Table 7.
Comparison of SWER, MEC and runtimes for different schemes on simulated biallelic tetraploid data
| Dataset parameters | genotyping error rate | SDhaP | HapTree | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MEC | SWER | t(in secs) | MEC | SWER | t(in secs) | ||
| length 103, cov 20 | 0.0487 | 193 | 0.0105 | 40 | 626 | 0.0891 | 580 |
| length 103, cov 40 | 0.0217 | 385 | 0.0050 | 124 | 974 | 0.0380 | 780 |
| length 103, cov 80 | 0.0081 | 836 | 0.0015 | 560 | 2174 | 0.0290 | 15 |
| length 104, cov 20 | 0.0487 | 4676 | 0.0233 | 383 | - | - | - |
| length 104, cov 40 | 0.0217 | 6966 | 0.0096 | 2901 | - | - | - |
| length 104, cov 80 | 0.0081 | 14146 | 0.0072 | 8784 | - | - | - |
MEC, SWER and running times for SDhaP and HapTree algorithms on biallelic tetraploid simulated data. For l = 104, HapTree did not complete the task in 48 hrs.