Vaughn, A. H. | bioRxiv Science

bioRxiv2025

GHIST 2024: The 1st Genomic History Inference Strategies Tournament

Evaluating population genetic inference methods is challenging due to the complexity of evolutionary histories, potential model misspecification, and unconscious biases in self-assessment. The Genomic History Inference Strategies Tournament (GHIST) is a community-driven competition designed to evaluate methods for inferring evolutionary history from population genomic data. The inaugural GHIST competition ran from July to November 2024 and featured four demographic history inference challenges of varying complexity: a bottleneck model, a split with isolation model, a secondary contact model with demographic complexity, and an archaic admixture model. Data were provided as error-free VCF files, and participants submitted numerical parameter estimates that were scored by relative root mean squared error. Approximately 60 participants competed, using diverse approaches. Results revealed the current dominance of methods based on site frequency spectra, while highlighting the advantages of flexible model-building approaches for complex demographic histories. We discuss insights regarding the competition and outline the next iteration, which is ongoing with expanded challenge diversity. By providing standardized benchmarks and highlighting areas for improvement, GHIST represents a substantial step toward more reliable inference of evolutionary history from genomic data.

evolutionary biology↗

bioRxiv2021

Evaluation of methods for the inference of ancestral recombination graphs

The ancestral recombination graph (ARG) is a structure that describes the joint genealogies of sampled DNA sequences along the genome. Recent computational methods have made impressive progress towards scalably estimating whole-genome genealogies. In addition to inferring the ARG, some of these methods can also provide ARGs sampled from a defined posterior distribution. Obtaining good samples of ARGs is crucial for quantifying statistical uncertainty and for estimating population genetic parameters such as effective population size, mutation rate, and allele age. Here, we use standard neutral coalescent simulations to benchmark the estimates of pairwise coalescence times from three popular ARG inference programs: ARGweaver, Relate, and tsinfer+tsdate. We compare 1) the true coalescence times to the inferred times at each locus; 2) the distribution of coalescence times across all loci to the expected exponential distribution; 3) whether the sampled coalescence times have the properties expected of a valid posterior distribution. We find that inferred coalescence times at each locus are most accurate in ARGweaver, and often more accurate in Relate than in tsinfer+tsdate. However, all three methods tend to overestimate small coalescence times and underestimate large ones. Lastly, the posterior distribution of ARGweaver is closer to the expected posterior distribution than Relates, but this higher accuracy comes at a substantial trade-off in scalability. The best choice of method will depend on the number and length of input sequences and on the goal of downstream analyses, and we provide guidelines for the best practices.

genomics↗