · 2023
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Andrew MageeDepartment of Biology, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, 98195, USA.
Michael KarcherDepartment of Mathematics and Computer Science, Muhlenberg College, Allentown, PA, 18104, USA.
Frederick A MatsenHoward Hughes Medical Institute, Fred Hutchison Cancer Research Center, Departments of Genome Sciences and Statistics, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, 98109, USA.
Volodymyr M MininDepartment of Statistics, University of California, Irvine, Irvine, CA, 92697, USA.

Funding

Fast and flexible Bayesian phylogenetics via modern machine learningR01AI162611 · NIAID · FRED HUTCHINSON CANCER RESEARCH CENTER · PI MATSEN, FREDERICK ALBERT · 2021 to 2025
$3.8M
High-Performance Compute Cluster for Comprehensive Cancer and Infectious Diseases ResearchS10OD028685 · OD · FRED HUTCHINSON CANCER RESEARCH CENTER · PI BRADLEY, PHILIP · 2020 to 2020
$2.0M
NIAID NIH HHS R01 AI162611NIH HHS S10 OD028685
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Bayesian inference is a popular and widely-used approach to infer phylogenies (evolutionary trees). However, despite decades of widespread application, it remains difficult to judge how well a given Bayesian Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) run explores the space of phylogenetic trees. In this paper, we investigate the Monte Carlo error of phylogenies, focusing on high-dimensional summaries of the posterior distribution, including variability in estimated edge/branch (known in phylogenetics as "split") probabilities and tree probabilities, and variability in the estimated summary tree. Specifically, we ask if there is any measure of effective sample size (ESS) applicable to phylogenetic trees which is capable of capturing the Monte Carlo error of these three summary measures. We find that there are some ESS measures capable of capturing the error inherent in using MCMC samples to approximate the posterior distributions on phylogenies. We term these tree ESS measures, and identify a set of three which are useful in practice for assessing the Monte Carlo error. Lastly, we present visualization tools that can improve comparisons between multiple independent MCMC runs by accounting for the Monte Carlo error present in each chain. Our results indicate that common post-MCMC workflows are insufficient to capture the inherent Monte Carlo error of the tree, and highlight the need for both within-chain mixing and between-chain convergence assessments.

Indexed as

effective sample sizeMCMCMonte Carlo errorphylogenetics

Identifiers

PMID38665694
PMCPMC11042687

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.