Abstract
Analysis of phylogenetic trees has become an essential tool in epidemiology. Likelihood-based methods fit models to phylogenies to draw inferences about the phylodynamics and history of viral transmission. However, these methods are computationally expensive, which limits the complexity and realism of phylodynamic models and makes them ill-suited for informing policy decisions in real-time during rapidly developing outbreaks. Likelihood-free methods using deep learning are pushing the boundaries of inference beyond these constraints. In this paper, we extend, compare and contrast a recently developed deep learning method for likelihood-free inference from trees. We trained multiple deep neural networks using phylogenies from simulated outbreaks that spread among five locations and found they achieve similar levels of accuracy to Bayesian inference under the true simulation model. We compared robustness to model misspecification of a trained neural network to that of a Bayesian method. We found that both models had comparable performance, converging on similar biases. We also trained and tested a neural network against phylogeographic data from a recent study of the SARS-Cov-2 pandemic in Europe and obtained similar estimates of epidemiological parameters and the location of the common ancestor in Europe. Along with being as accurate and robust as likelihood-based methods, our trained neural networks are on average over 3 orders of magnitude faster. Our results support the notion that neural networks can be trained with simulated data to accurately mimic the good and bad statistical properties of the likelihood functions of generative phylogenetic models.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
