. 2018 Mar 5;13(3):e0193366. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0193366

Table 3. Comparative summary: Computational cost.

	Jiang et al. [27]	Wen et al. [28]	Farash et al. [29]	Gope and Hwang [30]	Wu et al. [31]	Chaudhry et al. [32]	Proposed scheme
MN	3T_h + 1T_m	4T_h + 1T_m	6T_h	4T_h + 1T_m	8T_h + 2T_e	5T_h	7T_h
FA	4T_h	4T_h + 1T_m	1T_h + 2T_s	4T_h	4T_h + 1T_s + 2T_e	1T_h + 2T_s	4T_h
HA	5T_h + 1T_m	5T_h + 2T_m	5T_h + 2T_s	4T_h + 1T_m	8T_h + 3T_s	4T_h + 3T_s	9T_h + 2T_s
Total	12T_h + 2T_m	13T_h + 4T_m	12T_h + 4T_s	12T_h + 2T_m	20T_h + 4T_s + 4T_e	10T_h + 5T_s	20T_h + 2T_s
Time(ms)	3.6543	7.3081	0.5217	3.6543	6.9232	0.6519	0.2614