Comparison of Bayesian and maximum likelihood bootstrap measures of phylogenetic reliability

Owing to the exponential growth of genome databases, phylogenetic trees are now widely used to test a variety of evolutionary hypotheses. Nevertheless, computation time burden limits the application of methods such as maximum likelihood nonparametric bootstrap to assess reliability of evolutionary trees. As an alternative, the much faster Bayesian inference of phylogeny, which expresses branch support as posterior probabilities, has been introduced. However, marked discrepancies exist between nonparametric bootstrap proportions and Bayesian posterior probabilities, leading to difficulties in the interpretation of sometimes strongly conflicting results. As an attempt to reconcile these two indices of node reliability, we apply the nonparametric bootstrap resampling procedure to the Bayesian approach. The correlation between posterior probabilities, bootstrap maximum likelihood percentages, and bootstrapped posterior probabilities was studied for eight highly diverse empirical data sets and were also investigated using experimental simulation. Our results show that the relation between posterior probabilities and bootstrapped maximum likelihood percentages is highly variable but that very strong correlations always exist when Bayesian node support is estimated on bootstrapped character matrices. Moreover, simulations corroborate empirical observations in suggesting that, being more conservative, the bootstrap approach might be less prone to strongly supporting a false phylogenetic hypothesis. Thus, apparent conflicts in topology recovered by the Bayesian approach were reduced after bootstrapping. Both posterior probabilities and bootstrap supports are of great interest to phylogeny as potential upper and lower bounds of node reliability, but they are surely not interchangeable and cannot be directly compared.     

Branch-length prior influences Bayesian posterior probability of phylogeny

The Bayesian method for estimating species phylogenies from molecular sequence data provides an attractive alternative to maximum likelihood with nonparametric bootstrap due to the easy interpretation of posterior probabilities for trees and to availability of efficient computational algorithms. However, for many data sets it produces extremely high posterior probabilities, sometimes for apparently incorrect clades. Here we use both computer simulation and empirical data analysis to examine the effect of the prior model for internal branch lengths. We found that posterior probabilities for trees and clades are sensitive to the prior for internal branch lengths, and priors assuming long internal branches cause high posterior probabilities for trees. In particular, uniform priors with high upper bounds bias Bayesian clade probabilities in favor of extreme values. We discuss possible remedies to the problem, including empirical and full Bayesian methods and subjective procedures suggested in Bayesian hypothesis testing. Our results also suggest that the bootstrap proportion and Bayesian posterior probability are different measures of accuracy, and that the bootstrap proportion, if interpreted as the probability that the clade is true, can be either too liberal or too conservative.     

Frequentist properties of Bayesian posterior probabilities of phylogenetic trees under simple and complex substitution models

What does the posterior probability of a phylogenetic tree mean?This simulation study shows that Bayesian posterior probabilities have the meaning that is typically ascribed to them; the posterior probability of a tree is the probability that the tree is correct, assuming that the model is correct. At the same time, the Bayesian method can be sensitive to model misspecification, and the sensitivity of the Bayesian method appears to be greater than the sensitivity of the nonparametric bootstrap method (using maximum likelihood to estimate trees). Although the estimates of phylogeny obtained by use of the method of maximum likelihood or the Bayesian method are likely to be similar, the assessment of the uncertainty of inferred trees via either bootstrapping (for maximum likelihood estimates) or posterior probabilities (for Bayesian estimates) is not likely to be the same. We suggest that the Bayesian method be implemented with the most complex models of those currently available, as this should reduce the chance that the method will concentrate too much probability on too few trees.     

Polytomies and Bayesian phylogenetic inference

Bayesian phylogenetic analyses are now very popular in systematics and molecular evolution because they allow the use of much more realistic models than currently possible with maximum likelihood methods. There are, however, a growing number of examples in which large Bayesian posterior clade probabilities are associated with very short branch lengths and low values for non-Bayesian measures of support such as nonparametric bootstrapping. For the four-taxon case when the true tree is the star phylogeny, Bayesian analyses become increasingly unpredictable in their preference for one of the three possible resolved tree topologies as data set size increases. This leads to the prediction that hard (or near-hard) polytomies in nature will cause unpredictable behavior in Bayesian analyses, with arbitrary resolutions of the polytomy receiving very high posterior probabilities in some cases. We present a simple solution to this problem involving a reversible-jump Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) algorithm that allows exploration of all of tree space, including unresolved tree topologies with one or more polytomies. The reversible-jump MCMC approach allows prior distributions to place some weight on less-resolved tree topologies, which eliminates misleadingly high posteriors associated with arbitrary resolutions of hard polytomies. Fortunately, assigning some prior probability to polytomous tree topologies does not appear to come with a significant cost in terms of the ability to assess the level of support for edges that do exist in the true tree. Methods are discussed for applying arbitrary prior distributions to tree topologies of varying resolution, and an empirical example showing evidence of polytomies is analyzed and discussed.     

Model misspecification and probabilistic tests of topology: evidence from empirical data sets

Probabilistic tests of topology offer a powerful means of evaluating competing phylogenetic hypotheses. The performance of the nonparametric Shimodaira-Hasegawa (SH) test, the parametric Swofford-Olsen-Waddell-Hillis (SOWH) test, and Bayesian posterior probabilities were explored for five data sets for which all the phylogenetic relationships are known with a very high degree of certainty. These results are consistent with previous simulation studies that have indicated a tendency for the SOWH test to be prone to generating Type 1 errors because of model misspecification coupled with branch length heterogeneity. These results also suggest that the SOWH test may accord overconfidence in the true topology when the null hypothesis is in fact correct. In contrast, the SH test was observed to be much more conservative, even under high substitution rates and branch length heterogeneity. For some of those data sets where the SOWH test proved misleading, the Bayesian posterior probabilities were also misleading. The results of all tests were strongly influenced by the exact substitution model assumptions. Simple models, especially those that assume rate homogeneity among sites, had a higher Type 1 error rate and were more likely to generate misleading posterior probabilities. For some of these data sets, the commonly used substitution models appear to be inadequate for estimating appropriate levels of uncertainty with the SOWH test and Bayesian methods. Reasons for the differences in statistical power between the two maximum likelihood tests are discussed and are contrasted with the Bayesian approach.     

Comparing bootstrap and posterior probability values in the four-taxon case

Assessment of the reliability of a given phylogenetic hypothesis is an important step in phylogenetic analysis. Historically, the nonparametric bootstrap procedure has been the most frequently used method for assessing the support for specific phylogenetic relationships. The recent employment of Bayesian methods for phylogenetic inference problems has resulted in clade support being expressed in terms of posterior probabilities. We used simulated data and the four-taxon case to explore the relationship between nonparametric bootstrap values (as inferred by maximum likelihood) and posterior probabilities (as inferred by Bayesian analysis). The results suggest a complex association between the two measures. Three general regions of tree space can be identified: (1) the neutral zone, where differences between mean bootstrap and mean posterior probability values are not significant, (2) near the two-branch corner, and (3) deep in the two-branch corner. In the last two regions, significant differences occur between mean bootstrap and mean posterior probability values. Whether bootstrap or posterior probability values are higher depends on the data in support of alternative topologies. Examination of star topologies revealed that both bootstrap and posterior probability values differ significantly from theoretical expectations; in particular, there are more posterior probability values in the range 0.85-1 than expected by theory. Therefore, our results corroborate the findings of others that posterior probability values are excessively high. Our results also suggest that extrapolations from single topology branch-length studies are unlikely to provide any general conclusions regarding the relationship between bootstrap and posterior probability values.     

Bayes or bootstrap? A simulation study comparing the performance of Bayesian Markov chain Monte Carlo sampling and bootstrapping in assessing phylogenetic confidence

Bayesian Markov chain Monte Carlo sampling has become increasingly popular in phylogenetics as a method for both estimating the maximum likelihood topology and for assessing nodal confidence. Despite the growing use of posterior probabilities, the relationship between the Bayesian measure of confidence and the most commonly used confidence measure in phylogenetics, the nonparametric bootstrap proportion, is poorly understood. We used computer simulation to investigate the behavior of three phylogenetic confidence methods: Bayesian posterior probabilities calculated via Markov chain Monte Carlo sampling (BMCMC-PP), maximum likelihood bootstrap proportion (ML-BP), and maximum parsimony bootstrap proportion (MP-BP). We simulated the evolution of DNA sequence on 17-taxon topologies under 18 evolutionary scenarios and examined the performance of these methods in assigning confidence to correct monophyletic and incorrect monophyletic groups, and we examined the effects of increasing character number on support value. BMCMC-PP and ML-BP were often strongly correlated with one another but could provide substantially different estimates of support on short internodes. In contrast, BMCMC-PP correlated poorly with MP-BP across most of the simulation conditions that we examined. For a given threshold value, more correct monophyletic groups were supported by BMCMC-PP than by either ML-BP or MP-BP. When threshold values were chosen that fixed the rate of accepting incorrect monophyletic relationship as true at 5%, all three methods recovered most of the correct relationships on the simulated topologies, although BMCMC-PP and ML-BP performed better than MP-BP. BMCMC-PP was usually a less biased predictor of phylogenetic accuracy than either bootstrapping method. BMCMC-PP provided high support values for correct topological bipartitions with fewer characters than was needed for nonparametric bootstrap.     

An assessment of accuracy, error, and conflict with support values from genome-scale phylogenetic data

Despite the importance of molecular phylogenetics, few of its assumptions have been tested with real data. It is commonly assumed that nonparametric bootstrap values are an underestimate of the actual support, Bayesian posterior probabilities are an overestimate of the actual support, and among-gene phylogenetic conflict is low. We directly tested these assumptions by using a well-supported yeast reference tree. We found that bootstrap values were not significantly different from accuracy. Bayesian support values were, however, significant overestimates of accuracy but still had low false-positive error rates (0% to 2.8%) at the highest values (>99%). Although we found evidence for a branch-length bias contributing to conflict, there was little evidence for widespread, strongly supported among-gene conflict from bootstraps. The results demonstrate that caution is warranted concerning conclusions of conflict based on the assumption of underestimation for support values in real data.     

Phylogenetic relationships of the dwarf boas and a comparison of Bayesian and bootstrap measures of phylogenetic support

Four New World genera of dwarf boas (Exiliboa, Trachyboa, Tropidophis, and Ungaliophis) have been placed by many systematists in a single group (traditionally called Tropidophiidae). However, the monophyly of this group has been questioned in several studies. Moreover, the overall relationships among basal snake lineages, including the placement of the dwarf boas, are poorly understood. We obtained mtDNA sequence data for 12S, 16S, and intervening tRNA-val genes from 23 species of snakes representing most major snake lineages, including all four genera of New World dwarf boas. We then examined the phylogenetic position of these species by estimating the phylogeny of the basal snakes. Our phylogenetic analysis suggests that New World dwarf boas are not monophyletic. Instead, we find Exiliboa and Ungaliophis to be most closely related to sand boas (Erycinae), boas (Boinae), and advanced snakes (Caenophidea), whereas Tropidophis and Trachyboa form an independent clade that separated relatively early in snake radiation. Our estimate of snake phylogeny differs significantly in other ways from some previous estimates of snake phylogeny. For instance, pythons do not cluster with boas and sand boas, but instead show a strong relationship with Loxocemus and Xenopeltis. Additionally, uropeltids cluster strongly with Cylindrophis, and together are embedded in what has previously been considered the macrostomatan radiation. These relationships are supported by both bootstrapping (parametric and nonparametric approaches) and Bayesian analysis, although Bayesian support values are consistently higher than those obtained from nonparametric bootstrapping. Simulations show that Bayesian support values represent much better estimates of phylogenetic accuracy than do nonparametric bootstrap support values, at least under the conditions of our study.     

Probabilistic methods surpass parsimony when assessing clade support in phylogenetic analyses of discrete morphological data

Fossil taxa are critical to inferences of historical diversity and the origins of modern biodiversity, but realizing their evolutionary significance is contingent on restoring fossil species to their correct position within the tree of life. For most fossil species, morphology is the only source of data for phylogenetic inference; this has traditionally been analysed using parsimony, the predominance of which is currently challenged by the development of probabilistic models that achieve greater phylogenetic accuracy. Here, based on simulated and empirical datasets, we explore the relative efficacy of competing phylogenetic methods in terms of clade support. We characterize clade support using bootstrapping for parsimony and Maximum Likelihood, and intrinsic Bayesian posterior probabilities, collapsing branches that exhibit less than 50% support. Ignoring node support, Bayesian inference is the most accurate method in estimating the tree used to simulate the data. After assessing clade support, Bayesian and Maximum Likelihood exhibit comparable levels of accuracy, and parsimony remains the least accurate method. However, Maximum Likelihood is less precise than Bayesian phylogeny estimation, and Bayesian inference recaptures more correct nodes with higher support compared to all other methods, including Maximum Likelihood. We assess the effects of these findings on empirical phylogenies. Our results indicate probabilistic methods should be favoured over parsimony.     

Survey of branch support methods demonstrates accuracy, power, and robustness of fast likelihood-based approximation schemes

Phylogenetic inference and evaluating support for inferred relationships is at the core of many studies testing evolutionary hypotheses. Despite the popularity of nonparametric bootstrap frequencies and Bayesian posterior probabilities, the interpretation of these measures of tree branch support remains a source of discussion. Furthermore, both methods are computationally expensive and become prohibitive for large data sets. Recent fast approximate likelihood-based measures of branch supports (approximate likelihood ratio test [aLRT] and Shimodaira-Hasegawa [SH]-aLRT) provide a compelling alternative to these slower conventional methods, offering not only speed advantages but also excellent levels of accuracy and power. Here we propose an additional method: a Bayesian-like transformation of aLRT (aBayes). Considering both probabilistic and frequentist frameworks, we compare the performance of the three fast likelihood-based methods with the standard bootstrap (SBS), the Bayesian approach, and the recently introduced rapid bootstrap. Our simulations and real data analyses show that with moderate model violations, all tests are sufficiently accurate, but aLRT and aBayes offer the highest statistical power and are very fast. With severe model violations aLRT, aBayes and Bayesian posteriors can produce elevated false-positive rates. With data sets for which such violation can be detected, we recommend using SH-aLRT, the nonparametric version of aLRT based on a procedure similar to the Shimodaira-Hasegawa tree selection. In general, the SBS seems to be excessively conservative and is much slower than our approximate likelihood-based methods.     

Reanalysis of Murphy et al.'s data gives various mammalian phylogenies and suggests overcredibility of Bayesian trees

Murphy and colleagues reported that the mammalian phylogeny was resolved by Bayesian phylogenetics. However, the DNA sequences they used had many alignment gaps and undetermined nucleotide sites. We therefore reanalyzed their data by minimizing unshared nucleotide sites and retaining as many species as possible (13 species). In constructing phylogenetic trees, we used the Bayesian, maximum likelihood (ML), maximum parsimony (MP), and neighbor-joining (NJ) methods with different substitution models. These trees were constructed by using both protein and DNA sequences. The results showed that the posterior probabilities for Bayesian trees were generally much higher than the bootstrap values for ML, MP, and NJ trees. Two different Bayesian topologies for the same set of species were sometimes supported by high posterior probabilities, implying that two different topologies can be judged to be correct by Bayesian phylogenetics. This suggests that the posterior probability in Bayesian analysis can be excessively high as an indication of statistical confidence and therefore Murphy et al.'s tree, which largely depends on Bayesian posterior probability, may not be correct.     

Bayesian species delimitation in West African forest geckos (Hemidactylus fasciatus)

Genealogical data are an important source of evidence for delimiting species, yet few statistical methods are available for calculating the probabilities associated with different species delimitations. Bayesian species delimitation uses reversible-jump Markov chain Monte Carlo (rjMCMC) in conjunction with a user-specified guide tree to estimate the posterior distribution for species delimitation models containing different numbers of species. We apply Bayesian species delimitation to investigate the speciation history of forest geckos (Hemidactylus fasciatus) from tropical West Africa using five nuclear loci (and mtDNA) for 51 specimens representing 10 populations. We find that species diversity in H. fasciatus is currently underestimated, and describe three new species to reflect the most conservative estimate for the number of species in this complex. We examine the impact of the guide tree, and the prior distributions on ancestral population sizes (θ) and root age (τ₀), on the posterior probabilities for species delimitation. Mis-specification of the guide tree or the prior distribution for θ can result in strong support for models containing more species. We describe a new statistic for summarizing the posterior distribution of species delimitation models, called speciation probabilities, which summarize the posterior support for each speciation event on the starting guide tree.     

Using weighted permutation scores to detect differential gene expression with microarray data

A class of nonparametric statistical methods, including a nonparametric empirical Bayes (EB) method, the Significance Analysis of Microarrays (SAM) and the mixture model method (MMM) have been proposed to detect differential gene expression for replicated microarray experiments. They all depend on constructing a test statistic, for example, a t-statistic, and then using permutation to draw inferences. However, due to special features of microarray data, using standard permutation scores may not estimate the null distribution of the test statistic well, leading to possibly too conservative inferences. We propose a new method of constructing weighted permutation scores to overcome the problem: posterior probabilities of having no differential expression from the EB method are used as weights for genes to better estimate the null distribution of the test statistic. We also propose a weighted method to estimate the false discovery rate (FDR) using the posterior probabilities. Using simulated data and real data for time-course microarray experiments, we show the improved performance of the proposed methods when implemented in MMM, EB and SAM.     

Is there a star tree paradox?

Concerns have been raised that posterior probabilities on phylogenetic trees can be unreliable when the true tree is unresolved or has very short internal branches, because existing methods for Bayesian phylogenetic analysis do not explicitly evaluate unresolved trees. Two recent papers have proposed that evaluating only resolved trees results in a "star tree paradox": when the true tree is unresolved or close to it, posterior probabilities were predicted to become increasingly unpredictable as sequence length grows, resulting in inflated confidence in one resolved tree or another and an increasing risk of false-positive inferences. Here we show that this is not the case; existing Bayesian methods do not lead to an inflation of statistical confidence, provided the evolutionary model is correct and uninformative priors are assumed. Posterior probabilities do not become increasingly unpredictable with increasing sequence length, and they exhibit conservative type I error rates, leading to a low rate of false-positive inferences. With infinite data, posterior probabilities give equal support for all resolved trees, and the rate of false inferences falls to zero. We conclude that there is no star tree paradox caused by not sampling unresolved trees.     

Data partitions and complex models in Bayesian analysis: the phylogeny of Gymnophthalmid lizards

Phylogenetic studies incorporating multiple loci, and multiple genomes, are becoming increasingly common. Coincident with this trend in genetic sampling, model-based likelihood techniques including Bayesian phylogenetic methods continue to gain popularity. Few studies, however, have examined model fit and sensitivity to such potentially heterogeneous data partitions within combined data analyses using empirical data. Here we investigate the relative model fit and sensitivity of Bayesian phylogenetic methods when alternative site-specific partitions of among-site rate variation (with and without autocorrelated rates) are considered. Our primary goal in choosing a best-fit model was to employ the simplest model that was a good fit to the data while optimizing topology and/or Bayesian posterior probabilities. Thus, we were not interested in complex models that did not practically affect our interpretation of the topology under study. We applied these alternative models to a four-gene data set including one protein-coding nuclear gene (c-mos), one protein-coding mitochondrial gene (ND4), and two mitochondrial rRNA genes (12S and 16S) for the diverse yet poorly known lizard family Gymnophthalmidae. Our results suggest that the best-fit model partitioned among-site rate variation separately among the c-mos, ND4, and 12S + 16S gene regions. We found this model yielded identical topologies to those from analyses based on the GTR+I+G model, but significantly changed posterior probability estimates of clade support. This partitioned model also produced more precise (less variable) estimates of posterior probabilities across generations of long Bayesian runs, compared to runs employing a GTR+I+G model estimated for the combined data. We use this three-way gamma partitioning in Bayesian analyses to reconstruct a robust phylogenetic hypothesis for the relationships of genera within the lizard family Gymnophthalmidae. We then reevaluate the higher-level taxonomic arrangement of the Gymnophthalmidae. Based on our findings, we discuss the utility of nontraditional parameters for modeling among-site rate variation and the implications and future directions for complex model building and testing.     

An examination of the monophyly of morning glory taxa using Bayesian phylogenetic inference

The objective of this study was to obtain a quantitative assessment of the monophyly of morning glory taxa, specifically the genus Ipomoea and the tribe Argyreieae. Previous systematic studies of morning glories intimated the paraphyly of Ipomoea by suggesting that the genera within the tribe Argyreieae are derived from within Ipomoea; however, no quantitative estimates of statistical support were developed to address these questions. We applied a Bayesian analysis to provide quantitative estimates of monophyly in an investigation of morning glory relationships using DNA sequence data. We also explored various approaches for examining convergence of the Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) simulation of the Bayesian analysis by running 18 separate analyses varying in length. We found convergence of the important components of the phylogenetic model (the tree with the maximum posterior probability, branch lengths, the parameter values from the DNA substitution model, and the posterior probabilities for clade support) for these data after one million generations of the MCMC simulations. In the process, we identified a run where the parameter values obtained were often outside the range of values obtained from the other runs, suggesting an aberrant result. In addition, we compared the Bayesian method of phylogenetic analysis to maximum likelihood and maximum parsimony. The results from the Bayesian analysis and the maximum likelihood analysis were similar for topology, branch lengths, and parameters of the DNA substitution model. Topologies also were similar in the comparison between the Bayesian analysis and maximum parsimony, although the posterior probabilities and the bootstrap proportions exhibited some striking differences. In a Bayesian analysis of three data sets (ITS sequences, waxy sequences, and ITS + waxy sequences) no supoort for the monophyly of the genus Ipomoea, or for the tribe Argyreieae, was observed, with the estimate of the probability of the monophyly of these taxa being less than 3.4 x 10(-7).     

Effects of branch length uncertainty on Bayesian posterior probabilities for phylogenetic hypotheses

In Bayesian phylogenetics, confidence in evolutionary relationships is expressed as posterior probability--the probability that a tree or clade is true given the data, evolutionary model, and prior assumptions about model parameters. Model parameters, such as branch lengths, are never known in advance; Bayesian methods incorporate this uncertainty by integrating over a range of plausible values given an assumed prior probability distribution for each parameter. Little is known about the effects of integrating over branch length uncertainty on posterior probabilities when different priors are assumed. Here, we show that integrating over uncertainty using a wide range of typical prior assumptions strongly affects posterior probabilities, causing them to deviate from those that would be inferred if branch lengths were known in advance; only when there is no uncertainty to integrate over does the average posterior probability of a group of trees accurately predict the proportion of correct trees in the group. The pattern of branch lengths on the true tree determines whether integrating over uncertainty pushes posterior probabilities upward or downward. The magnitude of the effect depends on the specific prior distributions used and the length of the sequences analyzed. Under realistic conditions, however, even extraordinarily long sequences are not enough to prevent frequent inference of incorrect clades with strong support. We found that across a range of conditions, diffuse priors--either flat or exponential distributions with moderate to large means--provide more reliable inferences than small-mean exponential priors. An empirical Bayes approach that fixes branch lengths at their maximum likelihood estimates yields posterior probabilities that more closely match those that would be inferred if the true branch lengths were known in advance and reduces the rate of strongly supported false inferences compared with fully Bayesian integration.     

Analyzing complex capture-recapture data in the presence of individual and temporal covariates and model uncertainty

SUMMARY: We consider the issue of analyzing complex ecological data in the presence of covariate information and model uncertainty. Several issues can arise when analyzing such data, not least the need to take into account where there are missing covariate values. This is most acutely observed in the presence of time-varying covariates. We consider mark-recapture-recovery data, where the corresponding recapture probabilities are less than unity, so that individuals are not always observed at each capture event. This often leads to a large amount of missing time-varying individual covariate information, because the covariate cannot usually be recorded if an individual is not observed. In addition, we address the problem of model selection over these covariates with missing data. We consider a Bayesian approach, where we are able to deal with large amounts of missing data, by essentially treating the missing values as auxiliary variables. This approach also allows a quantitative comparison of different models via posterior model probabilities, obtained via the reversible jump Markov chain Monte Carlo algorithm. To demonstrate this approach we analyze data relating to Soay sheep, which pose several statistical challenges in fully describing the intricacies of the system.     

parallelMCMCcombine: An R Package for Bayesian Methods for Big Data and Analytics

Recent advances in big data and analytics research have provided a wealth of large data sets that are too big to be analyzed in their entirety, due to restrictions on computer memory or storage size. New Bayesian methods have been developed for data sets that are large only due to large sample sizes. These methods partition big data sets into subsets and perform independent Bayesian Markov chain Monte Carlo analyses on the subsets. The methods then combine the independent subset posterior samples to estimate a posterior density given the full data set. These approaches were shown to be effective for Bayesian models including logistic regression models, Gaussian mixture models and hierarchical models. Here, we introduce the R package parallelMCMCcombine which carries out four of these techniques for combining independent subset posterior samples. We illustrate each of the methods using a Bayesian logistic regression model for simulation data and a Bayesian Gamma model for real data; we also demonstrate features and capabilities of the R package. The package assumes the user has carried out the Bayesian analysis and has produced the independent subposterior samples outside of the package. The methods are primarily suited to models with unknown parameters of fixed dimension that exist in continuous parameter spaces. We envision this tool will allow researchers to explore the various methods for their specific applications and will assist future progress in this rapidly developing field.