Table 8.
Comparison of FNR (%) for different methods at different noise levels.
| Dataset | Method | 0.05 | 0.1 | 0.15 | 0.2 | 0.25 | 0.3 | 0.35 | 0.4 | Average |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tawsifur | NLA | 3.12 | 9.91 | 34.31 | 19.63 | 50.09 | 21.10 | 30.09 | 26.61 | 24.36 |
| SLIPR | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| SLIPR-c | 0.37 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.37 | 0 | 0 | 0.37 | 0.14 | |
| Skytells | NLA | 4.18 | 7.91 | 7.16 | 17.01 | 19.55 | 42.24 | 48.81 | 43.73 | 23.82 |
| SLIPR | 0.75 | 0.60 | 0.75 | 0.60 | 0.30 | 0.30 | 0 | 0 | 0.41 | |
| SLIPR-c | 0.90 | 0.45 | 0.60 | 0.60 | 0.30 | 0.30 | 0 | 0 | 0.39 | |
| CXRs | NLA | 12.09 | 12.97 | 12.09 | 32.97 | 32.75 | 61.10 | 51.43 | 76.48 | 36.49 |
| SLIPR | 1.25 | 1.91 | 2.48 | 0.64 | 1.39 | 1.87 | 1.98 | 0.57 | 1.51 | |
| SLIPR-c | 1.71 | 1.65 | 3.52 | 1.03 | 1.41 | 1.82 | 2.70 | 0.46 | 1.79 |
Note: bold numbers represent the best results.