Table 2.

Comparison with existing methods

Method	Number of samples	Accuracy (%)	RMS error (%)
Swamy et al. [4]	–	95	–
Mallawaarachchi et al. [5]	550	96	–
Badilini et al. [15]	60	–	16.8
Kumar et al. [11]	–	99	–
Damodaran et al. [12]	25	99	–
Ravichandran et al. [16]	53	–	12
Shi et al. [13]	105	99
Proposed method	3200	97	0.034