Table 9. Open in new tab Comparison of... | Oxford Academic

Table 9.

Open in new tab

Comparison of recall between the HIWL and three literature works based on the validation set. Each of these works focuses on the recognition of CRS, IBS, CSS, EO, and SPI.

Method	Recall
	CRS	IBS	CSS	EO	SPI
ResNet26 (Zhu et al. 2019)	0.9634	0.9431	0.5862	0.9485	0.9782
SC-Net (Zhang et al. 2022)	0.9785	0.9785	0.7833	0.8259	0.9850
NODE_ACA (Gupta et al. 2022)	0.9592	0.9425	0.4894	0.9426	0.9268
HIWL	0.9715	0.9727	0.7414	0.9718	0.9897

Method	Recall
	CRS	IBS	CSS	EO	SPI
ResNet26 (Zhu et al. 2019)	0.9634	0.9431	0.5862	0.9485	0.9782
SC-Net (Zhang et al. 2022)	0.9785	0.9785	0.7833	0.8259	0.9850
NODE_ACA (Gupta et al. 2022)	0.9592	0.9425	0.4894	0.9426	0.9268
HIWL	0.9715	0.9727	0.7414	0.9718	0.9897

Table 9.

Open in new tab

Comparison of recall between the HIWL and three literature works based on the validation set. Each of these works focuses on the recognition of CRS, IBS, CSS, EO, and SPI.

Method	Recall
	CRS	IBS	CSS	EO	SPI
ResNet26 (Zhu et al. 2019)	0.9634	0.9431	0.5862	0.9485	0.9782
SC-Net (Zhang et al. 2022)	0.9785	0.9785	0.7833	0.8259	0.9850
NODE_ACA (Gupta et al. 2022)	0.9592	0.9425	0.4894	0.9426	0.9268
HIWL	0.9715	0.9727	0.7414	0.9718	0.9897

Method	Recall
	CRS	IBS	CSS	EO	SPI
ResNet26 (Zhu et al. 2019)	0.9634	0.9431	0.5862	0.9485	0.9782
SC-Net (Zhang et al. 2022)	0.9785	0.9785	0.7833	0.8259	0.9850
NODE_ACA (Gupta et al. 2022)	0.9592	0.9425	0.4894	0.9426	0.9268
HIWL	0.9715	0.9727	0.7414	0.9718	0.9897