Table 5.
Comparison with existing approaches.
| Reference/year | Method | AC (%) | SE (%) | SP (%) | Dataset |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ref.62 /2020 | DWT+KNN | 96.6 | 97 | 96.8 | DEAP |
| Ref.65/2012 | SWT+WOA+SVM | 97.25 | 97.21 | 98.1 | MAT |
| Ref.67/2022 | Ci-SSA+KNN | 95.28 | 94 | 95 | MAT |
| Ref.63/2017 | HHT+SVM | 89.07 | 90.12 | 89 | MAT |
| Ref.68/2021 | SWT+KNN | 96 | 96.72 | 95.62 | MAT |
| Ref.69/2016 | WT+SVM | 93.36 | 92.59 | 94.71 | MAT |
| Ref.17/2021 | SWT+Optimized-KNN | 94 | 92.1 | 94.83 | MAT |
| Ref.66/2023 | Ci-SSA+BHHO+KNN | 96.88 | 96 | 98 | MAT |
| Ref.70/2019 | EMD+SVM | 93.14 | 92 | 94.44 | STAI |
| Ref.71/2023 | Pooling function+SVM | 96.42 | 96.11 | 97.52 | MAT |
| Ref.72/2024 | VMD+LightGBM | 97.2 | 97.4 | 96.9 | MAT |
| Ref.64/2020 | DCT+BPSO+SVM | 96.36 | 96.85 | 90.8 | NEMAR |
| Proposed | R-LMD+BAO+OEL | 97.4 | 97 | 98 | MAT |
| R-LMD+BAO+OEL | 96.1 | 96 | 97 | STEW |
Significant values are given in bold.