See DNA benchmark -
See protein benchmark -
Download DNA medium-size data sets -
Download protein medium-size data sets

DNA | Av. LogLk rank | Delta>5 | P-value<0.05 | Av. RF distance |

PhyML SPR | 3.49 | 15 | 1 | 0.24 |

PhyML 3.0 SPR (PT=0) | 2.43 | 3 | 0 | 0.09 |

PhyML 3.0 SPR (PT=5) | 2.17 | 2 | 0 | 0.06 |

PhyML 3.0 SPR (PT=infinity) | 1.91 | 2 | 0 | 0.05 |

PROTEIN | Av. LogLk rank | Delta>5 | P-value<0.05 | Av. RF distance |

PhyML SPR | 2.85 | 7 | 2 | 0.18 |

PhyML 3.0 SPR (PT=0) | 2.69 | 2 | 0 | 0.12 |

PhyML 3.0 SPR (PT=5) | 2.25 | 2 | 0 | 0.06 |

PhyML 3.0 SPR (PT=infinity) | 2.12 | 1 | 0 | 0.04 |

- DNA alignments

We selected the 50 most recent alignments from Treebase with at least 50 sequences, less than 200 sequences and less than 2000 sites. - Protein alignments

We selected the 50 most recent alignments from Treebase with at least 5 sequences, less than 200 sequences and less than 2000 sites.

- PhyML SPR

Previous version of PhyML SPR (W. Hordijk and O. Gascuel, 2005), PhyML, optimizing the topology with SPR (and NNI) operations, and using a BioNJ starting tree. - PhyML 3.0 SPR PT=0

PhyML, optimizing the topology with SPR (and NNI) operations, and using a BioNJ starting tree. Only SPR with a parcimony score at least equal to the current solution are considered. - PhyML 3.0 SPR PT=5 (default option)

PhyML, optimizing the topology with SPR (and NNI 3.0) operations, and using a BioNJ starting tree. Only SPR with a parsimony score at most 5 points worst than the current solution are considered. - PhyML 3.0 SPR PT=infinity

PhyML, optimizing the topology with SPR (and NNI) operations, and using a BioNJ starting tree. SPR are not filtered by parcimony.

- Computing time ranks

The four methods are ranked for each of the alignments, based on the computing time. First rank contains methods with computing time ranging from the best (B) computing time to 1.25 X B (i.e. nearly best computing time). Remaining methods are ranked in the same way, until all methods are ranked. Ties are accounted for; e.g. if the first and second group contains 2 methods each, the ranks will be 1.5 ( (1+2)/2 ) and 3.5 ( (3+4)/2 ). To summarize these results, we provide the median and average ranks for all DNA and protein alignments. - Topology ranks

The four methods are ranked for each of the alignments using a similar principle, based on the tree likelihood. First rank contains all methods which find the same best topology. And so on. Moreover, we provide the median and average ranks for all DNA and protein alignments. - Robinson and Foulds distances

RF is the Robinson and Foulds (bipartition) distance between the best topology and the given topology. - Delta>5

Another variable of interest is the number of times a method fails to find a phylogeny which log-likelihood is close to the highest log-likelihood found by any of the methods being compared. We thus counted the number of data sets for which the log-likelihoods returned by a given method was smaller than the highest log-likelihood found on the corresponding alignments minus 5.0. While this boundary of 5.0 points of log-likelihood is arbitrary, we believe that it provides a simple and practical way to tell the methods apart at first sight. - SH tests

We used the Shimoidara-Hasegawa (SH) test to assess the statistical significance of the likelihood differences. Every result displays the P-value between its logLk and the logLk of the best result for the same data. As a summary, we provide the number of times each method is significatively worst than the best one.