Table 5 Performance of the proposed method using the ridgelet based EWT.
Train/test (%) | Technique | Classifier | TPR | TNR | PPV | F-score | AUC | Accuracy |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
70/30 | Gaussian Noise | SVM | 100 | 7.14 | 84.33 | 91.49 | 53.47 | 84.52 |
LPBoost | 97.14 | 21.43 | 86.07 | 91.27 | 59.28 | 84.52 | ||
Impulse Noise | SVM | 95.71 | 50 | 90.54 | 93.05 | 72.85 | 88.09 | |
LPBoost | 95.71 | 64.28 | 93.05 | 94.36 | 79.99 | 90.48 | ||
Shear | SVM | 100 | 7.14 | 84.33 | 91.49 | 53.47 | 84.52 | |
LPBoost | 97.14 | 21.43 | 86.07 | 91.27 | 59.28 | 84.52 | ||
Translation | SVM | 100 | 14.28 | 85.36 | 92.1 | 57.14 | 85.71 | |
LPBoost | 98.57 | 50 | 90.78 | 94.51 | 74.28 | 90.47 | ||
Rotation | SVM | 100 | 7.14 | 84.33 | 91.49 | 53.47 | 84.52 | |
LPBoost | 94.28 | 42.85 | 89.18 | 91.66 | 68.56 | 85.71 | ||
TSSR based Enhancement | SVM | 100 | 28.57 | 87.5 | 93.33 | 64.28 | 88.09 | |
LPBoost | 100 | 42.86 | 89.74 | 94.6 | 71.43 | 90.47 | ||
80/20 | Gaussian Noise | SVM | 100 | 11.11 | 85.45 | 92.15 | 55.55 | 85.71 |
LPBoost | 100 | 22.22 | 87.04 | 93.07 | 61.11 | 87.5 | ||
Impulse Noise | SVM | 95.74 | 55.55 | 91.84 | 93.75 | 75.64 | 89.28 | |
LPBoost | 95.74 | 66.67 | 93.75 | 94.73 | 81.2 | 91.07 | ||
Shear | SVM | 100 | 11.11 | 85.45 | 92.15 | 55.55 | 85.71 | |
LPBoost | 100 | 33.33 | 88.68 | 94 | 66.66 | 89.28 | ||
Translation | SVM | 100 | 11.11 | 85.45 | 92.15 | 55.55 | 85.71 | |
LPBoost | 95.74 | 66.67 | 93.75 | 94.73 | 81.2 | 91.07 | ||
Rotation | SVM | 100 | 11.11 | 85.45 | 92.15 | 55.55 | 85.71 | |
LPBoost | 95.74 | 44.44 | 90 | 92.78 | 70.09 | 87.5 | ||
TSSR based Enhancement | SVM | 100 | 55.56 | 92.15 | 95.91 | 77.8 | 92.86 | |
LPBoost | 97.87 | 55.56 | 92 | 94.84 | 76.71 | 91.07 |