halasadi / MAPS

software for the MAPS method
MIT License
24 stars 6 forks source link

Try a weighted composite likelihood #6

Closed halasadi closed 8 years ago

halasadi commented 8 years ago

Currently, I assume all pairs of observations are independent so, for example in one deme, the log likelihood becomes:

log(lambda) * sum_{i=1}^{n'} x_i - n'lambda

where n' = n(n-1)/2 and n is the number of samples.

The problem is that the likelihood thinks there are n' data points when there might only be n points. In the one deme example, the idea is to divide by (n-1)/2 to adjust for the sample size. Another way to view it is that I am making the likelihood less pointy.

After some algebra, this weighted composite likelihood simplifies to:

one deme case: n (log(lambda) xbar - lambda) two deme case: (m+n) (log(lambda) xbar - lambda) where m is the number of individuals in deme 1 and n is the number of individuals in deme 2.

You can see that the mle estimate is still xbar (the mean IBD sharing).

So, to test whether this weighting works, I will simulate a barrier under macs and investigate the performance of this weighted composite likelihood vs the independent pairwise likelihood. Also, I should simulate a barrier under unequal sample size.