Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2021 Mar 11.
Published in final edited form as: Biometrics. 2020 May 4;77(1):91–101. doi: 10.1111/biom.13272

TABLE 1.

Comparison of four methods under different settings

Zero (%) ZIPFA Log-SVD PSVDOS GOMMS
L2 loss
0% 2.35 (1.75) 2.85 (0.22) 2.15 (0.15) 4.47 (0.39)
Setting (1) 20% 4.53 (0.38) 32.84 (1.56) 7.07 (0.67) 6.20 (0.67)
40% 12.44 (2.18) 171.16 (4.57) 33.93 (2.57) 47.21 (8.82)
Setting (2) 20% 3.94 (0.34) 37.65 (1.79) 7.65 (0.78) 5.60 (0.58)
40% 28.37 (6.14) 210.88 (4.42) 41.32 (4.59) 26.74 (6.87)
Setting (3) 20% 5.10 (0.41) 29.89 (1.43) 6.74 (0.46) 7.25 (0.77)
40% 8.99 (1.29) 144.85 (3.93) 30.35 (2.46) 8.14 (0.92)
Setting (4) 20% 7.62 (1.43) 26.56 (1.26) 7.84 (0.54) 10.79 (1.17)
40% 18.96 (2.63) 95.66 (2.99) 32.34 (1.49) 21.10 (2.64)
Setting (5) 20% 5.16 (0.73) 46.67 (3.25) 11.26 (1.91) 5.29 (0.46)
40% 18.35 (3.04) 178.06 (7.09) 36.65 (7.33) 6.23 (0.61)
Setting (6.1) 20% 54.30 (3.86) 158.55 (4.09) 55.91 (4.16) 49.64 (16.73)
40% 108.38 (5.61) 425.31 (4.88) 210.84 (12.82) 475.17 (46.67)
Setting (6.2) 20% 52.50 (3.46) 87.89 (4.29) 32.89 (1.76) 30.50 (2.08)
40% 111.62 (5.32) 375.38 (6.31) 144.68 (6.80) 256.66 (39.89)
Clustering accuracy by taxa/samples
0% 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Setting (1) 20% 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.92 1.00
40% 1.00 1.00 0.91 0.97 0.98 0.86 0.87 1.00
Setting (2) 20% 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00
40% 1.00 1.00 0.66 0.72 0.92 0.77 0.92 1.00
Setting (3) 20% 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.91 1.00
40% 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 0.94 0.82 1.00
Setting (4) 20% 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.84 1.00
40% 0.96 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.73 1.00
Setting (5) 20% 1.00 1.00 0.99 0.99 1.00 0.91 0.99 1.00
40% 1.00 1.00 0.77 0.83 0.94 0.82 0.93 1.00
Setting (6.1) 20% 0.86 0.79 0.94 1.00 0.77 0.63 0.48 0.44
40% 0.65 0.93 0.71 0.75 0.39 0.37 0.41 0.34
Setting (6.2) 20% 0.86 0.62 1.00 0.99 0.92 0.64 0.84 0.69
40% 0.77 0.73 0.69 0.94 0.48 0.42 0.35 0.34

Note. The best results in each setting are in boldface.