Consistency and Central Limit Results for the Maximum Likelihood Estimator in the Admixture Model

Carola Sophia Heinzel

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Consistency and Central Limit Results for the Maximum Likelihood Estimator in the Admixture Model

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper proves consistency and central limit theorems for maximum-likelihood ancestry and allele-frequency estimates in the Admixture Model, including the boundary case.

desk verdict Plausible and useful admixture CLTs with a load-bearing proof gap in Theorem 2: N2 and N7 are asserted, not proved. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.19564 v1 pith:MLIM3A6G submitted 2025-07-25 stat.AP

Carola Sophia Heinzel This is my paper · ORCID

classification stat.AP MSC 62F1262E20

keywords AdmixtureModelmaximumlikelihoodestimatorconsistencycentrallimittheoremboundaryparameterspaceFisherinformationancestryestimationsemi-supervisedsetting

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

Maximum-likelihood estimates of ancestry and allele frequencies in the Admixture Model are shown to be consistent up to a well-defined equivalence set of equally likely parameters, and then to satisfy central limit theorems in a semi-supervised setting where finitely many ancestries and allele frequencies are estimated while infinitely many are treated as known. On an open parameter space, the scaled estimation errors are asymptotically centered normal with covariance equal to the inverse Fisher information. For a single individual whose true ancestry lies on the boundary of the parameter space, the scaled error converges to the projection of a normal vector onto a cone of feasible directions. The paper applies these results to a large public human-genome data set using a 55-marker ancestry-informative panel, finding that boundary estimates have non-normal but smaller uncertainty than interior estimates. If the theorems are right, practitioners can attach computable asymptotic standard errors to admixture estimates, including the common case where estimated ancestries sit at zero or one.

What carries the argument

The central machinery is the normalized average log-likelihood contrast together with its second-derivative limits, the Fisher information matrix. Consistency is obtained by showing that the average log-likelihood is maximized only at the true success probabilities, which pulls the MLE toward the equivalence set $M(\gamma)$; the central limit theorems then use the inverse Fisher information as the asymptotic covariance. For boundary parameters, the key object is the cone $\Lambda$ of feasible directions at the boundary, and the limiting estimator is the projection of a normal vector onto that cone under the Fisher-information norm. The paper also formulates conditions (*), (**), and (***) requiring infinitely many markers and individuals to provide linearly independent allele-frequency and ancestry directions, together with moment bounds, so that the Fisher information is positive definite.

What would settle it

For K=2 with one individual and true ancestry (0,1), Theorem 3 predicts that $\sqrt{M}(\hat{q}_1-0)$ converges to the positive part of a centered normal variable with variance $\bar{\Gamma}(q_0)^{-1}$, i.e. a half-normal with probability mass 1/2 at zero. Simulate many marker sets satisfying condition (*), compute the empirical distribution of $\sqrt{M}\hat{q}_1$, and check that negative values are rare and the positive tail matches that variance; a systematic negative component or a tail variance different from $\bar{\Gamma}(q_0)^{-1}$ would falsify the boundary CLT.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that, in the semi-supervised setting, the scaled maximum-likelihood errors are asymptotically normal: Theorem 2 states that under Assumption 3.2, the vector $(\sqrt{M}(\hat{Q}_{N_C}-q_0), \sqrt{N}(\hat{P}_{M_C}-p_0))$ converges in distribution to a centered normal law whose covariance matrix is the inverse of the block-diagonal Fisher information matrix. Theorem 3 covers a closed parameter space with one individual: if the true ancestry lies on the boundary, $\sqrt{M}(\hat{Q}-q_0)$ converges to the minimizer over a cone of a quadratic form built from the Fisher information and a centered normal vector, i.e. the projection of that normal vector onto the cone of feasible directions. The paper also proves a consistency theorem in the unsupervised setting, showing that the MLE is attracted to the equivalence set of parameters with essentially the same likelihood. Applied to public genotype data, the theory yields asymptotic densities that are normal for interior ancestry coordinates and non-normal for boundary coordinates, with smaller uncertainty at the boundary.

Load-bearing premise

The results stand or fall on Assumption 3.2: a unique MLE, infinitely many markers and individuals providing linearly independent information, bounded moments, and a positive-definite Fisher information matrix; the proof of the main CLT also needs a stronger consistency property than the paper's own Theorem 1 establishes.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Practitioners can report asymptotic standard errors for admixture MLEs from the inverse Fisher information in the semi-supervised setting, instead of relying only on ad hoc resampling.
When an estimated ancestry coordinate lies near zero or one, the limiting distribution is non-normal, so uncertainty should be quantified with the cone-projection law rather than normal quantiles.
In the unsupervised setting, consistency holds only up to the equivalence set of equally likely parameters, meaning standard normal-based inference there requires known labels or additional identifiability assumptions.
The conditions (*)-(***) give a concrete checklist: enough markers with linearly independent allele-frequency vectors and enough individuals with linearly independent ancestry vectors are needed for asymptotic normality.
For an applied 55-marker ancestry-informative panel on public genotype data, the theory yields asymptotic densities that match the qualitative behavior of standard admixture software for both interior and boundary estimates.

Reading between the lines

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

A practical consequence the paper leaves implicit: for ancestry proportions near zero or one, normal-based confidence intervals will be systematically wrong, and the cone-projection law (for K=2, a half-normal with mass at zero) is the correct limiting reference.
Testable extension: estimate the Fisher information directly from a large reference panel and compare the predicted boundary density with empirical distributions from repeated subsampling of the same individuals.
The linear-independence conditions suggest a marker-panel diagnostic: compute the rank of the finite-sample version of the allele-frequency direction set $V_1$; a rank-deficient panel is predicted to violate the asymptotic normality assumption.
In the fully unsupervised setting, the equivalence-set consistency result implies that reported standard errors must account for label switching and the invertible-matrix family of equally likely parameters, an extension the paper does not spell out.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Here's my take. The paper extends the admixture asymptotics literature in two genuinely new directions: a semi-supervised CLT (Theorem 2) and a boundary CLT (Theorem 3). The boundary result, in particular, is a real extension of Pfaffelhuber and Rohde's interior CLT, and the projection-onto-cone limiting distribution is a nice touch. The consistency theorem for non-unique MLEs as convergence to an equivalence set is also a reasonable adaptation of Hoadley's framework. Credit where it's due: the geometric treatment of label switching and the linear-independence conditions (*) and (**) are thoughtful, and the GitHub code for the boundary distribution is a practical plus.

The soft spots are real, though. Theorem 2's proof relies on Hoadley's Theorem 2, and two conditions are waved through without actual proof. N2 asks for consistency of the semi-supervised MLE to the true (q0,p0). The paper calls this trivial, but nothing in Section 5.2 establishes it. Theorem 1 is about the unsupervised, infinite-dimensional setting and only yields convergence to an equivalence set M(γ); it doesn't give the point-consistency needed for N2. The uniqueness assumed in Assumption 3.2 is finite-sample, and the limiting identifiability is never shown. I strongly suspect (*) and (**) do imply the needed identifiability, but the proof isn't in the manuscript.

N7 is similarly underdeveloped. The paper shows the per-subset Fisher information is positive definite but then admits it cannot conclude positive definiteness of the whole matrix; the limit matrix ¯Γ≻0 is exactly what N7 requires. Saying the finite-matrix sum is positive definite is not the same. Corollary 5.3 is an induction sketch, and Lemma 5.4 is stated without proof. For Theorem 3, the boundary CLT relies on Andrews's theorem; condition A2 is verified by citing a Hoadley theorem, but the moment conditions in the boundary case aren't checked in detail. The data application is a useful illustration, but computing standard errors with ADMIXTURE's estimates plugged in as truth is a conditional statement, not a full uncertainty quantification—worth a sentence of caution.

If the proof gaps can be closed, this is a solid, publishable extension. As it stands, the main theorem needs work. I'd send it to peer review, not desk reject, because the questions are important and the results are likely correct. The author should be asked to prove N2 directly in the semi-supervised setting, give a proper proof of N7, and make the boundary-case condition checks explicit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. This manuscript develops asymptotic theory for maximum likelihood estimation in the genetic admixture model. The main results are: (1) Theorem 1, a consistency result for the unsupervised MLE, stated as convergence to an equivalence set M(γ) rather than to the true parameter; (2) Theorem 2, a joint central limit theorem for the semi-supervised MLE when the true parameter is in the interior of the parameter space; (3) Theorem 3, a boundary CLT for a single individual when the true ancestry lies on the boundary; and (4) an application to 1000 Genomes data in which ADMIXTURE output is used to compute approximate standard errors. The proofs adapt classical results of Hoadley (1971) and Andrews (1999), with added identifiability and uniqueness conditions in Section 5.1.

Significance. If fully correct, the results would provide a useful complement to earlier work by Pfaff et al. (2004) and Pfaffelhuber and Rohde (2022), particularly by addressing boundary cases and the semi-supervised setting. The paper also makes a genuine effort to confront the well-known non-identifiability of the admixture model, and it offers a concrete data application with code. The strengths are the explicit identifiability conditions (*), (**), (***), the boundary CLT, and the attempt to make Hoadley's general theory applicable in a non-i.i.d. setting. However, the proof of the central CLT (Theorem 2) relies on an unproved consistency-to-the-truth condition (N2), and the identifiability lemmas that would support it are either only sketched or stated without proof, so the main theoretical claim is not yet established.

major comments (4)

[Section 5.3.1, proof of Theorem 2] Condition N2 of Hoadley's Theorem 4 (stated as Theorem 4 in the paper) requires that the MLE converge in probability to the true parameter (q0,p0). The paper states that N2 is trivial, but Theorem 1 only establishes convergence to the set M(γ), i.e., the set of parameters whose limiting success probabilities are sufficiently close to the truth. No argument is provided that Assumption 3.2, including conditions (*) and (**), collapses M(γ) to the singleton {(q0,p0)} up to label switching. This is the load-bearing step of the proof of Theorem 2, and as written the invocation of Hoadley's theorem is unjustified. The authors need to either prove identifiability of (q0,p0) in the semi-supervised limit from (*) and (**), or reformulate the CLT so that it explicitly accounts for the equivalence class.
[Section 3, Theorem 1 and definition of M(γ)] The definition of M(γ) in Theorem 1 is written as the set of parameters with lim_{M,N→∞} (1/MN)∑_{m,i} |c_{i,m} − c0_{i,m}| ≥ γ. As written, M(γ) is the set of parameters that are at least γ away from the truth in average success probability, so Theorem 1 would assert consistency to a set of "bad" parameters, which contradicts the surrounding prose and the use of M(γ) in the proof. The proof of condition C4(i) indicates that the intended inequality is likely "≤ γ" (or perhaps the set on which the average distance is small). The statement needs to be corrected, and the dependence on γ in the phrase "M := M(γ) for every γ > 0" needs to be made precise, since the theorem currently quantifies over γ in a way that is not coherent.
[Section 5.1, Corollary 5.3 and Lemma 5.4] The uniqueness results that support Assumption 3.2 are not fully proved. Corollary 5.3 is presented as an induction sketch; the induction step asserts that "maximal two entries of the allele frequencies can be non-zero" and concludes that one value must be one and the other smaller than one, but the proof does not handle the equality constraints among the a_{j,m} that the statement requires, and it does not rigorously exclude all non-permutation matrices S_K. Lemma 5.4, which is used to justify condition (*), is stated without proof. Moreover, these results concern uniqueness for finite M,N; they do not directly establish that the only parameter value with the same limiting likelihood is (q0,p0), which is exactly what is needed for condition N2 in Theorem 2.
[Section 5.3.1, positive definiteness of the Fisher information] The proof of Theorem 2 assumes arΓ(˜q0, ˜p0) ≻ 0, but the subsequent discussion does not prove this assumption. After showing that sums over the subsets S_p^j are positive definite, the text states: "we cannot conclude from this to the positive-definiteness of the whole matrix" and then says that this does not matter for the application because the finite-sample sum is always positive definite under the constraints. This is not a mathematical verification of the theorem's condition; the theorem is stated with arΓ ≻ 0 as an assumption, but the discussion leaves the impression that it is believed to follow, which it does not. The paper should either clearly state this as an assumption (and verify it in the application) or provide a proof that (*) and (**) imply positive definiteness of the limit.

minor comments (5)

[Abstract and Introduction] The word "complimenting" should be "complementing"; also "i.e we adapted" is missing a comma after "i.e.".
[Section 2, Definition 2.1] The notation SK is used for the simplex, while Section 5.1 uses S_K for an invertible matrix; this is confusing and should be disambiguated.
[Section 5.1, after Corollary 5.2] The displayed line "a) u∗−1 / u∗+v∗ = 1 b) 1−u∗ / 1+u∗/v∗ = 0 1+v∗ / u∗+v∗ = 1 d) 1+v∗ / 1+v∗/u∗ = 0" appears garbled; the fractions and parentheses should be typeset correctly.
[Section 4, Application] The application treats ADMIXTURE's point estimates as the true ancestry and allele frequencies when computing the standard errors. This is a practical plug-in approximation, but since the theory requires the true (q0,p0) and Theorem 1 does not establish consistency to the truth, the reported uncertainty is only heuristically justified. The paper should state this limitation explicitly.
[Theorem 2 statement] The condition "let arΓ(˜q0, ˜p0) ≻ 0 for all (˜q1:NC,·, ˜p·,1:MC) ∈ Θo" is unclear: positivity of the Fisher information should be a property of the true parameter value, not of all parameters in the open set. Rewording is needed.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

The CLT derivations are external Hoadley/Andrews applications, but the uniqueness conditions that justify Assumption 3.2 are imported from the authors' own Heinzel et al. (2025), and Theorem 2's proof asserts Hoadley condition N2 trivial without deriving parameter consistency.

uniqueness imported from authors [Section 3 (Assumption 3.2 preamble) and Section 5.1 (proof of Corollary 5.2)]
"Especially, uniqueness of the MLEs is important. Hence, we name constraints that ensure the uniqueness of the MLEs in the unsupervised setting which is based on Heinzel et al. (2025). ... We know from Theorem 1 in Heinzel et al. (2025) a) u∗−1/u∗+v∗=1 ..."

The constraints offered as the paper's route to a unique MLE, and hence to a usable Assumption 3.2, are not derived in this manuscript: the K=2 case in Corollary 5.2 imports the entire equivalence-class characterization from the authors' own prior paper as a black box, and the extension to K≥3 is only an induction sketch. Lemma 5.4 is stated without proof. Thus the identifiability/uniqueness step that supports the CLT's assumptions is imported from a same-author citation rather than from an external, machine-checked, or fully reproduced result. Because the asymptotic normality calculation itself still rests on Hoadley and Andrews, this is partial circularity rather than a forced prediction.

full rationale

The central limit theorems are not circular by construction: Theorem 2 is a verification of Hoadley's Theorem 2, with the asymptotic covariance given by the inverse Fisher information rather than by a fitted quantity, and Theorem 3 is a direct application of Andrews's boundary theory with a cone projection. The Section 4 data application plugs ADMIXTURE estimates into the role of q0; this is standard conditional-uncertainty inference and not a fitted quantity renamed as a prediction. The main circularity-adjacent issue is Section 5.1: the uniqueness conditions that make Assumption 3.2 plausible are 'based on Heinzel et al. (2025)', a paper sharing the present author, and the K=2 proof explicitly uses Theorem 1 of that paper, while Lemma 5.4 is unproved. This self-citation is load-bearing for the applicability of the theorem, though not for the distributional formula itself. Separately, the proof of Theorem 2 calls Hoadley condition N2 trivial even though Theorem 1 only establishes convergence to the equivalence set M(γ), not to (q0,p0); that is a genuine proof gap and correctness risk, but it is not an equation-level circularity, so it is weighed in the verdict without being listed as a circular step.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The theory itself introduces no fitted constants; the central theorems rest on regularity and identifiability assumptions. The application, however, plugs ADMIXTURE's MLE output into the asymptotic covariance, which amounts to fitting q0 and p0 from the same data used for the uncertainty statement. The uniqueness conditions in Section 5.1 lean on the author's previous work and are only partially proved here.

free parameters (1)

ADMIXTURE estimates used as true ancestry and allele frequencies = (0.937166, 0.000010, 0.062824) for individual HG00096 with K=3
Section 4 treats the ADMIXTURE MLE output as the true parameter when evaluating the central limit theorem, so the reported uncertainty is conditioned on the fitted values themselves.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption Assumption 3.2: MLE unique; conditions (*) and (**) require infinitely many disjoint subsets of markers and individuals with linearly independent ancestry and allele-frequency vectors; (***) moment bounds; known values for infinitely many individuals and markers in the semi-supervised setting.
These conditions are specific to the admixture model. They are needed for identifiability and for existence of the Fisher information, and the paper does not derive them from more basic principles.
ad hoc to paper Uniqueness of the MLE in the supervised and semi-supervised settings is guaranteed by the conditions in Section 5.1, namely Corollaries 5.2 and 5.3 and Lemma 5.4.
Corollary 5.3 is proved by a sketchy induction and Lemma 5.4 is stated without proof; the argument leans on the author's earlier paper (Heinzel et al. 2025).
standard math Hoadley's Theorem 2 and Theorem A6, and Andrews's boundary CLT, are applicable; all their regularity conditions (N1-N9 and A1-A5) hold for the admixture model.
The paper invokes these external theorems without fully verifying every condition; a complete proof would need to establish N2 and N7 explicitly.
ad hoc to paper In the data application, ADMIXTURE's point estimates are treated as the true ancestry and allele frequencies.
Section 4 conditions the asymptotic distribution on the estimate itself, which is not the same as conditioning on a known truth.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Consistency and Central Limit Results for the Maximum Likelihood Estimator in the Admixture Model." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/MLIM3A6G

@misc{pith2026250719564,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Consistency and Central Limit Results for the Maximum Likelihood Estimator in the Admixture Model},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/MLIM3A6G}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.19564}
}

abstract

In the Admixture Model, the probability of an individual having a certain number of alleles at a specific marker depends on the allele frequencies in $K$ ancestral populations and the fraction of the individual's genome originating from these ancestral populations. This study investigates consistency and central limit results of maximum likelihood estimators (MLEs) for the ancestry and the allele frequencies in the Admixture Model, complimenting previous work by \cite{pfaff2004information, pfaffelhuber2022central}. Specifically, we prove consistency of the MLE, if we estimate the allele frequencies and the ancestries. Furthermore, we prove central limit theorems, if we estimate the ancestry of a finite number of individuals and the allele frequencies of finitely many markers, also addressing the case where the true ancestry lies on the boundary of the parameter space. Finally, we use the new theory to quantify the uncertainty of the MLEs for the data of \citet{10002015global}.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.19564 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** Asymptotic Distribution of the MLE √ M Qˆ1 − q 0 for individual HG00096 from GBR with M = 55. The output of ADMIXTURE for this individual was (0.937166, 0.000010, 0.062824). The density is normally distributed for λˆ 1, where the MLE was in the interior of the parameter space. The MLE for the second population is on the boundary of the parameter space, which explains the non-normality of the marginal density. 8… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Asymptotic Distribution of the MLE √ M Qˆ1 − q 0 for individual HG00096 from GBR with M = 55. The output of ADMIXTURE for this individual was (0.000010, 0.999990). Figures 1 and 2 demonstrate that reducing the number of ancestral populations from K = 3 to K = 2 does not resolve the issue of the MLE lying on the boundary of the parameter space. Moreover, we see that the variance of the MLE is much smaller than … view at source ↗

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

A Statistical Test for Comparing the Linkage and Admixture Model Based on Central Limit Theorems
math.ST 2025-09 reject novelty 5.0 of 10

The paper claims to prove consistency and asymptotic normality of MLEs in the Linkage Model and to construct an asymptotic level-alpha likelihood-ratio test for Linkage versus Admixture models, but the proofs contain ...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

34 extracted references · 34 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

[1]

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

work page 2009
[2]

Estimation when a parameter is on a boundary

Donald WK Andrews. Estimation when a parameter is on a boundary. Econometrica, 67 0 (6): 0 1341--1383, 1999

work page 1999
[3]

The sunflower genome provides insights into oil metabolism, flowering and asterid evolution

H \'e l \`e ne Badouin, J \'e r \^o me Gouzy, Christopher J Grassa, Florent Murat, S Evan Staton, Ludovic Cottret, Christine Lelandais-Bri \`e re, Gregory L Owens, S \'e bastien Carr \`e re, Baptiste Mayjonade, et al. The sunflower genome provides insights into oil metabolism, flowering and asterid evolution. Nature, 546 0 (7656): 0 148--152, 2017

work page 2017
[4]

Pong: fast analysis and visualization of latent clusters in population genetic data

Aaron A Behr, Katherine Z Liu, Gracie Liu-Fang, Priyanka Nakka, and Sohini Ramachandran. Pong: fast analysis and visualization of latent clusters in population genetic data. Bioinformatics, 32 0 (18): 0 2817--2823, 2016

work page 2016
[5]

A likelihood-free estimator of population structure bridging admixture models and principal components analysis

Irineo Cabreros and John D Storey. A likelihood-free estimator of population structure bridging admixture models and principal components analysis. Genetics, 212 0 (4): 0 1009--1029, 2019

work page 2019
[6]

How to estimate the measurement error variance associated with ancestry proportion estimates

Jasmin Divers, David T Redden, Raymond J Carroll, and David B Allison. How to estimate the measurement error variance associated with ancestry proportion estimates. Statistics and its interface, 4 0 (3): 0 327, 2011

work page 2011
[7]

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

work page 2003
[8]

Refinements of pinsker's inequality

Alexei A Fedotov, Peter Harremo \"e s, and Flemming Topsoe. Refinements of pinsker's inequality. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, 49 0 (6): 0 1491--1498, 2003

work page 2003

Show all 34 references

[9]

A course in large sample theory

Thomas S Ferguson. A course in large sample theory. Routledge, 2017

2017
[10]

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
[11]

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, 2025

2025
[12]

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
[13]

Clumpp: a cluster matching and permutation program for dealing with label switching and multimodality in analysis of population structure

Mattias Jakobsson and Noah A Rosenberg. Clumpp: a cluster matching and permutation program for dealing with label switching and multimodality in analysis of population structure. Bioinformatics, 23 0 (14): 0 1801--1806, 2007

2007
[14]

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
[15]

Clumpak: a program for identifying clustering modes and packaging population structure inferences across k

Naama M Kopelman, Jonathan Mayzel, Mattias Jakobsson, Noah A Rosenberg, and Itay Mayrose. Clumpak: a program for identifying clustering modes and packaging population structure inferences across k. Molecular ecology resources, 15 0 (5): 0 1179--1191, 2015

2015
[16]

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
[17]

A tutorial on how not to over-interpret structure and admixture bar plots

Daniel J Lawson, Lucy Van Dorp, and Daniel Falush. A tutorial on how not to over-interpret structure and admixture bar plots. Nature communications, 9 0 (1): 0 3258, 2018

2018
[18]

Clumppling: cluster matching and permutation program with integer linear programming

Xiran Liu, Naama M Kopelman, and Noah A Rosenberg. Clumppling: cluster matching and permutation program with integer linear programming. Bioinformatics, 40 0 (1): 0 btad751, 2024

2024
[19]

Genomic mechanisms of climate adaptation in polyploid bioenergy switchgrass

John T Lovell, Alice H MacQueen, Sujan Mamidi, Jason Bonnette, Jerry Jenkins, Joseph D Napier, Avinash Sreedasyam, Adam Healey, Adam Session, Shengqiang Shu, et al. Genomic mechanisms of climate adaptation in polyploid bioenergy switchgrass. Nature, 590 0 (7846): 0 438--444, 2021

2021
[20]

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
[21]

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
[22]

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
[23]

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
[24]

Forensic genetic analysis of bio-geographical ancestry

Chris Phillips. Forensic genetic analysis of bio-geographical ancestry. Forensic Science International: Genetics, 18: 0 49--65, 2015

2015
[25]

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
[26]

Case--control studies of association in structured or admixed populations

Jonathan K Pritchard and Peter Donnelly. Case--control studies of association in structured or admixed populations. Theoretical population biology, 60 0 (3): 0 227--237, 2001

2001
[27]

Documentation for structure software: Version 2.3

Jonathan K Pritchard, Xiaoquan Wen, and Daniel Falush. Documentation for structure software: Version 2.3. University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, pages 1--37, 2010

2010
[28]

Note on the consistency of the maximum likelihood estimate for nonidentifiable distributions

Richard Redner. Note on the consistency of the maximum likelihood estimate for nonidentifiable distributions. The Annals of Statistics, pages 225--228, 1981

1981
[29]

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
[30]

Genetic structure of human populations

Noah A Rosenberg, Jonathan K Pritchard, James L Weber, Howard M Cann, Kenneth K Kidd, Lev A Zhivotovsky, and Marcus W Feldman. Genetic structure of human populations. science, 298 0 (5602): 0 2381--2385, 2002

2002
[31]

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
[32]

Patterns of admixture and population structure in native populations of northwest north america

Paul Verdu, Trevor J Pemberton, Romain Laurent, Brian M Kemp, Angelica Gonzalez-Oliver, Clara Gorodezky, Cris E Hughes, Milena R Shattuck, Barbara Petzelt, Joycelynn Mitchell, et al. Patterns of admixture and population structure in native populations of northwest north americ...

2014
[33]

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
[34]

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

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

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

work page 2009

[2] [2]

Estimation when a parameter is on a boundary

Donald WK Andrews. Estimation when a parameter is on a boundary. Econometrica, 67 0 (6): 0 1341--1383, 1999

work page 1999

[3] [3]

The sunflower genome provides insights into oil metabolism, flowering and asterid evolution

H \'e l \`e ne Badouin, J \'e r \^o me Gouzy, Christopher J Grassa, Florent Murat, S Evan Staton, Ludovic Cottret, Christine Lelandais-Bri \`e re, Gregory L Owens, S \'e bastien Carr \`e re, Baptiste Mayjonade, et al. The sunflower genome provides insights into oil metabolism, flowering and asterid evolution. Nature, 546 0 (7656): 0 148--152, 2017

work page 2017

[4] [4]

Pong: fast analysis and visualization of latent clusters in population genetic data

Aaron A Behr, Katherine Z Liu, Gracie Liu-Fang, Priyanka Nakka, and Sohini Ramachandran. Pong: fast analysis and visualization of latent clusters in population genetic data. Bioinformatics, 32 0 (18): 0 2817--2823, 2016

work page 2016

[5] [5]

A likelihood-free estimator of population structure bridging admixture models and principal components analysis

Irineo Cabreros and John D Storey. A likelihood-free estimator of population structure bridging admixture models and principal components analysis. Genetics, 212 0 (4): 0 1009--1029, 2019

work page 2019

[6] [6]

How to estimate the measurement error variance associated with ancestry proportion estimates

Jasmin Divers, David T Redden, Raymond J Carroll, and David B Allison. How to estimate the measurement error variance associated with ancestry proportion estimates. Statistics and its interface, 4 0 (3): 0 327, 2011

work page 2011

[7] [7]

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

work page 2003

[8] [8]

Refinements of pinsker's inequality

Alexei A Fedotov, Peter Harremo \"e s, and Flemming Topsoe. Refinements of pinsker's inequality. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, 49 0 (6): 0 1491--1498, 2003

work page 2003