Figure 1.

Comparison of ${\rho }_{\text{FastEPRR}}$, ${\rho }_{\text{gam}}$, ${\rho }_{\text{LDhat}}$, and ${\rho }_{\text{comb}}$. We compared ${\rho }_{\text{FastEPRR}}$ (A), (E), and (I) with ${\rho }_{\text{gam}}$ (B), (F), and (J), ${\rho }_{\text{LDhat}}$ (C), (G), and (K), and ${\rho }_{\text{comb}}$ (D), (H), and (L), with the sample sizes of $n=50$ (A)–(D), $100$ (E)–(H) and $200$ (I)–(L). The number of segregating sites $S=45$ (when $n=50$), $52$ (when $n=100$), and $59$ (when $n=200$). The mean and the SD of $\widehat{\rho }$ were estimated using ${10}^4$ simulated data conditional on $\rho$ and $S$, unless noted otherwise.