Source author record

Andrew F. Magee

Andrew F. Magee appears in the imported research catalog. Authorship, coauthor and topic links are available while profile ownership is still unclaimed.

ResearcherUnclaimed source record

Catalog footprint

What is connected

1works
2topics
3close collaborators

Actions

Connect this record

Log in to claim

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent papers, topics, institutions and collaborators without losing the researcher page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Published work

1 published item(s)

preprint2022arXiv

How trustworthy is your tree? Bayesian phylogenetic effective sample size through the lens of Monte Carlo error

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.