## 4 Experimental Results
Let us observe again if the EC is increased to 60,000 bits in the \"Lena\" image, the PSNR values of the TLE method, the SBDE method, and our proposed triple-RDH method are 38.55, 37.28, and 38.98 dB, respectively. It can be seen that our triple-RDH method is higher than the TLE method and the SBDE method in terms of PSNR value. The EC of the IPVO method cannot reach 40,000 bits, but we can easily embed more than 60,000 bits, and our advantage in the embedding capacity is great. Let us observe more complicated images, such as the \"Baboon\" image in Figure 9b and Table 5 as an example. It can be seen that the maximum EC of the TLE method is 117,025 bits, the maximum EC of the SBDE method is 105,149 bits, the maximum EC of the IPVO method is 13,736 bits, and the maximum EC of our proposed triple-RDH method is 171,742 bits, which is much higher than the other three methods, which are 1.46 times and 1.63 times the TLE method and the SBDE method, respectively. The maximum EC of the proposed method is 12 times that of the IPVO method. When the \"Baboon\" image in Figure 9b is embedded in 20,000 bits, the PSNR value of the TLE method is 39.1 dB, the PSNR value of the SBDE method is 36.39 dB, and the PSNR value of the triple-RDH method we proposed has 39.8 dB, but the IPVO method is incapable of carrying 20,000 bits. When the EC is increased to 40,000 bits, the PSNR \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Prediction Method**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**1**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**2**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**3**} \\ \hline \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Metrics**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**EC**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**PSNR**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**EC**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**PSNR**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**EC**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**PSNR**} \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{Lena} & proposed & 305,801 & 31.28 & 310,732 & 31.04 & 303,018 & 31.15 \\ \cline{2-7}  & TLE & 203,243 & 32.38 & 214,166 & 32.35 & 207,599 & 32.27 \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{Baboon} & proposed & 159,911 & 31.92 & 171,742 & 30.61 & 164,421 & 31.1 \\ \cline{2-7}  & TLE & 105,668 & 32.53 & 117,025 & 31.16 & 111,388 & 31.65 \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{Barbara} & proposed & 234,763 & 31.78 & 241,413 & 30.91 & 232,491 & 31.3 \\ \cline{2-7}  & TLE & 155,623 & 32.71 & 165,488 & 31.82 & 158,707 & 32.21 \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{Boat} & proposed & 244,807 & 31.34 & 258,190 & 30.92 & 246,237 & 31.02 \\ \cline{2-7}  & TLE & 161,138 & 32.16 & 178,000 & 31.93 & 169,069 & 31.91 \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{Elaine} & proposed & 229,595 & 30.94 & 234,097 & 30.79 & 221,368 & 30.76 \\ \cline{2-7}  & TLE & 151,255 & 31.63 & 161,605 & 31.67 & 151,892 & 31.5 \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{F16} & proposed & 317,728 & 31.43 & 324,187 & 31.12 & 316,406 & 31.23 \\ \cline{2-7}  & TLE & 211,024 & 32.67 & 221,563 & 32.48 & 215,128 & 32.51 \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{House} & proposed & 277,561 & 31.6 & 300,106 & 31.01 & 289,155 & 31.18 \\ \cline{2-7}  & TLE & 184,380 & 32.68 & 203,994 & 32.17 & 195,964 & 32.29 \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{Pepper} & proposed & 226,675 & 31.78 & 227,657 & 31.64 & 220,866 & 31.65 \\ \cline{2-7}  & TLE & 149,081 & 32.66 & 157,962 & 32.72 & 151,723 & 32.6 \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{Sailboat} & proposed & 228,441 & 31.4 & 240,060 & 30.82 & 228,850 & 31 \\ \cline{2-7}  & TLE & 149,924 & 32.2 & 165,010 & 31.71 & 156,430 & 31.81 \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{Tifany} & proposed & 310,258 & 31.23 & 306,476 & 31.13 & 301,025 & 31.12 \\ \cline{2-7}  & TLE & 205,499 & 32.33 & 211,059 & 32.42 & 206,334 & 32.29 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 5: The comparison of embedding EC and PSNR values by the proposed triple-RDH method and TLE method with 10 standard images on the three predictor methods. values of the TLE method, the SBDE method, and the proposed triple-RDH method are 36.73, 34.42, and 37.6 dB, respectively. When the EC is increased up to 60,000 bits, the PSNR values of the TLE method, the SBDE method, and the proposed triple-RDH method are 35.01, 33.16, and 36.08 dB, respectively.