Table 4

Comparisons of the algorithms when l = 700.

e

c

SpeedHap

Fast Hare

2d-mec

HapCUT

MLF

SHR-three

DGS

Ours


0.0

3

0.999

0.988

0.946

1.000

0.787

0.781

0.999

0.997

5

1.000

0.999

0.976

1.000

0.854

0.832

1.000

0.999

8

1.000

1.000

0.992

1.000

0.919

0.868

1.000

1.000

10

1.000

0.999

0.997

1.000

0.933

0.898

1.000

1.000

0.1

3

0.705

0.829

0.786

0.927

0.698

0.668

0.931

0.951

5

0.947

0.949

0.880

0.916

0.809

0.716

0.977

0.989

8

0.985

0.986

0.948

0.896

0.863

0.743

0.987

0.997

10

0.986

0.995

0.965

0.889

0.884

0.726

0.997

0.998

0.2

3

0.199

0.652

0.647

0.753

0.624

0.591

0.669

0.837

5

0.681

0.712

0.697

0.825

0.682

0.617

0.741

0.927

8

0.801

0.808

0.751

0.856

0.747

0.653

0.818

0.974

10

0.813

0.872

0.778

0.861

0.765

0.675

0.861

0.982

0.3

3

0.095

0.581

0.583

0.552

0.570

0.536

0.573

0.676

5

0.523

0.591

0.596

0.555

0.594

0.562

0.595

0.777

8

0.616

0.615

0.613

0.597

0.614

0.611

0.614

0.876

10

0.627

0.616

0.622

0.645

0.625

0.625

0.622

0.909


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