Paper detail

NJst and ASTRID are not statistically consistent under a random model of missing data

Species tree estimation from multi-locus datasets is statistically challenging for multiple reasons, including gene tree heterogeneity across the genome due to incomplete lineage sorting (ILS). Species tree estimation methods have been developed that operate by estimating gene trees and then using those gene trees to estimate the species tree. Several of these methods (e.g., ASTRAL, ASTRID, and NJst) are provably statistically consistent under the multi-species coalescent (MSC) model, provided that the gene trees are estimated correctly, and there is no missing data. Recently, Nute et al. (BMC Genomics 2018) addressed the question of whether these methods remain statistically consistent under random models of taxon deletion, and asserted that they do so. Here we provide a counterexample to one of these theorems, and establish that ASTRID and NJst are not statistically consistent under an i.i.d. model of taxon deletion.

preprint2020arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

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

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.