Table 3 The performance of RUBic and BiBit was evaluated over implanted biclusters of varying sizes (10 \(\times\) 10 to 20 \(\times\) 20) with different overlapping degrees on (MATCH_SCORE_CSV)
Group number | Overlapping degree (%) | Matrix size | Avg. bicluster relevance | Avg. module recovery | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
RUBic | BiBit | RUBic | BiBit | |||
1 | 0 | 100 \(\times\) 100 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
2 | 1 | 101 \(\times\) 101 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
3 | 2 | 102 \(\times\) 102 | 0.586039 | 0.586039 | 1 | 1 |
4 | 3 | 103 \(\times\) 103 | 0.612996 | 0.612996 | 1 | 1 |
5 | 4 | 104 \(\times\) 104 | 0.63648 | 0.63648 | 1 | 1 |
6 | 5 | 105 \(\times\) 105 | 0.657143 | 0.657143 | 1 | 1 |
7 | 6 | 106 \(\times\) 106 | 0.675481 | 0.675481 | 1 | 1 |
8 | 7 | 107 \(\times\) 107 | 0.691877 | 0.691877 | 1 | 1 |
9 | 8 | 108 \(\times\) 108 | 0.702873 | 0.702873 | 0.989474 | 0.989474 |
10 | 9 | 109 \(\times\) 109 | 0.716418 | 0.716418 | 0.99 | 0.99 |
11 | 10 | 110 \(\times\) 110 | 0.728741 | 0.728741 | 0.990476 | 0.990476 |