Figure 2.

Comparison between MOSAIC and HapMix in two-way admixture simulations, as described in Simulation Studies. (a) Example diploid local ancestry (orange or blue) in a simulated dataset. Top is truth, middle HapMix, bottom MOSAIC where rephasing is as per Rephasing. Both methods infer similarly accurate local ancestry; however, MOSAIC is more confident, extends to more than two-way events, and does not depend on prior knowledge of mixing groups. (b) Easy (Yoruba and French) and harder (Pathan and Mongola) admixture simulations. Left: $r^2$ for HapMix against MOSAIC, showing superior local ancestry estimation against the current state-of-the-art in two-way admixture, even though HapMix is provided with known reference panels and MOSAIC is not. The plotting character is sized proportional to ${\text{R}}_{\text{st}}$. Left-center: true vs. inferred dates. Right-center: estimated coefficient of determination of local ancestry $\mathbb{E}\left[r^2\right]$ (Equation 2) vs. squared correlation between true and estimated local ancestry. Right: ${\text{R}}_{\text{st}}$ (Equation 4) against squared correlation between true and estimated local ancestry, showing that ${\text{R}}_{\text{st}}$ can be used to identify challenging cases. In all plots, the black circle highlights the simulation shown in (a).