跳到正文
← 返回论文列表与筛选
阅读说明

本页整理公开书目信息,不生成学术质量评分。AI 解读根据题名及所注明的摘要或原文片段生成,未完成全文核验,可能有误;具体假设、证明与结论请核对原文。摘要保留来源文本,未经模型改写。

DOI 首次登记不等于接收或发表日期。部分更正、评论等条目没有独立摘要;缺少可靠材料时保留待补状态。

引用量采用 OpenAlex 单条关联记录,不合计多个记录;关联记录可能包含正式发表版本,不等于此版本单独引用。缺失不视为零,引用指标不代表论文质量。

关注作者按书目中的完整姓名匹配,同名和姓名变体需人工辨别。相关论文先按共享细分方向和具体方法排列,再参考通用方法与发表日期。

分类依据与纠错

AI 根据所提供的论文材料归类:研究对象是语言祖先树与性状演化,不能仅因树结构而归入经济网络与干扰。

反馈分类问题

正在核对关联版本…

代码、数据与补充材料

正在核对对应版本的资源…

关注这篇论文的作者
Geoff K. Nicholls
Russell D. Gray

由二元性状数据推断带年代的祖先树及其语言分化应用

研究问题
如何从性状存在与否的二元数据推断祖先树及节点年代,同时处理可见性状出生事件的选择偏差和单例性状删除?
方法与思路
作者用出生—死亡过程描述性状集合演化,以贝叶斯模型和 MCMC 抽取后验,并纳入祖先语言信息及单例删除机制。
材料陈述的贡献
摘要称方法用于两组历史语言学数据,并以外部预测和替代观测模型检查稳健性;节点年代较稳健,拓扑后验概率不可靠。
阅读关注点
应核对性状演化与删除机制、根年代先验和 MCMC 实现,并区分节点年代稳健性与树拓扑概率可靠性的证据。
阅读边界
仅据所给 Crossref 摘要;稳健性结论限于作者考察的模型与数据,摘要未给出具体诊断、数值或刊本变化。

原文摘要

Summary Binary trait data record the presence or absence of distinguishing traits in individuals. We treat the problem of estimating ancestral trees with time depth from binary trait data. Simple analysis of such data is problematic. Each homology class of traits has a unique birth event on the tree, and the birth event of a trait that is visible at the leaves is biased towards the leaves. We propose a model-based analysis of such data and present a Markov chain Monte Carlo algorithm that can sample from the resulting posterior distribution. Our model is based on using a birth–death process for the evolution of the elements of sets of traits. Our analysis correctly accounts for the removal of singleton traits, which are commonly discarded in real data sets. We illustrate Bayesian inference for two binary trait data sets which arise in historical linguistics. The Bayesian approach allows for the incorporation of information from ancestral languages. The marginal prior distribution of the root time is uniform. We present a thorough analysis of the robustness of our results to model misspecification, through analysis of predictive distributions for external data, and fitting data that are simulated under alternative observation models. The reconstructed ages of tree nodes are relatively robust, whereas posterior probabilities for topology are not reliable.

笔记与分组
相关领域论文