## 5 Simulation Results
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline  & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**(a)**} \\ \hline
**Compared Index/Method** & \begin{tabular}{c} **IFCMC** \\ **(\(m=2\))** \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} **IIFPFCMC** \\ **(\(\eta=0.01\))** \\ \end{tabular} & \
\begin{tabular}{c} **IIFPFCMC** \\ **(\(\eta=0.1\))** \\ \end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}{c} **IIFPFCMC** \\ **(\(\eta=1\))** \\ \end{tabular} \\ \hline RMSE & — & 0.2470 & 0.2470 & 0.2513 \\ \hline Average times on ten (sec.) & 0.007468 & 0.004497 & 0.003814 & 0.00735 \\ \hline Average of ten iterations (\(l\)) & 42.8 & 23.2 & 19.4 & 39.2 \\ \hline \multicolumn{5}{c}{**(b)**} \\ \hline
**Compared Index/Method** & \begin{tabular}{c} **IFCMC** \\ **(\(m=2\))** \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} **IIFPFCMC** \\ **(\(\eta=0.01\))** \\ \end{tabular} & \
\begin{tabular}{c} **IIFPFCMC** \\ **(\(\eta=0.1\))** \\ \end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}{c} **IIFPFCMC** \\ **(\(\eta=1\))** \\ \end{tabular} \\ \hline RMSE & — & 0.2924 & 0.2964 & 0.2955 \\ \hline Average times on ten (sec.) & 0.011596 & 0.005645 & 0.006696 & 0.006356 \\ \hline Average number of ten iterations (\(l\)) & 18.5 & 11 & 12 & 11.7 \\ \hline \multicolumn{5}{c}{**(c)**} \\ \hline
**Compared Index/Method** & \
\begin{tabular}{c} **IFFCMC** \\ **(\(m=1.5\), \(n=2\), \(a=20\), \(b=50\))** \\ \end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}{c} **IIFPFCMC** \\ **(\(\eta=50\), \(b=50\))** \\ \end{tabular} \\ \hline RMSE & 0.2885 & 0.2733 \\ \hline Average times on ten (sec.) & 0.01856 & 0.019446 \\ \hline Average number of ten iterations (\(l\)) & 35.6 & 37.5 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 1: The results of the comparison for IDS1 with different approaches: (**a**) using IFCME and IIFPFCME under different \(\eta\); (**b**) using IFCMC and IIFPFCMC under different \(\eta\); and (**c**) using IFPFCMC. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline  & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**(a)**} \\ \hline
**Compared Index/Method** & \begin{tabular}{c} **IFCMC** \\ **(\(m=2\))** \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} **IIFPFCMC** \\ **(\(\eta=0.01\))** \\ \end{tabular} & \
\begin{tabular}{c} **IIFPFCMC** \\ **(\(\eta=0.1\))** \\ \end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}{c} **IIFPFCMC** \\ **(\(\eta=1\))** \\ \end{tabular} \\ \hline RMSE & — & 0.3124 & 0.3124 & 0.3159 \\ \hline Average times on ten (sec.) & 0.007727 & 0.004025 & 0.005414 & 0.006802 \\ \hline Average number of ten iterations (\(l\)) & 42.5 & 20.1 & 27.8 & 34.6 \\ \hline \multicolumn{5}{c}{**(b)**} \\ \hline
**Compared Index/Method** & \begin{tabular}{c} **IFCMC** \\ **(\(m=2\))** \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} **IIFPFCMC** \\ **(\(\eta=0.01\))** \\ \end{tabular} & \
\begin{tabular}{c} **IIFPFCMC** \\ **(\(\eta=0.01\))** \\ \end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}{c} **IIFPFCMC** \\ **(\(\eta=1\))** \\ \end{tabular} \\ \hline RMSE. & — & 0.273 & 0.2773 & 0.2736 \\ \hline Average times on ten (sec.) & 0.010524 & 0.008881 & 0.007854 & 0.006761 \\ \hline Average number of ten iterations (\(l\)) & 16.8 & 12.8 & 11.6 & 11.3 \\ \hline \multicolumn{5}{c}{**(c)**} \\ \hline
**Compared Index/Method** & \
\begin{tabular}{c} **IFFCMC** \\ **(\(m=1.5\), \(n=2\), \(a=20\), \(b=50\))** \\ \end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}{c} **IIFPFCMC** \\ **(\(\eta=50\), \(b=50\))** \\ \end{tabular} \\ \hline RMSE & 0.3545 & 0.3505 \\ \hline Average times on ten (sec.) & 0.023422 & 0.020567 \\ \hline Average number of ten iterations (\(l\)) & 44.1 & 38.4 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 2: The results of the comparison for IDS2 with different approaches: (**a**) using IFCME and IIFPFCME under different \(\eta\); (**b**) using IFCMC and IIFPFCMC under different \(\eta\); and (**c**) using IFPFCME.