Cited by 668Markov Chains and Monte Carlo MethodsStatistical Methods and Bayesian InferenceGenomics and Phylogenetic Studies

Computing Bayes factors using thermodynamic integration.

Open access
Lartillot, Nicolas, Philippe, Hervé·2006·Systematic Biology

Abstract

In the Bayesian paradigm, a common method for comparing two models is to compute the Bayes factor, defined as the ratio of their respective marginal likelihoods. In recent phylogenetic works, the numerical evaluation of marginal likelihoods has often been performed using the harmonic mean estimation procedure. In the present article, we propose to employ another method, based on an analogy with statistical physics, called thermodynamic integration. We describe the method, propose an implementation, and show on two analytical examples that this numerical method yields reliable estimates. In contrast, the harmonic mean estimator leads to a strong overestimation of the marginal likelihood, which is all the more pronounced as the model is higher dimensional. As a result, the harmonic mean estimator systematically favors more parameter-rich models, an artefact that might explain some recent puzzling observations, based on harmonic mean estimates, suggesting that Bayes factors tend to overscore complex models. Finally, we apply our method to the comparison of several alternative models of amino-acid replacement. We confirm our previous observations, indicating that modeling pattern heterogeneity across sites tends to yield better models than standard empirical matrices.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/10635150500433722

Cites

58 of 58 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Metropolis-coupled MCMC improves mixing between multiple modes of the posterior distribution and allows improved estimation of the marginal likelihood.

    “We sample from the posterior distribution of model parameters using a Markov-chain Monte Carlo technique known as Metropolis-coupled MCMC, or [59], which improves mixing between multiple modes of the posterior distribution, and also allows improved estimation of the marginal likelihood [60].”

    From Spatial Guilds in the Serengeti Food Web Revealed by a Bayesian Group Model (2011) · cites this paper as [60]

    The Reliability of Marginal Likelihood Estimators section (page not provided) says thermodynamic integration gives more reliable marginal-likelihood estimates. The paper describes Metropolis-coupled heated chains as similar to its integration chains, but does not say that Metropolis-coupled MCMC itself improves marginal-likelihood estimation. The mixing claim is attached to a different citation in the citing sentence. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Han, C, and B. P. Carlin. 2000. MCMC methods for computing Bayes factors: A comparative review. Biometrika 82:711-732.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Lartillot, N., & Philippe, H.
Affiliations
  • Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (FR)
  • Canadian Institute for Advanced Research (CA)
Corresponding author
Lartillot, Nicolas
Venue
Systematic Biology
Published
2006-04-01
Volume
55
Issue
2
Pages
195-207
ISSN
  • 1063-5157 (ISSN-L)
  • 1076-836X
OpenAlex
W2098538101
Cited by
668
References
58
Citations by year
2026: 21 · 2025: 26 · 2024: 26 · 2023: 44 · 2022: 33 · 2021: 49 · 2020: 48 · 2019: 61 · 2018: 40 · 2017: 36 · 2016: 25 · 2015: 36 · 2014: 53 · 2013: 34 · 2012: 31
FWCI
18.34
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Systematic Biology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • HAL (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Markov Chains and Monte Carlo Methods
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods and Bayesian Inference
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Genomics and Phylogenetic Studies
Keywords
Bayes factor, thermodynamic integration, marginal likelihood, harmonic mean estimator, model comparison, phylogenetic model selection, site heterogeneity, statistical physics analogy, overfitting
MeSH terms
Amino Acid Sequence, Animals, Bayes Theorem, Models, Biological, Phylogeny, Proteins, Thermodynamics, Likelihood Functions, Evolution, Molecular

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review