# Table 1 FINE/GOOD/EXCELLENT systematic comparison on MC58 sequence

RESTRICTION NB. TESTS EXCEL. SEL. GOOD/FINE EXCEL./GOOD EXCEL./FINE
SI SD SI SD SI SD
overall 198 11.19 1.685 1.032 1.307 1.752 2.309 1.811
d/L ≥ 10% 99 18.45 2.302 1.043 1.508 2.062 3.428 2.166
d/L = 4% 99 3.93 1.067 1.021 1.107 1.441 1.191 1.467
q < 7 105 14.41 2.274 1.043 1.506 1.533 3.377 1.236
q ≥ 7 93 7.56 1.019 1.019 1.082 1.998 1.104 2.039
p/L ≥ 25% 159 5.90 1.820 1.033 1.347 1.321 2.546 1.236
p/L < 25% 39 32.77 1.135 1.027 1.146 3.506 1.347 3.614
p/L > 14% 183 8.99 1.720 1.031 1.312 1.415 2.363 1.457
p/L ≤ 14% 15 38.07 1.246 1.038 1.244 5.854 1.653 6.067
L = 200 69 6.42 1.958 1.044 1.456 1.744 2.829 1.835
L = 100 69 12.35 1.611 1.032 1.172 2.018 2.113 2.077
L = 50 60 15.35 1.454 1.019 1.292 1.454 1.938 1.479
r = 13 66 8.44 1.745 1.033 1.323 1.729 2.45 1.791
r = 8 66 11.11 1.677 1.032 1.302 1.756 2.280 1.817
r = 5 66 14.03 1.632 1.030 1.297 1.770 2.196 1.825
d/L ≥ 10%, p/L ≥ 25% 66 8.79 2.874 1.049 1.689 1.205 4.451 1.236
q < 7, d/L ≥ 10% 78 18.42 2.631 1.047 1.626 1.710 4.038 1.800
q < 7, d/L ≥ 25% 90 6.99 2.446 1.045 1.554 1.138 3.670 1.181
d/L ≥ 10%, p/L ≥ 25%, q < 7 63 8.78 2.962 1.050 1.722 1.188 4.614 1.237
1. Systematic comparison of FINE, GOOD and EXCELLENT on the MC58 data. Column nb. tests shows the number of set of parameters respecting the restriction context. Column Excel. sel. shows the absolute selectivity obtain thanks to method EXCELLENT. Using GOOD rather than FINE, we obtained an overall selectiveness improvement (SI) of plus 68% with a slowdown (SD) of only plus 3.2%. Using EXCELLENT rather than GOOD, for the cases with large errors (d/L ≥ 10%) and not too small threshold p (p/L ≥ 25%), the selectiveness improvement is of 69%, for a running time only 20.5% larger.