# Research on Multi-Scale Fusion Method for Ancient Bronze Ware X-ray Images in NSST Domain
## 3 Results
### Quantitative Analysis  
Tables 1-4, respectively, show the evaluation results of the first, second, third, and fourth sets of bronze mirrors on six objective evaluation indicators. Table 5 displays the average values for six evaluation indices from 36 fusion result charts across four groups of eight bronze mirrors. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & **EN** & **AG** & **MI** & **Q\({}^{\text{ABF}}\)** & **PSNR** & **VIF** \\ \hline LDR & 4.5581 & 8.5712 & 3.5207 & 0.6997 & 64.3976 & 0.9010 \\ \hline NMP & 4.8758 & 8.6371 & 3.3371 & 0.7238 & 65.9869 & 0.8979 \\ \hline F-PCNN & 4.3725 & 8.3092 & 2.7447 & 0.6857 & 66.0080 & 0.8765 \\ \hline LatLRR & 4.9789 & 7.1978 & 3.8001 & 0.6769 & 66.0513 & 0.8769 \\ \hline IVFusion & 4.3124 & 9.3490 & 2.2765 & 0.5001 & 57.9493 & 0.8195 \\ \hline PL-NSCT & 4.3624 & 8.3570 & 2.8639 & 0.6679 & 65.4475 & 0.9141 \\ \hline MMIF & 4.7962 & 8.2818 & 3.0071 & 0.6199 & 65.4340 & 0.8704 \\ \hline IFE & 4.6811 & 9.4547 & 4.2365 & 0.7381 & 62.6001 & 0.9237 \\ \hline Proposed method & 4.8323 & 9.9722 & 4.5274 & 0.7617 & 65.8743 & 0.9797 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 1: The six evaluation results of the first set of bronze mirror fusion result graphs. Figure 13: Comparison of methods for unclear presentation of texture information in the fourth group of bronze mirrors. Red and yellow represent crack areas, while red represents textured areas. The method used in this paper outperforms the other comparative methods on four of these metrics, and the remaining two metrics are better than most of the comparative methods. EN responds to the richness of the image information: generally, the larger the EN value, the richer the information. The AG value indicates the sharpness of the fused image, with a larger value indicating a sharper image. MI represents how much information of the source image is acquired by the fused image, and a larger value indicates that the fused resultant map retains more information of the source image. Q\({}^{\text{AB/F}}\), on \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & **EN** & **AG** & **MI** & **Q\({}^{\text{AB/F}}\)** & **PSNR** & **VIF** \\ \hline LDR & 4.4968 & 8.5354 & 3.5225 & 0.7053 & 64.3978 & 0.8919 \\ \hline NMP & 4.6341 & 8.7789 & 3.3494 & 0.7201 & 66.0031 & 0.8993 \\ \hline F-PCNN & 4.2082 & 8.3824 & 2.7530 & 0.6882 & 66.1009 & 0.8800 \\ \hline LatLRR & 5.3102 & 7.2188 & 3.8320 & 0.6730 & 66.0698 & 0.8901 \\ \hline IVFusion & 4.4284 & 9.3535 & 2.3034 & 0.5143 & 57.9519 & 0.8130 \\ \hline PL-NST & 4.3869 & 8.3718 & 2.8370 & 0.6720 & 65.4490 & 0.9070 \\ \hline MMIF & 4.7183 & 8.3001 & 2.9949 & 0.6138 & 65.4335 & 0.8698 \\ \hline IFE & 4.8363 & 9.4582 & 4.2589 & 0.7224 & 62.5987 & 0.9200 \\ \hline Proposed method & 4.9647 & 9.9622 & 4.5390 & 0.7598 & 65.9207 & 0.9883 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 4: The six evaluation results of the fourth set of bronze mirror fusion result graphs. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & **EN** & **AG** & **MI** & **Q\({}^{\text{AB/F}}\)** & **PSNR** & **VIF** \\ \hline LDR & 4.3628 & 8.6100 & 3.5340 & 0.7140 & 64.4138 & 0.9103 \\ \hline NMP & 5.0672 & 8.7101 & 3.3504 & 0.7331 & 66.0203 & 0.9106 \\ \hline F-PCNN & 4.4178 & 8.3208 & 2.7536 & 0.6904 & 66.1032 & 0.8859 \\ \hline LatLRR & 5.1190 & 7.2113 & 3.8345 & 0.6886 & 66.0713 & 0.9023 \\ \hline IVFusion & 4.5630 & 9.3981 & 2.3213 & 0.5143 & 57.9608 & 0.8209 \\ \hline PL-NST & 4.4992 & 8.3862 & 2.9104 & 0.6731 & 65.4509 & 0.9275 \\ \hline MMIF & 4.9005 & 8.3057 & 3.1346 & 0.6307 & 65.4408 & 0.8865 \\ \hline IFE & 4.7209 & 9.4783 & 4.2633 & 0.7400 & 62.6172 & 0.9345 \\ \hline Proposed method & 5.1031 & 9.8763 & 4.5406 & 0.7703 & 65.9549 & 0.9884 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 2: The six evaluation results of the second set of bronze mirror fusion result graphs.