TABLE B6.
Evidence of between-locus variation in α from simulated data sets
| Beta distribution: true model
|
Two-spiked distribution: true model
|
|||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 5ii | 5iii(a) | 5iii(b) | 5iv | 5ii | 5iii(a) | 5iii(b) | 5iv | |
| 5 | 0.00 | 0.95 | 0.12 | 0.92 | 0.00 | 0.99 | 0.42 | 1.00 |
| 0.00 | 0.91 | 0.05 | 0.40 | 0.01 | 0.99 | 0.34 | 1.00 | |
| 10 | 0.00 | 0.26 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.68 | 0.03 | 0.96 |
| 0.00 | 0.20 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.76 | 0.05 | 0.95 | |
| Beta distribution: true model
|
Two-spiked distribution: true model
|
|||||||
| 10ii | 10iii(a) | 10iii(b) | 10iv | 10ii | 10iii(a) | 10iii(b) | 10iv | |
| 10 | 0.00 | 0.45 | 0.02 | 0.05 | 0.03 | 0.68 | 0.16 | 0.98 |
| 0.00 | 0.31 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.00 | 0.63 | 0.09 | 0.84 | |
| 0.00 | 0.17 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.34 | 0.01 | 0.02 | |
The proportion of 100 simulated data sets for which the AIC favored a model with variable α over a model in which α took a common value at all loci. The left half compares models of type ii (fixed α) to models of type iii (beta-distributed α), and the right half compares models of type ii to models of type iv (two-spike distributed α). Layout is otherwise identical to Table B3. Conditions when the estimation faired particularly poorly (supporting variable α when the true model had a fixed value, or vice versa), are indicated in italics. Not shown are results when models were too small (i.e., of type 2 or of type 5 when the true model was of type 10). In these cases, between-locus variation in α was detected in almost every case, whether or not it was present in the data.