From: Improving pairwise sequence alignment accuracy using near-optimal protein sequence alignments
 | Alignments | Better (count) | Worse (count) | Better (avg. (stdev)) | Worse (avg. (stdev)) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
High Similarity | model trim vs. optimal | 3 | 1 | 0.011 (0.005) | -0.009 (0.000) |
 | robust trim vs. optimal | 3 | 1 | 0.010 (0.006) | -0.009 (0.000) |
 | frequency trim vs. optimal | 3 | 1 | 0.010 (0.006) | -0.009 (0.000) |
 | local trim vs. optimal | 13 | 0 | 0.022 (0.017) | 0 |
 | local trim + model trim vs. local | 0 | 10 | 0 | -0.008 (0.003) |
 | model alignment vs. optimal | 8 | 3 | 0.025 (0.035) | -0.008 (0.002) |
 | robust alignment vs. optimal | 3 | 12 | 0.019 (0.014) | -0.140 (0.130) |
 | frequency alignment vs. optimal | 6 | 3 | 0.028 (0.038) | -0.008 (0.002) |
Medium Similarity | model trim vs. optimal | 7 | 3 | 0.036 (0.025) | -0.013 (0.006) |
 | robust trim vs. optimal | 9 | 4 | 0.032 (0.025) | -0.010 (0.005) |
 | frequency trim vs. optimal | 7 | 4 | 0.037 (0.025) | -0.011 (0.006) |
 | local trim vs. optimal | 14 | 2 | 0.088 (0.076) | -0.014 (0.001) |
 | local trim + model trim vs. local | 6 | 10 | 0.019 (0.010) | -0.017 (0.013) |
 | model alignment vs. optimal | 10 | 2 | 0.034 (0.030) | -0.016 (0.013) |
 | robust alignment vs. optimal | 2 | 19 | 0.095 (0.062) | -0.200 (0.150) |
 | frequency alignment vs. optimal | 9 | 2 | 0.035 (0.030) | -0.016 (0.013) |
Low Similarity | model trim vs. optimal | 7 | 3 | 0.032 (0.022) | -0.022 (0.015) |
 | robust trim vs. optimal | 11 | 3 | 0.027 (0.020) | -0.022 (0.016) |
 | frequency trim vs. optimal | 7 | 3 | 0.032 (0.022) | -0.022 (0.015) |
 | local trim vs. optimal | 18 | 3 | 0.100 (0.096) | -0.240 (0.390) |
 | local trim + model trim vs. local | 5 | 8 | 0.023 (0.019) | -0.013 (0.007) |
 | model alignment vs. optimal | 7 | 2 | 0.025 (0.014) | -0.026 (0.019) |
 | robust alignment vs. optimal | 3 | 16 | 0.088 (0.066) | -0.220 (0.180) |
 | frequency alignment vs. optimal | 6 | 3 | 0.023 (0.014) | -0.024 (0.014) |