Skip to main content
. 2013 Dec 23;2013:293681. doi: 10.1155/2013/293681

Table 6.

Algorithms performance comparison results.

Sequences Comparison algorithms ΔC time (%) ΔKLD
Foreman [4] −11.14 +0.59
[6] −12.88 +1.02
[7] −6.91 +0.32

Hall [4] −10.22 +0.31
[6] −13.75 +0.68
[7] −6.55 +0.21

Salesman [4] −12.25 +0.47
[6] −17.24 +0.96
[7] −7.12 +0.36

Paris [4] −12.26 +0.71
[6] −18.77 +1.28
[7] −4.90 +0.16

Silent [4] −7.34 +0.33
[6] −12.45 +0.60
[7] −2.76 +0.19

Akiyo [4] −8.19 +0.94
[6] −10.76 +1.56
[7] −4.81 +0.37

Bus [4] −9.75 +0.38
[6] −20.01 +1.49
[7] −5.47 +0.27

Mobisode2 [4] −14.21 +0.31
[6] −10.78 +0.47
[7] −4.07 +0.05

Stefan [4] −13.38 +0.72
[6] −19.65 +1.34
[7] −5.78 +0.36

Container [4] −8.11 +0.22
[6] −10.27 +0.78
[7] −4.56 +0.11

Average [4] ΔComputing time (%) ΔKL distance
−10.69 +0.50
[6] ΔComputing time (%) ΔKL distance
−14.66 +1.02
[7] ΔComputing time (%) ΔKL distance
−5.29 +0.24