Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 6 minor 59 references

A Statistical Test for Comparing the Linkage and Admixture Model Based on Central Limit Theorems

T0 review · 5 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-04 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read A likelihood-ratio test for choosing between linkage and admixture genetic models is proven to be an asymptotic level-alpha test.

desk verdict The advertised level-alpha test is not proven—boundary problem at r=∞ breaks the Wilks argument—but the consistency and CLT results for the Linkage Model are real contributions worth a referee's time. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.12734 v4 pith:3KTW5ALZ submitted 2025-09-16 math.ST stat.TH

Carola Sophia Heinzel This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.STstat.TH MSC 62F0362F1262M05
keywords LinkageModelAdmixtureHiddenMarkovMaximumLikelihoodEstimatorConsistencyAsymptoticNormalityRatioTestSelection
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper establishes asymptotic guarantees for maximum likelihood estimation in the Linkage Model, a hidden Markov model used in population genetics to describe ancestry across linked genetic markers. It proves that the maximum likelihood estimators of an individual's ancestry proportions and of the recombination rate are consistent and asymptotically normal as the number of markers grows. It then proves that the likelihood-ratio test statistic for comparing the Linkage Model with its special case, the Admixture Model (independent markers), converges in distribution to a chi-square distribution with one degree of freedom under the null hypothesis, making the test an asymptotic level-alpha test. Applied to human genetic data, the test rejects the Admixture Model for roughly 87.5% of individuals, with large differences across continental groups.

What carries the argument

The test statistic Lambda = -2 log(LR) (Definition 2.4) is the central object. Its asymptotic behavior is inherited from the asymptotic normality of the MLE, which is established via the representation of the log-likelihood as a sum of conditional log-likelihood increments and a martingale central limit theorem for the score. The transition matrix of the hidden ancestry chain (equation 2) is the core mechanism: it defines the Linkage Model, has q as its invariant measure at every marker, and is uniformly ergodic under the paper's assumptions, which is what makes the martingale arguments work.

What would settle it

Simulate data under the Admixture Model (r = infinity) with K = 3 populations and many markers satisfying Assumption 3.1, and estimate the distribution of Lambda. If the empirical Type I error does not approach the nominal level alpha as the number of markers grows, Theorem 3 is false. Alternatively, exhibit two different pairs (q, r) with K = 3 that produce identical marginal distributions for the observed alleles, which would refute the identifiability assumption on which the MLE theory rests.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim of the paper is Theorem 3: the test statistic Lambda = -2 log(LR) converges in distribution to a chi-square distribution with one degree of freedom under the null hypothesis that the recombination parameter r is infinite, so the test that rejects when Lambda exceeds the 1-alpha quantile is an asymptotic level-alpha test. This is obtained by first proving that the maximum likelihood estimator in the Linkage Model is consistent (Theorem 1) and asymptotically normal (Theorem 2), and then invoking classical likelihood-ratio asymptotics. The key technical step is a martingale central limit theorem for the score function, using the fact that the hidden Markov chain is uniformly e

Load-bearing premise

The paper assumes, without proof for K > 2, that the parameters (q, r) are identifiable from the marginal distribution of the observations; it also invokes classical likelihood-ratio asymptotics even though the null value r = infinity lies on the boundary of the parameter space, where that asymptotics is not automatically valid.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The test offers a data-driven way to choose between the Admixture Model and the Linkage Model for a given individual or population, with an asymptotically controlled false-rejection rate.
  • The central limit theorem provides the first uncertainty quantification for MLEs of ancestry and recombination rate in the Linkage Model, enabling confidence regions for these quantities.
  • The consistency and uniqueness results extend known asymptotic theory for the Admixture Model to the Linkage Model, covering hidden Markov models with time-inhomogeneous transitions but a constant stationary distribution.
  • Applied to real human genetic data, the test indicates that the Admixture Model is sufficient for a minority of individuals, with substantial variation across continental groups, so a single global model choice is not appropriate.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The boundary issue: because the null value r = infinity lies at the boundary of the parameter space, the chi-square approximation may need modification; this is an editorial concern, not addressed in the paper.
  • The identifiability gap: the proof of identifiability is given only for K = 2; for K > 2 the paper assumes it, so the general-K results rest on an unproven premise.
  • Power limitations: for large recombination rates r or small genetic distances d, the Linkage and Admixture models become nearly indistinguishable, so the test's power is expected to drop; this is consistent with the paper's own simulation results.
  • A practical extension would be to use the test to select marker sets that maximize power to detect linkage, or to adapt it to unsupervised settings where allele frequencies are estimated.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

5 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper defines the Linkage Model as a time-inhomogeneous hidden Markov model with stationary distribution q, and the Admixture Model as its r=∞ limit. It claims consistency (Theorem 1) and asymptotic normality (Theorem 2) of the MLE for (q,r) under Assumption 3.1, and then, invoking Wilks (1938), claims in Theorem 3 that the likelihood-ratio test statistic Λ for H0:r=∞ versus H1:r<∞ converges in distribution to χ²(1) under H0, making the test an asymptotic level-α test. The paper also reports simulations and a real-data application to 1000 Genomes data with K=5 and C=20.

Significance. If the central claims were correct, the paper would fill a real gap in MLE asymptotics for an inhomogeneous HMM whose stationary distribution is constant across time, and would provide the first model-selection test between the Admixture and Linkage Models with a stated asymptotic error rate. The author provides code and attempts numerical evaluation. However, the central theorem depends on an invalid application of Wilks' theorem to a boundary null with singular Fisher information, and on an unproved identifiability assumption for K>2. As it stands, the claimed distributional result and therefore the level-α justification are not established.

major comments (5)
  1. [Section 3, Theorem 3 and Definition 2.4] The null hypothesis r=∞ lies on the boundary of Θ=[r_lb,∞], not in the interior. Moreover, the transition probabilities depend on r only through e^{-d_m r}, whose derivatives with respect to r vanish at r=∞. Hence the Fisher information J(q0,∞) is not positive definite, and Theorem 2 — which explicitly requires interior parameters and J≻0 — cannot be applied under H0. The sentence 'According to Wilks (1938)...' does not verify any of Wilks' conditions. Standard boundary asymptotics (Self and Liang 1987) give a mixture distribution with point mass at 0, not χ²(1). The simulation in Sec. 4.1 (100 replicates per cell; type-1 error 'below 0.05') is consistent with a conservative boundary mixture and does not validate the χ²(1) claim.
  2. [Section 5.1, after Lemma 5.1] For general K>2, identifiability of (q,r) from the marginal distribution is assumed without proof: 'we will, without a proof, just assume that the parameters are identifiable... The proof is basically the same.' This is load-bearing: identifiability is used for uniqueness of the MLE (Theorem 4), consistency (Theorem 1), and the CLT (Theorem 2), and is also needed for the real-data application with K=5. The Kruskal-type rank conditions for K>2 are not stated, and no proof is provided.
  3. [Section 5.1, Lemma 5.1] The algebraic analysis of the K=2 identifiability proof is incorrect in a stated detail. For the displayed matrix B2, det(B2)=q1 p1,2 −(1−q1)p2,2, which vanishes when q1=p2,2/(p1,2+p2,2), not when q1=p1,2/(p1,2+p2,2) as written. Thus the rank condition excludes a different value of q from the one stated, and the proof does not establish full rank for all admissible q. The claim that the second factor in det(M1) has roots outside [0,1] may be true, but the surrounding rank analysis therefore remains incomplete.
  4. [Section 5.3, Proposition 5.10] The proof asserts that the three conditions of the martingale CLT in Hall and Heyde (2014) 'follow directly' from uniform boundedness, but conditional variance convergence and the Lindeberg condition are never verified. More seriously, the object M_n as displayed does not appear to be a martingale: it is a sum Σ N_k plus a terminal conditional-expectation correction, not a sum of martingale differences; E[M_n−M_{n−1} | F_{n−1}] is not shown to vanish. In addition, the score ∇D is vector-valued, while σ_n is treated as scalar. Hence the proof of Theorem 2 is incomplete even for finite r.
  5. [Section 4.2 versus Assumption 3.1] The real-data application violates Assumption 3.1, which fixes C=1 and haploid individuals. The 1000 Genomes analysis uses C=20 and diploid individuals, and the allele frequencies are estimated from the remaining individuals rather than being known. No extension theorem is proved. Consequently the reported real-data results are not covered by Theorems 1–3.
minor comments (6)
  1. [General] 'Fischer information' should be 'Fisher information' throughout (e.g., Theorem 2, Remark 3.3).
  2. [Section 5.1, Lemma 5.5] The definition of h_i is garbled: 'h_i = 1− fi−1 Eπ0(fi)−1' is not readable. Please clarify the formula and the role of f_i.
  3. [Section 4.1] Only 100 simulation replicates are used per cell. At a nominal 5% level, the Monte Carlo standard error is about 2.2 percentage points, so 'type-1 error below 0.05' cannot be distinguished from 0.05 and is not evidence for the χ²(1) approximation.
  4. [Assumption 3.1 / A3] Assumption 3.1 sets C=1, but condition (A3) is written with a product over c=1,...,C. The notation is inconsistent. Also, since each λ_{c,m}<1 under Assumption 3.1, the product automatically tends to 0, so the intended condition and its role in the proofs should be clarified.
  5. [Definition 2.1] The parameter space Θ includes r=∞, making it non-compact as a subset of R^{K+1}. The paper should state explicitly how maxima over this extended parameter space are defined and why they exist.
  6. [Section 2, Definition 2.4] The test statistic maximizes over q∈S^K in the numerator but over Θ in the denominator. Since Θ includes r=∞, the numerator is a restricted version of the denominator; this is fine, but the existence and uniqueness of all maximizers should be stated.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the derivation is a conventional MLE/CLT plus Wilks chain; unverified regularity conditions are correctness risks, not circularity.

full rationale

The paper's claimed derivation is a standard chain: define the Linkage Model; prove asymptotic uniqueness, consistency, and a CLT for the MLE under Assumption 3.1 (Theorems 1-2); then invoke Wilks' theorem to claim the likelihood-ratio statistic is asymptotically chi-square (Theorem 3). The test statistic is the ordinary likelihood ratio, not a quantity fitted to the data and then renamed a prediction, and no parameter is estimated from the simulations or real-data application and then used as the target of inference. The CLT proof relies on external martingale theory (Hall & Heyde 2014), HMM results (van Handel 2008; Douc et al. 2011), and identifiability arguments (Kruskal 1977; Allman et al. 2009), not on the paper's own conclusions. The self-citations to Heinzel (2025) and Heinzel et al. (2025) appear as background for the Admixture Model and are not load-bearing for the Linkage Model CLT or the LR statistic's claimed null distribution. What is missing is not circularity but regularity: Section 5.1 explicitly assumes without proof that parameters are identifiable for general K ('In the latter, we will – without a proof – just assume that the parameters are identifiable from the marginal density of the observations'), and Theorem 3 applies Wilks (1938) to H0: r=∞, which lies on the boundary of Θ=[rlb,∞] and where the Fisher information in r is singular; these are correctness and rigor concerns, not cases where the derivation reduces to its own inputs. Similarly, the real-data application uses diploid individuals with C=20, violating Assumption 3.1, but that is an applicability limitation, not a circular step. Therefore there is no significant circularity in the paper's logical structure.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 9 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new entities. The central claims rest on standard HMM regularity conditions (A1-A5), the unproven assumption of identifiability for K>2, and the unverified applicability of Wilks' theorem to a boundary null. The free-parameter list is empty because the model parameters q and r are the objects of estimation, not ad hoc fitted constants. The real-data analysis implicitly introduces estimation of allele frequencies and distances, but this is not part of the formal model.

assumptions (9)
  • domain assumption Allele frequencies are bounded away from 0 and 1 (Assumption A1).
    Needed for uniform boundedness of likelihood ratios and densities in the proofs.
  • domain assumption Allele frequencies differ between populations at infinitely many markers (A2).
    Used for identifiability of the ancestry proportions q.
  • domain assumption Product of second eigenvalues of the transition matrices tends to zero (A3).
    Ensures forgetting of the initial distribution, a standard HMM stability condition.
  • domain assumption Genetic distances are bounded below and above (A4, A5).
    Needed for the Lipschitz continuity of transition probabilities and uniform ergodicity.
  • domain assumption True parameters lie in the interior of the parameter space.
    Required for the CLT (Theorem 2) and for Wilks' theorem; not automatically satisfied with q on the simplex boundary or r at infinity.
  • domain assumption Fisher information matrix J(q0,r0) is positive definite.
    Explicit condition in Theorem 2; the paper cites Douc (2005) for a related case but does not prove it for the Linkage Model here.
  • ad hoc to paper Parameters (q,r) are identifiable from the marginal distribution for general K > 2.
    Explicitly assumed without proof in Section 5.1: 'we will, without a proof, just assume that the parameters are identifiable...' This is the main load-bearing gap.
  • domain assumption Martingale CLT conditions in Proposition 5.10 hold
    The paper claims the Lindeberg-type conditions 'follow directly' from boundedness, but does not verify them in detail.
  • domain assumption Allele frequencies and genetic distances are known exactly.
    The whole theory assumes these are inputs; in the real-data application they are estimated from samples, introducing unaccounted uncertainty.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Statistical Test for Comparing the Linkage and Admixture Model Based on Central Limit Theorems." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/3KTW5ALZ

@misc{pith2026250912734,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Statistical Test for Comparing the Linkage and Admixture Model Based on Central Limit Theorems},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/3KTW5ALZ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.12734}
}
abstract

In the Admixture Model, the probability that an individual carries a certain allele at a specific marker depends on the allele frequencies in $K$ ancestral populations and the proportion of the individual's genome originating from these populations. The markers are assumed to be independent. The Linkage Model is a Hidden Markov Model (HMM) that extends the Admixture Model by incorporating linkage between neighboring loci. We prove consistency and asymptotic normality of maximum likelihood estimators (MLEs) for the ancestry of individuals in the Linkage Model, complementing earlier results by \citep{pfaff2004information, pfaffelhuber2022central, HEINZEL2025} for the Admixture Model. These results are used to prove that a statistical test that allows for model selection between the Admixture Model and the Linkage Model is an asymptotic level-$\alpha$-test. Finally, we demonstrate the practical relevance of our results by applying the test to real-world data from the 1000 Genomes Project.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.12734 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Overview of results in this section and their requirements. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Evaluation of the statistical test by using simulated data for different [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Genetic Distances of the markers in the AIM set by Kidd et al. (2014) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Results of the statistical test from Definition 2.4 for the data from The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Covariance Matrix for the MLE in the Admixture Model. We con￾sidered individual HG00096. The MLE for q was (1, 0, 0, 0, 0) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

59 extracted references · 1 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Enhancements to the admixture algorithm for individual ancestry estimation

    David H Alexander and Kenneth Lange. Enhancements to the admixture algorithm for individual ancestry estimation. BMC bioinformatics, 12: 0 1--6, 2011

    2011

  2. [2]

    Fast model-based estimation of ancestry in unrelated individuals

    David H Alexander, John Novembre, and Kenneth Lange. Fast model-based estimation of ancestry in unrelated individuals. Genome research, 19 0 (9): 0 1655--1664, 2009

    2009

  3. [3]

    Identifiability of parameters in latent structure models with many observed variables

    Elizabeth S Allman, Catherine Matias, and John A Rhodes. Identifiability of parameters in latent structure models with many observed variables. 2009

    2009

  4. [4]

    Haplotype-resolved whole-genome sequencing by contiguity-preserving transposition and combinatorial indexing

    Sasan Amini, Dmitry Pushkarev, Lena Christiansen, Emrah Kostem, Tom Royce, Casey Turk, Natasha Pignatelli, Andrew Adey, Jacob O Kitzman, Kandaswamy Vijayan, et al. Haplotype-resolved whole-genome sequencing by contiguity-preserving transposition and combinatorial indexing. Nature genetics, 46 0 (12): 0 1343--1349, 2014

    2014

  5. [5]

    Model selection and multi-model inference

    David Anderson and Kenneth Burnham. Model selection and multi-model inference. Second. NY: Springer-Verlag, 63 0 (2020): 0 10, 2004

    2020

  6. [6]

    Statistical inference for probabilistic functions of finite state markov chains

    Leonard E Baum and Ted Petrie. Statistical inference for probabilistic functions of finite state markov chains. The annals of mathematical statistics, 37 0 (6): 0 1554--1563, 1966

    1966

  7. [7]

    Asymptotic normality of the maximum-likelihood estimator for general hidden markov models

    Peter J Bickel, Ya’acov Ritov, and Tobias Ryden. Asymptotic normality of the maximum-likelihood estimator for general hidden markov models. The Annals of Statistics, 26 0 (4): 0 1614--1635, 1998

    1998

  8. [8]

    On the identifiability problem for functions of finite markov chains

    David Blackwell and Lambert Koopmans. On the identifiability problem for functions of finite markov chains. The Annals of Mathematical Statistics, pages 1011--1015, 1957

    1957

Show all 59 references
  1. [9]

    Asymptotic properties of mle for partially observed fractional diffusion system

    Alexandre Brouste and Marina Kleptsyna. Asymptotic properties of mle for partially observed fractional diffusion system. Statistical Inference for Stochastic Processes, 13: 0 1--13, 2010

    2010

  2. [10]

    Capp \'e , E

    O. Capp \'e , E. Moulines, and T. Ryd \'e n. Inference in Hidden Markov Models. Springer Series in Statistics. Springer, 2005. ISBN 9780387402642. URL https://books.google.de/books?id=-3_A3_l1yssC

    2005

  3. [11]

    Comparison of phasing strategies for whole human genomes

    Yongwook Choi, Agnes P Chan, Ewen Kirkness, Amalio Telenti, and Nicholas J Schork. Comparison of phasing strategies for whole human genomes. PLoS genetics, 14 0 (4): 0 e1007308, 2018

    2018

  4. [12]

    A linear complexity phasing method for thousands of genomes

    Olivier Delaneau, Jonathan Marchini, and Jean-Fran c ois Zagury. A linear complexity phasing method for thousands of genomes. Nature methods, 9 0 (2): 0 179--181, 2012

    2012

  5. [13]

    Local limit theorems for inhomogeneous Markov chains, volume 2331

    Dmitry Dolgopyat and Omri M Sarig. Local limit theorems for inhomogeneous Markov chains, volume 2331. Springer Nature, 2023

    2023

  6. [14]

    Non singularity of the asymptotic fisher information matrix in hidden markov models

    Randal Douc. Non singularity of the asymptotic fisher information matrix in hidden markov models. arXiv preprint math/0511631, 2005

    2005 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Asymptotic properties of the maximum likelihood estimator in autoregressive models with markov regime

    Randal Douc, Eric Moulines, and Tobias Ryd \'e n. Asymptotic properties of the maximum likelihood estimator in autoregressive models with markov regime. 2004

    2004

  8. [16]

    Consistency of the maximum likelihood estimator for general hidden markov models

    Randal Douc, Eric Moulines, Jimmy Olsson, and Ramon Van Handel. Consistency of the maximum likelihood estimator for general hidden markov models. 2011

    2011

  9. [17]

    Fosmid-based whole genome haplotyping of a hapmap trio child: evaluation of single individual haplotyping techniques

    Jorge Duitama, Gayle K McEwen, Thomas Huebsch, Stefanie Palczewski, Sabrina Schulz, Kevin Verstrepen, Eun-Kyung Suk, and Margret R Hoehe. Fosmid-based whole genome haplotyping of a hapmap trio child: evaluation of single individual haplotyping techniques. Nucleic acids researc...

  10. [18]

    Hidden markov processes

    Yariv Ephraim and Neri Merhav. Hidden markov processes. IEEE Transactions on information theory, 48 0 (6): 0 1518--1569, 2002

    2002

  11. [19]

    Detecting the number of clusters of individuals using the software structure: a simulation study

    Guillaume Evanno, Sebastien Regnaut, and J \'e r \^o me Goudet. Detecting the number of clusters of individuals using the software structure: a simulation study. Molecular ecology, 14 0 (8): 0 2611--2620, 2005

    2005

  12. [20]

    Inference of population structure using multilocus genotype data: linked loci and correlated allele frequencies

    Daniel Falush, Matthew Stephens, and Jonathan K Pritchard. Inference of population structure using multilocus genotype data: linked loci and correlated allele frequencies. Genetics, 164 0 (4): 0 1567--1587, 2003

    2003

  13. [21]

    Consistent estimation of the order for Markov and hidden Markov chains

    Lorenzo Finesso. Consistent estimation of the order for Markov and hidden Markov chains. University of Maryland, College Park, 1990

    1990

  14. [22]

    Evaluation of model fit of inferred admixture proportions

    Gen \' s Garcia-Erill and Anders Albrechtsen. Evaluation of model fit of inferred admixture proportions. Molecular ecology resources, 20 0 (4): 0 936--949, 2020

    2020

  15. [23]

    Leroux's method for general hidden markov models

    Valentine Genon-Catalot and Catherine Laredo. Leroux's method for general hidden markov models. Stochastic processes and their applications, 116 0 (2): 0 222--243, 2006

    2006

  16. [24]

    On the identifiability problem for functions of finite Markov chains

    Edgar J Gilbert. On the identifiability problem for functions of finite Markov chains. Sandia Corporation, 1959

    1959

  17. [25]

    Martingale limit theory and its application

    Peter Hall and Christopher C Heyde. Martingale limit theory and its application. Academic press, 2014

    2014

  18. [26]

    Consistency and central limit results for the maximum likelihood estimator in the admixture model

    Carola Sophia Heinzel. Consistency and central limit results for the maximum likelihood estimator in the admixture model. arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.19564, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Revealing the range of equally likely estimates in the admixture model

    Carola Sophia Heinzel, Franz Baumdicker, and Peter Pfaffelhuber. Revealing the range of equally likely estimates in the admixture model. G3 Genes|Genomes|Genetics, page jkaf142, 06 2025. ISSN 2160-1836. doi:10.1093/g3journal/jkaf142. URL https://doi.org/10.1093/g3journal/jkaf142

    2025 doi

  20. [28]

    Linkage disequilibrium in finite populations

    WG Hill and Alan Robertson. Linkage disequilibrium in finite populations. Theoretical and applied genetics, 38: 0 226--231, 1968

    1968

  21. [29]

    Asymptotic properties of maximum likelihood estimators for the independent not identically distributed case

    Bruce Hoadley. Asymptotic properties of maximum likelihood estimators for the independent not identically distributed case. The Annals of mathematical statistics, pages 1977--1991, 1971

    1977

  22. [30]

    Asymptotic normality of the maximum likelihood estimator in state space models

    Jens Ledet Jensen and Niels V ver Petersen. Asymptotic normality of the maximum likelihood estimator in state space models. The Annals of Statistics, 27 0 (2): 0 514--535, 1999

    1999

  23. [31]

    Detecting population structure using structure software: effect of background linkage disequilibrium

    R Kaeuffer, D R \'e ale, DW Coltman, and D Pontier. Detecting population structure using structure software: effect of background linkage disequilibrium. Heredity, 99 0 (4): 0 374--380, 2007

    2007

  24. [32]

    Progress toward an efficient panel of snps for ancestry inference

    Kenneth K Kidd, William C Speed, Andrew J Pakstis, Manohar R Furtado, Rixun Fang, Abeer Madbouly, Martin Maiers, Mridu Middha, Fran c oise R Friedlaender, and Judith R Kidd. Progress toward an efficient panel of snps for ancestry inference. Forensic Science International: Gene...

    2014

  25. [33]

    Ancestry informative marker sets for determining continental origin and admixture proportions in common populations in america

    Roman Kosoy, Rami Nassir, Chao Tian, Phoebe A White, Lesley M Butler, Gabriel Silva, Rick Kittles, Marta E Alarcon-Riquelme, Peter K Gregersen, John W Belmont, et al. Ancestry informative marker sets for determining continental origin and admixture proportions in common popula...

    2009

  26. [34]

    Three-way arrays: rank and uniqueness of trilinear decompositions, with application to arithmetic complexity and statistics

    Joseph B Kruskal. Three-way arrays: rank and uniqueness of trilinear decompositions, with application to arithmetic complexity and statistics. Linear algebra and its applications, 18 0 (2): 0 95--138, 1977

    1977

  27. [35]

    Basic properties of the projective product with application to products of column-allowable nonnegative matrices

    Franc c ois Le Gland and Laurent Mevel. Basic properties of the projective product with application to products of column-allowable nonnegative matrices. Mathematics of Control, Signals and Systems, 13: 0 41--62, 2000 a

    2000

  28. [36]

    Exponential forgetting and geometric ergodicity in hidden markov models

    Franc c ois Le Gland and Laurent Mevel. Exponential forgetting and geometric ergodicity in hidden markov models. Mathematics of Control, Signals and Systems, 13: 0 63--93, 2000 b

    2000

  29. [37]

    Maximum-likelihood estimation for hidden markov models

    Brian G Leroux. Maximum-likelihood estimation for hidden markov models. Stochastic processes and their applications, 40 0 (1): 0 127--143, 1992

    1992

  30. [38]

    Reference-based phasing using the haplotype reference consortium panel

    Po-Ru Loh, Petr Danecek, Pier Francesco Palamara, Christian Fuchsberger, Yakir A Reshef, Hilary K Finucane, Sebastian Schoenherr, Lukas Forer, Shane McCarthy, Goncalo R Abecasis, et al. Reference-based phasing using the haplotype reference consortium panel. Nature genetics, 48...

    2016

  31. [39]

    Estimating the order of a hidden markov model

    Rachel J MacKAY. Estimating the order of a hidden markov model. Canadian Journal of Statistics, 30 0 (4): 0 573--589, 2002

    2002

  32. [40]

    Probabilistic functions of finite state markov chains

    Ted Petrie. Probabilistic functions of finite state markov chains. The Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 40 0 (1): 0 97--115, 1969

    1969

  33. [41]

    Information on ancestry from genetic markers

    Carrie Lynn Pfaff, Jill Barnholtz-Sloan, Jennifer K Wagner, and Jeffrey C Long. Information on ancestry from genetic markers. Genetic Epidemiology: The Official Publication of the International Genetic Epidemiology Society, 26 0 (4): 0 305--315, 2004

    2004

  34. [42]

    A central limit theorem concerning uncertainty in estimates of individual admixture

    Peter Pfaffelhuber and Angelika Rohde. A central limit theorem concerning uncertainty in estimates of individual admixture. Theoretical Population Biology, 148: 0 28--39, 2022

    2022

  35. [43]

    How to choose sets of ancestry informative markers: A supervised feature selection approach

    Peter Pfaffelhuber, Franziska Grundner-Culemann, Veronika Lipphardt, and Franz Baumdicker. How to choose sets of ancestry informative markers: A supervised feature selection approach. Forensic Science International: Genetics, 46: 0 102259, 2020

    2020

  36. [44]

    Maplex-a massively parallel sequencing ancestry analysis multiplex for asia-pacific populations

    C Phillips, D McNevin, KK Kidd, R Lagac \'e , S Wootton, M De La Puente, A Freire-Aradas, A Mosquera-Miguel, M Eduardoff, T Gross, et al. Maplex-a massively parallel sequencing ancestry analysis multiplex for asia-pacific populations. Forensic Science International: Genetics, ...

    2019

  37. [45]

    Building a forensic ancestry panel from the ground up: The euroforgen global aim-snp set

    Christopher Phillips, W Parson, B Lundsberg, C Santos, A Freire-Aradas, M Torres, M Eduardoff, C B rsting, P Johansen, M Fondevila, et al. Building a forensic ancestry panel from the ground up: The euroforgen global aim-snp set. Forensic Science International: Genetics, 11: 0 ...

    2014

  38. [46]

    Inference of population structure using multilocus genotype data

    Jonathan K Pritchard, Matthew Stephens, and Peter Donnelly. Inference of population structure using multilocus genotype data. Genetics, 155 0 (2): 0 945--959, 2000

    2000

  39. [47]

    faststructure: variational inference of population structure in large snp data sets

    Anil Raj, Matthew Stephens, and Jonathan K Pritchard. faststructure: variational inference of population structure in large snp data sets. Genetics, 197 0 (2): 0 573--589, 2014

    2014

  40. [48]

    Comparative evaluation of the maplex, precision id ancestry panel, and visage basic tool for biogeographical ancestry inference

    Peter Resutik, Simon Aeschbacher, Michael Kr \"u tzen, Adelgunde Kratzer, Cordula Haas, Christopher Phillips, and Natasha Arora. Comparative evaluation of the maplex, precision id ancestry panel, and visage basic tool for biogeographical ancestry inference. Forensic Science In...

    2023

  41. [49]

    Empirical evaluation of genetic clustering methods using multilocus genotypes from 20 chicken breeds

    Noah A Rosenberg, Terry Burke, Kari Elo, Marcus W Feldman, Paul J Freidlin, Martien AM Groenen, Jossi Hillel, Asko M \"a ki-Tanila, Michele Tixier-Boichard, Alain Vignal, et al. Empirical evaluation of genetic clustering methods using multilocus genotypes from 20 chicken breed...

    2001

  42. [50]

    Convergence of some time inhomogeneous markov chains via spectral techniques

    Laurent Saloff-Coste and Jessica Z \'u niga. Convergence of some time inhomogeneous markov chains via spectral techniques. Stochastic processes and their applications, 117 0 (8): 0 961--979, 2007

    2007

  43. [51]

    Haplotype-resolved genome sequencing: experimental methods and applications

    Matthew W Snyder, Andrew Adey, Jacob O Kitzman, and Jay Shendure. Haplotype-resolved genome sequencing: experimental methods and applications. Nature Reviews Genetics, 16 0 (6): 0 344--358, 2015

    2015

  44. [52]

    A global reference for human genetic variation

    The 1000 Genomes Project Consortium . A global reference for human genetic variation. Nature, 526 0 (7571): 0 68--74, 2015

    2015

  45. [53]

    Hidden markov models

    Ramon van Handel. Hidden markov models. Unpublished lecture notes, 2008

    2008

  46. [54]

    Estimating the number of subpopulations (k) in structured populations

    Robert Verity and Richard A Nichols. Estimating the number of subpopulations (k) in structured populations. Genetics, 203 0 (4): 0 1827--1839, 2016

    2016

  47. [55]

    A parsimony estimator of the number of populations from a structure-like analysis

    Jinliang Wang. A parsimony estimator of the number of populations from a structure-like analysis. Molecular Ecology Resources, 19 0 (4): 0 970--981, 2019

    2019

  48. [56]

    The large-sample distribution of the likelihood ratio for testing composite hypotheses

    Samuel S Wilks. The large-sample distribution of the likelihood ratio for testing composite hypotheses. The annals of mathematical statistics, 9 0 (1): 0 60--62, 1938

    1938

  49. [57]

    Development and validation of the visage ampliseq basic tool to predict appearance and ancestry from dna

    Catarina Xavier, Maria de la Puente, Ana Mosquera-Miguel, Ana Freire-Aradas, Vivian Kalamara, Athina Vidaki, Theresa E Gross, Andrew Revoir, Ewelina Po \'s piech, Ewa Kartasi \'n ska, et al. Development and validation of the visage ampliseq basic tool to predict appearance and...

    2020

  50. [58]

    Evaluation of the visage basic tool for appearance and ancestry inference using forenseq chemistry on the miseq fgx system

    Catarina Xavier, Maria de la Puente, Maja Sidstedt, Klara Junker, Angelika Minawi, Martina Unterl \"a nder, Yann Chantrel, Fran c ois-Xavier Laurent, Anna Delest, Carsten Hohoff, et al. Evaluation of the visage basic tool for appearance and ancestry inference using forenseq ch...

    2022

  51. [59]

    Haplotyping germline and cancer genomes with high-throughput linked-read sequencing

    Grace XY Zheng, Billy T Lau, Michael Schnall-Levin, Mirna Jarosz, John M Bell, Christopher M Hindson, Sofia Kyriazopoulou-Panagiotopoulou, Donald A Masquelier, Landon Merrill, Jessica M Terry, et al. Haplotyping germline and cancer genomes with high-throughput linked-read sequ...

    2016

Pith tools

Reviewed August 4, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.