Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    The conditions required for maximum likelihood estimation... — Carmelics
    Home/Skepticism
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    The conditions required for maximum likelihood estimation to be provably consistent do not apply to estimating tree topology

    SkepticismTruth & Knowledge
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    2 reasons for
    1 reason against

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Steel and Matsen (2007) demonstrated that maximum likelihood can favor the wrong tree topology with probability approaching 1 under certain substitution models.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A consistent estimator cannot systematically converge on incorrect values as data increases, so topology estimation fails the formal definition of consistency in the frequentist sense.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The discreteness objection conflates the domain of parameters with the convergence properties that define consistency, leaving the core inapplicability claim intact.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Wald's consistency proof requires the parameter space to be compact, but the space of tree topologies grows super-exponentially with taxa count.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Non-compact discrete spaces violate identifiability conditions that Wald's framework presupposes, making consistency proofs inapplicable regardless of continuity distinctions.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Wald's (1949) consistency conditions apply to continuous parameters
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Tree topologies are discrete, not continuous, parameters
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.

    Topics

    SkepticismTruth & Knowledge

    Related

    A consistent estimator cannot systematically converge on incorrect values as dat...Non-compact discrete spaces violate identifiability conditions that Wald's frame...Steel and Matsen (2007) demonstrated that maximum likelihood can favor the wrong...The discreteness objection conflates the domain of parameters with the convergen...
    +3 moreShow less
    Tree topologies are discrete, not continuous, parametersWald's (1949) consistency conditions apply to continuous parametersWald's consistency proof requires the parameter space to be compact, but the spa...

    Similar

    Maximum likelihood estimation of tree topology requires some assumptio...85%No assumption-free proof of consistency for tree topology estimation e...84%A likelihood inference that fails to be statistically consistent can s...77%Maximum likelihood consistency requires that the model used is correct75%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: phylogenetic-inference
    View source passageHide passage
    Maximum likelihood estimation is known to be provably consistent under a wide variety of conditions (Wald 1949), but several authors have argued that these conditions do not apply to estimating the tree topology since tree topologies are discrete, not continuous, parameters (Yang 1996; Siddall 1998; Farris 1999). However, Swofford et al. (2001) argue that Wald’s conditions do apply and Yang (1994), Chang (1996), and Rogers (2001) prove that maximum likelihood is consistent under different assump
    Extraction notes

    Validity: Extracted via Max plan + API grounding/validity checks

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (2 for, 1 against)
    Edits
    1 edit