Table C.1.
Comparison between the 2015 CEA team results in the hare and hound exercise and the ROOSTER results from the simulated data.
| Method | Noisy |
Free |
Solar |
|||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| % det | % good | % ok | % det | % good | % ok | No. det | No. ok | |||||
| det | global | det | global | det | global | det | global | |||||
| CEA 2015 | 78 | 88 | 68.6 | 95 | 74.1 | 82 | 92 | 75.4 | 99 | 81.2 | 2 | 2 |
| ROOSTER | 88.8 | 83.2 | 73.9 | 93.5 | 83 | 92.8 | 86.6 | 80.4 | 97 | 90 | 4 | 2 |
Notes. For each sample (noisy, noise-free and solar), percentage of detected (det) rotation periods is given, followed by percentage of good rotation periods among the detected rotation period and the full sample. The same percentages are also provided for ok rotation periods. The good and ok nomenclature in described in detail in Aigrain et al. (2015) as well as in Appendix C.
Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (full-text article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.
Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 48-96 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.
Initial download of the metrics may take a while.