Phylogenetic analyses under the Maximum Likelihood model are time and resource intensive. To adequately capture the vastness of tree space, one needs to infer multiple independent trees. On some datasets, multiple tree inferences converge to similar tree topologies, on others to multiple, topologically highly distinct yet statistically indistinguishable topologies. At present, no method exists to quantify and predict this behavior. We introduce a method to quantify the degree of difficulty for analyzing a dataset and present Pythia, a Random Forest Regressor that accurately predicts this difficulty. Pythia predicts the degree of difficulty of analyzing a dataset prior to initiating Maximum Likelihood based tree inferences. Pythia can be used to increase user awareness with respect to the amount of signal and uncertainty to be expected in phylogenetic analyses, and hence inform an appropriate (post-)analysis setup. Further, it can be used to select appropriate search algorithms for easy-, intermediate-, and hard to-analyze datasets.

Phylogenetic analyses under the Maximum Likelihood model are time and resource intensive. To adequately capture the vastness of tree space, one needs to infer multiple independent trees. On some datasets, multiple tree inferences converge to similar tree topologies, on others to multiple, topologically highly distinct yet statistically indistinguishable topologies. At present, no method exists to quantify and predict this behavior. We introduce a method to quantify the degree of difficulty for analyzing a dataset and present Pythia, a Random Forest Regressor that accurately predicts this difficulty. Pythia predicts the degree of difficulty of analyzing a dataset prior to initiating Maximum Likelihood based tree inferences. Pythia can be used to increase user awareness with respect to the amount of signal and uncertainty to be expected in phylogenetic analyses, and hence inform an appropriate (post-)analysis setup. Further, it can be used to select appropriate search algorithms for easy-, intermediate-, and hard-to-analyze datasets.

The evaluation of phylogenetic inference tools is commonly conducted on simulated and empirical sequence data alignments. An open question is how representative these alignments are with respect to those, commonly analyzed by users. Based upon the RAxMLGrove database, it is now possible to simulate DNA sequences based on more than 70,000 representative RAxML and RAxML-NG tree inferences on empirical datasets conducted on the RAxML web servers. This allows to assess the phylogenetic tree inference accuracy of various inference tools based on realistic and representative simulated DNA alignments. We simulated 20,000 MSAs based on representative datasets (in terms of signal strength) from RAxMLGrove, and used 5,000 datasets from the TreeBASE database, to assess the inference accuracy of FastTree2, IQ-TREE2, and RAxML-NG. We find that on quantifiably difficult-to-analyze MSAs all of the analysed tools perform poorly, such that the quicker FastTree2, can constitute a viable alternative to infer trees. We also find, that there are substantial differences between accuracy results on simulated and empirical data, despite the fact that a substantial effort was undertaken to simulate sequences under as realistic as possible settings.

Motivation: Simulating sequence evolution plays an important role in the development and evaluation of phylogenetic inference tools. Naturally, the simulated data needs to be as realistic as possible to be indicative of the performance of the developed tools on empirical data. Over the years, numerous phylogenetic sequence simulators, employing various models of evolution, have been published with the goal to simulate such empirical-like data. In this study, we simulated DNA and protein Multiple Sequence Alignments (MSAs) under increasingly complex models of evolution with and without insertion/deletion (indel) events using a state-of-the-art sequence simulator. We assessed their realism by quantifying how well supervised learning methods are able to predict whether a given MSA is simulated or empirical. Results: Our results show that we can distinguish between empirical and simulated MSAs with high accuracy using two distinct and independently developed classification approaches across all tested models of sequence evolution. Our findings suggest that the current state-of-the-art models fail to accurately replicate the process of evolution.

Maximum Likelihood (ML) is a widely used model for inferring phylogenies. The respective ML implementations heavily rely on numerical optimization routines that use internal numerical thresholds to determine convergence. We systematically analyze the impact of these threshold settings on the log-likelihood (LnL scores) and runtimes for ML tree inferences with RAxML-NG, IQ-TREE, and FastTree on empirical datasets. We provide empirical evidence that we can substantially accelerate tree inferences with RAxML-NG and IQ-TREE by changing the default values of two such numerical thresholds. At the same time, changing these settings does not significantly influence the quality of the inferred trees according to statistical significance tests. For RAxML-NG, increasing two likelihood thresholds results in an average speedup of 1.9 ± 0.6 on Data collection 1 and 1.8 ± 1.3 on Data collection 2. Increasing one likelihood threshold in IQ-TREE results in an average speedup of 1.3 ± 0.4 on Data collection 1 and 1.3 ± 0.9 on Data collection 2.