Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Add individuals for record_full_arg #1459

Open
hyanwong opened this issue Feb 1, 2021 · 2 comments
Open

Add individuals for record_full_arg #1459

hyanwong opened this issue Feb 1, 2021 · 2 comments

Comments

@hyanwong
Copy link
Member

hyanwong commented Feb 1, 2021

It's always bothered me that the record_full_arg output has 2 nodes that are only identifiable as grouped together because they are at the same time (unique in the nonWF case, but not necessarily in WF simulations). It just struck me that, since we are moving to adding individuals by default in sim_ancestry, we should probably group the pair of msprime recombination nodes into a new individual when record_full_arg=True. After all, by (biological) definition, two recombination nodes need to be in the same individual, even if the normal life cycle stage is haploid.

This would give a biologically meaningful grouping to the 2 nodes, and also extend nicely to cases where there are multiple recombination events per contain (not possible in the current msprime implementation, but quite biologically meaningful).

@jeromekelleher
Copy link
Member

We're only adding individuals for samples at the moment, not any of the ancestral individuals. This would be a significant undertaking, so we're not doing it for 1.0.

@hyanwong
Copy link
Member Author

hyanwong commented Feb 2, 2021

We're only adding individuals for samples at the moment, not any of the ancestral individuals.

Yep, this would be a specific change for ancestral recombination nodes only (i.e. where we are sure the 2 ancestors are in the same individual: otherwise we have no way of knowing if nodes are associated in a specific individual)

This would be a significant undertaking, so we're not doing it for 1.0.

Understood. Definitely worth considering for the longer term, though, esp. if we are going to do an ARG tutorial some time.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants