Improvements to resampling measures of group support
Open accessAbstract
Several aspects of current resampling methods to assess group support are reviewed. When the characters have different prior weights or some state transformation costs are different, the frequencies under either bootstrapping or jackknifing can be distorted, producing either under‐ or overestimations of the actual group support. This is avoided by symmetric resampling, where the probability p of increasing the weight of a character equals the probability of decreasing it. Problems with interpreting absolute group frequencies as a measure of the support are discussed; group support does not necessarily vary with the frequency itself, since in some cases groups with positive support may have much lower frequencies than groups with no support at all. Three possible solutions for this problem are suggested. The first is measuring the support as the difference in frequency between the group and its most frequent contradictory group. The second is calculating frequencies for values of p below the threshold under which the frequency ranks the groups in the right order of support (this threshold may vary from data set to data set). The third is estimating the support by using the slope of the frequency as a function of different (low) values of p; when p is low, groups with actual support have negative slopes (closer to 0 when the support is higher), and groups with no support have positive slopes (larger when evidence for and against the group is more abundant).
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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?
Frequency differences avoid problems associated with raw frequencies for poorly supported groups and measure support on a scale between 0 and 100%.
“frequency differences avoid problems associated with using raw frequencies to evaluate poorly supported groups, and measure support on a scale between 0 and 100% (unlike raw frequencies, which can only be meaningfully used to measure supports for groups with frequencies above 50%).”
From Potential for Powered Flight Neared by Most Close Avialan Relatives, but Few Crossed Its Thresholds (2020) · cites this paper as [68]
The Frequency differences section says GC can meaningfully evaluate support for all groups, including those with raw frequencies below 0.5. But it gives GC a range of −1 to 1, not 0 to 100%; negative values indicate contradiction. (LLM, conf=0.91)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredA problem in datasets with many missing entries is that standard measures of support may produce very low values for groups characterized by few synapomorphies, even if contradicted by no or few characters.
“A problem in datasets with many missing entries is that standard measures of support may produce very low values for groups characterized by few synapomorphies, even if contradicted by no (or few) characters.”
From Potential for Powered Flight Neared by Most Close Avialan Relatives, but Few Crossed Its Thresholds (2020) · cites this paper as [68]
The section ‘Supported groups with low frequencies’ (page not supplied) reports very low resampling frequencies for supported groups, including a group contradicted by no character. The Background discusses a group with only one apparent synapomorphy. Neither passage establishes that this problem occurs specifically in datasets with many missing entries. (LLM, conf=0.84)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredGroup support calculated by using symmetric resampling was generally very low within Paraves, indicating that nodes are supported with relatively high levels of character conflict.
“Group support calculated by using symmetric resampling [68] was generally very low within Paraves, indicating that nodes are supported with relatively high levels of character conflict (Methods S1E and S1F).”
From Potential for Powered Flight Neared by Most Close Avialan Relatives, but Few Crossed Its Thresholds (2020) · cites this paper as [68]
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
CONFIDENCE LIMITS ON PHYLOGENIES: AN APPROACH USING THE BOOTSTRAP
Felsenstein, J. (1985) · Evolution · doi:10.1111/j.1558-5646.1985.tb00420.x · Cited by 44,735 · see citing works
Bootstrap methods: another look at the jackknife
Efron, B. (1979) · The Annals of Statistics · doi:10.1214/aos/1176344552 · Cited by 17,602 · see citing works
Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge.
HESSE, M. B., & Popper, K. R. (1965) · The Philosophical Quarterly · doi:10.2307/2218271 · Cited by 4,233 · see citing works
BRANCH SUPPORT AND TREE STABILITY
Bremer, K. (1994) · Cladistics · doi:10.1111/j.1096-0031.1994.tb00179.x · Cited by 2,844 · see citing works
THE LIMITS OF AMINO ACID SEQUENCE DATA IN ANGIOSPERM PHYLOGENETIC RECONSTRUCTION
Bremer, K. (1988) · Evolution · doi:10.1111/j.1558-5646.1988.tb02497.x · Cited by 2,480 · see citing works
PARSIMONY JACKKNIFING OUTPERFORMS NEIGHBOR‐JOINING
Farris, J. S., Albert, V. A., Källersjö, M., Lipscomb, D., & Kluge, A. G. (1996) · Cladistics · doi:10.1111/j.1096-0031.1996.tb00196.x · Cited by 1,512 · see citing works
Self-citationEstimating character weights during tree search
Goloboff, P. A. (1993) · Cladistics · doi:10.1111/j.1096-0031.1993.tb00209.x · Cited by 1,296 · see citing works
Self-citationA Successive Approximations Approach to Character Weighting
Farris, J. S. (1969) · Systematic Zoology · doi:10.2307/2412182 · Cited by 1,286 · see citing works
Self-citationMethods for Quick Consensus Estimation
Goloboff, P. A., & Farris, J. S. (2001) · Cladistics · doi:10.1111/j.1096-0031.2001.tb00102.x · Cited by 255 · see citing works
Self-citationSequence Alignment, Parameter Sensitivity, and the Phylogenetic Analysis of Molecular Data
Wheeler, W. C. (1995) · Systematic Biology · doi:10.2307/2413595 · Cited by 204 · see citing works
Detecting Internal Inconsistencies in Distance Data
Lanyon, S. M. (1985) · Systematic Zoology · doi:10.2307/2413204 · Cited by 178 · see citing works
On the Interpretation of Bootstrap Trees: Appropriate Threshold of Clade Selection and Induced Gain
Berry, V., & Gascuel, O. (1996) · Molecular Biology and Evolution · doi:10.1093/molbev/13.7.999 · Cited by 165 · see citing works
Farris, J. S. (1995) · Cladistics · doi:10.1111/j.1096-0031.1995.tb00007.x · Cited by 87 · see citing works
Self-citationCarpenter, J. M. (1996) · Cladistics · doi:10.1111/j.1096-0031.1996.tb00201.x · Cited by 53 · see citing works
The Effect of Irrelevant Characters on Bootstrap Values
Harshman, J. S. (1994) · Systematic Biology · doi:10.1093/sysbio/43.3.419 · Cited by 45 · see citing works
RASA Attributes Highly Significant Structure to Randomized Data
Farris, J. S. (2002) · Cladistics · doi:10.1111/j.1096-0031.2002.tb00155.x · Cited by 14 · see citing works
Self-citationA Report on “One Day Symposium on Numerical Cladistics”
Horovitz, I. (1999) · Cladistics · doi:10.1111/j.1096-0031.1999.tb00259.x · Cited by 12 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
TNT, a free program for phylogenetic analysis
Goloboff, P. A., Farris, J. S., & Nixon, K. C. (2008) · Cladistics · doi:10.1111/j.1096-0031.2008.00217.x · Cited by 5,352 · see citing works
Self-citationA Review of Dromaeosaurid Systematics and Paravian Phylogeny
Turner, A. H., Makovicky, P. J., & Norell, M. A. (2012) · Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History · doi:10.1206/748.1 · Cited by 350 · see citing works
Goloboff, P. A. (2014) · Cladistics · doi:10.1111/cla.12047 · Cited by 248 · see citing works
Self-citationPotential for Powered Flight Neared by Most Close Avialan Relatives, but Few Crossed Its Thresholds
Pei, R., Pittman, M., Goloboff, P. A., Dececchi, T. A., Habib, M. B., Kaye, T. G., Larsson, H. C. E., Norell, M. A., Brusatte, S. L., & Xu, X. (2020) · Current Biology · doi:10.1016/j.cub.2020.06.105 · Cited by 137 · see citing works
“The results (for 100 pseudoreplicates) were summarized by means of frequency-differences (GC; [68]), for the groups in the (pruned) strict consensus; frequency differences avoid problems associated with using raw frequencies to evaluate poorly supported groups, and measure support on a scale between 0 and 100% (unlike…”
InfluentialSelf-citationHan, G., Chiappe, L. M., Ji, S.-A., Habib, M., Turner, A. H., Chinsamy, A., Liu, X., & Han, L. (2014) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/ncomms5382 · Cited by 90 · see citing works
Goloboff, P. A., & Szumik, C. A. (2015) · Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution · doi:10.1016/j.ympev.2015.04.003 · Cited by 73 · see citing works
Self-citation
- Authors
- Goloboff, P. A., Farris, J. S., Källersjö, M., Oxelman, B., Ramıacute;rez, M. J., & Szumik, C. A.
- Affiliations
- Swedish Museum of Natural History (SE)
- Uppsala University (SE)
- Corresponding author
- Goloboff, Pablo A
- Venue
- Cladistics
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2003-08
- Volume
- 19
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 324-332
- ISSN
- 0748-3007 (ISSN-L)
- 1096-0031
- OpenAlex
- W4238288420
- Cited by
- 851
- References
- 17
- Citations by year
- 2026: 24 · 2025: 30 · 2024: 52 · 2023: 42 · 2022: 49 · 2021: 66 · 2020: 63 · 2019: 46 · 2018: 55 · 2017: 59 · 2016: 35 · 2015: 49 · 2014: 50 · 2013: 56 · 2012: 37
- FWCI
- 3.54
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Cladistics (publishedVersion)
- CONICET Digital (CONICET) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
- Conicet (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
- Funders
- Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Genomics and Phylogenetic Studies
- Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics › Plant Diversity and Evolution
- Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Paleontology › Evolution and Paleontology Studies
- Keywords
- group support, resampling, bootstrapping, jackknifing, character weighting, group frequencies
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
