Bayesian posterior probabilities: revisited

Details Bayesian posterior probabilities: revisited Bayesian posterior probabilities: revisited

2010-01-20

arxiv.org/abs/1001.3638v1

Biology

Quantitative Biology

Populations and Evolution

7 pages, including 3 Figures

Scientific paper

Huelsenbeck and Rannala (2004, Systematic Biology 53, 904-913) presented a series of simulations in order to assess the extent to which the bayesian posterior probabilities associated with phylogenetic trees represent the standard frequentist statistical interpretation. They concluded that when the analysis model matches the generating model then the bayesian posterior probabilities are correct, but that the probabilities are much too large when the model is under-specified and slightly too small when the model is over-specified. Here, I take issue with the first conclusion, and instead contend that their simulation data show that the posterior probabilities are still slightly too large even when the models match. Furthermore, I suggest that the data show that the degree of this over-estimation increases as the sequence length increases, and that it might increase as model complexity increases. I also provide some comments on the authors' conclusions concerning whether bootstrap proportions over- or under-estimate the true probabilities.

Affiliated with

Also associated with

No associations

Rating

Bayesian posterior probabilities: revisited does not yet have a rating. At this time, there are no reviews or comments for this scientific paper.

If you have personal experience with Bayesian posterior probabilities: revisited, we encourage you to share that experience with our LandOfFree.com community. Your opinion is very important and Bayesian posterior probabilities: revisited will most certainly appreciate the feedback.

Rate now

Comments { 0 }

Profile ID: LFWR-SCP-O-129465