Skip to main content
. 2022 Sep 2;8:e1068. doi: 10.7717/peerj-cs.1068

Table 7. Best results from the literature compared with dFA-Step.

Algorithms Car91 Car92 Ear83 Hec92 Kfu93 Lse91 Rye92 Sta83 Tre92 Uta92 Ute92 Yor83
dFA-Step 5.2 4.4 34.7 10.2 13.5 11.3 8.7 157.0 8.5 3.6 25.0 36.2
Alefragis et al. (2021) 4.6 3.8 32.7 10.0 12.9 10.0 8.1 157.0 7.9 3.2 24.8 35.1
Carter, Laporte & Lee (1996) 7.1 6.2 36.4 10.8 14 10.5 7.3 161.5 9.6 3.5 25.8 41.7
Merlot et al. (2002) 5.1 4.3 35.1 10.6 13.5 10.5 8.4 157.3 8.4 3.5 25.1 37.4
Yang & Petrovic (2004) 4.5 3.9 33.7 10.8 13.8 10.4 8.5 158.4 7.9 3.1 25.4 36.4
Abdullah et al. (2007) 5.2 4.4 34.9 10.3 13.5 10.2 8.7 159.2 8.4 3.6 26 36.2
Eley (2006) 5.2 4.3 36.8 11.1 14.5 11.3 9.8 157.3 8.6 3.5 26.4 39.4
Burke & Bykov (2008) 4.6 3.8 32.7 10.1 12.8 9.9 7.9 157.0 7.7 3.2 27.8 34.8
Burke et al. (2004) 4.9 4.1 33.2 10.3 13.2 10.4 156.9 8.3 3.3 24.9 36.3
Demeester et al. (2012) 4.5 3.8 32.5 10 12.9 10 8.1 157 7.7 3.1 24.8 34.6
Gaspero & Schaerf (2000) 6.2 5.2 45.7 12.4 18 15.5 160.8 10 4.2 29 41