Distal vs proximal qpAdm models: the choice that sets your false-discovery rate
Whether your sources predate your target is not a style preference — measured false-discovery rates run 16–31% for temporally stratified protocols and 72–100% for proximal rotating screens. What each model type is for.
Related posts
f4-statistics explained: the arithmetic under every ancient-DNA claim
f2, f3, f4 and D-statistics are the shared-drift arithmetic beneath qpAdm, qpWave and admixture graphs. What each statistic measures, how a four-population test works, and how to read Z-scores like the papers do.
3 min read
Running qpAdm in R with ADMIXTOOLS 2: a working tutorial
From genotype files to a tested model: f2 extraction, qpadm() and its output tables, the arguments that silently change results (allsnps, fudge_twice, constrained), and the protocol discipline the code will not enforce for you.
3 min read
qpAdm troubleshooting: the errors, warnings and weird outputs, decoded
Negative weights, SE 9.99, every model rejected, every model passing, infeasible popdrop rows, allsnps confusion — the standard failure gallery of qpAdm runs and what each symptom actually indicates.
3 min read