Dear IQ-TREE Development Team,
I have the following FASTA alignment with four species: window_1_025_2.fa.zip
I noticed that IQ-TREE2 and IQ-TREE3 chose different models for the respective alignment: IQ-TREE2 chose TIM2+F+G4 (iqtree2.log), while IQ-TREE3 chose TPM2u+F+I (iqtree3.log).
So, I did the following:
- Fix the seed number to be
12345
- Fix the tree topology to be
iqtree2.treefile (iqtree2.treefile.zip)
- Fix the branch lengths with
-blfix
- Fix the model to be
TIM2+F+G4
In this case, IQ-TREE2 and IQ-TREE3 returned the same results, with tree log-likelihood of -30169.352:
However, when I did not fix the model (but fixing other parameters above), IQ-TREE3 selected TPM2u+F+I again even though it resulted in lower tree log-likelihood (-30182.924) than TIM2+F+G4: iqtree3_wtree_blfix_nomodel.log
I noticed that in iqtree3.log, the likelihood calculation for TIM2+F+G4 model was skipped. Is there any change in how ModelFinder selects the best nucleotide model?
Thanks!
Regards,
Jeremias
Dear IQ-TREE Development Team,
I have the following FASTA alignment with four species: window_1_025_2.fa.zip
I noticed that IQ-TREE2 and IQ-TREE3 chose different models for the respective alignment: IQ-TREE2 chose
TIM2+F+G4(iqtree2.log), while IQ-TREE3 choseTPM2u+F+I(iqtree3.log).So, I did the following:
12345iqtree2.treefile(iqtree2.treefile.zip)-blfixTIM2+F+G4In this case, IQ-TREE2 and IQ-TREE3 returned the same results, with tree log-likelihood of
-30169.352:However, when I did not fix the model (but fixing other parameters above), IQ-TREE3 selected
TPM2u+F+Iagain even though it resulted in lower tree log-likelihood (-30182.924) thanTIM2+F+G4: iqtree3_wtree_blfix_nomodel.logI noticed that in
iqtree3.log, the likelihood calculation forTIM2+F+G4model was skipped. Is there any change in how ModelFinder selects the best nucleotide model?Thanks!
Regards,
Jeremias