Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 1,125

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Improving the Accuracy of Demographic and Molecular Clock Model Comparison While Accommodating Phylogenetic Uncertainty

Open access
Baele, Guy, Lemey, Philippe, Bedford, Trevor, Rambaut, Andrew, Suchard, Marc A., Alekseyenko, Alexander V.·2012·Molecular Biology and Evolution

Abstract

Recent developments in marginal likelihood estimation for model selection in the field of Bayesian phylogenetics and molecular evolution have emphasized the poor performance of the harmonic mean estimator (HME). Although these studies have shown the merits of new approaches applied to standard normally distributed examples and small real-world data sets, not much is currently known concerning the performance and computational issues of these methods when fitting complex evolutionary and population genetic models to empirical real-world data sets. Further, these approaches have not yet seen widespread application in the field due to the lack of implementations of these computationally demanding techniques in commonly used phylogenetic packages. We here investigate the performance of some of these new marginal likelihood estimators, specifically, path sampling (PS) and stepping-stone (SS) sampling for comparing models of demographic change and relaxed molecular clocks, using synthetic data and real-world examples for which unexpected inferences were made using the HME. Given the drastically increased computational demands of PS and SS sampling, we also investigate a posterior simulation-based analogue of Akaike's information criterion (AIC) through Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC), a model comparison approach that shares with the HME the appealing feature of having a low computational overhead over the original MCMC analysis. We confirm that the HME systematically overestimates the marginal likelihood and fails to yield reliable model classification and show that the AICM performs better and may be a useful initial evaluation of model choice but that it is also, to a lesser degree, unreliable. We show that PS and SS sampling substantially outperform these estimators and adjust the conclusions made concerning previous analyses for the three real-world data sets that we reanalyzed. The methods used in this article are now available in BEAST, a powerful user-friendly software package to perform Bayesian evolutionary analyses.

Overview

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 · 10.1093/molbev/mss084

Cites

5 of 5 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

Show all 5 references

Cited by

See all 1,125

Metadata

Authors
Baele, G., Lemey, P., Bedford, T., Rambaut, A., Suchard, M. A., & Alekseyenko, A. V.
Venue
Molecular Biology and Evolution
Published
2012-03-07
Volume
29
Issue
9
Pages
2157-2167
ISSN
  • 0737-4038 (ISSN-L)
  • 1537-1719
OpenAlex
W2098998255
Cited by
1,125
References
5
FWCI
68.62
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Improving the Accuracy of Demographic and Molecular Clock Model Comparison While Accommodating Phylogenetic Uncertainty. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/molbev/mss084
The paper
Baele, G., Lemey, P., Bedford, T., Rambaut, A., Suchard, M. A., & Alekseyenko, A. V. (2012). Improving the Accuracy of Demographic and Molecular Clock Model Comparison While Accommodating Phylogenetic Uncertainty. Molecular Biology and Evolution. https://doi.org/10.1093/molbev/mss084

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.