{"action":"opened","issue":{"url":"https://api.github.com/repos/evotools/hapbin/issues/51","repository_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/evotools/hapbin","labels_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/evotools/hapbin/issues/51/labels{/name}","comments_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/evotools/hapbin/issues/51/comments","events_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/evotools/hapbin/issues/51/events","html_url":"https://github.com/evotools/hapbin/issues/51","id":379544531,"node_id":"MDU6SXNzdWUzNzk1NDQ1MzE=","number":51,"title":"Discrepancy between hapbin v 1.0 and v1.3","user":{"login":"paolo002","id":43237451,"node_id":"MDQ6VXNlcjQzMjM3NDUx","avatar_url":"https://avatars3.githubusercontent.com/u/43237451?v=4","gravatar_id":"","url":"https://api.github.com/users/paolo002","html_url":"https://github.com/paolo002","followers_url":"https://api.github.com/users/paolo002/followers","following_url":"https://api.github.com/users/paolo002/following{/other_user}","gists_url":"https://api.github.com/users/paolo002/gists{/gist_id}","starred_url":"https://api.github.com/users/paolo002/starred{/owner}{/repo}","subscriptions_url":"https://api.github.com/users/paolo002/subscriptions","organizations_url":"https://api.github.com/users/paolo002/orgs","repos_url":"https://api.github.com/users/paolo002/repos","events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/paolo002/events{/privacy}","received_events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/paolo002/received_events","type":"User","site_admin":false},"labels":[],"state":"open","locked":false,"assignee":null,"assignees":[],"milestone":null,"comments":0,"created_at":"2018-11-11T17:35:21Z","updated_at":"2018-11-11T17:35:21Z","closed_at":null,"author_association":"NONE","body":"Hi Colin\r\nThis is Paolo again.\r\nI some other problems.\r\nI have been running hapbin 1.0 and 1.3 on the same set of data. I have noticed that for some SNPs the iHS values in the ouput are different based on whether hapbin v1.0 or v1.3 was used to generate the data. Also, I have noticed that some SNPs have very low iHS values but then they have very high value of std_iHS so I was wondering if that is normal? Which standardisation method are you using? \r\n\r\nAnd lastly, fo the XPEHH now in v1.3 I get this following columns:\r\nLocation    iHH_A1.  iHH_B1. iHH_P1 and XPEHH\r\nThe iHS output has one column for iHS and one for Std_IHS however for the XPEHH I only get one column, are those values already normalised?\r\n\r\nBest\r\nPaolo\r\n"}}
{"actor":{"display_login":"paolo002"}}