Table 4. Analysis of proposed approach (MuLeHyABSC) for different approaches on testing model TAS.

The bold emphasis shows the highest results achieved by the proposed approach.

Sr No.	Approach	Features	Accuracy (%)	Precision	Recall	F-score
1	MuLeHyABSC+MLP	POS tags + unigram	84.09	0.833	0.84	0.836
2	MuLeHyABSC+SVC	POS tags + unigram	78.43	0.773	0.764	0.768
3	MuLeHyABSC+LR	POS tags + unigram	80.44	0.811	0.824	0.805
4	MuLeHyABSC+DT	POS tags + unigram	78.43	0.773	0.764	0.768
5	MuLeHyABSC+KN	POS tags + unigram	82.12	0.815	0.827	0.816
6	MuLeHyABSC+RF	POS tags + unigram	80.33	0.792	0.803	0.795
7	MuLeHyABSC+AB	POS tags + unigram	80.16	0.815	0.818	0.816
8	MuLeHyABSC+ETC	POS tags + unigram	81.58	0.802	0.815	0.804
9	MuLeHyABSC+GB	POS tags + unigram	80.33	0.792	0.803	0.795
10	MuLeHyABSC+NB	POS tags + unigram	72.43	0.733	0.714	0.721