Table 2 Comparison results among RareProb-C and the other 5 state-of-the-art approaches on the type-II error rates
PAR | Causal | Type-II error | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Approach | RareProb-C | LRT | LBL | BUR 0.95 | LiMB | CCRS | |
0.02 | 12.89% | 100% | 32.99% | 23.93% | 42.78% | 53.17% | |
0.03 | 50 | 15.21% | 100% | 30.09% | 14.96% | 57.37% | 54.00% |
0.04 | 17.28% | 100% | 19.78% | 11.16% | 47.99% | 52.02% | |
0.05 | 20.90% | 100% | 25.51% | 12.03% | 52.76% | 52.42% | |
0.02 | 12.20% | 100% | 26.06% | 20.15% | 56.10% | 54.45% | |
0.03 | 60 | 17.05% | 100% | 26.18% | 16.16% | 60.48% | 53.03% |
0.04 | 20.75% | 100% | 39.02% | 14.87% | 65.71% | 54.08% | |
0.05 | 23.29% | 100% | 31.14% | 19.44% | 58.82% | 55.45% | |
0.02 | 12.29% | 100% | 31.88% | 20.33% | 67.80% | 52.53% | |
0.03 | 70 | 19.10% | 100% | 33.11% | 20.66% | 67.94% | 53.88% |
0.04 | 22.39% | 100% | 33.32% | 23.55% | 71.77% | 55.62% | |
0.05 | 22.51% | 100% | 32.09% | 31.37% | 75.55% | 58.84% | |
0.02 | 11.39% | 100% | 32.66% | 9.29% | 80.07% | 50.16% | |
0.03 | 80 | 17.85% | 100% | 48.38% | 8.38% | 76.71% | 53.03% |
0.04 | 22.98% | 100% | 38.21% | 31.35% | 84.29% | 62.57% | |
0.05 | 15.57% | 100% | 42.83% | 39.47% | 78.66% | 67.21% | |
0.02 | 11.79% | 100% | 36.91% | 35.63% | 91.26% | 51.73% | |
0.03 | 90 | 20.42% | 100% | 40.49% | 40.33% | 89.29% | 61.25% |
0.04 | 21.28% | 100% | 39.91% | 47.99% | 91.26% | 70.83% | |
0.05 | 14.72% | 100% | 48.87% | 55.54% | 88.79% | 74.26% | |