## 4 Development of Proposed Method
### Proposed Method
#### 4.2.5 Signal Reconstruction
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & **SNR** & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**EMD-SC [10]**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**EMD-MI**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**EMD-DFA**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**EMD-SWT3**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**Previous**} \\  & & & & [14] & [11] & [13] & **Method [21]** \\ \hline \multirow{8}{*}{Piecewise-regular} & \multirow{3}{*}{0} & Mean & 3.853 & 3.749 & 3.610 & 3.787 & **3.922** \\  & & SD & 0.1256 & 0.0689 & 0.1047 & 0.1163 & 0.0785 \\  & & Median & 3.952 & 3.757 & 3.632 & 3.821 & 3.884 \\ \cline{2-8}  & \multirow{3}{*}{10} & Mean & 4.092 & 4.094 & 4.047 & 4.148 & **4.208** \\  & & SD & 0.1226 & 0.0694 & 0.552 & 0.0720 & 0.0544 \\  & & Median & 4.128 & 4.099 & 4.053 & 4.149 & 4.213 \\ \cline{2-8}  & \multirow{3}{*}{20} & Mean & 4.239 & 4.264 & 4.352 & 4.486 & **4.751** \\  & & SD & 0.2391 & 0.1811 & 0.0605 & 0.0796 & 0.0679 \\  & & Median & 4.259 & 4.323 & 4.356 & 4.500 & 4.756 \\ \hline \multirow{8}{*}{Doppler} & \multirow{3}{*}{0} & Mean & 4.540 & 5.406 & 4.598 & 5.478 & **5.761** \\  & & SD & 0.1303 & 0.074 & 0.0752 & 0.0601 & 0.0822 \\  & & Median & 4.542 & 5.421 & 4.588 & 5.474 & 5.757 \\ \cline{2-8}  & \multirow{3}{*}{10} & Mean & 4.701 & 5.576 & 4.963 & 5.674 & **5.933** \\  & & SD & 0.1582 & 0.0553 & 0.0346 & 0.0662 & 0.0474 \\  & & Median & 4.734 & 5.568 & 4.964 & 5.674 & 5.935 \\ \cline{2-8}  & \multirow{3}{*}{20} & Mean & 4.824 & 5.696 & 5.334 & 5.879 & **6.613** \\  & & SD & 0.2876 & 0.0607 & 0.0408 & 0.0511 & 0.1464 \\  & & Median & 4.950 & 5.711 & 5.322 & 5.871 & 6.682 \\ \hline \multirow{8}{*}{HeavySine} & \multirow{3}{*}{0} & Mean & 5.074 & 5.421 & 4.521 & 5.508 & **5.985** \\  & & SD & 0.3170 & 0.0588 & 0.0697 & 0.0799 & 0.1186 \\  & & Median & 5.207 & 5.444 & 4.505 & 5.504 & 6.027 \\ \cline{2-8}  & \multirow{3}{*}{10} & Mean & 5.112 & 5.671 & 5.037 & 5.623 & **6.402** \\  & & SD & 0.2902 & 0.062 & 0.1302 & 0.1538 & 0.1484 \\  & & Median & 5.150 & 5.673 & 5.003 & 5.663 & 6.409 \\ \cline{2-8}  & \multirow{3}{*}{20} & Mean & 5.193 & 5.821 & 5.426 & 5.805 & **6.724** \\  & & SD & 0.2669 & 0.1197 & 0.0358 & 0.2262 & 0.1651 \\  & & Median & 5.188 & 5.818 & 5.429 & 5.798 & 6.676 \\ \hline \multirow{8}{*}{Blocks} & \multirow{3}{*}{0} & Mean & 1.105 & 1.345 & 1.231 & **1.384** & 1.222 \\  & & SD & 0.1087 & 0.0476 & 0.1388 & 0.0820 & 0.0786 \\  & & Median & 1.102 & 1.340 & 1.167 & 1.359 & 1.239 \\ \cline{2-8}  & \multirow{3}{*}{10} & Mean & 1.543 & 1.859 & 2.052 & 1.897 & **2.085** \\  & & SD & 0.1916 & 0.0801 & 0.0491 & 0.1527 & 0.0730 \\  & & Median & 1.533 & 1.835 & 2.057 & 1.865 & 2.079 \\ \cline{2-8}  & \multirow{3}{*}{20} & Mean & 1.359 & 2.111 & **2.533** & 2.138 & **2.509** \\  & & SD & 0.1292 & 0.1770 & 0.0291 & 0.2338 & 0.0375 \\  & & Median & 1.360 & 2.162 & 2.536 & 2.145 & 2.496 \\ \hline \multirow{8}{*}{Bumps} & \multirow{3}{*}{0} & Mean & 2.679 & 2.801 & 2.783 & 2.830 & **2.851** \\  & & SD & 0.1024 & 0.0404 & 0.0535 & 0.0589 & 0.0701 \\  & & Median & 2.659 & 2.807 & 2.792 & 2.832 & 2.875 \\ \cline{2-8}  & \multirow{3}{*}{10} & Mean & 2.857 & 3.014 & 2.908 & 2.997 & **3.027** \\  & & SD & 0.1138 & 0.0466 & 0.0546 & 0.517 & 0.0392 \\  & & Median & 2.886 & 3.020 & 2.908 & 2.999 & 3.002 \\ \cline{2-8}  & \multirow{3}{*}{20} & Mean & 3.001 & 3.259 & 3.135 & 3.254 & **3.264** \\  & & SD & 0.1210 & 0.0763 & 0.0729 & 0.0985 & 0.0528 \\  & & Median & 2.989 & 3.256 & 3.167 & 3.245 & 3.251 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 5: Quantitative results for test signals: MI for various EMD-based denoising methods for different input SNR levels. Table 3 shows the NMSE values (in dB) for various EMD-based denoising methods. It is observed that the previous EMD-based method [21] outperforms the rest of the methods considered in this paper for almost all scenarios. In the case of HeavySine and Blocks signals