Approximate likelihood-ratio test for branches: A fast, accurate, and powerful alternative
Open accessAbstract
We revisit statistical tests for branches of evolutionary trees reconstructed upon molecular data. A new, fast, approximate likelihood-ratio test (aLRT) for branches is presented here as a competitive alternative to nonparametric bootstrap and Bayesian estimation of branch support. The aLRT is based on the idea of the conventional LRT, with the null hypothesis corresponding to the assumption that the inferred branch has length 0. We show that the LRT statistic is asymptotically distributed as a maximum of three random variables drawn from the chi(0)2 + chi(1)2 distribution. The new aLRT of interior branch uses this distribution for significance testing, but the test statistic is approximated in a slightly conservative but practical way as 2(l1- l2), i.e., double the difference between the maximum log-likelihood values corresponding to the best tree and the second best topological arrangement around the branch of interest. Such a test is fast because the log-likelihood value l2 is computed by optimizing only over the branch of interest and the four adjacent branches, whereas other parameters are fixed at their optimal values corresponding to the best ML tree. The performance of the new test was studied on simulated 4-, 12-, and 100-taxon data sets with sequences of different lengths. The aLRT is shown to be accurate, powerful, and robust to certain violations of model assumptions. The aLRT is implemented within the algorithm used by the recent fast maximum likelihood tree estimation program PHYML (Guindon and Gascuel, 2003).
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Values obtained by no-zero weight symmetric resampling cannot be interpreted as standard bootstrap values but are best seen as a measure of character conflict regarding monophyly.
“Note that the values obtained by using the no-zero weight symmetric resampling cannot be interpreted in the same way as standard bootstrap values (typically much lower, often seen as measuring statistical significance [107]), but are best seen instead as a measure of the degree to which the characters in the dataset present conflict in regard to the monophyly of the group.”
From Potential for Powered Flight Neared by Most Close Avialan Relatives, but Few Crossed Its Thresholds (2020) · cites this paper as [107]
In “Accuracy and Power of Tree Inference of the aLRT” (p. 11), the paper treats standard ML bootstrap support as a branch test with a significance cutoff, supporting the parenthetical point attached to this citation. It does not discuss no-zero-weight symmetric resampling, compare its values with standard bootstrap values, or interpret its values as character conflict. (LLM, conf=0.82)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredA problem in datasets with many missing entries is that standard measures of support may produce very low values for groups characterized by few synapomorphies, even if contradicted by no or few characters.
“A problem in datasets with many missing entries is that standard measures of support may produce very low values for groups characterized by few synapomorphies, even if contradicted by no (or few) characters.”
From Potential for Powered Flight Neared by Most Close Avialan Relatives, but Few Crossed Its Thresholds (2020) · cites this paper as [107]
The introduction (p. 1) discusses the interpretation of bootstrap and Bayesian branch-support values, but not the claimed effect of missing entries on groups with few synapomorphies and few contradicting characters. Searches for those terms and for missing data found no passage in our copy addressing that specific problem. (LLM, conf=0.75)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 62 · Cited by 2,693
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- Li, S. 1996. Phylogenetic reconstruction using Markov chain Monte Carlo. Ph.D. dissertation. The Ohio State University, Columbus.
- Authors
- Anisimova, M., & Gascuel, O.
- Affiliations
- Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (FR)
- Corresponding author
- Anisimova, Maria
- Gascuel, Olivier
- Venue
- Systematic Biology
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2006-08-01
- Volume
- 55
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 539-552
- ISSN
- 1063-5157 (ISSN-L)
- 1076-836X
- OpenAlex
- W2098448352
- Cited by
- 2,693
- References
- 62
- Citations by year
- 2026: 63 · 2025: 98 · 2024: 126 · 2023: 134 · 2022: 152 · 2021: 182 · 2020: 177 · 2019: 148 · 2018: 159 · 2017: 155 · 2016: 148 · 2015: 178 · 2014: 205 · 2013: 173 · 2012: 172
- FWCI
- 19.01
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Systematic Biology (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- HAL (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Genomics and Phylogenetic Studies
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › RNA and protein synthesis mechanisms
- Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Paleontology › Evolution and Paleontology Studies
- Keywords
- branch support, phylogenetic tree, maximum likelihood estimation, bootstrapping, Bayesian posterior probability, asymptotic distribution, chi-square distribution, PhyML, molecular phylogeny, statistical significance testing
- MeSH terms
- Classification, Computer Simulation, Phylogeny, Models, Statistical, Likelihood Functions
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review