Table 6.
Comparison of SWER, MEC and runtimes for different schemes on simulated biallelic triploid data
Dataset parameters | Genotyping error rate | SDhaP | HapTree | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
MEC | SWER | t(in secs) | MEC | SWER | t(in secs) | ||
length 103, cov 15 | 0.0348 | 170 | 0.0130 | 18 | 401 | 0.0430 | 1860 |
length 103, cov 30 | 0.0135 | 331 | 0.0027 | 90 | 582 | 0.0220 | 8 |
length 103, cov 45 | 0.0064 | 488 | 0.0013 | 183 | 614 | 0.0053 | 5 |
length 104, cov 15 | 0.0348 | 1848 | 0.0143 | 388 | - | - | - |
length 104, cov 30 | 0.0135 | 4091 | 0.0038 | 1289 | 4744 | 0.0191 | 680 |
length 104, cov 45 | 0.0064 | 6169 | 0.0025 | 2048 | 5492 | 0.0060 | 2424 |
MEC, SWER and running times for SDhaP and HapTree algorithms on biallelic triploid simulated data. For l = 104 and c = 15, HapTree did not complete the task in 48 hrs.