Accuracy, efficiency and robustness of four algorithms allowing full sibship reconstruction from DNA marker data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the problem of reconstructing full sib pedigrees from DNA marker data, three existing algorithms and one new algorithm are compared in terms of accuracy, efficiency and robustness using real and simulated data sets. An algorithm based on the exclusion principle and another based on a maximization of the Simpson index were very accurate at reconstructing data sets comprising a few large families but had problems with data sets with limited family structure, while a Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) algorithm based on the maximization of a partition score had the opposite behaviour. An MCMC algorithm based on maximizing the full joint likelihood performed best in small data sets comprising several medium-sized families but did not work well under most other conditions. It appears that the likelihood surface may be rough and presents challenges for the MCMC algorithm to find the global maximum. This likelihood algorithm also exhibited problems in reconstructing large family groups, due possibly to limits in computational precision. The accuracy of each algorithm improved with an increasing amount of information in the data set, and was very high with eight loci with eight alleles each. All four algorithms were quite robust to deviation from an idealized uniform allelic distribution, to departures from idealized Mendelian inheritance in simulated data sets and to the presence of null alleles. In contrast, none of the algorithms were very robust to the probable presence of error/mutation in the data. Depending upon the type of mutation or errors and the algorithm used, between 70 and 98% of the affected individuals were classified improperly on average.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.019 | 0.067 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".