Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 271

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The Accuracy of Species Tree Estimation under Simulation: A Comparison of Methods

Leaché, Adam D., Rannala, Bruce·2011·Systematic Biology

Abstract

Numerous simulation studies have investigated the accuracy of phylogenetic inference of gene trees under maximum parsimony, maximum likelihood, and Bayesian techniques. The relative accuracy of species tree inference methods under simulation has received less study. The number of analytical techniques available for inferring species trees is increasing rapidly, and in this paper, we compare the performance of several species tree inference techniques at estimating recent species divergences using computer simulation. Simulating gene trees within species trees of different shapes and with varying tree lengths (T) and population sizes (), and evolving sequences on those gene trees, allows us to determine how phylogenetic accuracy changes in relation to different levels of deep coalescence and phylogenetic signal. When the probability of discordance between the gene trees and the species tree is high (i.e., T is small and/or is large), Bayesian species tree inference using the multispecies coalescent (BEST) outperforms other methods. The performance of all methods improves as the total length of the species tree is increased, which reflects the combined benefits of decreasing the probability of discordance between species trees and gene trees and gaining more accurate estimates for gene trees. Decreasing the probability of deep coalescences by reducing also leads to accuracy gains for most methods. Increasing the number of loci from 10 to 100 improves accuracy under difficult demographic scenarios (i.e., coalescent units ≤ 4N(e)), but 10 loci are adequate for estimating the correct species tree in cases where deep coalescence is limited or absent. In general, the correlation between the phylogenetic accuracy and the posterior probability values obtained from BEST is high, although posterior probabilities are overestimated when the prior distribution for is misspecified.

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/sysbio/syq073

Cites

3 of 3 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 3 references

Cited by

See all 271

Metadata

Authors
Leaché, A. D., & Rannala, B.
Venue
Systematic Biology
Published
2010-11-18
Volume
60
Issue
2
Pages
126-137
ISSN
  • 1063-5157 (ISSN-L)
  • 1076-836X
OpenAlex
W2151320514
Cited by
271
References
3
FWCI
7.21
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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: The Accuracy of Species Tree Estimation under Simulation: A Comparison of Methods. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/sysbio/syq073
The paper
Leaché, A. D., & Rannala, B. (2011). The Accuracy of Species Tree Estimation under Simulation: A Comparison of Methods. Systematic Biology. https://doi.org/10.1093/sysbio/syq073

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.