Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Mention in docs about not making coalescent assumptions #425

Open
hyanwong opened this issue Jul 27, 2024 · 2 comments
Open

Mention in docs about not making coalescent assumptions #425

hyanwong opened this issue Jul 27, 2024 · 2 comments

Comments

@hyanwong
Copy link
Member

In contrast to many methods, the combination of tsinfer + tsdate-vgamma does not incorporate a coalescent prior (it has a improper "flat" prior on most nodes and an exponential prior on the roots, fit by EM). In other words, we are (mostly) just using mutational density (or polytomy-aware equivalent) to fit the node times. This is both a strength (not so susceptible to assumptions of demography / selection) and a weakness (throws away potential information, in my opinion. Either way, it would be useful to document it.

At some later stage it would also be useful to show that we are robust to selection / demography, I suspect.

@nspope
Copy link
Contributor

nspope commented Jul 27, 2024

Being slightly pedantic (but worth clarifying) -- there's a "prior" induced on the internal nodes by the exponential mixture on roots, even though we don't have node-specific coalescent priors. It's really more like regularisation, because we fit the mixture by EM. It's not technically an improper or flat prior, though (just added to documentation).

@hyanwong
Copy link
Member Author

Right, but I think of the constraints on internal nodes as being induced by the combination of topology and root priors. If they weren't attached, there would be no constraint.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants