Table 2

Comparisons of the algorithms when l = 100.

e

c

SpeedHap

Fast Hare

2d-mec

HapCUT

MLF

SHR-three

DGS

Ours


0.0

3

0.999

0.999

0.990

1.000

0.973

0.816

1.000

1.000

5

1.000

0.999

0.997

1.000

0.992

0.861

1.000

1.000

8

1.000

1.000

1.000

1.000

0.997

0.912

1.000

1.000

10

1.000

1.000

1.000

1.000

0.998

0.944

1.000

1.000

0.1

3

0.895

0.919

0.912

0.929

0.889

0.696

0.930

0.973

5

0.967

0.965

0.951

0.920

0.970

0.738

0.985

0.996

8

0.989

0.993

0.983

0.901

0.985

0.758

0.989

0.999

10

0.990

0.998

0.988

0.892

0.995

0.762

0.997

1.000

0.2

3

0.623

0.715

0.738

0.782

0.725

0.615

0.725

0.903

5

0.799

0.797

0.793

0.838

0.836

0.655

0.813

0.963

8

0.852

0.881

0.873

0.864

0.918

0.681

0.878

0.990

10

0.865

0.915

0.894

0.871

0.938

0.699

0.917

0.996

0.3

3

0.480

0.617

0.623

0.602

0.618

0.557

0.611

0.776

5

0.637

0.639

0.640

0.629

0.653

0.599

0.647

0.874

8

0.667

0.661

0.675

0.673

0.697

0.632

0.663

0.950

10

0.676

0.675

0.678

0.709

0.715

0.632

0.688

0.972


The columns e and c refer to the error rate and coverage rate, respectively. Columns 3-9 represent the reconstruction rate of the seven algorithms, i.e. SpeedHap, Fast Hare, 2d-mec, HapCUT, MLF, SHR-three and DGS. For each combination of e and c, the best among the seven algorithms is highlighted in bold. The last column lists the reconstruction rate of our algorithm.

Deng et al. BMC Genomics 2013 14(Suppl 2):S2   doi:10.1186/1471-2164-14-S2-S2

Open Data