This update to nucleotid.es includes additional assemblers and a new method of summarising performance across benchmarks. There are also minor site changes and updates to the benchmark metrics.
I have made a large change to how the benchmarks are summarised. Instead of
using a voting method, the results are now summarised using linear modelling.
Each benchmark metric is modelled as
metric ~ assembler + genome using a
generalised linear model. This model estimates the maximum-likelihood
coefficients for how much each genome effects the evaluation metric and how
well the assembler performs.
Last month I outlined how each set of reads for each genome was
subsampled to generate five replicates and each assembler was evaluated against
all replicates. There 16 genomes leading to 80 data for each assembler and
~1900 data to use for linear modelling. I used the
glm() function in R to
model four assembly metrics: NG50, percent unassembled, incorrect per 100KBp,
and number of local misassemblies. The results are shown in the updated
nucleotid.es summary page.
Each column shows the coefficients for a different model. For example the NG50
column is the coefficients of the
assembler term in the model:
assembler + genome. As the NG50 metrics are log-normally distributed the model
was specified using log-link e.g.
NG50 ~ e^(assembler + genome). This is why
the coefficients are small, as they are exponentially additive terms rather
than linearly additive terms.
As an example of how these summaries can be applied we can consider the effect
of using ABySS with a kmer size of either 32 or 96. The NG50 coefficient for
ABySS k-96 is 0.26 while the coefficient for ABySS k-32 is -1.02. Therefore the
difference between the two is 1.28. Taking the natural exponent of this
e^1.28) this shows that using k-96 over k-32 with ABySS should, on average,
give you a 3.6 times larger NG50. We can check the results of this using the
first three read sets as an example. Each row shows the NG50 for k-96 vs k-32.
This is my initial attempt at summarising the assemblers in this way and so I welcome suggestions on how this may be improved or possible deficiencies in the method. The aim of this is to provide an aggregate summary of how each assembler is performing rather than solely listing many tables of results.
New assemblers also have been evaluated in the benchmarks. The assemblers added this month are SGA, sparse assembler, minia and megahit. I added megahit, even though it is a metagenome assembler, as it can still be useful to compare isolate assemblies. The results of evaluating these assemblers are now available on benchmarks and the updated summary page.
The incorrect bases measure has been changed. This measure now only includes mismatching bases and indels. Previously this measure also included Ns however this would penalise assemblers which scaffolded contigs together. I believe that removing Ns from the incorrect bases measure provides a better metric.
The CPU seconds per assembled base was incorrect by a factor of 1e6. The benchmarks now list this measure correctly which is now CPU seconds per assembled 1KBp.
There is also now an atom feed for updates. Users of Firefox may have seen errors at the top of the benchmark tables - this should be fixed.