deletions | additions       diff --git a/section_Discussion_begin_enumerate_item__.tex b/section_Discussion_begin_enumerate_item__.tex  index a93984b..e7c3145 100644  --- a/section_Discussion_begin_enumerate_item__.tex  +++ b/section_Discussion_begin_enumerate_item__.tex 
...
\item Evaluate the localization results from the simulation study.  \begin{itemize}  \item Not surprisingly, informed-Mantel test, the bench mark outperformed all the other methods since we cluster the haplotype comes from a case that carry risk variants in informed-Mantel test. However, Blossoc, CAVIARBF, C-alpha and Fisher's exact test performed comparably well in localizing the signal.  \item Interestingly, performances were poor for both the  naive Mantel test. This could be explained due to the misclassification of haplotypes in naive Mantel test. In naive Mantel test, the case status were assigned to the individuals. But, we would not know which haplotype carries disease risk variant among the two haplotypes of an individual. When one of the two haplotypes carried a casual variant, this way of classification could lead to the poor performance.  and VT tests.   \end{itemize}  \item Evaluate the association signal detection from the simulation study.