Mega QAPDM Models thread

[Opie]

Now that IllustrativeDNA introduced QAPDM service, I thought starting a thread where everyone shares QAPDM models would be resourceful.

As a start, I am sharing this model:

Sources

Turkey_Marmara_Barcin_N.AG (Anatolian Neolithic Farmer)

Russia_Sidelkino_HG.SG (Eastern European Hunter-Gatherer)

Luxembourg_Mesolithic.AG (Western European Hunter-Gatherer)

Georgia_Kotias_Mesolithic.SG (Caucasus Hunter-Gatherer)

Iran_GanjDareh_N.AG (Neolithic Iranian Farmer)

References

Mbuti.DG

Russia_AfontovaGora3_UP.AG

Italy_Epigravettian.SG

Russia_Kostenki14_UP.SG

Turkey_Central_Pinarbasi_Epipaleolithic.AG

Turkey_Central_Boncuklu_PPN.AG

Russia_Tyumen_HG.AG

Israel_Natufian.AG

Morocco_Iberomaurusian.AG

Georgia_Satsurblia_LateUP.SG

Iran_Wezmeh_N.SG

India_GreatAndaman_100BP.SG

[AndreiDNA]

Remove kostenki and Andaman from your rights. They're irrelevant to the model and will lead to worse pval

[majevica]

https://i.postimg.cc/JhTKrp1D/Screenshot-447.png (https://postimages.org/)

Works I would say

[Gannicus]

141692

Z-score would be 1.6ish and I looked up where there have been published studies where z-scores like that are acceptable. P-value is well above 0.05

[djipon]

I seem to get red p-value and feasibility

https://i.postimg.cc/Gt6XjbGw/image.png

[Gannicus]

Now that IllustrativeDNA introduced QAPDM service, I thought starting a thread where everyone shares QAPDM models would be resourceful.

As a start, I am sharing this model:

Sources

Turkey_Marmara_Barcin_N.AG (Anatolian Neolithic Farmer)

Russia_Sidelkino_HG.SG (Eastern European Hunter-Gatherer)

Luxembourg_Mesolithic.AG (Western European Hunter-Gatherer)

Georgia_Kotias_Mesolithic.SG (Caucasus Hunter-Gatherer)

Iran_GanjDareh_N.AG (Neolithic Iranian Farmer)

References

Mbuti.DG

Russia_AfontovaGora3_UP.AG

Italy_Epigravettian.SG

Russia_Kostenki14_UP.SG

Turkey_Central_Pinarbasi_Epipaleolithic.AG

Turkey_Central_Boncuklu_PPN.AG

Russia_Tyumen_HG.AG

Israel_Natufian.AG

Morocco_Iberomaurusian.AG

Georgia_Satsurblia_LateUP.SG

Iran_Wezmeh_N.SG

India_GreatAndaman_100BP.SG

I did this with your sources and references except India_GreatAndaman_100BP.SG and
Russia_Kostenki14_UP.SG


141698

[Gannicus]

Testing the near east spice I see in G25 and Eurogenes. I have had AndreiDNA run this 2-way combination. I’m testing it myself with I believe a slightly different set of right populations. I also still cannot use my merged file, so I’m using my DNA file from MyHeritage.com. One is allowed two free kit uploads. It’s visible in the list, however, I cannot select it. I used the Human Origins Dataset for this. 141699141700

[Feiichy]

I've been trying some medieval models but they keep getting rejected. Any tips how to improve?

[majevica]

I've been trying some medieval models but they keep getting rejected. Any tips how to improve?

Try Sunghir + Shtike

[Gannicus]

Another model run with EGY_TIP_JK2134:

Sweden_IA_2 VK522:

141727

Raw Output:

pat wt dof chisq p f4rank Sweden_IA_2.SG_VK522.SG Egypt_ThirdIntermediatePeriod.AG_JK2134.AG feasible best dofdiff chisqdiff p_nested
00 0 13 17.260705192920177 0.18765859345185965 1 0.8362559026573537 0.16374409734264636 TRUE NA NA NA NA
01 1 14 29.014137137307152 0.010404434189942862 0 1 NA TRUE TRUE 0 -43.42078257238162 1
10 1 14 72.43491970968877 6.968636070378395e-10 0 NA 1 TRUE TRUE NA NA NA


Denmark_IA VK532:

141731

pat wt dof chisq p f4rank Denmark_IA.SG_VK532.SG Egypt_ThirdIntermediatePeriod.AG_JK2134.AG feasible best dofdiff chisqdiff p_nested
00 0 13 11.39641196621108 0.5776461449763756 1 0.8878444657143866 0.11215553428561346 TRUE NA NA NA NA
01 1 14 15.971954105271262 0.31509001573731876 0 1 NA TRUE TRUE 0 -56.16501842952157 1
10 1 14 72.13697253479283 7.896541490264353e-10 0 NA 1 TRUE TRUE NA NA NA


Scotland_MIA I2982:

141732

pat wt dof chisq p f4rank Scotland_MIA.AG_I2982.AG Egypt_ThirdIntermediatePeriod.AG_JK2134.AG feasible best dofdiff chisqdiff p_nested
00 0 13 21.56134889984603 0.062542307243352 1 0.8882680436329078 0.11173195636709223 TRUE NA NA NA NA
01 1 14 25.82020873179249 0.027282545571266602 0 1 NA TRUE TRUE 0 -48.52234493063585 1
10 1 14 74.34255366242834 3.1231520993584695e-10 0 NA 1 TRUE TRUE NA NA NA



I had AndreiDNA model me with Old Kingdom Egyptian (NUE001) + Denmark IA and from there I copied the reference populations he used in that model run:

141725

I had to substitute Russia_Karelia_HG to Russia_Samara_HG. For some reason I couldn't find it in IllustrativeDNA.
Also, I'm not sure If he did this, but I pooled together a number of reference populations into one. For example, I combined Taforalt 9-13 into the Iberomaurusian reference:

141728

Full reference list:

141729
141730

[majevica]

I had to substitute Russia_Karelia_HG to Russia_Samara_HG. For some reason I couldn't find it in IllustrativeDNA.

Karelia is Russia_YuzhniyOleniyOstrov_Mesolithic, the one I used in my model since Samara and Sidelkino already have CHG/Iran_N admix

[Gannicus]

Karelia is Russia_YuzhniyOleniyOstrov_Mesolithic, the one I used in my model since Samara and Sidelkino already have CHG/Iran_N admix

Added that into the reference list and removed Samara. The adjustment tightened up the standard errors and chi-squared a bit on the first 2-way:

141733

pat wt dof chisq p f4rank Sweden_IA_2.SG_VK522.SG Egypt_ThirdIntermediatePeriod.AG_JK2134.AG feasible best dofdiff chisqdiff p_nested
00 0 13 16.755364121649443 0.21073012036400646 1 0.8319910986340255 0.1680089013659744 TRUE NA NA NA NA
01 1 14 30.340556470389895 0.006848638940157966 0 1 NA TRUE TRUE 0 -49.18801990975905 1
10 1 14 79.52857638014895 3.46030652820137e-11 0 NA 1 TRUE TRUE NA NA NA

[Gannicus]

Double post.

[drb234]

https://i.postimg.cc/pTXwhxX7/fafafaff.webp

[Gannicus]

This is one of my best runs yet with the same rights as the previous. I used Ireland EBA Rathlin 2, a sample that I match on MyTrueAncestry:141739


Those that like to be too particular like to criticize results that produce Z-Scores less than 3. Here in this result the Z-score for Egypt TIP would be 3.25. I've already mentioned though that Z-Scores less than 3 make it into peer-reviewed published genetics papers.

141738

pat wt dof chisq p f4rank Ireland_EBA.SG_rath2.SG Egypt_ThirdIntermediatePeriod.AG_JK2134.AG feasible best dofdiff chisqdiff p_nested
00 0 13 18.751626933192213 0.1310081143344856 1 0.7944860039558197 0.20551399604418025 TRUE NA NA NA NA
01 1 14 34.52252862395704 0.001728893048752092 0 1 NA TRUE TRUE 0 -43.68810958949282 1
10 1 14 78.21063821344985 6.067038308893523e-11 0 NA 1 TRUE TRUE NA NA NA

[Gannicus]

Trying to isolate Natufian:

141743

Chi-squared = 17.91
Degrees of freedom = 9

p-value = 0.0363



pat wt dof chisq p f4rank Russia_Samara_EBA_Yamnaya.AG_I0231.AG Turkey_Central_Pinarbasi_Epipaleolithic.AG_ZBC_IPB 001.B-C0101_Luk2-Pinarbasi.AG Israel_Natufian.AG Luxembourg_Mesolithic.DG_Loschbour.DG feasible best dofdiff chisqdiff p_nested
0000 0 9 17.907109322604683 0.03626665845967619 3 0.4791685725273366 0.3266312318943904 0.08478275718187421 0.10941743839639882 TRUE NA NA NA NA
0001 1 10 59.05707348625523 5.463172094567697e-9 2 0.5803429292627148 0.3827221868253448 0.03693488391194047 NA TRUE TRUE 0 30.604401993030546 0
0010 1 10 28.45267149322468 0.0015271326634493005 2 0.5147056167631247 0.38014783771804256 NA 0.10514654551883273 TRUE TRUE 0 -91.15029459533007 1
0100 1 10 119.60296608855475 6.091319306297955e-21 2 0.5504406348257856 NA 0.32676212869675986 0.12279723647745458 TRUE TRUE 0 -188.55068871897544 1
1000 1 10 308.1536548075302 2.9333895170265636e-60 2 NA 0.7963751322345017 -0.019424186124213403 0.22304905388971172 FALSE TRUE NA NA NA
0011 2 11 67.10922592767723 4.313562300130967e-10 1 0.5965554447330063 0.4034445552669938 NA NA TRUE NA NA NA NA
0101 2 11 197.44040773961413 2.5256739456125005e-36 1 0.6777461704018504 NA 0.32225382959814963 NA TRUE NA NA NA NA
0110 2 11 253.34435098119383 5.568806304414893e-48 1 0.9237112307300359 NA NA 0.07628876926996417 TRUE NA NA NA NA
1001 2 11 349.41902395534134 3.2170424679394866e-68 1 NA 3.3860029662268123 -2.3860029662268123 NA FALSE NA NA NA NA
1010 2 11 330.8205549892451 2.753010405050842e-64 1 NA 0.7897004380171972 NA 0.21029956198280272 TRUE NA NA NA NA
1100 2 11 394.30124856187723 9.914763102157746e-78 1 NA NA 0.7387038103550781 0.26129618964492185 TRUE NA NA NA NA
0111 3 12 285.7497316796714 4.5834266966857024e-54 0 1 NA NA NA TRUE NA NA NA NA
1011 3 12 452.4788427898409 2.810539351885685e-89 0 NA 1 NA NA TRUE NA NA NA NA
1101 3 12 524.2693494803447 1.5070567436541544e-104 0 NA NA 1 NA TRUE NA NA NA NA
1110 3 12 1286.8672327226395 3.3655118335110553e-268 0 NA NA NA 1 TRUE NA NA NA NA


References:

141744
141745

It's getting somewhat close to passing.


Any suggestions on what to change?

[AndreiDNA]

Karelia is Russia_YuzhniyOleniyOstrov_Mesolithic, the one I used in my model since Samara and Sidelkino already have CHG/Iran_N admix

Karelia also has CHG admix. They even have 4 people with J1 from mesolithic karelia.
141747

[Gannicus]

So far I've only been able to infer Natufian admix by using populations that have it "baked" in already:

141748

pat wt dof chisq p f4rank Latvia_LN_CordedWare.AG Israel_PPNB.AG_I0867.AG Luxembourg_Mesolithic.DG_Loschbour.DG feasible best dofdiff chisqdiff p_nested
000 0 11 14.201740559702879 0.22203070363619803 2 0.5093364971235644 0.3120461889516757 0.17861731392476 TRUE NA NA NA NA
001 1 12 55.526177292551345 1.4562896862833555e-7 1 0.684297592393732 0.315702407606268 NA TRUE TRUE 0 -11.215171823926532 1
010 1 12 66.74134911647788 1.2970190791969662e-9 1 0.8278127622817596 NA 0.1721872377182404 TRUE TRUE 0 -195.33431875347333 1
100 1 12 262.0756678699512 4.1262485394475325e-49 1 NA 0.7093245146422447 0.29067548535775534 TRUE TRUE NA NA NA
011 2 13 88.95895111964444 2.2095624661751116e-13 0 1 NA NA TRUE NA NA NA NA
101 2 13 441.57560449532315 3.602664999464381e-86 0 NA 1 NA TRUE NA NA NA NA
110 2 13 1092.793181336491 2.0157458922755243e-225 0 NA NA 1 TRUE NA NA NA NA

Rights:

141749
141750

[Gannicus]

https://i.postimg.cc/pTXwhxX7/fafafaff.webp

Here's what I get:

141751

pat wt dof chisq p f4rank Scotland_IA.AG_I16504.AG Denmark_IA.SG France_Metz_GalloRoman.SG feasible best dofdiff chisqdiff p_nested
000 0 11 7.219826361226613 0.781012303144483 2 -2.3261454614434283 2.785332857996349 0.5408126034470794 FALSE NA NA NA NA
001 1 12 7.88697960512831 0.7938990014869362 1 -3.5984938615857565 4.598493861585757 NA FALSE TRUE 0 -12.150180270926757 1
010 1 12 20.037159876055068 0.06638628004148951 1 1.9493325459839783 NA -0.9493325459839783 FALSE TRUE 0 -2.3379103343145786 1
100 1 12 22.375070210369646 0.033524961639489155 1 NA 0.6639322060997479 0.33606779390025215 TRUE TRUE NA NA NA
011 2 13 23.834834534897645 0.03268374617987084 0 1 NA NA TRUE NA NA NA NA
101 2 13 29.125875695879426 0.006282002727272953 0 NA 1 NA TRUE NA NA NA NA
110 2 13 39.393485483175716 1.729800161953792e-4 0 NA NA 1 TRUE NA NA NA NA


Rights:

141752
141753

[drb234]

Here's what I get:

141751

pat wt dof chisq p f4rank Scotland_IA.AG_I16504.AG Denmark_IA.SG France_Metz_GalloRoman.SG feasible best dofdiff chisqdiff p_nested
000 0 11 7.219826361226613 0.781012303144483 2 -2.3261454614434283 2.785332857996349 0.5408126034470794 FALSE NA NA NA NA
001 1 12 7.88697960512831 0.7938990014869362 1 -3.5984938615857565 4.598493861585757 NA FALSE TRUE 0 -12.150180270926757 1
010 1 12 20.037159876055068 0.06638628004148951 1 1.9493325459839783 NA -0.9493325459839783 FALSE TRUE 0 -2.3379103343145786 1
100 1 12 22.375070210369646 0.033524961639489155 1 NA 0.6639322060997479 0.33606779390025215 TRUE TRUE NA NA NA
011 2 13 23.834834534897645 0.03268374617987084 0 1 NA NA TRUE NA NA NA NA
101 2 13 29.125875695879426 0.006282002727272953 0 NA 1 NA TRUE NA NA NA NA
110 2 13 39.393485483175716 1.729800161953792e-4 0 NA NA 1 TRUE NA NA NA NA


Rights:

141752
141753

I used different rights that included bronze age samples from Britain, Scandinavia and Central Europe

[Gannicus]

I haven't had much luck with medieval samples yet.

This is another good model:

Ireland EBA Rathlin2 + Minoan

141754

pat wt dof chisq p f4rank Ireland_EBA.SG_rath2.SG Greece_Crete_HgCharalambos_EMBA.AG feasible best dofdiff chisqdiff p_nested
00 0 12 12.973786183094607 0.37094889791715024 1 0.7998928166849076 0.20010718331509242 TRUE NA NA NA NA
01 1 13 28.921362767488024 0.006716122080505627 0 1 NA TRUE TRUE 0 -398.4088686573338 1
10 1 13 427.3302314248218 3.732551633024282e-83 0 NA 1 TRUE TRUE NA NA NA

Same rights as previous post

[Gannicus]

This run has a really good p-value:


141775




Chi-squared = 4.87

pat wt dof chisq p f4rank Russia_Samara_EBA_Yamnaya.AG Turkey_Central_Catalhoyuk_N.SG Luxembourg_Mesolithic.DG_Loschbour.DG feasible best dofdiff chisqdiff p_nested
000 0 11 4.866129917986197 0.9374759112717503 2 0.44427443972017017 0.4109106704024678 0.14481488987736207 TRUE NA NA NA NA
001 1 12 22.56617198543811 0.03164309064139399 1 0.4636335952541724 0.5363664047458276 NA TRUE TRUE 0 -128.67045269679804 1
010 1 12 151.23662468223614 3.181448605685366e-26 1 0.8518076009691895 NA 0.14819239903081052 TRUE TRUE 0 128.04024231211946 0
100 1 12 23.196382370116694 0.026104235871953096 1 NA 0.7937460664741767 0.20625393352582339 TRUE TRUE NA NA NA
011 2 13 258.8652171497984 9.201495381431885e-48 0 1 NA NA TRUE NA NA NA NA
101 2 13 35.00377467190446 8.455469917767836e-4 0 NA 1 NA TRUE NA NA NA NA
110 2 13 1062.7549585939366 5.763691654010331e-219 0 NA NA 1 TRUE NA NA NA NA

[Gannicus]

To quote DJ Khaled, another one :P

141777

[majevica]

Karelia also has CHG admix. They even have 4 people with J1 from mesolithic karelia.
141747

I see, now my low AG3 in this model makes sense

https://i.postimg.cc/nhKvQxjN/temp-Image-Iak7gj.avif (https://postimg.cc/gxJwffKK)

[AndreiDNA]

141785
Just gonna drop this here

[Gannicus]

141785
Just gonna drop this here

Would that 10% Gorilla be a proxy for the unknown archaic lineage that is found in SSA populations?

[Gannicus]

141789

Modeled myself with Morocco_MN skh001 which is the sample used to model NUE001 from the Nature article. He was ~80% skh001 and ~20% Mesopotamia_N


Rights:

141790
141791

[AndreiDNA]

i found something out about illustrative's qpadm.
kind of embarassing for the illustrative crew.

they have unique datasets for each sample uploaded
not for each user
meaning if you upload a second file, you're creating a second distinct dataset
not just merging your second file with the dataset that contains your first, which is how I would engineer this system if i was in charge
this seems very stupid to me
first of all, this will cost them
because each new upload is another 3Gb of space that they have to pay for
second, people won't be able to model themselves with samples that aren't already on the dataset
and lastly, nothing stops people from uploading more and more and more shit there, continuously eating up the available space on their servers, 3GB by 3GB by 3GB

with my services you can merge as many samples with the dataset as you want (within reason, don't give me too much work like merging 5 samples with the dataset)
so if you want me to model you as your mom + kura araxes, I can

[Gannicus]

Did some FST runs:

141806

141807


Distances in order from closest to furthest:


Population FST Std. Error
----------------------------------------
Norwegian.DG -0.0049 0.00507
Czech.DG -0.0009 0.00513
English.DG 0.0008 0.00401
French.DG 0.0022 0.00308
Spanish.HO 0.0038 0.00302
Italian_Central.HO 0.0053 0.00311
Scottish.HO 0.0069 0.00339
Italian_South.HO 0.0079 0.00308
Greek_WGA.HO 0.0081 0.00311
Russian.DG 0.0094 0.00306
Basque.DG 0.0110 0.00315
Turkish.DG 0.0125 0.00386
Lebanese_Christian.HO 0.0141 0.00313
Iranian.HO 0.0143 0.00304
Tajik.HO 0.0143 0.00303
Syrian.HO 0.0155 0.00309
Assyrian.HO 0.0161 0.00315
Egyptian.HO 0.0209 0.00303
Saudi.HO 0.0245 0.00330
Balochi.HO 0.0254 0.00310
Moroccan.HO 0.0289 0.00313
GujaratiA.HO 0.0266 0.00337
Turkmen.HO 0.0237 0.00322
Uzbek.HO 0.0243 0.00308
Punjabi.HO 0.0388 0.00328
Uyghur.HO 0.0375 0.00325
Hazara.HO 0.0409 0.00318
Kalash.HO 0.0456 0.00327
Kazakh.HO 0.0488 0.00319
Kyrgyz_Kyrgyzstan.HO 0.0531 0.00337
Eritrea.HO 0.0518 0.00342
Afar_WGA.HO 0.0571 0.00330
Somali.HO 0.0755 0.00316
Mongol.HO 0.0816 0.00331
Thai.HO 0.0943 0.00333
Visayan.HO 0.1091 0.00363
Han.HO 0.1093 0.00336
Korean.HO 0.1096 0.00358
Japanese.HO 0.1104 0.00342
Vietnamese.HO 0.1108 0.00348
Quechua.HO 0.1217 0.00398
Zapotec.HO 0.1365 0.00365
Mixe.HO 0.1630 0.00376
Piapoco.HO 0.1659 0.00401
Pima.HO 0.1677 0.00385
Karitiana.HO 0.2066 0.00398
Surui.HO 0.2273 0.00426
Australian.HO 0.1816 0.00404
Papuan.HO 0.1902 0.00372
BantuKenya.HO 0.1461 0.00337
Yoruba.HO 0.1517 0.00332
Khomani.HO 0.1723 0.00346
Hadza1.HO 0.1890 0.00386
Mbuti.HO 0.2058 0.00353

[Gannicus]

And finally, I've got a combination that assigns Natufian admix by itself:

141808

141809


References:

141810
141811

Edit: Andrei these are mostly your rights from a few models you made for me. I just added a couple samples and swapped out Pinarbasi for Boncuklu N.

[Fistora]

Some of my Genetic distances
https://i.postimg.cc/50fp8FZH/image.png

[AndreiDNA]

141820141821141822
141823

qpadm analysis of Poles from Wielkoposke, sent to me by a user on this forum

[Fistora]

https://i.postimg.cc/XqhyVpF1/image.png
https://i.postimg.cc/HkG1Md9q/image.png

[Gannicus]

141824

Swapped out Iran N Wezmeh for Iran N Ganj Dareh
and added these to the references:

141825

P value improved quite a bit. Was trying to get the standard errors lower. Oh well.

[J. Ketch]

I'm a noob. Is there some method or reasoning to choosing the right reference populations?

[AndreiDNA]

I'm a noob. Is there some method or reasoning to choosing the right reference populations?

A. If you want to model using lefts that are real/exist, you select rights that are ancestral to your lefts, or if you can't find those that are ancestral, you have to search for those closely related to your lefts.

An example of that would be
your lefts:
EHG
WHG
ANF
CHG

then your rights have to be:
WHG
ANE (Ancestral to EHG)
ANF/you can break it down into AHG + Natufian + iran N
CHG

If you want to model
lefts:
ANE
WHG
Dzudzuana

You'd have to select rights that are ancestral such as
WHG
Yana (Ancestral to ANE), or alternatively something east eurasian like TY (Which is also ancestral to ANE)
Alternative Dzudzuana right, or
Natufian (Will work since dzudzuana can fit as a intermediate between Natufian, which is a right, and WHG, which is a right)
B. If you want to model with a ghost population, you select rights affinity to which could infer affinity to this ghost population, and the rest of rights you do as in point A.

An example of that would be modeling for basal eurasian admix. Since basal eurasian admix would decrease the affinity to neanderthals and denisovans, those have to be in the rights. Then you follow point A and chose lefts and rights for west eurasians and east eurasians.

[Lard]

I'm a noob. Is there some method or reasoning to choosing the right reference populations?

Hey, I just started out too — I’ve been using the qpAdm interface on Illustrative DNA, which makes it a lot more accessible for beginners.

As for choosing references ("right pops"), it’s a mix of PCA-based reasoning, historical context, and trial-and-error. I break it all down in a thread I posted here:

➡️ �� Stable qpAdm Models of Ashkenazi Jewish Ancestry – Ignoring PCA No More (https://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?397054-%26%23129516%3B-Stable-qpAdm-Models-of-Ashkenazi-Jewish-Ancestry-%96-Ignoring-PCA-No-More)

Would love to chat more over there — I put a lot of effort into the models and framework and it barely got a reply, lol. Feel free to ask anything in that thread. Happy to help however I can.

[Gannicus]

My Dzudzuana + ANE admixture:

141866


References:

141867



I revisited a model AndreiDNA made for me where I was modeled as 3 way mix of Dzudzuana, Italy Epigravettian, and Afontovagora3 (ANE)

141868

Chi-squared= 6.6

pat wt dof chisq p f4rank Georgia_Dzudzuana_UP.AG_I11857.AG Italy_Epigravettian.AG Russia_AfontovaGora3_UP.AG feasible best dofdiff chisqdiff p_nested
000 0 7 6.604471680174148 0.47118912498381044 2 0.6190138010869063 0.23446826784160432 0.1465179310714894 TRUE NA NA NA NA
001 1 8 11.519608968168374 0.17395876562151708 1 0.7146053472659971 0.2853946527340029 NA TRUE TRUE 0 -0.6103912843959698 1
010 1 8 12.130000252564344 0.1454971638521046 1 0.7886224100986546 NA 0.21137758990134542 TRUE TRUE 0 -87.06245602662968 1
100 1 8 99.19245627919402 6.242381618212807e-18 1 NA 0.21391679165755226 0.7860832083424478 TRUE TRUE NA NA NA
011 2 9 18.588268854606014 0.0289304686658288 0 1 NA NA TRUE NA NA NA NA
101 2 9 569.2036842919447 8.482679409878293e-117 0 NA 1 NA TRUE NA NA NA NA
110 2 9 103.07209455485025 3.756961650459967e-18 0 NA NA 1 TRUE NA NA NA NA


141869

For the result on IllustrativeDNA (First Image), I used AndreiDNA's rights and added Ethiopia 4500 BP (Mota) to the references:

141870

[Gannicus]

A. If you want to model using lefts that are real/exist, you select rights that are ancestral to your lefts, or if you can't find those that are ancestral, you have to search for those closely related to your lefts.

An example of that would be
your lefts:
EHG
WHG
ANF
CHG

then your rights have to be:
WHG
ANE (Ancestral to EHG)
ANF/you can break it down into AHG + Natufian + iran N
CHG

If you want to model
lefts:
ANE
WHG
Dzudzuana

You'd have to select rights that are ancestral such as
WHG
Yana (Ancestral to ANE), or alternatively something east eurasian like TY (Which is also ancestral to ANE)
Alternative Dzudzuana right, or
Natufian (Will work since dzudzuana can fit as a intermediate between Natufian, which is a right, and WHG, which is a right)
B. If you want to model with a ghost population, you select rights affinity to which could infer affinity to this ghost population, and the rest of rights you do as in point A.

An example of that would be modeling for basal eurasian admix. Since basal eurasian admix would decrease the affinity to neanderthals and denisovans, those have to be in the rights. Then you follow point A and chose lefts and rights for west eurasians and east eurasians.

Hey Andrei, I was modeling Morocco_MN skh001 and had some interesting results:

141871

References:

141872

Takarkori isn't available on IllustrativeDNA. I was wondering if you could try this model with Takarkori instead of Iberomaurusian. And try it with Iberomaurusian absent from the references and in. I want to see if skh001 is going to score around 10% Takarkori in this setup and the 16% or so assigned to Natufian.

[Lard]

PCA vs. qpAdm: More Similar Than People Think

Fundamentally, autosomal PCA and qpAdm modeling operate on the same basic idea:
They both assess how populations are related based on genome-wide allele frequencies — just using different statistical approaches.


PCA uses principal components to reduce genetic variance into 2D/3D plots, revealing clustering patterns.
qpAdm estimates ancestry proportions by modeling a test population as a mix of chosen “left” sources, with “right” reference groups to anchor the model.


But in both cases, your results depend almost entirely on your inputs.
You can cherry-pick populations in either method — and get misleading results that still “look” scientific.

Why qpAdm Isn't Immune to Narrative Bias

There’s a tendency to treat qpAdm as more rigorous than PCA, and while it can be more formalized, it’s just as vulnerable to biased modeling choices.

That’s why so many published studies claim Ashkenazi Jews are “50%+ Levantine” — even though PCA consistently places them overlapping with Southern Italians.

Here’s why:
Most of these studies use deeply flawed European proxies — Northern Italians, French, Sardinians, or even Tuscans — while completely ignoring Southern Italians or Sicilians. This artificially inflates the Levantine component, because these proxies are genetically too distant and don't match PCA placement.

The qpAdm model still returns a “feasible” result — because qpAdm doesn't know your sources are bad.
It just fits whatever you give it.

In other words: Bad source selection in qpAdm doesn’t get corrected by the math — it gets rewarded. The tool will give you a p-value and ancestry breakdown that looks clean, but is fundamentally built on cherry-picked assumptions.

PCA-Informed qpAdm is the Solution

That’s why my models start with PCA — which clearly shows Ashkenazi Jews clustering directly on top of Southern Italians — and then use qpAdm to test models that reflect that structure.

Examples from my thread:
Stable qpAdm Models of Ashkenazi Jewish Ancestry – Ignoring PCA No More (https://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?397054-%26%23129516%3B-Stable-qpAdm-Models-of-Ashkenazi-Jewish-Ancestry-%96-Ignoring-PCA-No-More)

Models such as:

Italian_South.HO + Lebanese_Muslim.HO
Italian_South.HO + Israel_Ashkelon_LBA.AG
Italian_South.HO + Israel_C_o2.AG


All produce stable 2-way models with:

~75–78% Southern Italian–like ancestry
~22–25% Levantine
Strong p-values and standard errors
Full consistency with PCA and historical records


This matches not just the genetic structure, but also the well-documented Roman and Byzantine-era Jewish presence in Southern Italy.

Visual Results

https://i.ibb.co/M0ZfVqC/1.png
Modern Levantine Proxy model

https://i.ibb.co/S4FnRm4s/2.png
Bronze Age Coastal Levantine (Philistine-admixed)

https://i.ibb.co/G43Kn5wk/3.png
Inland Bronze Age Levantine (likely Israelite/Canaanite)

Don’t Let Narrative Modeling Skew the Data

You can go check nearly any study by Behar, Hammer, or Ostrer — they almost all use Northern Italians or French as the European side of the model.
Even YouTubers like Andrei DNA — who is also an Apricity forum member — repeat the same setup and get the same distorted results: Ashkenazi Jews as a “Middle Eastern” population.

But if Ashkenazi Jews sit right on top of Southern Italians in PCA — and they do — then they’re no more “Middle Eastern” than a Calabrian is.

That’s why PCA-aligned qpAdm is essential — and narrative-driven modeling needs to be called out.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5gxr79HfpYQ

[Gannicus]

Another combination that works for Morocco_MN skh001:

141873

references:

141874
141875


This makes it look more like there is an actual Anatolian component.

Then again, the p value is better if one just models him with Natufian:

141876

[AndreiDNA]

i've seen folks on the illustrative subreddit post their Fst charts to various ancient groups with such extension as .SG or .AG
Im banned from reddit so I can't respond to them.
But I want to say here that Fst does not work the way you want it to (showing your genetic distance to some group) with haploid samples.
It works as intended only with diploid groups.
Here's a comparison of Fst of modern french vs some modern diploid ethnicities (Mbuti,Australian) vs Iron age Gauls who are basically identical to french on a PCA
141889

Notice how the French end up closer to Mbuti than to Iron age Gauls? That's because the Gaul sample is non diploid.

It gets even more tricky when you compare yourself with haploid groups that consist of multiple samples. When you do that, essentially the more samples a group has the lower the Fst will be. That's because according to statistics, with more samples the allele frequency will be closer to the expected frequency in that population
141890

Hopefully someone here can drop this in the illustrative subreddit so folks know how to interpret Fst the right way

[Gannicus]

i've seen folks on the illustrative subreddit post their Fst charts to various ancient groups with such extension as .SG or .AG
Im banned from reddit so I can't respond to them.
But I want to say here that Fst does not work the way you want it to (showing your genetic distance to some group) with haploid samples.
It works as intended only with diploid groups.
Here's a comparison of Fst of modern french vs some modern diploid ethnicities (Mbuti,Australian) vs Iron age Gauls who are basically identical to french on a PCA
141889

Notice how the French end up closer to Mbuti than to Iron age Gauls? That's because the Gaul sample is non diploid.

It gets even more tricky when you compare yourself with haploid groups that consist of multiple samples. When you do that, essentially the more samples a group has the lower the Fst will be. That's because according to statistics, with more samples the allele frequency will be closer to the expected frequency in that population
141890

Hopefully someone here can drop this in the illustrative subreddit so folks know how to interpret Fst the right way

141893

I shared this model on another forum and one member said: "i highly doubt you have any natufian . let alone 8%". What do you think about that? I said: "If some of it does not come from Roman and Greek period interactions, then it's from ANF."
And I shared this qpAdm model of Barcin:

141894

[AndreiDNA]

141893

I shared this model on another forum and one member said: "i highly doubt you have any natufian . let alone 8%". What do you think about that? I said: "If some of it does not come from Roman and Greek period interactions, then it's from ANF."
And I shared this qpAdm model of Barcin:

141894

I think the West Asian admix in ANF is from Iran N, not CHG. Since Iran N were farmers and such, that's likely where the tradition comes from in ANFs. Although I guess CHG being the source is also possible. Try to exchange CHG for Iran N in your model and see if the pval improves.

[Gannicus]

I think the West Asian admix in ANF is from Iran N, not CHG. Since Iran N were farmers and such, that's likely where the tradition comes from in ANFs. Although I guess CHG being the source is also possible. Try to exchange CHG for Iran N in your model and see if the pval improves.

141896

P Value did improve. Natufian dropped a bit. I guess that could be from qpAdm's struggle with the basal Eurasian component in both Iran_N and Natufian?

[Opie]

Now that IllustrativeDNA introduced QAPDM service, I thought starting a thread where everyone shares QAPDM models would be resourceful.

As a start, I am sharing this model:

Sources

Turkey_Marmara_Barcin_N.AG (Anatolian Neolithic Farmer)

Russia_Sidelkino_HG.SG (Eastern European Hunter-Gatherer)

Luxembourg_Mesolithic.AG (Western European Hunter-Gatherer)

Georgia_Kotias_Mesolithic.SG (Caucasus Hunter-Gatherer)

Iran_GanjDareh_N.AG (Neolithic Iranian Farmer)

References

Mbuti.DG

Russia_AfontovaGora3_UP.AG

Italy_Epigravettian.SG

Russia_Kostenki14_UP.SG

Turkey_Central_Pinarbasi_Epipaleolithic.AG

Turkey_Central_Boncuklu_PPN.AG

Russia_Tyumen_HG.AG

Israel_Natufian.AG

Morocco_Iberomaurusian.AG

Georgia_Satsurblia_LateUP.SG

Iran_Wezmeh_N.SG

India_GreatAndaman_100BP.SG

I forgot to post my results with this model. Here it is.

141908

[Opie]

I did this with your sources and references except India_GreatAndaman_100BP.SG and
Russia_Kostenki14_UP.SG


141698

I've seen QAPDM models which don't make a distinction between CHG and ZNF. Maybe it's something about QAPDM. I think Iran both you and me is misinterpreted CHG for the most part.

[Opie]

Remove kostenki and Andaman from your rights. They're irrelevant to the model and will lead to worse pval

Here's the results of your suggestion. P value of this is better I guess.

141909

[Opie]

A list of references suggested by a genarchivist.


References

Mbuti.DG, China_YR_MN.SG, Morocco_Iberomaurusian.AG, Israel_Natufian.AG, Iran_GanjDareh_N.AG, Turkey_Marmara_Barcin_N.AG, France_Mesolithic.AG, Russia_YuzhniyOleniyOstrov_Mesolithic.AG, Russia_Samara_EBA_Yamnaya.AG, Poland_GlobularAmphora.AG

[Gannicus]

A list of references suggested by a genarchivist.


References

Mbuti.DG, China_YR_MN.SG, Morocco_Iberomaurusian.AG, Israel_Natufian.AG, Iran_GanjDareh_N.AG, Turkey_Marmara_Barcin_N.AG, France_Mesolithic.AG, Russia_YuzhniyOleniyOstrov_Mesolithic.AG, Russia_Samara_EBA_Yamnaya.AG, Poland_GlobularAmphora.AG
Took you long enough Opie :p. A few posts ago (post #34), I shared a model with the references I used that measured my EHG, AHG, CHG, Natufian, WHG, and Iran Neolithic admixture. I’d like to see what you score with that model.

[Opie]

Took you long enough Opie :p. A few posts ago (post #34), I shared a model with the references I used that measured my EHG, AHG, CHG, Natufian, WHG, and Iran Neolithic admixture. I’d like to see what you score with that model.

It seems you have developed it on the way. Can you post its final references and sources?

[Gannicus]

It seems you have developed it on the way. Can you post its final references and sources?

Here are the references I used:

141923
141924

[Gannicus]

So, I tried those Genarchivist references and swapped out a few so I could do Steppe, ANF, WHG with it.

Out of curiosity, I tried an individual Barcin sample (Bar25) for this model. I've seen it before in G25.

141926

references:

141927



Modeled the admixture of Bar25:

141928

References:

141929
141930

[Opie]

Here are the references I used:

141923
141924

Thank you for sharing here's my results:

141940

[Gannicus]

Thank you for sharing here's my results:

141940

What was the p value? Results seem pretty good. This right selection for you has created some uncertainty with WHG. You may have to experiment with different references.

[Rhegion]

Using more or less the same sources on admixLab of IllustrativeDNA, i obtain quite different results compared to "classic" qpAdm, what could i change? Natufian seems too inflated to me, while ANF a little too low. This is my Dad for a comparison:

https://i.postimg.cc/zvksFffq/Screenshot-2025-07-23-130138.png

https://i.postimg.cc/90VMfzS2/1240-K-Father.png

[Opie]

What was the p value?

0.7016 feasibility:TRUE

[majevica]

So, I tried those Genarchivist references and swapped out a few so I could do Steppe, ANF, WHG with it.

Out of curiosity, I tried an individual Barcin sample (Bar25) for this model. I've seen it before in G25.

141926

references:

141927

https://i.postimg.cc/fbX0T8xm/temp-Image-Ow4uyt.avif (https://postimg.cc/xkfd6yp1)

[Opie]

141964

Here's a good model for Anatolian Turks

p value: 0.1764|Feasibility: TRUE

Sources 6 / 10
Turkey_Marmara_Barcin_N.SG


Georgia_Kotias_Mesolithic.SG


Iran_GanjDareh_N.AG


Russia_Sidelkino_HG.SG


China_YR_LN.SG


Israel_Natufian.AG




References 12 / 30
Ethiopia_4500BP.AG


Russia_Kostenki14_UP.SG


Russia_AngaraRiver_N.SG


Russia_Tyumen_HG.DG


Russia_MA1_UP.SG


Morocco_Iberomaurusian.AG


Belgium_GoyetQ116_1_UP.AG


Turkey_Central_Boncuklu_PPN.WGC.SG


Turkey_Central_Pinarbasi_Epipaleolithic.AG


Iran_TepeAbdulHosein_N.SG


Georgia_Satsurblia_LateUP.SG


Georgia_Kotias_UP.SG

[Opie]

Here's another model with the same references above.

141965

[Gannicus]

I think I have modified the Genarchivist list to the point where it's not the same anymore. It's basically my Frankenstein monster from references I've seen AndreiDNA use and some additions by me. :P

141972
141973


141974

141975


Afrocentrists like to claim that the Third Intermediate Period Egyptians are just foreigners from the Faiyum. Because the Faiyum is where foreigners did settle. Well... the doctoral thesis by Adeline Morez was able to model those third intermediate period Egyptians as ~80% NUE001(Old Kingdom Egyptian) and ~20% Bronze Age West Asian.

I had AndreiDNA model the TIP Egyptians the same way as Morez et al did (Probably a different West Asian):

141976

[Opie]

Here's an Iron Age model that I made for myself

142030

References 10 / 30
Iran_DinkhaTepe_BA_IA_1.AG


Turkey_Central_Buyukkaya_Chalcolithic.AG


Ju_hoan_North.DG


Mongolia_North_N.AG


Georgia_Kotias_Mesolithic.SG


Israel_Natufian_d.AG


Russia_Samara_EBA_Yamnaya.AG


Turkey_Central_Pinarbasi_Epipaleolithic.AG


Serbia_IronGates_MBA.AG


Morocco_Iberomaurusian.AG

[Gannicus]

Here's an Iron Age model that I made for myself

142030

References 10 / 30
Iran_DinkhaTepe_BA_IA_1.AG


Turkey_Central_Buyukkaya_Chalcolithic.AG


Ju_hoan_North.DG


Mongolia_North_N.AG


Georgia_Kotias_Mesolithic.SG


Israel_Natufian_d.AG


Russia_Samara_EBA_Yamnaya.AG


Turkey_Central_Pinarbasi_Epipaleolithic.AG


Serbia_IronGates_MBA.AG


Morocco_Iberomaurusian.AG

What are your results when you do the classic 3-way Steppe/ANF/WHG? Can you model yourself that way? My guess is that you may need to add a 4th East Eurasian element like China_AmurRiver_EarlyN.AG.

[Opie]

What are your results when you do the classic 3-way Steppe/ANF/WHG? Can you model yourself that way? My guess is that you may need to add a 4th East Eurasian element like China_AmurRiver_EarlyN.AG.

Can you post the sources?

[Gannicus]

Salve!

142034

142038

142035
142036
142037

[Gannicus]

Can you post the sources?

Try Russia_Samara_EBA_Yamnaya.AG, Turkey_Marmara_Barcin_N.AG, Luxembourg_Mesolithic.DG (Loschbour)

Try those three sources first. If it doesn't work, then add a fourth source: China_AmurRiver_N.AG

[Opie]

Try Russia_Samara_EBA_Yamnaya.AG, Turkey_Marmara_Barcin_N.AG, Luxembourg_Mesolithic.DG (Loschbour)

Try those three sources first. If it doesn't work, then add a fourth source: China_AmurRiver_N.AG

It doesn't work probably because of references.

[Gannicus]

It doesn't work probably because of references.


Try these references:

142039
142040

If you try this with China Amur River, you will have to remove it from the references.


With those references I got a super P value with this model:

142041

[Opie]

Try these references:

142039
142040

If you try this with China Amur River, you will have to remove it from the references.


With those references I got a super P value with this model:

142041


It doesn't work both with and without Amur River.

[majevica]

It doesn't work both with and without Amur River.

Yamnaya + ANF + WHG + Amur probably works on Volga Tatars, not Anatolian Turks

I‘d add Kura-Araxes, Levant_Neolithic and BMAC

[Gannicus]

Cool, thank you for trying. I was trying to see if qpAdm would allow the model to work because of the CHG and Iran Neolithic components in Western steppe herders. And obviously Turks would have ANF as well. I was looking at your results with one of your first models where you were modeling yourself with EHG, AHG, Iran N, etc and thought that maybe there was a chance the three way steppe/ANF/WHG model would pass. On top of that I thought you scored some EHG too. If not then the inclusion of an east Eurasian source could have maybe made the model work.

[Gannicus]

Modeled myself with EEFs

142101

142102


This Germany LBK EEF has pretty low WHG admix:

142103

[Opie]

Here are some models that I used myself:

142230

Sources 5 / 10
Turkey_Marmara_Barcin_N.DG


Iran_GanjDareh_N.AG


Georgia_Kotias_Mesolithic.SG


Russia_YuzhniyOleniyOstrov_Mesolithic.AG


Mongolia_EIA_SlabGrave_1.AG




References 12 / 30
Mbuti.DG


Austria_Gravettian.AG


Russia_MA1_UP.SG


Russia_LakeBaikal_N.SG


Russia_LenaRiver_N.SG


Turkey_Central_Pinarbasi_Epipaleolithic.AG


Morocco_EN.WGC.SG


Turkey_Central_Boncuklu_PPN.WGC.SG


Russia_Sidelkino_HG.SG


China_Xinjiang_Xiaohe_BA.AG


Georgia_Satsurblia_LateUP.SG


Iran_TepeAbdulHosein_N.SG


142231

Target:

p value: 0.5686
|
Feasibility: TRUE Sources
Turkey_Marmara_Barcin_N.DG


Iran_GanjDareh_N.AG


Georgia_Kotias_Mesolithic.SG


Russia_YuzhniyOleniyOstrov_Mesolithic.AG


Mongolia_EIA_SlabGrave_1.AG




References
Mbuti.DG


Austria_Gravettian.AG


Russia_MA1_UP.SG


Russia_LakeBaikal_N.SG


Russia_LenaRiver_N.SG


Turkey_Central_Pinarbasi_Epipaleolithic.AG


Morocco_EN.WGC.SG


Turkey_Central_Boncuklu_PPN.WGC.SG


Russia_Sidelkino_HG.SG


China_Xinjiang_Xiaohe_BA.AG


Georgia_Satsurblia_LateUP.SG


Iran_TepeAbdulHosein_N.SG

[Gannicus]

Here are some models that I used myself:

142230

Sources 5 / 10
Turkey_Marmara_Barcin_N.DG


Iran_GanjDareh_N.AG


Georgia_Kotias_Mesolithic.SG


Russia_YuzhniyOleniyOstrov_Mesolithic.AG


Mongolia_EIA_SlabGrave_1.AG




References 12 / 30
Mbuti.DG


Austria_Gravettian.AG


Russia_MA1_UP.SG


Russia_LakeBaikal_N.SG


Russia_LenaRiver_N.SG


Turkey_Central_Pinarbasi_Epipaleolithic.AG


Morocco_EN.WGC.SG


Turkey_Central_Boncuklu_PPN.WGC.SG


Russia_Sidelkino_HG.SG


China_Xinjiang_Xiaohe_BA.AG


Georgia_Satsurblia_LateUP.SG


Iran_TepeAbdulHosein_N.SG


142231

Target:

p value: 0.5686
|
Feasibility: TRUE Sources
Turkey_Marmara_Barcin_N.DG


Iran_GanjDareh_N.AG


Georgia_Kotias_Mesolithic.SG


Russia_YuzhniyOleniyOstrov_Mesolithic.AG


Mongolia_EIA_SlabGrave_1.AG




References
Mbuti.DG


Austria_Gravettian.AG


Russia_MA1_UP.SG


Russia_LakeBaikal_N.SG


Russia_LenaRiver_N.SG


Turkey_Central_Pinarbasi_Epipaleolithic.AG


Morocco_EN.WGC.SG


Turkey_Central_Boncuklu_PPN.WGC.SG


Russia_Sidelkino_HG.SG


China_Xinjiang_Xiaohe_BA.AG


Georgia_Satsurblia_LateUP.SG


Iran_TepeAbdulHosein_N.SG

Have you experimented with admixture modeling yourself with modern populations yet?

[Opie]

Have you experimented with admixture modeling yourself with modern populations yet?

No

[Gannicus]

My FST distances to modern English individuals:

142233
142234

Scottish individuals:

142235

I don't know why that last Scottish sample is so different from the others.

From what I understand, FST is not designed to detect subtle admixture.

[majevica]

Low Steppe Model

https://i.postimg.cc/1XV5P8WS/temp-Imagexx-Hgzr.avif (https://postimg.cc/PvhkQ5sV)


Some Distances

https://i.postimg.cc/cLjbvTBf/temp-Imagenae-Gqv.avif (https://postimg.cc/cvRmjRjJ)

https://i.postimg.cc/FKLn3cT8/temp-Image-Oanj-GG.avif (https://postimg.cc/5Hf3MHdS)

[Croatian Legend]

Here are my two best runs after hours and hours of trying various references and combos that are used. All with garbage results and horrible p value etc.

Also this actually now comes close to my 24genetics report which they have updated and provided me with an farmer/hunter gathere report!
Another interesting fact! There are official papers nbci and other research institue that confirm that actually dinaric/dalmatians have elevated chg levels and not eef like some bias amateur pca "creators" like to portay. I seem to be at the upper end for a european.

Anyway just my two cents for now!

142251142251

[majevica]

two cents

For more CHG-maxxing use AG3 since EHG already has CHG admix

https://i.postimg.cc/1RGZVgXf/2.jpg (https://postimg.cc/pyLSgLDH)

AHG instead of ANF works too

https://i.postimg.cc/W4ZZPR6F/IMG-7379.jpg (https://postimg.cc/zLJvncQ8)

[Gannicus]

For more CHG-maxxing use AG3 since EHG already has CHG admix

https://i.postimg.cc/1RGZVgXf/2.jpg (https://postimg.cc/pyLSgLDH)

AHG instead of ANF works too

https://i.postimg.cc/W4ZZPR6F/IMG-7379.jpg (https://postimg.cc/zLJvncQ8)

Hey, Majevica have you admix modeled yourself with modern populations yet?

[Croatian Legend]

Thanks for the info. Works best when i only change barcin . P value is now bit lower.

142256

[majevica]

Hey, Majevica have you admix modeled yourself with modern populations yet?

Yea, this model has the best p-value so far

https://i.postimg.cc/1t37rRPx/IMG.jpg (https://postimg.cc/JySQ1LGK)

[Fistora]

https://i.postimg.cc/xCLWXJVy/image.png
https://i.postimg.cc/Gtr6GLc0/image.png

What References would fit better for these sources, or is p-value good enough?

[AndreiDNA]

142314
I modeled myself as 83% ANF in qpadm with a pval of 0.6

[Gannicus]

https://i.postimg.cc/xCLWXJVy/image.png
https://i.postimg.cc/Gtr6GLc0/image.png

What References would fit better for these sources, or is p-value good enough?

This is definitely an AndreiDNA question or someone who has more extensive experience than I. My suggestion would be to include some East Asian and Near Eastern References and see if that tightens the standard errors a bit.

[Gannicus]

Buenos dias 142339 142340142341142342142343

[Opie]

142314
I modeled myself as 83% ANF in qpadm with a pval of 0.6

What should be inferred from this model?

[Gannicus]

This is one of my best fitting modern models yet.
Scottish + Central Italian:

142363


References:

142364
142365

Edit: Realized that I forgot to add in Italian south and English into the references. Also added Papuan.HO.

P value went up slightly:

142370

[Croatian Legend]

Here i did the same thing. With Barcin my p value was very low.
But changing it with the precursor of EEF i get very good P value!

142372

Here the one with Barcin.

142374

[Gannicus]

Scottish + South Italian 142376 These are the references I used: 142377142378142379142380

[Grace O'Malley]

Scottish + South Italian 142376 These are the references I used: 142377142378142379142380

Do they have an Irish population? If not I won't be bothering paying for it.

[Gannicus]

Do they have an Irish population? If not I won't be bothering paying for it.

In the .HO dataset I haven’t seen modern Irish. It also does not have German, Austrian, Danish, Welsh, Bretons etc. There is always an opportunity for IllustrativeDNA to add more genomes in the future. In the AADR dataset they have the medieval Irish from Kilteasheen and the Rathlin EBA Irish Genomes. 142381142382

[Fistora]

My fst distances with a slightly more extended list of countries
https://i.postimg.cc/K8TvvRb7/image.png
https://i.postimg.cc/c4p0j03v/image.png

[Gannicus]

Bueno

142392

Adding Cypriot to the references further increased the p value.

Full references used:

142393
142394
142395

[Fistora]

My best model so far, using similar references as Gannicus
https://i.postimg.cc/mkt8FWhW/image.png

[Xavier727]

142442

[Gannicus]

142443

142444

Similar to the reference list I used in post #94 Obviously with Sicilian removed from the rights. Spanish.HO is in the list, but Spanish North is not.

142445

This one is with 26 references found in post #94 with French, Spanish, Cypriot, and Spanish North left out.

[Fistora]

https://i.postimg.cc/9ffnJL2F/image.png

[Gannicus]

https://i.postimg.cc/9ffnJL2F/image.png

Have you tried Modeling yourself with Polish yet?

[Fistora]

Have you tried Modeling yourself with Polish yet?

Only a single modern Polish sample is available, which I presume comes from southern Poland. Unfortunately, it models me with a low p-value and frequently suggests false feasibility

[Gannicus]

Scottish + Sicilian

142465


Scottish + North Italian

142466



When modeling myself, the Scottish and North Italian run is the highest 2-way p-value so far. Even compared to Scottish and South French:

142467

[Gannicus]

I've shared this model before, however, with this run I used a different set of references. P-value isn't as good as the previous model, but it's still comfortably above 0.05

142473

References:

142474
142475

[Croatian Legend]

I've shared this model before, however, with this run I used a different set of references. P-value isn't as good as the previous model, but it's still comfortably above 0.05

142473

References:

142474
142475

It might be a bit above 0,05 but it is still bad don't you think?

[Croatian Legend]

I might be to harsh but i would only take p values around 0,5 and above serious.

[Gannicus]

It might be a bit above 0,05 but it is still bad don't you think?

I was able to repeat this model earlier with a related Levant Neolithic population with different references:

142476

This was the earlier run with a much higher p value:

142477


Levant N populations have a significant Anatolian component. And Corded Ware is not 100% Western Steppe Herder.

[Gannicus]

I might be to harsh but i would only take p values around 0,5 and above serious.

That's not correct. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-025-09195-5

P-value for NUE001 that was modeled as ~80% Morocco MN and 20% Mesopotamia N yielded a p value of 0.12

"Ancestry of the Nuwayrat genome
We used the qpAdm42 framework to model the genetic ancestry components that best represent the Nuwayrat genome using a fully rotating model competition approach, in which a set of candidate populations are iteratively used as sources to construct one-source, two-source and three-source population ancestry models, whereas the remaining candidates are set as outgroup (right) populations43,44 (Supplementary Information section 4). We used a set of 13 populations from Neolithic and Chalcolithic West Asia, North Africa and the North Mediterranean region that predate the Nuwayrat individual as potential sources (Fig. 3c,d and Methods). No single-source model fitted the data (maximum P value observed = 2.39 × 10−6 for a model with Morocco_MN as a single source). Instead, a single two-source model (P = 0.12) met the significance criteria (P > 0.05), which consisted of a mixture of 77.6 ± 3.8% ancestry represented by genomes from the Middle Neolithic Moroccan site of Skhirat-Rouazi dated to 4780–4230 bce (Morocco_MN), and the remainder most closely related to genomes from 9000 to 8000 bce Neolithic Mesopotamia (22.4 ± 3.8%; Fig. 3a). In addition, two three-source models showed similar ancestry proportions but with a minor contribution of a third ancestry component represented by genomes from the Neolithic/Chalcolithic Levant (4.7 ± 8.2% at P = 0.11 and 1.1 ± 8.7% at P = 0.07, respectively; Supplementary Table 6)."

[Croatian Legend]

That's not correct. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-025-09195-5

P-value for NUE001 that was modeled as ~80% Morocco MN and 20% Mesopotamia N yielded a p value of 0.12

"Ancestry of the Nuwayrat genome
We used the qpAdm42 framework to model the genetic ancestry components that best represent the Nuwayrat genome using a fully rotating model competition approach, in which a set of candidate populations are iteratively used as sources to construct one-source, two-source and three-source population ancestry models, whereas the remaining candidates are set as outgroup (right) populations43,44 (Supplementary Information section 4). We used a set of 13 populations from Neolithic and Chalcolithic West Asia, North Africa and the North Mediterranean region that predate the Nuwayrat individual as potential sources (Fig. 3c,d and Methods). No single-source model fitted the data (maximum P value observed = 2.39 × 10−6 for a model with Morocco_MN as a single source). Instead, a single two-source model (P = 0.12) met the significance criteria (P > 0.05), which consisted of a mixture of 77.6 ± 3.8% ancestry represented by genomes from the Middle Neolithic Moroccan site of Skhirat-Rouazi dated to 4780–4230 bce (Morocco_MN), and the remainder most closely related to genomes from 9000 to 8000 bce Neolithic Mesopotamia (22.4 ± 3.8%; Fig. 3a). In addition, two three-source models showed similar ancestry proportions but with a minor contribution of a third ancestry component represented by genomes from the Neolithic/Chalcolithic Levant (4.7 ± 8.2% at P = 0.11 and 1.1 ± 8.7% at P = 0.07, respectively; Supplementary Table 6)."


It clear to me that everything above 0,05 can be looked at as valid. Still it is better to go for a higher p value if it is possible.

[Croatian Legend]

I was able to repeat this model earlier with a related Levant Neolithic population with different references:

142476

This was the earlier run with a much higher p value:

142477


Levant N populations have a significant Anatolian component. And Corded Ware is not 100% Western Steppe Herder.

Well they seem way better!

[Croatian Legend]

May i ask why you try to model yourself with natufian like components? Do you have ancestry from there? Just wondering, since i tried to create models with natufian in it for myself and it fails.

[Gannicus]

It clear to me that everything above 0,05 can be looked at as valid. Still it is better to go for a higher p value if it is possible.

Yes, I do aim for higher p values if I can. :)

There are other papers that publish models with p values of 0.06 too.

Lazaridis et al. 2022 paper on the southern arc: "The genetic history of the Southern Arc: A bridge between West Asia and Europe"

[Gannicus]

May i ask why you try to model yourself with natufian like components? Do you have ancestry from there? Just wondering, since i tried to create models with natufian in it for myself and it fails.

I'm glad you asked! It all started when I uploaded my DNA file to gedmatch a few years ago and was seeing results like this:

Eurogenes k13: North_Atlantic 50.78 Pct
Baltic 20.29 Pct
West_Med 14.55 Pct
West_Asian 5.04 Pct
East_Med 3.71 Pct
Red_Sea 3.71 Pct
South_Asian 0.55 Pct
East_Asian -
Siberian -
Amerindian 0.9 Pct
Oceanian 0.39 Pct
Northeast_African -
Sub-Saharan 0.09 Pct

# Primary Population (source) Secondary Population (source) Distance
1 95.9% Southwest_English + 4.1% Saudi @ 2.11
2 81.4% West_Scottish + 18.6% Spanish_Extremadura @ 2.32
3 96.3% Southwest_English + 3.7% Yemenite_Jewish @ 2.35
4 80% West_Scottish + 20% Spanish_Galicia @ 2.39
5 79.8% West_Scottish + 20.2% Spanish_Castilla_Y_Leon @ 2.43
6 80.5% West_Scottish + 19.5% Portuguese @ 2.46
7 95.9% Southwest_English + 4.1% Bedouin @ 2.48
8 81.3% West_Scottish + 18.7% Spanish_Murcia @ 2.51
9 81.4% West_Scottish + 18.6% Spanish_Castilla_La_Mancha @ 2.56
10 96.1% Southwest_English + 3.9% Egyptian @ 2.59
11 96.1% Southwest_English + 3.9% Palestinian @ 2.61
12 69.7% West_Scottish + 30.3% French @ 2.66
13 96.2% Southwest_English + 3.8% Jordanian @ 2.67
14 96.1% Southwest_English + 3.9% Syrian @ 2.69
15 95.7% Southwest_English + 4.3% Moroccan @ 2.69
16 95.6% Southwest_English + 4.4% Algerian @ 2.7
17 79.3% Irish + 20.7% Spanish_Castilla_Y_Leon @ 2.7
18 81.1% Irish + 18.9% Spanish_Extremadura @ 2.71
19 83.2% West_Scottish + 16.8% Spanish_Andalucia @ 2.71
20 96.4% Southwest_English + 3.6% Samaritan @ 2.72



And in G25:

Target: Gannicus_MergedFile_officialDavidski_scaled
Distance: 0.0171% / 0.01706667 | R5P
45.3 Irish
28.9 Icelandic
22.7 Spanish_Soria
3.1 Yemenite_Jew


Target: Gannicus_MergedFile_officialDavidski_scaled
Distance: 0.0175% / 0.01749323 | R3P
77.3 Irish
19.9 Spanish_Soria
2.8 Saudi

"World Countries Calculator" list:

Target: Gannicus_MergedFile_officialDavidski_scaled
Distance: 0.0193% / 0.01930650 | R5P
61.3 Ireland
13.6 Iceland
11.7 France
11.2 Spain
2.2 Yemen

Distance to: Gannicus_MergedFile_officialDavidski_scaled
0.01979896 23.20% Spain + 76.80% Ireland
0.01994210 32.40% France + 67.60% Ireland
0.02028329 20.40% Portugal + 79.60% Ireland
0.02041020 26.60% Switzerland + 73.40% Ireland
0.02056362 13.60% Spain + 86.40% Wales
0.02060842 12.00% Portugal + 88.00% Wales
0.02064201 4.40% Palestine + 95.60% Wales
0.02064660 3.60% Yemen + 96.40% Wales
0.02077307 3.40% Saudi_Arabia + 96.60% Wales
0.02077975 21.00% Spain + 79.00% Scotland
0.02078383 19.40% France + 80.60% Wales
0.02083812 4.20% Jordan + 95.80% Wales
0.02089739 29.80% France + 70.20% Scotland
0.02094917 15.00% Switzerland + 85.00% Wales
0.02096239 4.40% Lebanon + 95.60% Wales
0.02096458 4.60% Cyprus + 95.40% Wales
0.02098500 32.60% Spain + 67.40% Iceland
0.02099838 3.40% Tunisia + 96.60% Wales
0.02100424 4.60% Syria + 95.40% Wales
0.02100611 49.20% Belgium + 50.80% Ireland
0.02100744 3.60% United_Arab_Emirates + 96.40% Wales
0.02103141 8.00% Italy + 92.00% Wales
0.02103156 6.00% Israel + 94.00% Wales
0.02105459 3.20% Libya + 96.80% Wales
0.02107681 3.80% Egypt + 96.20% Wales



I'm rigorously testing now with qpAdm to correlate with these results and others.

Also, ANFs have Natufian or Natufian like admix too. Barcin is around 15% Natufian or Natufian like.

[Croatian Legend]

I'm glad you asked! It all started when I uploaded my DNA file to gedmatch a few years ago and was seeing results like this:

Eurogenes k13: North_Atlantic 50.78 Pct
Baltic 20.29 Pct
West_Med 14.55 Pct
West_Asian 5.04 Pct
East_Med 3.71 Pct
Red_Sea 3.71 Pct
South_Asian 0.55 Pct
East_Asian -
Siberian -
Amerindian 0.9 Pct
Oceanian 0.39 Pct
Northeast_African -
Sub-Saharan 0.09 Pct

# Primary Population (source) Secondary Population (source) Distance
1 95.9% Southwest_English + 4.1% Saudi @ 2.11
2 81.4% West_Scottish + 18.6% Spanish_Extremadura @ 2.32
3 96.3% Southwest_English + 3.7% Yemenite_Jewish @ 2.35
4 80% West_Scottish + 20% Spanish_Galicia @ 2.39
5 79.8% West_Scottish + 20.2% Spanish_Castilla_Y_Leon @ 2.43
6 80.5% West_Scottish + 19.5% Portuguese @ 2.46
7 95.9% Southwest_English + 4.1% Bedouin @ 2.48
8 81.3% West_Scottish + 18.7% Spanish_Murcia @ 2.51
9 81.4% West_Scottish + 18.6% Spanish_Castilla_La_Mancha @ 2.56
10 96.1% Southwest_English + 3.9% Egyptian @ 2.59
11 96.1% Southwest_English + 3.9% Palestinian @ 2.61
12 69.7% West_Scottish + 30.3% French @ 2.66
13 96.2% Southwest_English + 3.8% Jordanian @ 2.67
14 96.1% Southwest_English + 3.9% Syrian @ 2.69
15 95.7% Southwest_English + 4.3% Moroccan @ 2.69
16 95.6% Southwest_English + 4.4% Algerian @ 2.7
17 79.3% Irish + 20.7% Spanish_Castilla_Y_Leon @ 2.7
18 81.1% Irish + 18.9% Spanish_Extremadura @ 2.71
19 83.2% West_Scottish + 16.8% Spanish_Andalucia @ 2.71
20 96.4% Southwest_English + 3.6% Samaritan @ 2.72



And in G25:

Target: Gannicus_MergedFile_officialDavidski_scaled
Distance: 0.0171% / 0.01706667 | R5P
45.3 Irish
28.9 Icelandic
22.7 Spanish_Soria
3.1 Yemenite_Jew


Target: Gannicus_MergedFile_officialDavidski_scaled
Distance: 0.0175% / 0.01749323 | R3P
77.3 Irish
19.9 Spanish_Soria
2.8 Saudi

"World Countries Calculator" list:

Target: Gannicus_MergedFile_officialDavidski_scaled
Distance: 0.0193% / 0.01930650 | R5P
61.3 Ireland
13.6 Iceland
11.7 France
11.2 Spain
2.2 Yemen

Distance to: Gannicus_MergedFile_officialDavidski_scaled
0.01979896 23.20% Spain + 76.80% Ireland
0.01994210 32.40% France + 67.60% Ireland
0.02028329 20.40% Portugal + 79.60% Ireland
0.02041020 26.60% Switzerland + 73.40% Ireland
0.02056362 13.60% Spain + 86.40% Wales
0.02060842 12.00% Portugal + 88.00% Wales
0.02064201 4.40% Palestine + 95.60% Wales
0.02064660 3.60% Yemen + 96.40% Wales
0.02077307 3.40% Saudi_Arabia + 96.60% Wales
0.02077975 21.00% Spain + 79.00% Scotland
0.02078383 19.40% France + 80.60% Wales
0.02083812 4.20% Jordan + 95.80% Wales
0.02089739 29.80% France + 70.20% Scotland
0.02094917 15.00% Switzerland + 85.00% Wales
0.02096239 4.40% Lebanon + 95.60% Wales
0.02096458 4.60% Cyprus + 95.40% Wales
0.02098500 32.60% Spain + 67.40% Iceland
0.02099838 3.40% Tunisia + 96.60% Wales
0.02100424 4.60% Syria + 95.40% Wales
0.02100611 49.20% Belgium + 50.80% Ireland
0.02100744 3.60% United_Arab_Emirates + 96.40% Wales
0.02103141 8.00% Italy + 92.00% Wales
0.02103156 6.00% Israel + 94.00% Wales
0.02105459 3.20% Libya + 96.80% Wales
0.02107681 3.80% Egypt + 96.20% Wales



I'm rigorously testing now with qpAdm to correlate with these results and others.

Also, ANFs have Natufian or Natufian like admix too. Barcin is around 15% Natufian or Natufian like.

Ok i see where you are coming from. Well i can already asure you to completly ditch the breakdowns from G25 and the official Davdski files.
Vahaduo and the g25 coords is only trying to place you on a certain point in a pca nothing more nothing less. you being pretty much northwest european that maybe has some stong neolthic signal pushes you little south. That is why Vahaduo/g25 uses extreme points! Which is misleading!

Again Vahaduo is only good for general clustering nothing more. Gedmatch is the same and pretty outdated !

[Croatian Legend]

Also Vahaduo is also very bad at seperating EEF from CHG or rather it overastimtes EEF . Me being the perfect example looking at my QPADM results and also my other DNA rsults. I will never again take davdskis coords serious and any other amateur tool after what i have learned and read thru various actuall scientific papers!
I just find it funny how he pushes a certain agenda .

So don´t take it serious.

[Gannicus]

Ok i see where you are coming from. Well i can already asure you to completly ditch the breakdowns from G25 and the official Davdski files.
Vahaduo and the g25 coords is only trying to place you on a certain point in a pca nothing more nothing less. you being pretty much northwest european that maybe has some stong neolthic signal pushes you little south. That is why Vahaduo/g25 uses extreme points! Which is misleading!

Again Vahaduo is only good for general clustering nothing more. Gedmatch is the same and pretty outdated !

I have seen that idea before that it's just extra EEF/ANF. My hypothesis is that it's that plus a little extra dash of post neolithic geneflow from the MENA.

You are from Croatia right? And you haven't been able to model with Natufian heavy populations?

[Croatian Legend]

I have seen that idea before that it's just extra EEF/ANF. My hypothesis is that it's that plus a little extra dash of post neolithic geneflow from the MENA.

You are from Croatia right? And you haven't been able to model with Natufian heavy populations?

Yes i tried it and it fails. As i said in my previous post i will never take vahaduo or davdskis model serious!

Yes i am Croat by ethnicity.

[Gannicus]

Yes i tried it and it fails. As i said in my previous post i will never take vahaduo or davdskis model serious!

Yes i am Croat by ethnicity.

May need to experiment further with different reference populations and different sources. I would assume that your ANF admix would be higher than me. I shared my Steppe/ANF/WHG and I'm 40% Barcin ANF. I'm experimenting with Sintashta now.

[Croatian Legend]

May need to experiment further with different reference populations and different sources. I would assume that your ANF admix would be higher than me. I shared my Steppe/ANF/WHG and I'm 40% Barcin ANF. I'm experimenting with Sintashta now.

Well the Dinaric plain was actually a safe haven for CHG's that came thru various waves. looking at papers they can confim it as also my qpadm run confirms it in my case. Now before some people might wonder , why am i not then close Georgians and such is simple. CHG ≠ CHG the CHG that i seem to contain is an older form and not mixed with natufian or iran-n or very little it seems.

[Croatian Legend]

May need to experiment further with different reference populations and different sources. I would assume that your ANF admix would be higher than me. I shared my Steppe/ANF/WHG and I'm 40% Barcin ANF. I'm experimenting with Sintashta now.

And as you can see i only have 27- 30% EEF which places me at lowest among Europeans . The only explanation i have why i can be also modelt with AHG instead of EEF and still get excellent p-value is perhabs because i seem to have some old neolthic/anatolian line even tho small but still.

[Gannicus]

And as you can see i only have 27- 30% EEF which places me at lowest among Europeans . The only explanation i have why i can be also modelt with AHG instead of EEF and still get excellent p-value is perhabs because i seem to have some old neolthic/anatolian line even tho small but still.

Have you tried the simple 3-way: Russia_Samara_EBA_Yamnaya, Turkey_Marmara_Barcin_N, and Loschbour? Because if you are doing mesolithic like based admixture model, your CHG would be coming from the Western Steppe Herders.

[Croatian Legend]

Have you tried the simple 3-way: Russia_Samara_EBA_Yamnaya, Turkey_Marmara_Barcin_N, and Loschbour? Because if you are doing mesolithic like based admixture model, your CHG would be coming from the Western Steppe Herders.

yes i have tried it and the p value goes way below 0,05! Yes i certainly have CHG from Steppe herders but you had other influx of CHG that came to the dinaric plain via Anatolia from Caucasus and maybe around the black sea.

[Gannicus]

yes i have tried it and the p value goes way below 0,05! Yes i certainly have CHG from Steppe herders but you had other influx of CHG that came to the dinaric plain via Anatolia from Caucasus and maybe around the black sea.

I don't think you should give up on trying the 3-way. Or have you tried the reference populations that I shared when I posted mine?

[Croatian Legend]

I don't think you should give up on trying the 3-way. Or have you tried the reference populations that I shared when I posted mine?

yes i tried it also it is also completly wrong. See that is my point you cannot use a your refernce with my genetic background. Also those 3 simple models are also not always good because looking at yamnaya it is basically 50/50 what if you have elevated CHG like me from an old dinaric balkan source. This is why you have to seperate the chg and ehg to see the actually breakdown. That is why the p value improves.

[Croatian Legend]

I don't think you should give up on trying the 3-way. Or have you tried the reference populations that I shared when I posted mine?

Just to make that clear that ido have steppe in my but i also have extra chg which is explained by scientific papers that go into detail about the population in the dinaric plain ecpecially dinaric croats! Vahaduo inflates eef because it fails to seperate chg and other stuff as explained before.

[Gannicus]

yes i tried it also it is also completly wrong. See that is my point you cannot use a your refernce with my genetic background. Also those 3 simple models are also not always good because looking at yamnaya it is basically 50/50 what if you have elevated CHG like me from an old dinaric balkan source. This is why you have to seperate the chg and ehg to see the actually breakdown. That is why the p value improves.

You're right that some of my references won't work for you but sometimes it can with enough tweaking. Just keep tinkering!

[Croatian Legend]

You're right that some of my references won't work for you but sometimes it can with enough tweaking. Just keep tinkering!

Well i achieved the a perfect almost perfect model for me 4 way. That comes in line with scientifc claim and research. Sure i will try 3 way but 3 way is not the way to go in my case escpecially with elevated CHG .

[MandM]

What refrences and sources do you all recommend for people in the balkans, just got the qpAdm in illustrativedna but dont really know what to use for most realistic results

[Gannicus]

What refrences and sources do you all recommend for people in the balkans, just got the qpAdm in illustrativedna but dont really know what to use for most realistic results

If you have seen any of AndreiDNA's videos, you can see in some of the qpAdm data the references. You can start with what he uses in some of the models he has used and then make your own adjustments.

I've also had him model me before, and to start I used the references he used:

142481

[Gannicus]

Here are some models of myself with Sintashta Culture. It's widely accepted that the Sintashta people are the inventors of the chariot.

142483

142484

142485

142486


Runs where the sources with Sintashta failed:

142487

142488



References used:

142489
142490

[Gannicus]

Now on to the Battle Axe culture!

BAC + Sicily EBA
142504

BAC + Ireland Megalithic
142505

BAC + England N Megalithic
142506

BAC + Greece EBA Manika
142507

BAC + Levant N
142508

References used:
142509
142510

[Gannicus]

142511 I’ve got more corded ware models of myself that I’ll share later tonight or the coming days. Later I’m going to experiment with the specific EEF archaeological cultures like Cardial, globular Amphora, Remedello, Vinca etc + Yamnaya and cordedware.

[majevica]

Recommend this model for South Slavs

https://i.postimg.cc/3NbMsG9P/temp-Imageb-Coo-JS.avif (https://postimg.cc/RJfbfNkR)

Extended Distance list, looking at the West Asian Bulgarian as closest makes sense



0 Bulgarian.HO 0.0003
1 Croatian.HO 0.0009
2 Ukrainian.HO 0.0017
3 Hungarian.HO 0.0021
4 Italian_North.HO 0.0030
5 Belarusian.HO 0.0031
6 French.DG 0.0036
7 Spanish.DG 0.0040
8 Sicilian.HO 0.0040
9 Greek.HO 0.0040
10 Norwegian.HO 0.0049
11 English.DG 0.0063
12 Lithuanian.HO 0.0064
13 Russian.DG 0.0066
14 Armenian.DG 0.0069
15 Lezgin.DG 0.0071
16 Cypriot.HO 0.0072
17 Kumyk.HO 0.0081
18 Karelian.HO 0.0086
19 Jew_Ashkenazi.HO 0.0092
20 Orcadian.DG 0.0104
21 Iranian.HO 0.0119
22 Abkhasian.DG 0.0120
23 Basque.DG 0.0124
24 Sardinian.DG 0.0131
25 Egyptian.HO 0.0168
26 Palestinian.DG 0.0169
27 Berber_WGA.HO 0.0288
28 Saami.DG 0.0304
29 Uyghur.DG 0.0415

[Gannicus]

Estonia CordedWare + Spain EBA

142530

Estonia CordedWare + Minoans

142531

Estonia CordedWare + Germany LBK N (EEF)

142532

Estonia CordedWare + Levant N (Jordan PPNB)

142533

Estonia CordedWare + Israel Chalcolithic

142534

[Gannicus]

I modeled myself with a couple Bellbeakers: 142536142537142538 One thing to note is that Italy Bronze Age sample I think is from the south around Puglia and has a decent amount of steppe ancestry.

[Xavier727]

Estonia CordedWare + Spain EBA

142530

Estonia CordedWare + Minoans

142531

Estonia CordedWare + Germany LBK N (EEF)

142532

Estonia CordedWare + Levant N (Jordan PPNB)

142533

Estonia CordedWare + Israel Chalcolithic

142534

Would you mind sharing the reference populations you used for these?

[Gannicus]

Would you mind sharing the reference populations you used for these?

142542142543142544

[Xavier727]

[QUOTE=Gannicus;8276553]142542142543142544[/QUONice oneTE]

Nice, thanks man

[Gannicus]

[QUOTE=Gannicus;8276553]142542142543142544[/QUONice oneTE]

Nice, thanks man

You're welcome.

[Gannicus]

Did some models of myself with Steppe + EEF Cultures + sometimes WHG

Steppe + Cardial Ware + WHG

142546

Steppe + Remedello Culture

142547

Steppe + Globular Amphora Culture

142548

Steppe + Vinca Culture + WHG

142549

Steppe + Funnel Beaker Culture

142550


References:

142551
142552

[AndreiDNA]

https://youtu.be/1yrFFr-k_Ro

[Gannicus]

Was able to pull out Natufian in this run:

Steppe + ANF + Natufian + WHG:

142578

References:

142579
142580


With the same references I did the same model but with Boncuklu PPN instead of Barcin:

142581

[Xavier727]

Was able to pull out Natufian in this run:

Steppe + ANF + Natufian + WHG:

142578

References:

142579
142580


With the same references I did the same model but with Boncuklu PPN instead of Barcin:

142581



Have you managed to come up with any decent medieval models yet? I’ve been trying but haven’t had much luck.

[Gannicus]

Have you managed to come up with any decent medieval models yet? I’ve been trying but haven’t had much luck.

Not yet. The only one that comes close that has worked is this one: 142589 These two are right on the edge of being early medieval. And I need to experiment more with references. The others I have tried so far have failed.

[Xavier727]

Not yet. The only one that comes close that has worked is this one: 142589 These two are right on the edge of being early medieval. And I need to experiment more with references. The others I have tried so far have failed.


Yeah, this is about the best I’ve managed so far, but it still needs some tweaking.

142590

142591
142592
142593

[Gannicus]

Yeah, this is about the best I’ve managed so far, but it still needs some tweaking.

142590

142591
142592
142593

I just did this one and again with high SEs. Trying some other combinations with Ireland Kilteasheen before I start tweaking the references.

142594


Current references for this:

142595
142596

[Gannicus]

With the same reference list as in post #144:

142597

This one is with Spain BA and Sicily EBA added to the references:

142598


Removed Jordan PPNB and added Denmark LN BA VK 214:

142599

[Gannicus]

I don't think this is a good model guys

142604

[Gannicus]

I have a couple clean qpAdm models of myself with Medieval groups now:

142608

142609


The pooled Italy Medieval samples are Southern Italians.


references:

142610
142611

[drb234]

I have a couple clean qpAdm models of myself with Medieval groups now:

142608

142609


The pooled Italy Medieval samples are Southern Italians.


references:

142610
142611

Have you done an Iron age model?

[Gannicus]

Have you done an Iron age model?

A few. And one thing I find interesting is that IA England samples don't work too well for me. I can get some combinations to work. There is correlation between G25 and qpAdm I have noticed but there are some differences.

Here are some IA models I have done:

142615

142616

142617

142618

142619

[Gannicus]

Have you done an Iron age model?

I've modeled myself with Bronze Age populations too. My genome seems to pair well with Ireland EBA Rathlin 2 so I have used that individual in a lot of runs.

142629

142630

142631

142632

142634


Let me know if you have any populations you would like me to try.

[Gannicus]

This model is where I was experimenting with Serednii Stih/Sredny Stog.

142635
142636

[Croatian Legend]

So here i managed to lower the standard error with both AHG and CHG whilst retaing excellent p-value. And i have found out that i have definitly an extra CHG component from the Caucasus which also confirms the findings by professional papers. The AHG went up but stayed around the 35% mark even after trying various runs.

Well it is true Croats that have roots from the Lika/Dinar area have elevated CHG and low EEF. The catch though is that the CHG component is elevated!

The only thing i am still trying to figure out why i am better modelt with the precursor to EEF. (Researching that already and reading some stuff om that.)

[Gannicus]

So here i managed to lower the standard error with both AHG and CHG whilst retaing excellent p-value. And i have found out that i have definitly an extra CHG component from the Caucasus which also confirms the findings by professional papers. The AHG went up but stayed around the 35% mark even after trying various runs.

Well it is true Croats that have roots from the Lika/Dinar area have elevated CHG and low EEF. The catch though is that the CHG component is elevated!

The only thing i am still trying to figure out why i am better modelt with the precursor to EEF. (Researching that already and reading some stuff om that.)

That CHG you have there is before Kotias, which in the mesolithic. That late UP sample could be soaking up some Iran Neolithic. The CHG that is typically used in these models is Georgia_Kotias_Mesolithic.

[Croatian Legend]

That CHG you have there is before Kotias, which in the mesolithic. That late UP sample could be soaking up some Iran Neolithic. The CHG that is typically used in these models is Georgia_Kotias_Mesolithic.

Nope not at all! I tried Kotias and the P value goes drastically down. I seem to have a more pure CHG variant and Basal reacher version. Kotias is already mixed with a litte EHG. To get a more cleaner split satsublia is better to get the exact CHG out especially someone like me that has a more Caucasian/Steppe related input.

You seem to think in terms of G25/ Vahaduo ways, there is no one fit all calculation. You have to be more logical and flexible especially in a comlpex region like the Dinaric area.

I am going to repeat once more i tried those standard setups they FAIL with me!

You see this is what alot amateurs here don´t understand instead spewing BS theories and using Vahaduo as proof is laughable.
There are many scientific papers out there for various European groups and the genetic breakdown is a litte more complex then people here are aware.

No attack on you just a heads up.

[Gannicus]

Nope not at all! I tried Kotias and the P value goes drastically down. I seem to have a more pure CHG variant and Basal reacher version. Kotias is already mixed with a litte EHG. To get a more cleaner split satsublia is better to get the exact CHG out especially someone like me that has a more Caucasian/Steppe related input.

You seem to think in terms of G25/ Vahaduo ways, there is no one fit all calculation. You have to be more logical and flexible especially in a comlpex region like the Dinaric area.

I am going to repeat once more i tried those standard setups they FAIL with me!

You see this is what alot amateurs here don´t understand instead spewing BS theories and using Vahaduo as proof is laughable.
There are many scientific papers out there for various European groups and the genetic breakdown is a litte more complex then people here are aware.

No attack on you just a heads up.

No, what I'm saying is that Kotias is used in population genetics studies. When you hear discussions about "CHG" admix it's usually Kotias. What does the p-value go down to when you use Kotias?

G25 I don't think deserves all the hate it gets. It is based on PCA which is what academics use. It for sure takes a back seat to academic tools like qpAdm. I've observed qpAdm behaving a lot like G25. I see correlation between the two with my own results. It's not an exact 1:1, but a similar pattern emerges.

[Fistora]

G25 I don't think deserves all the hate it gets. It is based on PCA which is what academics use. It for sure takes a back seat to academic tools like qpAdm. I've observed qpAdm behaving a lot like G25. I see correlation between the two with my own results. It's not an exact 1:1, but a similar pattern emerges.
I noticed that too. Most similarly to qpadm, I am modeled by IllustrativeDNA and G25 Davidski, there is always some margin of error, but still..

[Gannicus]

I noticed that too. Most similarly to qpadm, I am modeled by IllustrativeDNA and G25 Davidski, there is always some margin of error, but still..

I think its fine. Should you use it to attempt to refute the findings of a genetics paper? Absolutely not. Other than that I think it can reveal deep ancestry. With some G25 lists, such as the ones with steppe, ANF, WHG, the results are pretty close.

[Croatian Legend]

No, what I'm saying is that Kotias is used in population genetics studies. When you hear discussions about "CHG" admix it's usually Kotias. What does the p-value go down to when you use Kotias?

G25 I don't think deserves all the hate it gets. It is based on PCA which is what academics use. It for sure takes a back seat to academic tools like qpAdm. I've observed qpAdm behaving a lot like G25. I see correlation between the two with my own results. It's not an exact 1:1, but a similar pattern emerges.


Sorry but you have no idea or rather you don't actually read scientfic papers because you keep repeating the same nonsense as most here.
Satsurblia is definitly used and also swapped in profesional testing. Satsurblia indicates a pure CHG line and it is used to better seperater CHG from EHG. Also same goes with AHG and EEF: AHG hast an eastern shift and lacks the natufian component that EEF has. It is also used in population/individual testing to see which fits better.

And no genetic scientist uses G25 for professinal work , since you mentioned that it is based on PCA. You do realise that they have there own ways or software to do the PCA. Which is different then G25 from Davidski.
Or rather let me be more clear Davdskis coords are a joke for ancestral calculation no serous scientist uses that. Not to even talk about his methods how he creates the coords. But i won't go into that now.
G25 is only good for general clustering but not to break down your ancestral components.

[Croatian Legend]

I noticed that too. Most similarly to qpadm, I am modeled by IllustrativeDNA and G25 Davidski, there is always some margin of error, but still..

Nope i have recreated his results with QPADM and i get very bad P-values and some even failed. He has a definitv biased to frame Poles as some Steppeüber population. Even though Qpadm results show that you guys are around 40 to 45 even 50% EEF so pretty normal central European.

As matter of fact when i recreated his results it was barely over a good 0,05 value and the standard error was horrible.

By the way this is no personal attack on you just talking here.

[Croatian Legend]

And again looking at all other scientific work not just for Balkans also other regions of Europea you would see that things are a little more complex. I just find it funny that you take G25 from davidski as some proof even though all of the professionals actually warn from using Amateur tools like Davidski because it creates bias and a wrong picture.

[Gannicus]

Sorry but you have no idea or rather you don't actually read scientfic papers because you keep repeating the same nonsense as most here.
Satsurblia is definitly used and also swapped in profesional testing. Satsurblia indicates a pure CHG line and it is used to better seperater CHG from EHG. Also same goes with AHG and EEF: AHG hast an eastern shift and lacks the natufian component that EEF has. It is also used in population/individual testing to see which fits better.

And no genetic scientist uses G25 for professinal work , since you mentioned that it is based on PCA. You do realise that they have there own ways or software to do the PCA. Which is different then G25 from Davidski.
Or rather let me be more clear Davdskis coords are a joke for ancestral calculation no serous scientist uses that. Not to even talk about his methods how he creates the coords. But i won't go into that now.
G25 is only good for general clustering but not to break down your ancestral components.

You have a bias as well. And it's against G25 which I cant really remember why. Except maybe your results on there don't fit your worldview on how people and places should be.

On your point with Satsurblia vs. Kotias. Kotias is closer in time to when CHG groups were interacting with EHGs in the steppe. And it makes more biological sense to use Kotias for European admixture modeling. Satsurblia is used for more deep time modeling. It's almost like using Dzudzuana in a neolithic/mesolithic model.

I essentially googled this because I think you are oversimplifying G25 and If I spend a whole hour or whatever writing my own defense of G25, it would be a waste of my time:


PCA basis isn’t inherently invalid – G25 coordinates are derived from a PCA built with ancient genomes, which is conceptually similar to the PCA space scientists use in publications. qpAdm, formal stats, and supervised modeling often rely on the same PCA framework for visualizing population structure.

Correlation with formal models While G25 is not a formal f-statistics tool, supervised models on G25 data can often produce admixture proportions that track closely with qpAdm, especially when the reference set is chosen well.

p-values aren’t the whole story Even in qpAdm, p-values in the 0.05–0.2 range can be considered reasonable, especially when reference populations aren’t perfect fits. Chasing a p=1.0 is unrealistic because even published academic models rarely achieve that without overfitting.

Scientists do use PCA-based coordinates – The difference is that in academic work they generate their own PCA from raw data, but the underlying principle is the same. The main limitation with G25 is that it’s a fixed PCA space and coordinates are produced by projection rather than recomputing the PCA, which can introduce some distortion—but it’s still valid for exploratory work.


I'd like to know what papers you are referring to. The ones I have seen when it relates to European genetics, it's Kotias. And Satsurblia is used for deeper time modeling of Kotias itself.

[Gannicus]

Just like in G25 I can model myself with near eastern groups. As I mentioned before it's not a perfect exact match. Also, another difference I'm qpAdm modeling with MyHeritage DNA file and not my Merged DNA file that has my data from 23&Me v4, v5, and Ancestry.com.

142645

Target: Gannicus_MergedFile_officialDavidski_scaled
Distance: 0.0217% / 0.02173807
96.1 English
3.9 Yemenite_Jew

142646

Target: Gannicus_MergedFile_officialDavidski_scaled
Distance: 0.0230% / 0.02297868
93.9 Scottish
6.1 Lebanese_Druze

142647

Target: Gannicus_MergedFile_officialDavidski_scaled
Distance: 0.0225% / 0.02251603
95.2 Scottish
4.8 Saudi

142648

Target: Gannicus_MergedFile_officialDavidski_scaled
Distance: 0.0223% / 0.02226118
95.9 English
4.1 Samaritan

(only 1 Samaritan in AADR dataset vs this G25 average)

[Gannicus]

And here are some more:

142650

Target: Gannicus_MergedFile_officialDavidski_scaled
Distance: 0.0225% / 0.02247160
95.2 Scottish
4.8 BedouinB

142651

Target: Gannicus_MergedFile_officialDavidski_scaled
Distance: 0.0226% / 0.02261509
93.7 Scottish
6.3 Lebanese_Christian

142652

Target: Gannicus_MergedFile_officialDavidski_scaled
Distance: 0.0239% / 0.02386469
95.0 Scottish
5.0 Assyrian

142653

Target: Gannicus_MergedFile_officialDavidski_scaled
Distance: 0.0220% / 0.02195749
95.1 English
4.9 Lebanese_Christian

[Croatian Legend]

You have a bias as well. And it's against G25 which I cant really remember why. Except maybe your results on there don't fit your worldview on how people and places should be.

On your point with Satsurblia vs. Kotias. Kotias is closer in time to when CHG groups were interacting with EHGs in the steppe. And it makes more biological sense to use Kotias for European admixture modeling. Satsurblia is used for more deep time modeling. It's almost like using Dzudzuana in a neolithic/mesolithic model.

I essentially googled this because I think you are oversimplifying G25 and If I spend a whole hour or whatever writing my own defense of G25, it would be a waste of my time:


PCA basis isn’t inherently invalid – G25 coordinates are derived from a PCA built with ancient genomes, which is conceptually similar to the PCA space scientists use in publications. qpAdm, formal stats, and supervised modeling often rely on the same PCA framework for visualizing population structure.

Correlation with formal models While G25 is not a formal f-statistics tool, supervised models on G25 data can often produce admixture proportions that track closely with qpAdm, especially when the reference set is chosen well.

p-values aren’t the whole story Even in qpAdm, p-values in the 0.05–0.2 range can be considered reasonable, especially when reference populations aren’t perfect fits. Chasing a p=1.0 is unrealistic because even published academic models rarely achieve that without overfitting.
gy which
Scientists do use PCA-based coordinates – The difference is that in academic work they generate their own PCA from raw data, but the underlying principle is the same. The main limitation with G25 is that it’s a fixed PCA space and coordinates are produced by projection rather than recomputing the PCA, which can introduce some distortion—but it’s still valid for exploratory work.


I'd like to know what papers you are referring to. The ones I have seen when it relates to European genetics, it's Kotias. And Satsurblia is used for deeper time modeling of Kotias itself.


So that is all you can say i have a biase. It seems i hit a nerve. You go at my worldview ..... look i aprouch every nation as it's own and try to reasonably get to an answer after looking at every side. Just a simple explanation why i argue they way i do.

Now something i have noticed on this forum is that armchair geneticist only follow some low level claculations with g25 which is from the bodom completely biased. Davdski has an agenda that is a simple a fact!

I read alot and get my sources from papers and professionals themselves. And i care about unbiased truth. Wich Davidski doesn't provide since he hides his methodology which is unprofesional and adds to his amateurish ways. So you seem to defend him for the life of it which is really weird.

You seem to know more than actual geneticist ? Anyway those Qpadm results confirm everything i got from my DNA report.
I am going to repeat yet again G25 is only good for general clustering nothing more.

Now let's come to your argument with Kotias and Satsurblia. This "Kotias fits the timeline better" argument is an oversimplification, and in population genetics, time alone is not the main reason to pick a proxy. Snps don't carry a timeline or exact date!
The goal in QPADM is to represent the ancestral component, not to match the exact migration date!

If an older sample like Satsurblia is genetically closer to the pure CHG source then it is the better choice simple as that. Which P value and standard error prooves.

Many major papers like Lazaridids , Mathieson and Narasimhan etc just to name a few use Satsublia for CHG whne they want to avoid steppe bias , even modeling past 9000 BP populations.

Point is it is about what fits your genetic composition th e best that is why each snp has to be looked at. Where G25 tries to pressure your raw data into 25 dimensional points which creates heavy noise and very unprecise results when it comes to ancestral composition that is a fact and every academic will tell you the same!

So if you come only with a google search answer this tells me already your approach to things, but whatever.

Think about that , this is no attack on you or anything , don't wanna start an unecessaryy fight.

If you wanna know ,yes G25 get´s it correctly in clustering me to Croats/Slovenians/Bosniak and Hungarians. Everything else ..... well i explained myself enough.

Kind regards

[Gannicus]

So that is all you can say i have a biase. It seems i hit a nerve. You go at my worldview ..... look i aprouch every nation as it's own and try to reasonably get to an answer after looking at every side. Just a simple explanation why i argue they way i do.

Now something i have noticed on this forum is that armchair geneticist only follow some low level claculations with g25 which is from the bodom completely biased. Davdski has an agenda that is a simple a fact!

I read alot and get my sources from papers and professionals themselves. And i care about unbiased truth. Wich Davidski doesn't provide since he hides his methodology which is unprofesional and adds to his amateurish ways. So you seem to defend him for the life of it which is really weird.

You seem to know more than actual geneticist ? Anyway those Qpadm results confirm everything i got from my DNA report.
I am going to repeat yet again G25 is only good for general clustering nothing more.

Now let's come to your argument with Kotias and Satsurblia. This "Kotias fits the timeline better" argument is an oversimplification, and in population genetics, time alone is not the main reason to pick a proxy. Snps don't carry a timeline or exact date!
The goal in QPADM is to represent the ancestral component, not to match the exact migration date!

If an older sample like Satsurblia is genetically closer to the pure CHG source then it is the better choice simple as that. Which P value and standard error prooves.

Many major papers like Lazaridids , Mathieson and Narasimhan etc just to name a few use Satsublia for CHG whne they want to avoid steppe bias , even modeling past 9000 BP populations.

Point is it is about what fits your genetic composition th e best that is why each snp has to be looked at. Where G25 tries to pressure your raw data into 25 dimensional points which creates heavy noise and very unprecise results when it comes to ancestral composition that is a fact and every academic will tell you the same!

So if you come only with a google search answer this tells me already your approach to things, but whatever.

Think about that , this is no attack on you or anything , don't wanna start an unecessaryy fight.

If you wanna know ,yes G25 get´s it correctly in clustering me to Croats/Slovenians/Bosniak and Hungarians. Everything else ..... well i explained myself enough.

Kind regards

I hit a nerve of yours earlier when I was using citing G25 and Eurogenes k13. The only reason I defend it is because I see similarity with qpAdm and other tools. I clearly demonstrated that there is correlation with G25 and qpAdm in my previous posts, however, I also acknowledge that it doesn't always line up. So your position on G25 doesn't necessarily hold up. From your response I could tell right away you didn't like your results and that It does not align with your perceived ancestral background. Or at least that's the vibe I got from the way you worded your post.



So that is all you can say i have a biase. It seems i hit a nerve. You go at my worldview ..... look i aprouch every nation as it's own and try to reasonably get to an answer after looking at every side. Just a simple explanation why i argue they way i do.

It certainly sounded like that based on the responses I get out of you. It sounds exactly like someone who likes to put people in specific boxes and if the data doesn't fit then its wrong. I didn't outright reject your model with Satsurblia either. Just a suggestion that you should try Kotias. I'll say that maybe I misinterpreted some of your posts. And if you do substitute Satsurblia for Kotias and pval drops to 0.1 or something, that is still valid.




You seem to know more than actual geneticist ?


Did I say I do? No, neither do you. Your tone could use some work. You came in here being dismissive and mildly annoyed in the first place. Your opinion on Davidski and how you worded it draws suspicion to you. And I can't quite place my finger on it but it's an attitude I have seen on here where members sh*t on everyone on here despite the fact he/she is a member and participating here.

Also:


So if you come only with a google search answer this tells me already your approach to things, but whatever.



You seem to know more than actual geneticist ?

^
this is no attack on you or anything , don't wanna start an unecessaryy fight.

lol?


Edit:

I can't really take anything you say seriously after this comment:


I might be to harsh but i would only take p values around 0,5 and above serious.

Excuse my French, but that is total bullshit.

[Gannicus]

Another Steppe+EEF/ANF+WHG model. I have modeled myself with Germany LBK already, but that was with a Corded Ware group.

142657

Target: Gannicus_MergedFile_officialDavidski_scaled
Distance: 0.0439% / 0.04392507
46.8 Russia_Samara_EBA_Yamnaya
43.1 Germany_EN_LBK
10.1 Luxembourg_Loschbour.DG



The admixture of Germany LBK EN:

142660

[Croatian Legend]

I hit a nerve of yours earlier when I was using citing G25 and Eurogenes k13. The only reason I defend it is because I see similarity with qpAdm and other tools. I clearly demonstrated that there is correlation with G25 and qpAdm in my previous posts, however, I also acknowledge that it doesn't always line up. So your position on G25 doesn't necessarily hold up. From your response I could tell right away you didn't like your results and that It does not align with your perceived ancestral background. Or at least that's the vibe I got from the way you worded your post.



It certainly sounded like that based on the responses I get out of you. It sounds exactly like someone who likes to put people in specific boxes and if the data doesn't fit then its wrong. I didn't outright reject your model with Satsurblia either. Just a suggestion that you should try Kotias. I'll say that maybe I misinterpreted some of your posts. And if you do substitute Satsurblia for Kotias and pval drops to 0.1 or something, that is still valid.






Did I say I do? No, neither do you. Your tone could use some work. You came in here being dismissive and mildly annoyed in the first place. Your opinion on Davidski and how you worded it draws suspicion to you. And I can't quite place my finger on it but it's an attitude I have seen on here where members sh*t on everyone on here despite the fact he/she is a member and participating here.

Also:




^

lol?


Edit:

I can't really take anything you say seriously after this comment:



Excuse my French, but that is total bullshit.

Stop imagining what you can read out of my post ;your assumbtions are redicoulus. You even started to go personal trying to talk about my worldview which you have no clue of. Go to my beginning post i always kept it on topic always talking about the results and pointing towards professional sources.

But here you act as if you know better then them which proofs my assumptions right. And then you keep larping about me being dissadisifed with davidksi which is justified. Not because my G25 coords are somehow bad whcih is again wrong or as you frame it "it doesn't fit my worldview" which again ingonrant.

Proofs again that i hit a nerve just look how you started to respond. I didn't do the same.
If you cannot handle the truth then it is not on me.

Yes i can also reproduce all the Davidski G25 results but they fail or are extremly bad with high standard errors. Which gives me another inside on what he did or his methodology. Each and every geneticist approches population genetics as individuals or if there is a common ground then you go universal but with coution.

Everything i explained to you with CHG Kotias and satsurblia is perfectly valid (and you can look em up) just because you are ingorant and doesn't want to except that fact points towards your narrow view on things.

And yes the goal is to go well aboive a p-value 0,05 and keep the standard error low which in my case i provided.

Keep your manners in, don't try to assume anything about me i haven't attacked you previously.


And i am gonna repeat yet again G25 is ony good for general clustering. NOT FOR DEEP ANALYSIS


So let's go back to the topic this thread is about QPADM and them models . If you wanna argue with me write me personally.

Cheers!

[Gannicus]

Stop imagining what you can read out of my post ;your assumbtions are redicoulus. You even started to go personal trying to talk about my worldview which you have no clue of. Go to my beginning post i always kept it on topic always talking about the results and pointing towards professional sources.

But here you act as if you know better then them which proofs my assumptions right. And then you keep larping about me being dissadisifed with davidksi which is justified. Not because my G25 coords are somehow bad whcih is again wrong or as you frame it "it doesn't fit my worldview" which again ingonrant.

Proofs again that i hit a nerve just look how you started to respond. I didn't do the same.
If you cannot handle the truth then it is not on me.

Yes i can also reproduce all the Davidski G25 results but they fail or are extremly bad with high standard errors. Which gives me another inside on what he did or his methodology. Each and every geneticist approches population genetics as individuals or if there is a common ground then you go universal but with coution.

Everything i explained to you with CHG Kotias and satsurblia is perfectly valid (and you can look em up) just because you are ingorant and doesn't want to except that fact points towards your narrow view on things.

And yes the goal is to go well aboive a p-value 0,05 and keep the standard error low which in my case i provided.

Keep your manners in, don't try to assume anything about me i haven't attacked you previously.


And i am gonna repeat yet again G25 is ony good for general clustering. NOT FOR DEEP ANALYSIS


So let's go back to the topic this thread is about QPADM and them models . If you wanna argue with me write me personally.

Cheers!

I don’t think I act as if I know better than them. You’re just saying that because I don’t agree with you. Or it at least that’s what it seems like. I study this stuff in my free time. I’m always learning. And so are you. I only escalated because your tone changed. And I don’t fully agree with your positions on things. I was neutral/polite with you this entire time until I was saying things that you did not agree with. I went back and looked by the way. I’m very sensitive to tone. And if you have disagreement with someone about something like G25 you do not word your posts the way you did. It sounds like you have it all figured out too. Using language like “nonsense” from a random person on the internet that isn’t an authority on genetics is off putting. That was only one example. I reciprocate what I receive. And if you respond the way you did you will get what you got from me. My position is that G25 isn’t as bad as you say it is. It’s not perfect, but that doesn’t mean it should be thrown in a metaphorical trash can either.

[Croatian Legend]

I don’t think I act as if I know better than them. You’re just saying that because I don’t agree with you. Or it at least that’s what it seems like. I study this stuff in my free time. I’m always learning. And so are you. I only escalated because your tone changed. And I don’t fully agree with your positions on things. I was neutral/polite with you this entire time until I was saying things that you did not agree with. I went back and looked by the way. I’m very sensitive to tone. And if you have disagreement with someone about something like G25 you do not word your posts the way you did. It sounds like you have it all figured out too. Using language like “nonsense” from a random person on the internet that isn’t an authority on genetics is off putting. That was only one example. I reciprocate what I receive. And if you respond the way you did you will get what you got from me. My position is that G25 isn’t as bad as you say it is. It’s not perfect, but that doesn’t mean it should be thrown in a metaphorical trash can either.

Look you are using one word examples to as an escuse to attack me personally. You know that you have crossed the line. I kept it on topic you went for personal stuff which you have no clue of.

Yes you do act as if you know just by judging how you wrote and attacked me. And you should stop imagining things how someone sounds over a text you seem a little emotional. So i will ask you kindly yet again to keep your manners in.

I have provided enough info on the qpadm vs g25 thing and the whole genetics analysis, where you did not. You proved lazy google search answers.
Yes i do read alot about that topic and if you would to and be more critical and less emotional and just go for the facts you will see what i point to.

And if you look close enough i pointed out way early that G25 is only good for general clustering/distances to poluations nothing more nothing less.
So i have a clear view and opinion on that but your emotions and some fanatsys clouded that the whole thing.

Anyway the problem is sovled let's move back to the general topic which is QPADM!

[Gannicus]

Look you are using one word examples to as an escuse to attack me personally. You know that you have crossed the line. I kept it on topic you went for personal stuff which you have no clue of.

Yes you do act as if you know just by judging how you wrote and attacked me. And you should stop imagining things how someone sounds over a text you seem a little emotional. So i will ask you kindly yet again to keep your manners in.

I have provided enough info on the qpadm vs g25 thing and the whole genetics analysis, where you did not. You proved lazy google search answers.
Yes i do read alot about that topic and if you would to and be more critical and less emotional and just go for the facts you will see what i point to.

And if you look close enough i pointed out way early that G25 is only good for general clustering/distances to poluations nothing more nothing less.
So i have a clear view and opinion on that but your emotions and some fanatsys clouded that the whole thing.

Anyway the problem is sovled let's move back to the general topic which is QPADM!

I just posted one example. You want me to link the post and highlight your shitty word choice? I’ve been biting my tongue since you made that ridiculous comment about p-values. Claiming I don’t review or read the papers when I actually linked a paper that refuted your bullshit statement. Your tone was shit and you are the one calling everyone on here “amateurs”. Who the fu*k are you to be saying shit like that?? I have built up a pretty good knowledge base. And there is always room to learn more. But the way you spoke in a couple posts I cannot let that stand. I have absolutely 0 patience for condescension. I’ve let it slide in the past but not anymore. That's why you are getting this. I'm done with it. Even if it's a little bit. You know why? Because it's incredibly f*cking easy to be neutral/polite.

Also, just to make you happy do I have to put a disclaimer out every time I make a post that says I'm not a population geneticist, there's gaps in my knowledge, and I'm still learning?? Because nobody does that. And another thing, I have interacted with other members on here. Majevica corrected me in this thread and suggested I use a different EHG in my references for qpAdm. Do I think he is a know it all because of that? Absolutely not! It helped me out.

Your tone was garbage in the first place and now you are acting like you're the righteous one after I had enough? That's rich.

[Gannicus]

Look you are using one word examples to as an escuse to attack me personally. You know that you have crossed the line. I kept it on topic you went for personal stuff which you have no clue of.

Yes you do act as if you know just by judging how you wrote and attacked me. And you should stop imagining things how someone sounds over a text you seem a little emotional. So i will ask you kindly yet again to keep your manners in.

I have provided enough info on the qpadm vs g25 thing and the whole genetics analysis, where you did not. You proved lazy google search answers.
Yes i do read alot about that topic and if you would to and be more critical and less emotional and just go for the facts you will see what i point to.

And if you look close enough i pointed out way early that G25 is only good for general clustering/distances to poluations nothing more nothing less.
So i have a clear view and opinion on that but your emotions and some fanatsys clouded that the whole thing.

Anyway the problem is sovled let's move back to the general topic which is QPADM!

If you think this was unprovoked look again. This is your post #158:


"Sorry but you have no idea or rather you don't actually read scientfic papers because you keep repeating the same nonsense as most here.
Satsurblia is definitly used and also swapped in profesional testing. Satsurblia indicates a pure CHG line and it is used to better seperater CHG from EHG. Also same goes with AHG and EEF: AHG hast an eastern shift and lacks the natufian component that EEF has. It is also used in population/individual testing to see which fits better.

And no genetic scientist uses G25 for professinal work , since you mentioned that it is based on PCA. You do realise that they have there own ways or software to do the PCA. Which is different then G25 from Davidski.
Or rather let me be more clear Davdskis coords are a joke for ancestral calculation no serous scientist uses that. Not to even talk about his methods how he creates the coords. But i won't go into that now.
G25 is only good for general clustering but not to break down your ancestral components."

That sentence was totally unnecessary, and I told you I have 0 tolerance for condescension. If you or anyone else doesn't see a problem with that then you are totally tone deaf. You could have posted that without sounding like an asshole, and it would have been fine. We wouldn't be at this point now. I told you in the previous post I have delt with slights in the past but not anymore! You say you are not asking for a fight. Those are fighting words to me. You have no business making authoritative statements like "nonsense". The only time I use that word is when I'm discussing Afrocentrism or historical revisionism. There's far more wiggle room with DNA tools.

And on your statement with AHG. It does have levantine affintity. This is from Feldman et al. 2019 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-09209-7


Inspired by our qualitative observations in PCA and ADMIXTURE analyses, we applied formal statistical frameworks to describe the genetic profiles of the three Anatolian populations and to test and model genetic differences between them. We first characterized the ancestry of AHG. As expected from AHG’s intermediate position on PCA between Epipaleolithic/Neolithic Levantines and WHG, Patterson’s D-statistics13 of the form D (AHG, WHG; Natufian/Levant_N, Mbuti) ≥ 4.8 SE (standard error) and D (AHG, Natufian/Levant_N; WHG, Mbuti) ≥ 9.0 SE (Supplementary Table 3) indicate that AHG is distinct from both the WHG and Epipaleolithic/Neolithic Levantine populations and yet shares extra affinity with each when compared to the other. Then, we applied a qpAdm-based admixture modeling to integrate these D- statistics. qpAdm is a generalization of D/f4-statistics that test whether the target population and the admixture model (i.e., a linear combination of reference populations) are symmetrically related to multiple outgroups13. By doing so, it tests whether the proposed admixture model is adequate to explain the target gene pool and provides admixture coefficient estimates. We find an adequate two-way admixture model (χ2p = 0.158), in which AHG derives around half of his ancestry from a Neolithic Levantine-related gene pool (48.0 ± 4.5%; estimate ± 1 SE) and the rest from the WHG-related one (Supplementary Tables 4, 5). While these results do not suggest that the AHG gene pool originated as a mixture of Levant_N and WHG, both of which lived millennia later than AHG, it still robustly supports that AHG is genetically intermediate between WHG and Levant_N. This cannot be explained without gene flow between the ancestral gene pools of those three groups. This supports a late Pleistocene presence of both Near-Eastern and European hunter-gatherer-related ancestries in central Anatolia. Notably, this genetic link with the Levant pre-dates the advent of farming in this region by at least five millennia.

[Fistora]

https://i.postimg.cc/X799DSBc/image.png
my best model so far

[Croatian Legend]

If you think this was unprovoked look again. This is your post #158:



That sentence was totally unnecessary, and I told you I have 0 tolerance for condescension. If you or anyone else doesn't see a problem with that then you are totally tone deaf. You could have posted that without sounding like an asshole, and it would have been fine. We wouldn't be at this point now. I told you in the previous post I have delt with slights in the past but not anymore! You say you are not asking for a fight. Those are fighting words to me. You have no business making authoritative statements like "nonsense". The only time I use that word is when I'm discussing Afrocentrism or historical revisionism. There's far more wiggle room with DNA tools.

And on your statement with AHG. It does have levantine affintity. This is from Feldman et al. 2019 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-09209-7


Inspired by our qualitative observations in PCA and ADMIXTURE analyses, we applied formal statistical frameworks to describe the genetic profiles of the three Anatolian populations and to test and model genetic differences between them. We first characterized the ancestry of AHG. As expected from AHG’s intermediate position on PCA between Epipaleolithic/Neolithic Levantines and WHG, Patterson’s D-statistics13 of the form D (AHG, WHG; Natufian/Levant_N, Mbuti) ≥ 4.8 SE (standard error) and D (AHG, Natufian/Levant_N; WHG, Mbuti) ≥ 9.0 SE (Supplementary Table 3) indicate that AHG is distinct from both the WHG and Epipaleolithic/Neolithic Levantine populations and yet shares extra affinity with each when compared to the other. Then, we applied a qpAdm-based admixture modeling to integrate these D- statistics. qpAdm is a generalization of D/f4-statistics that test whether the target population and the admixture model (i.e., a linear combination of reference populations) are symmetrically related to multiple outgroups13. By doing so, it tests whether the proposed admixture model is adequate to explain the target gene pool and provides admixture coefficient estimates. We find an adequate two-way admixture model (χ2p = 0.158), in which AHG derives around half of his ancestry from a Neolithic Levantine-related gene pool (48.0 ± 4.5%; estimate ± 1 SE) and the rest from the WHG-related one (Supplementary Tables 4, 5). While these results do not suggest that the AHG gene pool originated as a mixture of Levant_N and WHG, both of which lived millennia later than AHG, it still robustly supports that AHG is genetically intermediate between WHG and Levant_N. This cannot be explained without gene flow between the ancestral gene pools of those three groups. This supports a late Pleistocene presence of both Near-Eastern and European hunter-gatherer-related ancestries in central Anatolia. Notably, this genetic link with the Levant pre-dates the advent of farming in this region by at least five millennia.



Well i will also not tolerate someone attacking me personally and assuming stuff up, period. So point the fingers first at yourself and move on!

Now to the AHG topic you have send.

Yes i am well aware that some science papers point towards natufian others point towards iranian shift. Really depends but i consider it also plausible!
Either way AHG has definitely a stong eastern shift which also shows in my genome. Since i am completely cuf of from the western hemisphere of Europe on my profesional dna result.
I assume it is that and the combination of elevated CHG from CHG heavy steppe source that shows in my genome .

My two contries that show on my Dna result is:

Hungary/Budapest around 31%
Croatia/Dalmatia around 22%
Slovnia/Slovenia at 11%
Bosnia/Mostar at 4%

There are more but i might post later more but those are the ones to name a few. The really interesting part is the deep analysis from the company and this is where it gets interesting.

[Croatian Legend]

https://i.postimg.cc/X799DSBc/image.png
my best model so far

P- value wise it seems excellent but ry to work on your right to lower your standard error! maybe remove or add some but your definetly on track!

[Croatian Legend]

https://i.postimg.cc/X799DSBc/image.png
my best model so far

If you get closer to a standard error of 5 or below with keeping your p-value a that level that you are dead on!

[Croatian Legend]

And on your statement with AHG. It does have levantine affintity. This is from Feldman et al. 2019 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-09209-7


Inspired by our qualitative observations in PCA and ADMIXTURE analyses, we applied formal statistical frameworks to describe the genetic profiles of the three Anatolian populations and to test and model genetic differences between them. We first characterized the ancestry of AHG. As expected from AHG’s intermediate position on PCA between Epipaleolithic/Neolithic Levantines and WHG, Patterson’s D-statistics13 of the form D (AHG, WHG; Natufian/Levant_N, Mbuti) ≥ 4.8 SE (standard error) and D (AHG, Natufian/Levant_N; WHG, Mbuti) ≥ 9.0 SE (Supplementary Table 3) indicate that AHG is distinct from both the WHG and Epipaleolithic/Neolithic Levantine populations and yet shares extra affinity with each when compared to the other. Then, we applied a qpAdm-based admixture modeling to integrate these D- statistics. qpAdm is a generalization of D/f4-statistics that test whether the target population and the admixture model (i.e., a linear combination of reference populations) are symmetrically related to multiple outgroups13. By doing so, it tests whether the proposed admixture model is adequate to explain the target gene pool and provides admixture coefficient estimates. We find an adequate two-way admixture model (χ2p = 0.158), in which AHG derives around half of his ancestry from a Neolithic Levantine-related gene pool (48.0 ± 4.5%; estimate ± 1 SE) and the rest from the WHG-related one (Supplementary Tables 4, 5). While these results do not suggest that the AHG gene pool originated as a mixture of Levant_N and WHG, both of which lived millennia later than AHG, it still robustly supports that AHG is genetically intermediate between WHG and Levant_N. This cannot be explained without gene flow between the ancestral gene pools of those three groups. This supports a late Pleistocene presence of both Near-Eastern and European hunter-gatherer-related ancestries in central Anatolia. Notably, this genetic link with the Levant pre-dates the advent of farming in this region by at least five millennia.



Maybe it would be interesting to model AHG in qpadm an see what seems feasable. Would be interesting what the breakdown is.

Gnereally what is comon that AHG can be modelet as 50 -60% WHG like component and 40 - 50 % Natufian "related".

Gotta correct myself AHG has more Natufian/WHG related and EEF has more of extra Basal Euraisan/Fertile Crescent and less WHG

[Fistora]

https://i.postimg.cc/DZwWQJ5Y/image.png

Slight improvement

[Gannicus]

Well i will also not tolerate someone attacking me personally and assuming stuff up, period. So point the fingers first at yourself and move on!

Now to the AHG topic you have send.

Yes i am well aware that some science papers point towards natufian others point towards iranian shift. Really depends but i consider it also plausible!
Either way AHG has definitely a stong eastern shift which also shows in my genome. Since i am completely cuf of from the western hemisphere of Europe on my profesional dna result.
I assume it is that and the combination of elevated CHG from CHG heavy steppe source that shows in my genome .

My two contries that show on my Dna result is:

Hungary/Budapest around 31%
Croatia/Dalmatia around 22%
Slovnia/Slovenia at 11%
Bosnia/Mostar at 4%

There are more but i might post later more but those are the ones to name a few. The really interesting part is the deep analysis from the company and this is where it gets interesting.

To be fair the only time I got nasty with you was from that post I linked. I quoted your first line and we generally had a neutral dialogue up to that point. You insulted me first and I reciprocated.

Go back and look. I was neutral and polite to you up until you said: "Sorry but you have no idea or rather you don't actually read scientfic papers because you keep repeating the same nonsense as most here." That was an insult and rude.
So, my insult to you was after you responded to me in that post.

I'll repeat your insulting and rude comment was post #158 on page 16 and I responded in kind in post #161 on page 17. I was not the first. You crossed a line.

If you go back and re read the thread, the record is plain.

[Croatian Legend]

To be fair the only time I got nasty with you was from that post I linked. I quoted your first line and we generally had a neutral dialogue up to that point. You insulted me first and I reciprocated.

Go back and look. I was neutral and polite to you up until you said: "Sorry but you have no idea or rather you don't actually read scientfic papers because you keep repeating the same nonsense as most here." That was an insult and rude.
So, my insult to you was after you responded to me in that post.

I'll repeat your insulting and rude comment was post #158 on page 16 and I responded in kind in post #161 on page 17. I was not the first. You crossed a line.

If you go back and re read the thread, the record is plain.

Look back how and why i said that. You kept repeating your Kotias think. I told you many times before i tried it looked like you ingoned things. Again my comment was not personal like yours becuase you did sound like you don't read that much and just because you overreact and become emotional doesn'tgive you the right assuming things about me. Another indicator was that you went on that using Satsublia is wrong which if you would have read about the scientist that do actually use the sample than you would understand what i meant. As i said that snps don't have a date or age.

Let's just see it as a misunderstanding and move on and continue the topic.

[Fistora]

*Handshake emoji*

[Gannicus]

Look back how and why i said that. You kept repeating your Kotias think. I told you many times before i tried it looked like you ingoned things. Again my comment was not personal like yours becuase you did sound like you don't read that much and just because you overreact and become emotional doesn'tgive you the right assuming things about me. Another indicator was that you went on that using Satsublia is wrong which if you would have read about the scientist that do actually use the sample than you would understand what i meant. As i said that snps don't have a date or age.

Let's just see it as a misunderstanding and move on and continue the topic.

No, no, you are not going to wiggle out of this. What you said was a personal attack. I was polite/neutral to you. Let me spell it out for you:

Why It Qualifies as an Insult

“Sorry but you have no idea” > This statement attacks knowledge or competence directly, rather than addressing the substance of the argument.

“don’t actually read scientific papers” > This implies dishonesty or laziness, instead of offering a fair critique of interpretation or reasoning.

“keep repeating the same nonsense as most here” > By labeling points as “nonsense” rather than engaging with them, the comment becomes disparaging and dismissive.

Yeah, if you want to be constructive, don't use language like that or I will take you on. Just realize you f*cked up. I didn't employ that language against you until you said that to me.

Using the emotional argument is weak and cheap move to score "points" After a while of tolerating slights I had enough. I completely explained the reaction. It's not unprovoked.

I can absolutely assume anything I want. You are not going to tell me what not to think.

Let's clear things up. I noticed you had gaps in knowledge too like the comment you made about p-values (which was totally way off) So, when I saw that comment did I immediately insult you? No. I simply said, "That's not correct" and a cited a paper that published an admixture result with a p-value far less than 0.5. I only called it out after you attacked me.

[Croatian Legend]

No, no, you are not going to wiggle out of this. I was polite/neutral to you. Let me spell it out for you:

Why It Qualifies as an Insult

“Sorry but you have no idea” > This statement attacks knowledge or competence directly, rather than addressing the substance of the argument.

“don’t actually read scientific papers” > This implies dishonesty or laziness, instead of offering a fair critique of interpretation or reasoning.

“keep repeating the same nonsense as most here” > By labeling points as “nonsense” rather than engaging with them, the comment becomes disparaging and dismissive.

Yeah, if you want to be constructive. Don't use language like that or I will take you on. Just realize you f*cked up. And me questioning your sample choice is fine because I'm not hyperfixated on the Caucasus. Population genetics is broad and massive.


I stand behind what i said and rightly so. I critized you on the topic and didn't go for personal attacks like you did so shut the hell up for once.
It seems you can just go for personal attacks and be over emotional, this is on you not me.

Get over it i am done arguing take it or leave it!

[Gannicus]

I stand behind what i said and rightly so. I critized you on the topic and didn't go for personal attacks like you did so shut the hell up for once.
It seems you can just go for personal attacks and be over emotional, this is on you not me.

Get over it i am done arguing take it or leave it!

You attacked me first. It was an insult. Do you understand the sequence of events?

"Sorry but you have no idea or rather you don't actually read scientfic papers because you keep repeating the same nonsense as most here."

^ In the English language this can register as an insult. I took it as a personal attack, and I responded. We have the thread as the record.

Edit: You quoted my initial unedited post. there is more there now.

[Croatian Legend]

No, no, you are not going to wiggle out of this. I was polite/neutral to you. Let me spell it out for you:

Why It Qualifies as an Insult

“Sorry but you have no idea” > This statement attacks knowledge or competence directly, rather than addressing the substance of the argument.

“don’t actually read scientific papers” > This implies dishonesty or laziness, instead of offering a fair critique of interpretation or reasoning.

“keep repeating the same nonsense as most here” > By labeling points as “nonsense” rather than engaging with them, the comment becomes disparaging and dismissive.

Yeah, if you want to be constructive, don't use language like that or I will take you on. Just realize you f*cked up.

There is a differnce between taking a dead on critic on a topic and going for personal attacks like you did. But it seems you cannot see the differnce. If you wanna be over emotinal then keep going. You simple wanna ignore the nuances. And how ignorantly you behaved even though i pointed it out many times before you went on.

Sure you can think whatever ..... but then accept it when you get hit back. I could get personal but i wasn't even until now.

I am done.

[Gannicus]

There is a differnce between taking a dead on critic on a topic and going for personal attacks like you did. But it seems you cannot see the differnce. If you wanna be over emotinal then keep going. You simple wanna ignore the nuances. And how ignorantly you behaved even though i pointed it out many times before you went on.

Sure you can think whatever ..... but then accept it when you get hit back. I could get personal but i wasn't even until now.

I am done.

Guess I'm going to have to link your post again.


Sorry but you have no idea or rather you don't actually read scientfic papers because you keep repeating the same nonsense as most here.
Satsurblia is definitly used and also swapped in profesional testing. Satsurblia indicates a pure CHG line and it is used to better seperater CHG from EHG. Also same goes with AHG and EEF: AHG hast an eastern shift and lacks the natufian component that EEF has. It is also used in population/individual testing to see which fits better.

And no genetic scientist uses G25 for professinal work , since you mentioned that it is based on PCA. You do realise that they have there own ways or software to do the PCA. Which is different then G25 from Davidski.
Or rather let me be more clear Davdskis coords are a joke for ancestral calculation no serous scientist uses that. Not to even talk about his methods how he creates the coords. But i won't go into that now.
G25 is only good for general clustering but not to break down your ancestral components.


Read that bolded sentence. Let me give you an English lesson. That is an insulting sentence. You made that comment towards me. And I responded. The rest of the critique is fine.

I'm starting to think there is just a language barrier.

[Fistora]

https://i.postimg.cc/FHcLgCJf/image.png
I guess, i can't go beyond that now, I will probably have to put the another samples to the source.

[Gannicus]

https://i.postimg.cc/FHcLgCJf/image.png
I guess, i can't go beyond that now, I will probably have to put the another samples to the source.

I'm impressed that the p-value is that high with that many references!

[Grace O'Malley]

My FST distances to modern English individuals:

142233
142234

Scottish individuals:

142235

I don't know why that last Scottish sample is so different from the others.

From what I understand, FST is not designed to detect subtle admixture.

Here's the my fst for Orcadians, Scottish and English.

https://i.postimg.cc/ZK9Xqv2S/Screenshot-2025-08-17-173612.png
https://i.postimg.cc/Jn42CsZS/Screenshot-2025-08-17-173638.png
https://i.postimg.cc/vZF2Hq5r/Screenshot-2025-08-17-173706.png
https://i.postimg.cc/MZc8nLfN/Screenshot-2025-08-17-173734.png
https://i.postimg.cc/PxR2G2t8/Screenshot-2025-08-17-173805.png

So is this not in distance order because looking at this wouldn't No 13 be closest to me?

[Opie]

Here's a model that I used

Sources 6 / 10
Russia_Samara_EBA_Yamnaya.AG


Greece_NeaNikomedeia_EN.SG


Georgia_Kotias_Mesolithic.SG


Mongolia_EIA_SlabGrave_1.AG


Israel_Natufian_d.AG


Iran_Wezmeh_N.SG




References 12 / 30
Cameroon_ShumLaka_SMA.AG


Belgium_GoyetQ116_1_UP.AG


Russia_AfontovaGora3_UP.AG


Russia_LenaRiver_N.SG


Russia_DevilsCave_N.SG


Turkey_Central_Pinarbasi_Epipaleolithic.AG


Morocco_Iberomaurusian.AG


Russia_Tyumen_HG.SG


Georgia_Satsurblia_LateUP.SG


Iran_TepeAbdulHosein_N.SG


Jordan_PPNB.AG


Turkey_Marmara_Barcin_N.SG

142714

[Opie]

Here's a model that needs improvement

142721

Sources 4 / 10
Turkey_Marmara_Barcin_N.AG


Iran_GanjDareh_N.AG


Russia_Samara_EBA_Yamnaya.AG


Russia_DevilsCave_N.SG




References 13 / 30
Mbuti.DG


Russia_UstIshim_IUP.DG


Russia_Kostenki14_UP.SG


Russia_YuzhniyOleniyOstrov_Mesolithic.AG


Russia_Kolyma_Mesolithic.SG


Russia_AfontovaGora3_UP.AG


Georgia_Kotias_UP.SG


India_GreatAndaman_100BP.SG


Han.DG


Papuan.DG


Karitiana.DG


Italy_Epigravettian.AG.BY.AA


Jordan_PPNB.AG

[Opie]

Here's a model with insanely bloated Syria_MBA. I couldn't find Sidon sample and used Syria instead.

142722

[Gannicus]

A two-way model I've seen on IllustrativeDNA in the bronze age section of deep ancestry:

142733

G25:
Target: Gannicus_MergedFile_officialDavidski_scaled
Distance: 0.0352% / 0.03515623
84.1 Czech_EBA_Unetice
15.9 Greece_Manika_Helladic_EBA.SG

[Grace O'Malley]

I'm just looking at this in dribs and drabs and trying to familiarise myself with it's use. I've now realised you don't have to use single samples and I've done this FST distance chart. I'm presuming the negative is a closer distance? I selected the AADR dataset for the populations. There isn't a lot of modern populations to choose from.

Orcadians showing obvious drift which is why they are more distant.

https://i.postimg.cc/HxdhFbNw/Screenshot-2025-08-18-155537.png

I used the Human Origins dataset for this one which has more modern populations. I understand the distances better now. I think when I asked previously I didn't notice that the top pops where negative.

https://i.postimg.cc/XNcQTZKL/PopFST1.png
https://i.postimg.cc/J4pKz92B/PopFST2.png

[Grace O'Malley]

This is my best model using moderns so far others were coming up False.

https://i.postimg.cc/fRY02P0r/Screenshot-2025-08-18-180254.png

This one is not as close but more realistic than French.

https://i.postimg.cc/nhwc1Y3P/Screenshot-2025-08-18-181606.png

https://i.postimg.cc/C1Hjdx0Y/Screenshot-2025-08-18-192815.png

I'll try other models and will try some ancient ones that are in this thread.

[Opie]

Here's another model that I used

142734

Sources 6 / 10
Turkey_Marmara_Barcin_N.AG


Iran_Wezmeh_N.SG


Georgia_Kotias_Mesolithic.SG


Russia_YuzhniyOleniyOstrov_Mesolithic.AG


Israel_Natufian.AG


Mongolia_North_N.AG




References 13 / 30
Mbuti.DG


Austria_Gravettian.AG


Russia_MA1_UP.SG


Russia_LakeBaikal_N.SG


Russia_LenaRiver_N.SG


Turkey_Central_Pinarbasi_Epipaleolithic.AG


Morocco_EN.WGC.SG


Turkey_Central_Boncuklu_PPN.WGC.SG


Russia_Sidelkino_HG.SG


China_Xinjiang_Xiaohe_BA.AG


Georgia_Satsurblia_LateUP.SG


Iran_TepeAbdulHosein_N.SG


India_GreatAndaman_100BP.SG

[Gannicus]

I'm just looking at this in dribs and drabs and trying to familiarise myself with it's use. I've now realised you don't have to use single samples and I've done this FST distance chart. I'm presuming the negative is a closer distance? I selected the AADR dataset for the populations. There isn't a lot of modern populations to choose from.

Orcadians showing obvious drift which is why they are more distant.

https://i.postimg.cc/HxdhFbNw/Screenshot-2025-08-18-155537.png

I used the Human Origins dataset for this one which has more modern populations. I understand the distances better now. I think when I asked previously I didn't notice that the top pops where negative.

https://i.postimg.cc/XNcQTZKL/PopFST1.png
https://i.postimg.cc/J4pKz92B/PopFST2.png

From what I understand there is really no such thing as negative. It means 0 and very close.

[Opie]

This model is where I was experimenting with Serednii Stih/Sredny Stog.

142635
142636

It seems you really have Natufian admixture despite the fact that your ancestry is NW Euro.

[Opie]

Here's another model that I used

142734

Sources 6 / 10
Turkey_Marmara_Barcin_N.AG


Iran_Wezmeh_N.SG


Georgia_Kotias_Mesolithic.SG


Russia_YuzhniyOleniyOstrov_Mesolithic.AG


Israel_Natufian.AG


Mongolia_North_N.AG




References 13 / 30
Mbuti.DG


Austria_Gravettian.AG


Russia_MA1_UP.SG


Russia_LakeBaikal_N.SG


Russia_LenaRiver_N.SG


Turkey_Central_Pinarbasi_Epipaleolithic.AG


Morocco_EN.WGC.SG


Turkey_Central_Boncuklu_PPN.WGC.SG


Russia_Sidelkino_HG.SG


China_Xinjiang_Xiaohe_BA.AG


Georgia_Satsurblia_LateUP.SG


Iran_TepeAbdulHosein_N.SG


India_GreatAndaman_100BP.SG

5.05% Natufian with 5.93% error margin this component irrelevant for me.

[Opie]

Here's another model that I used this one seems better than the previous.

142736

Sources 5 / 10
Turkey_Marmara_Barcin_N.AG


Georgia_Kotias_Mesolithic.SG


Iran_GanjDareh_N.AG


Russia_Murzikha_Eneolithic_Sidelkino.AG


Mongolia_North_N.AG




References 13 / 30
Mbuti.DG


Austria_Gravettian.AG


Russia_MA1_UP.SG


Russia_LakeBaikal_N.SG


Russia_LenaRiver_N.SG


Turkey_Central_Pinarbasi_Epipaleolithic.AG


Morocco_EN.WGC.SG


Turkey_Central_Boncuklu_PPN.WGC.SG


Russia_Sidelkino_HG.SG


China_Xinjiang_Xiaohe_BA.AG


Georgia_Satsurblia_LateUP.SG


Iran_TepeAbdulHosein_N.SG


India_GreatAndaman_100BP.SG

[Opie]

5.05% Natufian with 5.93% error margin this component irrelevant for me.

Since barcin might mask some Natufian. I used Aktopraklik instead and the margion of error is lower than the percentage.

142737

[Gannicus]

Since barcin might mask some Natufian. I used Aktopraklik instead and the margion of error is lower than the percentage.

142737

Try Boncuklu ANF too. That group seems to have low Natufian.

[Opie]

Try Boncuklu ANF too. That group seems to have low Natufian.

I will :thumb001:

[Fistora]

https://i.postimg.cc/MZnSZhcJ/image.png
I'm experimenting again with modern populations.

[Xavier727]

What reference populations did you use? I’m still trying to figure out which ones work best for modern samples, so far my results have been a bit inconsistent.

[Gannicus]

Admixture modeled some ANFs and a Greek EEF:

Greece NeaNikomedeia EN:

142786

Catalhoyuk:

142787

Boncuklu:

142788

Barcin:

142789

And this is a Barcin ANF individual that I have used myself with my own models. His/her genome and mine go together well.

142790

My results with Bar25:

142791

And another run with a few tweaks in the references:

142785


G25:

Target: Gannicus_MergedFile_officialDavidski_scaled
Distance: 0.0450% / 0.04499545
47.2 Russia_Samara_EBA_Yamnaya
41.6 Turkey_Marmara_Barcin_N:Bar25__BC_6366__Cov_99.86%
11.2 Luxembourg_Mesolithic:Loschbour_snpAD__BC_6075__Co v_92.30%



Edit: Had to fix the screenshots.

[Gannicus]

I've produced successful models using Mesolithic/Neolithic sources like EHG,AHG,WHG, Natufian etc. And I'm still experimenting, but so far when I use the Karelia EHG the model fails. The model works with Veretye EHG though. And this latest model is with a slight adjustment to the references used in the previous runs.

142793

[Grace O'Malley]

This modern one is the closest. I don't know how accurate these are due to no Irish in the samples. I think Norway.HO is the best to use because there are more samples. Also Norway.HG is too close to me and seems too Isles shifted. With the selection of populations there is not a lot of others I can use. All other combinations come out FALSE.

https://i.postimg.cc/tCHZnNMt/Screenshot-2025-08-20-111350.png

I tried English with Spanish but this is an example of a FALSE model for me.

https://i.postimg.cc/xjvPpRBq/Screenshot-2025-08-20-133906.png

Here is my fst list with mostly European populations. I think the Norwegian.HG and also the Polish one might be outliers (both are only 1 sample). So I think Norway.HO is more accurate for distance and to model with.

https://i.postimg.cc/d1NMP6TM/FSTDist1.png
https://i.postimg.cc/jq9VM8bP/FSTDist2.png
https://i.postimg.cc/fW3WWSW-7/FSTDist5shb3.png
https://i.postimg.cc/wB9n1ZX8/FSTDist3.png
https://i.postimg.cc/hjjwrmZ2/FSTDist4.png

[Grace O'Malley]

Admixture modeled some ANFs and a Greek EEF:

Greece NeaNikomedeia EN:

142786

Catalhoyuk:

142787

Boncuklu:

142788

Barcin:

142789

And this is a Barcin ANF individual that I have used myself with my own models. His/her genome and mine go together well.

142790

My results with Bar25:

142791

And another run with a few tweaks in the references:

142785


G25:

Target: Gannicus_MergedFile_officialDavidski_scaled
Distance: 0.0450% / 0.04499545
47.2 Russia_Samara_EBA_Yamnaya
41.6 Turkey_Marmara_Barcin_N:Bar25__BC_6366__Cov_99.86%
11.2 Luxembourg_Mesolithic:Loschbour_snpAD__BC_6075__Co v_92.30%



Edit: Had to fix the screenshots.

Your model is close to your G25. Good to know. I'll try this for myself.

[Grace O'Malley]

I'm doing some ancient models

I want to see what my medieval mix is so I'm going with this. I know I'm a sort of Gaelic/Scandinavian mix from G25. Although I rationalise this as having high Steppe because I think G25 and also qpAdm is inflating Scandinavian. Is there any samples that I could use to resolve this?

This model was accepted.

https://i.postimg.cc/vHdjh3qq/Screenshot-2025-08-20-221011.png

With Anglo-Saxon it was rejected.

https://i.postimg.cc/g22gt5vD/Screenshot-2025-08-20-224317.png

I'll experiment further with models. There is a lack of Irish ancient samples and no modern day Irish reference so I feel a bit frustrated about that. I wish there was more Gaelic samples. I'll see if there are Picts and if they would be more suitable.

I'll look at some bronze age models over the coming week.

[Gannicus]

I'm doing some ancient models

I want to see what my medieval mix is so I'm going with this. I know I'm a sort of Gaelic/Scandinavian mix from G25. Although I rationalise this as having high Steppe because I think G25 and also qpAdm is inflating Scandinavian. Is there any samples that I could use to resolve this?

This model was accepted.

https://i.postimg.cc/vHdjh3qq/Screenshot-2025-08-20-221011.png

With Anglo-Saxon it was rejected.

https://i.postimg.cc/g22gt5vD/Screenshot-2025-08-20-224317.png

I'll experiment further with models. There is a lack of Irish ancient samples and no modern day Irish reference so I feel a bit frustrated about that. I wish there was more Gaelic samples. I'll see if there are Picts and if they would be more suitable.

I'll look at some bronze age models over the coming week.

I haven't had much luck using two ancient Northwest Europeans as sources. Even if I use a third "Southern" population. It does the same thing you are seeing. I guess qpAdm struggles to figure out where the Steppe is coming from.

[Grace O'Malley]

I haven't had much luck using two ancient Northwest Europeans as sources. Even if I use a third "Southern" population. It does the same thing you are seeing. I guess qpAdm struggles to figure out where the Steppe is coming from.

This one is working for me. Scotland_Viking is just a Gael so this appears good. More realistic as well. Irish are mostly Gael with a little bit of Germanic.

https://i.postimg.cc/0ytKZXf7/Screenshot-2025-08-20-231450.png

[Gannicus]

This one is working for me. Scotland_Viking is just a Gael so this appears good. More realistic as well. Irish are mostly Gael with a little bit of Germanic.

https://i.postimg.cc/0ytKZXf7/Screenshot-2025-08-20-231450.png

I'm not satisfied with the standard errors that I get. I might be able to experiment with different references to fix it. I noticed Drb was able to model with two or more NW Euros and get decent standard errors. He said it involved using related Iron Age and Bronze Age populations in the references. I'm not sure if he kept the older West Eurasian populations in his references though such as AHG (Pinarbasi), EHGs etc.

142812

Edit: This one isn't too terrible for SEs but still higher than I'd like. Especially since the Gallo-Roman admixture isn't small. I hear that a higher standard error is more excusable for smaller admixture percentages like 5-10% due to more uncertainty, because it's small.

[Grace O'Malley]

I'm just not satisfied with the standard errors that I get. I might be able to experiment with different references to fix it. I noticed Drb was able to model with two or more NW Euros and get decent standard errors. He said it involved using related Iron Age and Bronze Age populations in the references. I'm not sure if he kept the older West Eurasian populations in his references though such as AHG (Pinarbasi), EHGs etc.

142812

So that bit at the side with percentage is standard errors 21.38%? Yes most likely the references are the key.

[Gannicus]

So that bit at the side with percentage is standard errors 21.38%? Yes most likely the references are the key.

Yes, that plus or minus X% to the left of the admix bar is the standard error. The interface doesn’t show it but there is another metric with these models and that is Z-Scores. The Z-score is your admixture divided by the standard error. Some hobbyists think that a Z-score of less than 3 means you don’t have that source. Through email correspondence with Andrei I don’t think that’s correct. And the reason I think that is because there have been published qpAdm admixture models in academic papers with Z scores less than 3. Btw I learned this stuff with the help of AndreiDNA, plus looking around myself and discussions on another forum.


This model would satisfy that hobbyist that held the belief that Z-Scores of 3 or better should only be considered:

142815

My 20.55% admixture of EGY TIP divided by the standard error of 6.32% would equal a Z score of ~3.25.


It seems the general approach in peer-reviewed work is p-value + archaeological plausibility* > strict Z cutoff.

*I think that this can be interpreted with nuance as well

[Gannicus]

What reference populations did you use? I’m still trying to figure out which ones work best for modern samples, so far my results have been a bit inconsistent.

142860

For this model, I used these 30 references:

142861
142862
142863

[Xavier727]

142860

For this model, I used these 30 references:

142861
142862
142863



Thanks, mate, any idea why the Human Origins dataset is so limited, there's only like two Germanic populations to choose from, it seems a bit restrictive, which could affect reliability. I’ve been getting some weird FST results, when using Scottish as the target, French, Spanish and Hungry are showing closer distances than Orcadian.

[Gannicus]

Thanks, mate, any idea why the Human Origins dataset is so limited, there's only like two Germanic populations to choose from, it seems a bit restrictive, which could affect reliability. I’ve been getting some weird FST results, when using Scottish as the target, French, Spanish and Hungry are showing closer distances than Orcadian.

That is one of my criticisms of that dataset is the lack of Germans. No Germans, Austrians etc. Have you tried doing FST with just individuals from a population?

[Fistora]

https://i.postimg.cc/CLKTZDZf/image.png

[Xavier727]

That is one of my criticisms of that dataset is the lack of Germans. No Germans, Austrians etc. Have you tried doing FST with just individuals from a population?


There aren’t very many Celtic populations either, which isn’t ideal since it could probably skew the results. I haven’t gone through the individual samples yet, I’ll check them now

[Fistora]

I wonder where the russian.ho samples are from. Is it just the western part of Russia?

[Grace O'Malley]

This is the best for me so far. I'm going by the percentage result on the left. Could someone let me know? I'm just trying to understand what is a good result in these models.

https://i.postimg.cc/ZKq60Qz1/Screenshot-2025-08-22-165020.png

[Grace O'Malley]

High Yamnaya. How feasible is this model?

https://i.postimg.cc/NMnJtzMv/Screenshot-2025-08-23-144018.png

[Fistora]

High Yamnaya. How feasible is this model?

https://i.postimg.cc/NMnJtzMv/Screenshot-2025-08-23-144018.png

I think it's a very good model, considering the low errors.

[Gannicus]

High Yamnaya. How feasible is this model?

https://i.postimg.cc/NMnJtzMv/Screenshot-2025-08-23-144018.png

Looks fine to me. P-value is way above 0.05.

You could experiment with different WHGs in the references and see if your own WHG admix increases.

[Fistora]

Here are some of my recent results

https://i.postimg.cc/R0QXS3Cs/image.png
https://i.postimg.cc/V6Kgt3CX/image.png
https://i.postimg.cc/kX0cWNBY/image.png

there is still something to improve here
https://i.postimg.cc/0QXGjDTf/image.png

[Gannicus]

VK202 from Scotland is apparently a local Pictish individual with no Scandinavian ancestry. So, I did some models of myself with him.

Here is how he is labeled in the dataset:
142986

Here you all will see a bit of a difference between G25 and qpAdm.

142979

Distance to: Gannicus_MergedFile_officialDavidski_scaled
0.02821931 Scotland_Viking:VK202__AD_950__Cov_57.86%
0.18920718 Lebanon_EjJaouze_Phoenician.SG

Target: Gannicus_MergedFile_officialDavidski_scaled
Distance: 0.0228% / 0.02275620
91.8 Scotland_Viking
8.2 Lebanon_EjJaouze_Phoenician.SG

142980

Distance to: Gannicus_MergedFile_officialDavidski_scaled
0.02821931 Scotland_Viking:VK202__AD_950__Cov_57.86%
0.16307509 Italy_Pompeii_Roman:f1R__AD_79__Cov_33.78%

Target: Gannicus_MergedFile_officialDavidski_scaled
Distance: 0.0240% / 0.02397695
91.6 Scotland_Viking
8.4 Italy_Pompeii_Roman

142981

Distance to: Gannicus_MergedFile_officialDavidski_scaled
0.02821931 Scotland_Viking:VK202__AD_950__Cov_57.86%
0.11782058 Italy_Basilicata_Venosa


Target: Gannicus_MergedFile_officialDavidski_scaled
Distance: 0.0218% / 0.02181276
86.6 Scotland_Viking
13.4 Italy_Basilicata_Venosa


142982


Distance to: Gannicus_MergedFile_officialDavidski_scaled
0.02821931 Scotland_Viking:VK202__AD_950__Cov_57.86%
0.25568171 Syria_TellQarassa_Umayyad


Target: Gannicus_MergedFile_officialDavidski_scaled
Distance: 0.0232% / 0.02324438
94.1 Scotland_Viking
5.9 Syria_TellQarassa_Umayyad

142983

Distance to: Gannicus_MergedFile_officialDavidski_scaled
0.02821931 Scotland_Viking:VK202__AD_950__Cov_57.86%
0.22606617 Egyptian_LateKingdomPeriod_JK2134_JK2911_avg


Target: Gannicus_MergedFile_officialDavidski_scaled
Distance: 0.0228% / 0.02284658
93.1 Scotland_Viking
6.9 Egyptian_LateKingdomPeriod_JK2134_JK2911_avg


And then I modeled VK202's Steppe+ANF/EEF+WHG admixture:

142984

With the exact same references, I modeled my own Steppe+EEF+WHG admixture:

142985

[Gannicus]

Pre Yamnaya model:

143029

[Grace O'Malley]

I'm having great difficult getting good models for Iron Age and Medieval periods. All my models have a large statistical error.

[Gannicus]

I'm having great difficult getting good models for Iron Age and Medieval periods. All my models have a large statistical error.

143031
143032
143033

You can try these ^

With those references I did this model:

143034



143035
143036
143037

You can also try this reference list too. It was with this list that I did this model:

143038

If you try either of those two lists, you may need to remove or substitute a related population one at a time.

[Grace O'Malley]

143031
143032
143033

You can try these ^

With those references I did this model:

143034



143035
143036
143037

You can also try this reference list too. It was with this list that I did this model:

143038

If you try either of those two lists, you may need to remove or substitute a related population one at a time.

First model didn't work but 2nd one did. :thumb001:

https://i.postimg.cc/DZ7W04Np/Screenshot-2025-08-25-131642.png

https://i.postimg.cc/sxybtsvh/Screenshot-2025-08-25-133037.png

I no doubt have real ancestry from Kilteasheen as my father has long term ancestry from close to where these genomes were buried and is R1b-M222. I just can't find the right model for them.

On MyHeritage Ancient Origins I'm closest to Kilteasheen KIL001.

My No 1 two way fit on Illustrative dna is below.

https://i.postimg.cc/QdT281tp/Screenshot-2025-08-25-160036.png

My No 2 is with the Pict and No 3 with Kilteasheen.

https://i.postimg.cc/HkMkqJ1N/Screenshot-2025-08-25-161530.png

[Gannicus]

First model didn't work but 2nd one did. :thumb001:

https://i.postimg.cc/DZ7W04Np/Screenshot-2025-08-25-131642.png

https://i.postimg.cc/sxybtsvh/Screenshot-2025-08-25-133037.png

I no doubt have real ancestry from Kilteasheen as my father has long term ancestry from close to where these genomes were buried and is R1b-M222. I just can't find the right model for them.

On MyHeritage Ancient Origins I'm closest to Kilteasheen KIL001.

My No 1 two way fit on Illustrative dna is below.

https://i.postimg.cc/QdT281tp/Screenshot-2025-08-25-160036.png

My No 2 is with the Pict and No 3 with Kilteasheen.

https://i.postimg.cc/HkMkqJ1N/Screenshot-2025-08-25-161530.png

That's something you can do. You can try to replicate the two-way models you see on the Deep Ancestry section of IllustrativeDNA. With those references like I mentioned, you may have to remove some references or substitute a related group.

[Xavier727]

My best attempt so far, can’t seem to get those standard errors down

143041 Norway Medieval is French

143042
143043
143044

[Gannicus]

I did another Steppe/ANF/WHG model of myself. The goal here was to maximize p-value and tighten up the standard errors as much as possible.

143054

References:

143055
143056
143057

[Fistora]

Some of my recent random results using modern populations as a reference

https://i.postimg.cc/sXskpy4n/image.png
https://i.postimg.cc/Z0tFdYrn/image.png
https://i.postimg.cc/3xZVYzTm/image.png

[Gannicus]

I did a number of models with this IA British individual 6DT3. I looked up what studies have been done on him, and it appears that he has about 25% Iron Age Scandinavian ancestry:

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-024-08275-2?utm

"Twigstats substantially improves models of admixture between ancestries from Iron Age Britain and northern Europe in early medieval England9, halving standard errors from 9% with SNPs to 4% when using time stratification (point estimates 80% and 79% Iron Age Britain-related ancestry, respectively). We used this improved resolution to demonstrate that an earlier Roman individual (6DT3) dating to approximately second to fourth century ce from the purported gladiator or military cemetery at Driffield Terrace in York (Roman Eboracum), England60, who was previously identified as an ancestry outlier61,62, specifically carried approximately 25% EIA Scandinavian Peninsula-related ancestry (Fig. 2c). This documents that people with Scandinavian-related ancestry already were in Britain before the fifth century ce, after which there was a substantial influx associated with Anglo-Saxon migrations9. Although it is uncertain whether this individual was a gladiator or soldier, individuals and groups from northern Europe are indeed recorded in Roman sources both as soldiers and as enslaved gladiators63,64."


143284

Target: Gannicus_MergedFile_officialDavidski_scaled
Distance: 0.0393% / 0.03932320 | R2P
79.8 England_IA_Roman:6DT3__AD_200__Cov_73.36%
20.2 Greece_Kastrouli_IA:I17962__BC_644__Cov_41.00%

143285

Target: Gannicus_MergedFile_officialDavidski_scaled
Distance: 0.0455% / 0.04545825 | R2P
89.0 England_IA_Roman:6DT3__AD_200__Cov_73.36%
11.0 Egyptian_LateKingdomPeriod_JK2134_JK2911_avg

143286

Target: Gannicus_MergedFile_officialDavidski_scaled
Distance: 0.0453% / 0.04526365
83.2 England_IA_Roman:6DT3__AD_200__Cov_73.36%
16.8 Italy_Imperial.SG

143287

Target: Gannicus_MergedFile_officialDavidski_scaled
Distance: 0.0482% / 0.04815272
87.5 England_IA_Roman:6DT3__AD_200__Cov_73.36%
12.5 Italy_Pompeii_Roman:f1R__AD_79__Cov_33.78%

[Gannicus]

Here are some more models:

143423

Target: Gannicus_MergedFile_officialDavidski_scaled
Distance: 0.0407% / 0.04067256
81.0 Wales_MIA_LIA
19.0 Italy_Imperial.SG

143424

Target: Gannicus_MergedFile_officialDavidski_scaled
Distance: 0.0350% / 0.03498707
64.9 Wales_MIA_LIA
35.1 Italy_IA_Republic.SG

143425

Target: Gannicus_MergedFile_officialDavidski_scaled
Distance: 0.0353% / 0.03532272
88.3 Ireland_EBA.SG
11.7 Egyptian_LateKingdomPeriod_JK2134_JK2911_avg

143426

Target: Gannicus_MergedFile_officialDavidski_scaled
Distance: 0.0296% / 0.02958242
82.8 Ireland_EBA.SG
17.2 Greece_Koufonisi_Cycladic_EBA.SG

[Fistora]

Comparison of me and Ukrainian.HO samples
I am aware of the negative p-value, but this is meant to illustrate the difference in drifts. It is clearly visible how the Ukrainian sample is heading southeast while I am heading west. Unless I did something wrong? I would also like to finally improve my margins, as this problem only arises when modeling my kit.

https://i.postimg.cc/TwF5xddL/image.png

my recent models:
https://i.postimg.cc/4yvc1CGY/image.png
https://i.postimg.cc/HL4CHBTQ/image.png
https://i.postimg.cc/TwYBxx76/image.png
https://i.postimg.cc/1RLPGg7V/image.png
https://i.postimg.cc/VLdr6brS/image.png


GermanyEarlyMedieval.SG sample admixture model:
https://i.postimg.cc/288ytLFc/image.png

[Gannicus]

Has anyone tried modeling themselves yet as 100% of one source?

I can model myself as 100% Iron Age Central Gaul from Yonne:

143484

[AndreiDNA]

Models I've made using admixtools 2 (the faster but less accurate version of admixtools 1 that i usually use)
Rights:
Mbuti.DG,Russia_UstIshim_IUP.DG,Georgia_Dzudzuana_ UP.SG,Russia_Sidelkino_HG.SG,Israel_Natufian.AG,Ru ssia_MA1_UP.SG,Switzerland_Bichon_Epipaleolithic.S G,Russia_DevilsCave_N.SG
lefts:
Estonia_IA.SG,Ukrainian.HO,Kazakhstan_Sarmatian_Tu rk_IA.AG

143491
143492
143493
143494
143495
143496

[Gannicus]

Did another one population source model with France_HautsDeFrance_IA2.SG:

143548