Table 3

Comparisons of the algorithms when l = 350.

e

c

SpeedHap

Fast Hare

2d-mec

HapCUT

MLF

SHR-three

DGS

Ours


0.0

3

0.999

0.990

0.965

1.000

0.864

0.830

0.999

1.000

5

1.000

0.999

0.993

1.000

0.929

0.829

1.000

1.000

8

1.000

1.000

0.998

1.000

0.969

0.895

1.000

1.000

10

1.000

0.999

0.999

1.000

0.981

0.878

1.000

1.000

0.1

3

0.819

0.871

0.837

0.930

0.752

0.682

0.926

0.970

5

0.959

0.945

0.913

0.913

0.858

0.724

0.978

0.993

8

0.984

0.985

0.964

0.896

0.933

0.742

0.996

0.999

10

0.984

0.995

0.978

0.888

0.962

0.728

0.998

1.000

0.2

3

0.439

0.684

0.675

0.771

0.642

0.591

0.691

0.877

5

0.729

0.746

0.728

0.831

0.728

0.632

0.769

0.953

8

0.825

0.853

0.791

0.862

0.798

0.670

0.842

0.988

10

0.855

0.877

0.817

0.867

0.831

0.668

0.878

0.994

0.3

3

0.251

0.590

0.593

0.565

0.581

0.548

0.578

0.725

5

0.578

0.602

0.606

0.582

0.606

0.557

0.609

0.833

8

0.629

0.626

0.623

0.621

0.634

0.604

0.628

0.922

10

0.638

0.644

0.634

0.664

0.641

0.619

0.641

0.951


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