PeerJ· 2026Q1
Posterior simulation-based calibration tests of phylogenetic dating methods
- 1citations
- Q1SCImago
- 2026year
Short summary
Posterior simulation-based calibration (SBC) tests confirm that phylogenetic dating methods in BEAST 2 are correctly implemented and unbiased for both tip-dated (Indo-European vocabulary) and node-dated (horsefly rRNA) analyses.
AI-generated from the title and abstract; the full text is not read.
Key points
- Posterior SBC tests confirm unbiased inference machinery for BEAST 2 phylogenetic dating methods.
- Both tip-dated (Indo-European vocabulary) and node-dated (horsefly rRNA) approaches passed posterior SBC.
- Simulated datasets from the posterior did not enhance node age estimate precision.
- Results suggest confidence in BEAST 2's phylogenetic dating methods, despite theoretical limits on age identifiability.
AI-generated from the title and abstract; the full text is not read.
Abstract
Simulation-based calibration (SBC) checking is a method to ensure that the inference machinery for a Bayesian statistical analysis is functioning in a correct and unbiased manner. Typically, SBC begins with sampling parameter values from the model priors (prior SBC). However, it has been shown that prior SBC can miss problems when these manifest only in certain regions of parameter space. In phylogenetics, this is relevant not only because of the vastness of tree and parameter space, but also because many phylogenetic analyses involve some degree of model misspecification. Posterior SBC is a recently developed method for checking that the inference algorithms function correctly for a given empirical dataset. Here I use posterior SBC to test the implementation of phylogenetic dating methods in the inference software BEAST 2. I test both the tip-dated approach, employing an Indo-European vocabulary dataset, and the node-dated approach, employing a molecular rRNA dataset of Tabanidae (horseflies). In both cases, posterior SBC tests indicate good calibration. Despite this, posterior predictive datasets simulated from the posterior distribution provided no further increase in the precision of node age estimates compared to the original posterior, a result consistent with previous literature showing fundamental theoretical limits to the identifiability of node ages. Nevertheless, these results suggest that phylogenetic dating methods in BEAST 2 are not biased by problems with the inference machinery, thereby increasing confidence in results obtained using these methods.
The authors' abstract, as published at the source. PeerJ, 2026 · DOI ↗
Continue with a free account
Ask the paper: 3 free questions a day about this paper; save it, get its citation, new summaries every day for your field. Takeaways are Premium.
Continue free on the webSign in with Google or Apple; no card needed. You come back to this paper.
On your phone:
Field: Molecular Biology
Molecular BiologyBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology