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.