Table 8.

Sensor data fusion results with different methods.

		$\mathit{Freq}1$					$\mathit{Freq}2$				$\mathit{Freq}3$
	$\left\{\mathit{F}\mathbf{2}\right\}$	$\left\{\mathit{F}\mathbf{3}\right\}$	$\{\mathit{F}\mathbf{1},\mathit{F}\mathbf{2}\}$	∅		$\left\{\mathit{F}\mathbf{2}\right\}$	∅		$\left\{\mathit{F}\mathbf{1}\right\}$	$\left\{\mathit{F}\mathbf{2}\right\}$	$\{\mathit{F}\mathbf{1},\mathit{F}\mathbf{2}\}$	∅
Jiang et al.’s method [55]	0.8861	0.0002	0.0582	-		0.9621	-		0.3384	0.5904	0.0651	-
Tang et al.’s method [54]	0.8891	0.0003	0.0427	-		0.9784	-		0.3318	0.6332	0.0349	-
The proposed method	0.9181	0.0000	0.0015	0.0803		0.9796	0.0206		0.3303	0.6459	0.0238	0.0001