Cultural advice

The Australian National University acknowledges, celebrates and pays our respects to the Ngunnawal and Ngambri people of the Canberra region and to all First Nations Australians on whose traditional lands we meet and work, and whose cultures are among the oldest continuing cultures in human history.

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples are advised that ANU Library collections may include images, names, voices, and other representations of deceased persons.

Material in the collection may contain terms, language or views that reflect the period in which the item was created and may be considered inappropriate today.

Evidence of Multiple Maximum Likelihood Points for a Phylogenetic Tree

Loading...
Thumbnail Image

Date

Authors

Zhou, B. B.
Tarawmeh, M.
Wang, P.
Chu, D.
Wang, C.
Zomaya, Albert Y.
Brent, Richard

Journal Title

Journal ISSN

Volume Title

Publisher

Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE Inc)

Abstract

An interesting and important, but largely ignored question associated with the ML method is whether there exists only a single maximum likelihood point for a given phylogenetic tree. Mike Steel presented a simple analytical result to argue that the ML point is not unique [11]. However, his view so far attracts only little attention. Though many researchers believe that multiple maximum likelihood points may exist for certain phylogenetic trees, most existing phylogenetic construction programs only produce a single best tree under the ML criterion and in practice many researchers still use only the ML values to make judgment on the quality of different trees for a given problem. In this paper we present some experimental results from a large number of synthetic test data sets and show that it is quite common that certain incorrect trees can have likelihood values at least as large as that of the correct tree. A significant implication of this is that even if we are able to find a truly globally optimal tree under the maximum likelihood criterion, this tree may not necessarily be the correct phylogenetic tree. In the paper we also show that our newly developed algorithm can perform much better in terms of accuracy than well known algorithms such as FASTDNAML and PHYML by constructing only a few more trees for a given problem.

Description

Citation

Source

Proceedings of the Sixth IEEE Symposium on BionInformatics and BioEngineering (BIBE'06)

Book Title

Entity type

Access Statement

License Rights

Restricted until

2037-12-31