html5-img
1 / 15

An Equivalence of Maximum Parsimony and Maximum Likelihood revisited

MIEP, 10 – 12 June 08, Montpellier. An Equivalence of Maximum Parsimony and Maximum Likelihood revisited. Mareike Fischer and Bhalchandra Thatte. The Problem. Growing amount of DNA data  stochastic models and methods needed for analysis!

garson
Download Presentation

An Equivalence of Maximum Parsimony and Maximum Likelihood revisited

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. MIEP, 10 – 12 June 08, Montpellier • An Equivalence of Maximum Parsimony and • Maximum Likelihood revisited Mareike Fischer and Bhalchandra Thatte Mareike Fischer

  2. The Problem • Growing amount of DNA data •  stochastic models and methods needed for analysis! • MP and ML are two of the most frequently discussed methods. • MP and ML can perform differently (e.g. in the so-called ‘Felsenstein Zone’) • But: When are MP and ML equivalent? •  Approach by Tuffley & Steel Mareike Fischer

  3. The Nr-Model • Given: r character states c1,…,cr ; • No distinction between character states (fully • symmetric model!); • The probability pe of a transition on edge e is • pe≤ 1/r; • Transition events on different edges are independent. • Note: If r=4: Jukes-Cantor! Mareike Fischer

  4. The Equivalence Result Tuffley and Steel (1997): MP and ML with no common mechanism are equivalent in the sense that both choose the same tree(s). Note: ‘No common mechanism’ means that the transition probabilities can vary from site to site. Mareike Fischer

  5. Linearity of the Likelihood Function • An extensiongf of a character f agrees with f on the leaves, but also assigns character states to the ancestral nodes. • Example: r=2, f=(c1,c1,c1,c2): c1 c2 8 different extensions! c1 c2 c1 c2 1 2 3 4 f: c1 c1 c1 c2 Mareike Fischer

  6. Linearity of the Likelihood Function • Note that • and u pe Thus, P(f) is linear in each pe ! 1 2 3 4 c1 Mareike Fischer

  7. Maximum of the Likelihood Function Linear functions h: [0,t] kR are maximized at a corner of the box [0,t] k. Thus, we can assume wlog. that ML chooses a tree T with pe = 0 or 1/r for all edges e of T ! 1/r t t 1/r Mareike Fischer

  8. Bound of the Likelihood Function Let k be the number of ∞-edges. 0 As before, we have ∞ ∞ ∞ 0 Note that P(gf)=0 if gfrequires a substitution on an edge of length 0! Therefore, 0 0 For N = #{gf : P(gf)≠0} ML-Tree T ∞ Note that if P(gf)≠0 , then P(gf)=(1/r) k+1! And thus Mareike Fischer

  9. Bound for the Likelihood Function So, for N = #{gf : P(gf)≠0} and k = #{∞-edges}, we have: 0 ∞ Wanted: Upper bound for N . ∞ ∞ 0 • Delete ∞-edges; • k+1 connected components remain, • M of them are labelled (i.e. contain at least one leaf) 0 0 And: PS(f,T) ≤ M – 1 ck ck c1 ci k+1 components, M labelled ∞ Here: k =4. cj Mareike Fischer

  10. Equivalence of MP and ML • So we have: • But obviously also • as the most parsimonious extension of f requires exactly PS(f,T) changes. Altogether: And thus In a sequence of ‘no common mechanism’, each likelihood can be maximized independently, and thus  Applied to one character f, MP and ML are equivalent! Mareike Fischer

  11. Bounded edge lengths • Modification of the model: Transition probabilities subject to upper bound u: • 0 ≤ pe ≤ u < 1/r • Then, MP and ML are not equivalent! Mareike Fischer

  12. Example: Bounded edge lengths for r=2 Then, PS(f1|T1) = PS(f2|T2) = 1 Therefore, MP and ML are notequivalent in this setting! Also, P(f1|T1) = P(f2|T2),  MP is indecisive between T1 and T2 ! but max P(f2|T1) = 2u2(1-u)2 > u2 = max P(f1|T2) Note that by repeating f1n times and f2(n+c) times (c>0), a strongcounterexample can be constructed!  ML favors T1 over T2 ! and PS(f1|T2) = PS(f2|T1) = 2 Mareike Fischer

  13. Example: Molecular clock Here, pe = (1-Pe)/2. • Under a molecular clock, • MP and ML are not equivalent! • Note that under a clock, the maximum of the likelihood can occur in the interior of the box [0,1/r]k ! The ‘height’ P of the tree is fixed: P=P1P2=P3P4P5 In this setting, MP is indecisive between T1 and T2 but ML favors T1. Mareike Fischer

  14. Summary • Even under the assumption of no common mechanism, MP and ML do not have to be equivalent! • Small changes to the model assumptions suffice to achieve this. Mareike Fischer

  15. Thanks…  • … to my supervisor Mike Steel, • … to the organizers of this conference, • … to the Allan Wilson Centre • for financing my research, • … to YOU for listening or at least waking up early enough to read this message . Mareike Fischer

More Related