an equivalence of maximum parsimony and maximum likelihood revisited
DESCRIPTION
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! - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: An Equivalence of Maximum Parsimony and Maximum Likelihood revisited](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062301/56813c30550346895da5af4d/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Mareike Fischer
An Equivalence of Maximum Parsimony andMaximum Likelihood revisited
Mareike Fischer
and Bhalchandra Thatte
MIEP, 10 – 12 June 08, Montpellier
![Page 2: An Equivalence of Maximum Parsimony and Maximum Likelihood revisited](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062301/56813c30550346895da5af4d/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
Mareike Fischer
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
![Page 3: An Equivalence of Maximum Parsimony and Maximum Likelihood revisited](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062301/56813c30550346895da5af4d/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
Mareike Fischer
• 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!
The Nr-Model
![Page 4: An Equivalence of Maximum Parsimony and Maximum Likelihood revisited](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062301/56813c30550346895da5af4d/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
Mareike Fischer
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.
The Equivalence Result
![Page 5: An Equivalence of Maximum Parsimony and Maximum Likelihood revisited](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062301/56813c30550346895da5af4d/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
Mareike Fischer
An extension gf 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):
Linearity of the Likelihood Function
f: c1 c1 c1 c2
1 2 3 4
c1 c1
c1
c2
c2
c2
8 different extensions!
![Page 6: An Equivalence of Maximum Parsimony and Maximum Likelihood revisited](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062301/56813c30550346895da5af4d/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
Mareike Fischer
Note that
and
Linearity of the Likelihood Function
c1
u
1 2 3 4
pe
Thus, P(f) is linear in each pe !
![Page 7: An Equivalence of Maximum Parsimony and Maximum Likelihood revisited](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062301/56813c30550346895da5af4d/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
Mareike Fischer
Maximum of the Likelihood Function
Linear functions h: [0,t] kR are maximized at a corner of the box [0,t] k.
t
tThus, we can assume wlog. that ML chooses a tree T with pe = 0 or 1/r for all edges e of T !
1/r
1/r
![Page 8: An Equivalence of Maximum Parsimony and Maximum Likelihood revisited](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062301/56813c30550346895da5af4d/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
Mareike Fischer
Bound of the Likelihood Function
0
∞ ∞
∞
∞
0
As before, we have
Note that P(gf)=0 if gf
requires a substitution on an edge of length 0!
Note that if P(gf)≠0 , then P(gf)=(1/r) k+1 !
Let k be the number of ∞-edges.
ML-Tree T
Therefore,
For N = #{gf : P(gf)≠0}
And thus
00
![Page 9: An Equivalence of Maximum Parsimony and Maximum Likelihood revisited](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062301/56813c30550346895da5af4d/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
Mareike Fischer
Bound for the Likelihood Function
0
∞ ∞
∞
∞
000
So, for N = #{gf : P(gf)≠0} and k = #{∞-edges}, we have:
Wanted: Upper bound for N .
c1 ci
cj
ckck
• Delete ∞-edges;
• k+1 connected components remain,
• M of them are labelled (i.e. contain at least one leaf)
Here: k =4.
k+1 components,
M labelled
And: PS(f,T) ≤ M – 1
![Page 10: An Equivalence of Maximum Parsimony and Maximum Likelihood revisited](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062301/56813c30550346895da5af4d/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
Mareike Fischer
So we have:
But obviously also
as the most parsimonious extension of f requires exactly PS(f,T) changes.
Equivalence of MP and ML
Altogether:
And thus
Applied to one character f, MP and ML are equivalent!
In a sequence of ‘no common mechanism’, each likelihood can be maximized independently, and thus
![Page 11: An Equivalence of Maximum Parsimony and Maximum Likelihood revisited](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062301/56813c30550346895da5af4d/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
Mareike Fischer
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!
![Page 12: An Equivalence of Maximum Parsimony and Maximum Likelihood revisited](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062301/56813c30550346895da5af4d/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
Mareike Fischer
Example: Bounded edge lengths for r=2
Then, PS(f1|T1) = PS(f2|T2) = 1
and PS(f1|T2) = PS(f2|T1) = 2
MP is indecisive between T1 and T2 !
Also, P(f1|T1) = P(f2|T2),but
max P(f2|T1) = 2u2(1-u)2 > u2 = max P(f1|T2)
ML favors T1 over T2 !
Therefore, MP and ML are not equivalent in this setting!
Note that by repeating f1 n times and f2 (n+c) times (c>0), a strong counterexample can be constructed!
![Page 13: An Equivalence of Maximum Parsimony and Maximum Likelihood revisited](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062301/56813c30550346895da5af4d/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
Mareike Fischer
Molecular clock
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 !
Here, pe = (1-Pe)/2.
Example:
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.
![Page 14: An Equivalence of Maximum Parsimony and Maximum Likelihood revisited](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062301/56813c30550346895da5af4d/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
Mareike Fischer
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.
![Page 15: An Equivalence of Maximum Parsimony and Maximum Likelihood revisited](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062301/56813c30550346895da5af4d/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
Mareike Fischer
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 .