Table 7. Analysis of proposed approach (MuLeHyABSC) for different approaches on testing model STS.
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 | 84.72 | 0.851 | 0.847 | 0.848 |
| 2 | MuLeHyABSC+SVC | POS tags + unigram | 80.55 | 0.812 | 0.805 | 0.808 |
| 3 | MuLeHyABSC+LR | POS tags + unigram | 79.16 | 0.802 | 0.791 | 0.796 |
| 4 | MuLeHyABSC+DT | POS tags + unigram | 80.55 | 0.812 | 0.805 | 0.808 |
| 5 | MuLeHyABSC+KN | POS tags + unigram | 76.16 | 0.772 | 0.761 | 0.766 |
| 6 | MuLeHyABSC+RF | POS tags + unigram | 79.16 | 0.802 | 0.791 | 0.796 |
| 7 | MuLeHyABSC+AB | POS tags + unigram | 80.55 | 0.812 | 0.805 | 0.808 |
| 8 | MuLeHyABSC+ETC | POS tags + unigram | 72.55 | 0.732 | 0.725 | 0.728 |
| 9 | MuLeHyABSC+GB | POS tags + unigram | 80.55 | 0.812 | 0.805 | 0.808 |
| 10 | MuLeHyABSC+NB | POS tags + unigram | 66.66 | 0.683 | 0.666 | 0.674 |