Table 2. Summary of the accuracy and effectiveness of our error detection scheme for m = 100, n = 100 and various choices of η and γ.

n, m = 100					E
γ	η	%f_pos	%t_pos	%f_neg	wp′	w′ml	wp′ no err.
0.00	0.00	0.00186	0.00000	0.00000	1.50	1.43	1.80
0.00	0.01	0.00441	0.00956	0.00049	15.10	15.80	38.93
0.00	0.05	0.00442	0.04643	0.00357	41.37	42.93	165.50
0.00	0.10	0.00682	0.08754	0.01229	96.53	96.07	468.63
0.00	0.15	0.01086	0.12188	0.02720	221.03	238.77	1187.60
0.01	0.00	0.00177	0.00000	0.00000	1.83	3.27	1.27
0.05	0.00	0.00150	0.00000	0.00000	6.47	6.17	5.23
0.10	0.00	0.00135	0.00000	0.00000	18.07	18.60	9.23
0.15	0.00	0.00124	0.00000	0.00000	16.13	16.40	10.00
0.01	0.01	0.00357	0.00966	0.00050	11.47	11.83	44.20
0.05	0.05	0.00421	0.04305	0.00433	52.90	54.13	144.67
0.10	0.10	0.00631	0.07641	0.01300	140.67	150.40	532.47
0.15	0.15	0.00994	0.09494	0.03277	379.17	353.53	1040.70

Each row in the table is an average of 30 independent runs. The columns w_p′ and w′_ml correspond to the number of erroneous marker pairs (E) made by MSTmap under the objective function w_p′ and w′_ml respectively with error detection. The column “w_p′ no err.” corresponds to the number of erroneous markers pairs made by MSTmap under the objective function w_p′ without error detection.