## 4 Experimental Validation
### Discussion
For instance, with Barbara image, the OMKHES-MS model has reached lessened MD of 45.4132 whereas the WOA-EBS and GWO-EBS models have realized increased MD of 47.2942 and 46.6040 respectively. In line with, [PERSON] image, the OMKHES-MS model has depicted insignificant MD of 47.0321 whereas the WOA-EBS and GWO-EBS models have revealed maximum MD of 48.3379 and 49.8736 respectively. A comprehensive NCC and NAE assessment of the OMKHES-MS model is compared with recent methods in Table 4. The experimental values notified that the OMKHES-MS model has gained effectual outcome with maximum values of NCC and NAE. A broad NCC assessment of the OMKHES-MS model with compared methods under several test images is provided in Figure 12. The figure portrayed that the OMKHES-MS model has resulted in better outcomes with improved NCC values under every image. For instance, with Barbara image, the OMKHES-MS model has reached superior NCC of 0.9985 whereas the WOA-EBS and GWO-EBS models have shown lesser NCC of 0.9897 and 0.9905 respectively. Equally, with [PERSON] image, the OMKHES-MS model has displayed increased NCC of 0.9998 whereas the WOA-EBS and GWO-EBS models have inferred diminished NCC of 0.9918 and 0.9903 correspondingly. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Images**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Normalized Cross-Correlation**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Normalized Absolute Error**} \\ \cline{2-7}  & **OMKHES-MS** & **WOA-EBS** & **GWO-EBS** & **OMKHES-MS** & **WOA-EBS** & **GWO-EBS** \\ \hline Barbara & 0.9985 & 0.9897 & 0.9905 & 0.0002 & 0.0016 & 0.0017 \\ \hline Boat & 0.9980 & 0.9899 & 0.9899 & 0.0002 & 0.0010 & 0.0013 \\ \hline Foreman & 0.9987 & 0.9910 & 0.9896 & 0.0001 & 0.0011 & 0.0013 \\ \hline House & 0.9985 & 0.9906 & 0.9900 & 0.0010 & 0.0017 & 0.0023 \\ \hline Isabe & 0.9994 & 0.9904 & 0.9907 & 0.0004 & 0.0014 & 0.0016 \\ \hline Peppers & 0.9998 & 0.9918 & 0.9903 & 0.0008 & 0.0017 & 0.0020 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 4: NCC and NAE analysis of OMKHES-MS technique with different images. Figure 11: Comparative MD analysis of OMKHES-MS technique with existing models. Figure 13 illustrates the NAE analysis of the OMKHES-MS model with present models on diverse images. The simulation outcome revealed that the OMKHES-MS model has outperformed the other methods with least NAE values. For instance, with Barbara image, the OMKHES-MS model has reached decreased NAE of 0.0002 whereas the WOA-EBS and GWO-EBS models have realized increased NAE of 0.0016 and 0.0017 respectively. Moreover, with Peppers image, the OMKHES-MS model has portrayed negligible NAE of 0.0008 whereas the WOA-EBS and GWO-EBS techniques have presented supreme NAE of 0.0017 and 0.0020 respectively. Figure 12: Comparative NCC analysis of OMKHES-MS technique with existing models. Figure 13: Comparative NAE analysis of OMKHES-MS technique with existing models. From the detailed results and discussion, it can be clear that the OMKHES-MS model has reached superior results over the other methods interms of different measures. Therefore, the OMKHES-MS model can be utilized as an effective tool for accomplishing multimedia security in the IoE environment.