Search arXiv⌕ Search

arXiv · 2508.15579

Incorporating Naive Bayes Classification to Address Subpopulation Structure in Familial DNA Search

Abstract

Familial DNA search evaluates the genetic relatedness of two individuals by comparing the likelihood of their observed DNA profiles under two competing hypotheses-the null hypothesis that the individuals are unrelated and the alternative hypothesis that they are related-most commonly through the likelihood ratio (LR). Standard LR-based approaches typically assume a uniform genetic background; however, this assumption is rarely valid due to population substructure, where allele frequencies vary among subpopulations and can bias relationship inference. Existing modifications-such as LR calculations based on average allele frequencies (LRLAF) and strategies using maximum, minimum, or average likelihood ratios (LRMAX, LRMIN, LRAVG)-help mitigate these challenges but remain limited in their ability to fully address subpopulation differences. This study introduces a new LR-based statistic, LRCLASS, which incorporates a classification step using the Naive Bayes classifier to account for nuisance parameters associated with unknown subpopulation origins. In LRCLASS, the two DNA profiles being compared are jointly assigned to a subpopulation group via Naive Bayes before LR computation. Empirical evaluations using Thai population data show that LRCLASS achieves higher statistical power for detecting full-sibling relationships than existing LR-based methods. We further assessed multinomial logistic regression as an alternative classifier and found its performance comparable to that of Naive Bayes, suggesting flexibility in classifier choice. Overall, integrating the Naive Bayes classifier with LR computation offers a robust strategy for addressing population substructure in familial DNA search and highlights the broader potential of combining supervised learning techniques with forensic statistical methodologies to enhance the accuracy and reliability of genetic relationship testing.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Akaraphon Jantaraphum, Chanagarn Laoiam, Budsaba Rerkamnuaychoke, Jittima Shotivaranon, Monchai Kooakachai. 2025-12-05. Incorporating Naive Bayes Classification to Address Subpopulation Structure in Familial DNA Search. https://doi.org/10.29220/csam.2026.33.4.475

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

Auditing Bayesian Graph Alignment: Diagnostic Comparisons and Reference Failure

Bayesian graph alignment estimates correspondence probabilities, but convergence of an alignment-score trace need not imply accurate correspondence marginals. We audit this gap on 240 new exact graph pairs from four source families, 240 larger pairs with 20-100 vertices, and a separate 60-case exact implementation check. Under an explicit edge-flip likelihood, we compare three samplers and score, marginal, indicator, categorical, and classifier-based diagnostics. Marginal disagreement improves error discrimination over score R-hat for the exact informed sampler, but its improvement for vanilla local sampling is uncertain. Assignment-based R* and short indicator panels are competitive; no diagnostic dominates across samplers and endpoints. At larger sizes, diagnostics predict subsequent marginal changes, not posterior error, and classification performance depends on the drift threshold. Disjoint-window and held-out-chain checks attenuate but preserve positive associations. Only 22 of 240 original reference sets pass an agreement screen. On forty failure-selected cases, eightfold SMC particle escalation does not resolve disagreement, whereas additional rejuvenation helps. Longer informed runs remain unstable. An elementary feasible-alignment bound demonstrates severely unrepresentative SMC and informed-chain scores in concentrated 100-vertex cases, independently of approximate reference consensus. We also exhibit common-start chains with near-zero disagreement despite exact marginal error near .967. These results support assignment-sensitive auditing while identifying limits of finite budgets, diagnostic rankings, and reference agreement as evidence of accuracy.

stat.AP↗

GeoDose-CP: Graph-Local Conformal Inference for Continuous-Treatment Earth Observation

Reliable intervention-oriented uncertainty quantification from Earth observation (EO) remains challenging when continuous treatment shifts, spatial dependence, limited support, and satellite-outcome uncertainty must be addressed simultaneously. Existing causal, conformal, and spatial approaches address parts of this problem, but their direct combination does not generally recover the appropriate interventional reference law because candidate reassignment jointly alters treatment likelihood, standardized residuals, and graph-dependent residual likelihood. This study presents GeoDose-CP, a support-aware conformal framework for localized stochastic potential outcomes under continuous or mixed continuous-atomic treatment. Its central methodological contribution is a graph-local target-orbit law that jointly represents intervention-induced treatment shift, the inverse outcome-scale Jacobian, and spatial residual dependence. The framework further provides exact weighted candidate inversion, a scalable sparse approximation with explicit discrepancy accounting, and refusal under inadequate support. Evaluation used controlled known-truth experiments, MineDoseBench, treatment-density sensitivity analysis, external conformal comparators, and a multi-mine New South Wales (NSW) study. In MineDoseBench, GeoDose-CP achieved mean selective coverage of 0.9692 across 27 configurations and a minimum local q0.05 of 0.8951; exact-sparse auditing produced nine inclusion disagreements over 2,700 targets. In the NSW study, the absence of an auditable longitudinal rehabilitation treatment rendered treatment-dependent inference nonoperational rather than forcing inference through a proxy exposure.

stat.AP↗

Interpreting relative utility for probabilistic predictions

At a fixed threshold, relative utility (RU) measures the net-benefit gain of a prediction model over the better of treat-all and treat-none relative to the corresponding gain under perfect outcome classification. We illustrate that RU equal to 1 therefore represents perfect outcome classification at that fixed threshold, not perfect probabilistic prediction. However, even when every predicted probability equals the true probability, observed RU can equal 0. In a simple constant-risk setting, this occurs with probability approaching 1 as the sample size increases. Consequently, the distance from observed RU to 1 should not in general be interpreted as improvement achievable by a better prediction for binary probabilities.

stat.AP↗