Appendix 5—table 4. A comparison of the pathway-reporter method and dual-reporter method for the multiscale model (Case 2.B).

For each of the parameters ${\lambda }_1,{\mu }_1,K_P,{\delta }_P$ we selected a scaled ${\displaystyle \mathrm{B}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{t}\mathrm{a}(5,6)}$ distribution, with squared coefficient of variation ${\eta }^2=0.1$; the scaling is chosen in each case to achieve a mean value equal to the parameter value. The parameter ${\lambda }_2=K_N$ is given the noise distribution ${\displaystyle \mathrm{B}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{t}\mathrm{a}(3,6)}$, which has a slightly higher coefficient of variation ${\eta }^2=0.2$. In order to benchmark against dual reporters, the maturation rate was fixed at 20. As our theory suggests, the extrinsic noise contribution predicted by the pathway reporters matches well with the dual-reporter values.

Mean					Simulation
(r)1-5 ${\lambda }_1$	${\mu }_1$	${\lambda }_2=K_N$	$K_P$	${\delta }_P$	Pr (MP)	Pr (NP)	DR (Mat)
2	2	400	2	0.1	$0.18\pm 0.03$	$0.16\pm 0.04$	$0.16\pm 0.02$
4	20	1210	2	0.1	$0.29\pm 0.04$	$0.27\pm 0.07$	$0.28\pm 0.03$