I just
pushed
a very small update to how the argument `method`

is handled in the
phytools function for Pagel's (1994) method, `fitPagel`

.

The argument `method`

can be used to specify which function is used
internally to maximize the likelihood of the different models. The options
at present are `"fitMk"`

, the default, `"ace"`

, and
`"fitDiscrete"`

, the latter two using the ape function
`ace`

and the geiger function `fitDiscrete`

, respectively.
Of these, `fitDiscrete`

is probably the most robust, although it
is also the slowest.

One quirk that existed in the function is that if a value of `method`

was supplied that was *not* one of the aforementioned, then
`fitMk`

would be used; however the print method would indicate that
whatever (possibly nonsensical) method the user supplied had been used to
optimize the model! This could create the impression that methods exist in
the function that in fact do not.

So for instance:

```
library(phytools)
tree
```

```
##
## Phylogenetic tree with 50 tips and 49 internal nodes.
##
## Tip labels:
## t11, t12, t6, t7, t24, t25, ...
##
## Rooted; includes branch lengths.
```

```
x
```

```
## t11 t12 t6 t7 t24 t25 t2 t30 t47 t48 t31 t32 t33 t3 t45 t46 t35 t40
## a a a a b a b b b b a b b a b b b b
## t41 t15 t4 t16 t17 t28 t29 t19 t9 t10 t36 t37 t34 t1 t5 t8 t13 t26
## b a a b b b a a a a a a a a a a a a
## t27 t22 t23 t49 t50 t18 t38 t39 t20 t21 t14 t42 t43 t44
## a a a a a a a a a a a b b b
## Levels: a b
```

```
y
```

```
## t11 t12 t6 t7 t24 t25 t2 t30 t47 t48 t31 t32 t33 t3 t45 t46 t35 t40
## c d c d c c c c c c c d d c d d d d
## t41 t15 t4 t16 t17 t28 t29 t19 t9 t10 t36 t37 t34 t1 t5 t8 t13 t26
## d c d c d c c c c d c c c d d c d d
## t27 t22 t23 t49 t50 t18 t38 t39 t20 t21 t14 t42 t43 t44
## d c c c c d c c d c c d d d
## Levels: c d
```

```
fit.fitMk<-fitPagel(tree,x,y)
fit.fitMk
```

```
##
## Pagel's binary character correlation test:
##
## Independent model rate matrix:
## a|c a|d b|c b|d
## a|c -3.719703 2.746968 0.9727354 0.0000000
## a|d 3.260783 -4.233518 0.0000000 0.9727354
## b|c 2.538373 0.000000 -5.2853407 2.7469677
## b|d 0.000000 2.538373 3.2607829 -5.7991559
##
## Dependent model rate matrix:
## a|c a|d b|c b|d
## a|c -4.935932 2.930609 2.005324 0.0000000
## a|d 3.570132 -3.913473 0.000000 0.3433411
## b|c 7.455589 0.000000 -10.655506 3.1999174
## b|d 0.000000 0.000000 3.530802 -3.5308018
##
## Model fit:
## log-likelihood
## independent -48.66884
## dependent -46.63219
##
## Hypothesis test result:
## likelihood-ratio: 4.073295
## p-value: 0.3961773
##
## Model fitting method used was fitMk
```

```
fit.fitDiscrete<-fitPagel(tree,x,y,method="fitDiscrete")
```

```
## Warning in fitDiscrete(tree, xy, model = iQ, ...): Parameter estimates appear at bounds:
## q14
## q23
## q32
## q41
```

```
## Warning in fitDiscrete(tree, xy, model = dQ, ...): Parameter estimates appear at bounds:
## q14
## q23
## q32
## q41
```

```
fit.fitDiscrete
```

```
##
## Pagel's binary character correlation test:
##
## Independent model rate matrix:
## a|c a|d b|c b|d
## a|c -3.700663 2.746975 0.9536884 0.0000000
## a|d 3.260749 -4.214438 0.0000000 0.9536884
## b|c 2.524223 0.000000 -5.2711974 2.7469748
## b|d 0.000000 2.524223 3.2607493 -5.7849718
##
## Dependent model rate matrix:
## a|c a|d b|c b|d
## a|c -4.793643 2.999862e+00 1.793782 0.0000000
## a|d 3.478373 -3.889966e+00 0.000000 0.4115926
## b|c 7.314845 0.000000e+00 -10.270839 2.9559936
## b|d 0.000000 5.238634e-17 3.518613 -3.5186134
##
## Model fit:
## log-likelihood
## independent -48.66200
## dependent -46.61651
##
## Hypothesis test result:
## likelihood-ratio: 4.090979
## p-value: 0.3938332
##
## Model fitting method used was fitDiscrete
```

```
fit.lambda<-fitPagel(tree,x,y,method="lambda")
fit.lambda ## actually no such method exists
```

```
##
## Pagel's binary character correlation test:
##
## Independent model rate matrix:
## a|c a|d b|c b|d
## a|c -3.719703 2.746968 0.9727354 0.0000000
## a|d 3.260783 -4.233518 0.0000000 0.9727354
## b|c 2.538373 0.000000 -5.2853407 2.7469677
## b|d 0.000000 2.538373 3.2607829 -5.7991559
##
## Dependent model rate matrix:
## a|c a|d b|c b|d
## a|c -4.935932 2.930609 2.005324 0.0000000
## a|d 3.570132 -3.913473 0.000000 0.3433411
## b|c 7.455589 0.000000 -10.655506 3.1999174
## b|d 0.000000 0.000000 3.530802 -3.5308018
##
## Model fit:
## log-likelihood
## independent -48.66884
## dependent -46.63219
##
## Hypothesis test result:
## likelihood-ratio: 4.073295
## p-value: 0.3961773
##
## Model fitting method used was lambda
```

In the final case `method="fitMk"`

was used, but the print
method does not show this - instead giving the nonsensical method
`"lambda"`

.

The fixed version can be installed from GitHub in the typical way. Here I will load from source to show the difference:

```
source("https://raw.githubusercontent.com/liamrevell/phytools/b9e515397cb68b9c16549dca5db6c26ec5eecb13/R/fitPagel.R")
fit.lambda<-fitPagel(tree,x,y,method="lambda")
```

```
## method = "lambda" not found.
## Defaulting to method = "fitMk"
```

```
fit.lambda
```

```
##
## Pagel's binary character correlation test:
##
## Independent model rate matrix:
## a|c a|d b|c b|d
## a|c -3.719703 2.746968 0.9727354 0.0000000
## a|d 3.260783 -4.233518 0.0000000 0.9727354
## b|c 2.538373 0.000000 -5.2853407 2.7469677
## b|d 0.000000 2.538373 3.2607829 -5.7991559
##
## Dependent model rate matrix:
## a|c a|d b|c b|d
## a|c -4.935932 2.930609 2.005324 0.0000000
## a|d 3.570132 -3.913473 0.000000 0.3433411
## b|c 7.455589 0.000000 -10.655506 3.1999174
## b|d 0.000000 0.000000 3.530802 -3.5308018
##
## Model fit:
## log-likelihood
## independent -48.66884
## dependent -46.63219
##
## Hypothesis test result:
## likelihood-ratio: 4.073295
## p-value: 0.3961773
##
## Model fitting method used was fitMk
```

Data for this example were simulated *without* a correlation, as
follows:

```
tree<-pbtree(n=50,scale=1)
Q<-matrix(c(-1,1,1,-1),2,2)
rownames(Q)<-colnames(Q)<-letters[1:2]
x<-as.factor(sim.history(tree,Q)$states)
rownames(Q)<-colnames(Q)<-letters[3:4]
y<-as.factor(sim.history(tree,Q)$states)
```

## No comments:

## Post a Comment