The current GATK version is 3.7-0
Examples: Monday, today, last week, Mar 26, 3/26/04

#### Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

You can opt in to receive email notifications, for example when your questions get answered or when there are new announcements, by following the instructions given here.

#### ☞ Did you remember to?

1. Search using the upper-right search box, e.g. using the error message.
3. Include tool and Java versions.
4. Tell us whether you are following GATK Best Practices.
5. Include relevant details, e.g. platform, DNA- or RNA-Seq, WES (+capture kit) or WGS (PCR-free or PCR+), paired- or single-end, read length, expected average coverage, somatic data, etc.
6. For tool errors, include the error stacktrace as well as the exact command.
7. For format issues, include the result of running ValidateSamFile for BAMs or ValidateVariants for VCFs.
8. For weird results, include an illustrative example, e.g. attach IGV screenshots according to Article#5484.
9. For a seeming variant that is uncalled, include results of following Article#1235.

#### ☞ Formatting tip!

Wrap blocks of code, error messages and BAM/VCF snippets--especially content with hashes (#)--with lines with three backticks ( ` ) each to make a code block as demonstrated here.

GATK 3.7 is here! Be sure to read the Version Highlights and optionally the full Release Notes.

# Non-deterministic UnifiedGenotyper and VariantRecalibrator

PanamáMember Posts: 22

Hi,

I did some tests with a "best practices"-like pipeline to check if results were deterministic and found that they are not.
Some posts already mention that UnifiedGenotyper is non-deterministic when using multi-threading as different seeds are used for downsampling. But I think I'm missing something if single-thread UnifiedGenotyper is deterministic, why would it chose exactly the same reads for downsampling? Wouldn't it always be non-deterministic when downsampling reads?
Anyway, the difference was only of 31 variants for an exome sample.

About the VariantRecalibrator I guess the filtering is non-deterministic, but I did not found any reference to this in the forum. The difference between runs is greater in this case. After filtering I had 301 variants only non-filtered in the first run; and 1684 variants only non-filtered in the second run; the non-filtered variants in both runs were 11328.