Table 5. Analysis of proposed approach (MuLeHyABSC) for different approaches on testing model FGD.

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	80.38	0.794	0.803	0.793
2	MuLeHyABSC+SVC	POS tags + unigram	76.06	0.755	0.77	0.747
3	MuLeHyABSC+LR	POS tags + unigram	74.65	0.723	0.746	0.702
4	MuLeHyABSC+DT	POS tags + unigram	72.86	0.731	0.724	0.727
5	MuLeHyABSC+KN	POS tags + unigram	74.31	0.721	0.743	0.689
6	MuLeHyABSC+RF	POS tags + unigram	74.31	0.721	0.743	0.689
7	MuLeHyABSC+AB	POS tags + unigram	71.06	0.726	0.702	0.713
8	MuLeHyABSC+ETC	POS tags + unigram	73.02	0.725	0.738	0.731
9	MuLeHyABSC+GB	POS tags + unigram	70.31	0.711	0.723	0.716
10	MuLeHyABSC+NB	POS tags + unigram	74.31	0.721	0.743	0.689