## 3 Experimental Results and Analysis
### Results
#### 3.3.3 Third Group of Experiments (Comparative Analysis)
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & **[PERSON] et al.** & **[PERSON] et al.** & **[PERSON]** & **[PERSON] et al.** & **[PERSON] et al.** & **[PERSON] et al.** & **Proposed** \\  & **[48]** & **[49]** & **al.**[50] & **[51]** & **[52]** & **[45]** & **Proposed** \\ \hline \multicolumn{6}{|c|}{**JPEG Compression**} \\ Lena & **-** & 0.8500 & **-** & **-** & **-** & 0.9876 & **0.9900** \\ Lake & **-** & 0.8700 & **-** & **-** & **-** & 0.9829 & **0.9892** \\ Mandrill & **-** & 0.8200 & **-** & **-** & **-** & 0.9877 & **0.9943** \\ Peppers & 0.8916 & **-** & 0.5876 & **-** & 0.9837 & 0.9889 & **0.9910** \\ \hline \multicolumn{6}{|c|}{**Rotation**} \\ Lena & **-** & 0.7900 & **-** & **-** & **-** & 0.9728 & 0.9190 \\ Lake & 0.7800 & **-** & **-** & **-** & 0.9629 & 0.8848 \\ Mandrill & 0.7900 & **-** & **-** & **-** & 0.9753 & 0.9256 \\ Peppers & 0.8617 & 0.5864 & **-** & **-** & **-** & 0.9876 & 0.8974 \\ \hline \multicolumn{6}{|c|}{**Median Filtering**} \\ Lena & **-** & 0.9500 & **-** & **-** & **-** & 0.9523 & 0.9515 \\ Lake & **-** & 0.8700 & **-** & **-** & 0.8889 & **0.9370** \\ Mandrill & **-** & 0.8900 & **-** & **-** & 0.8941 & **0.9269** \\ Peppers & 0.8055 & **-** & **-** & **-** & 0.8196 & **0.9544** \\ \hline \multicolumn{6}{|c|}{**Sharping**} \\ Lena & **-** & 0.8700 & **-** & 0.9750 & **-** & 0.9629 & **0.9686** \\ Lake & **-** & 0.9200 & **-** & **-** & 0.9723 & 0.9534 \\ Mandrill & **-** & 0.8300 & **-** & **-** & 0.9507 & **0.9654** \\ Peppers & 0.9645 & **-** & **-** & **-** & 0.9352 & **0.9653** \\ \hline \multicolumn{6}{|c|}{**Gaussian Noise**} \\ Lena & **-** & 0.8900 & **-** & **-** & **-** & 0.9629 & 0.9386 \\ Lake & **-** & 0.8300 & **-** & **-** & 0.9753 & 0.9301 \\ Mandrill & **-** & 0.9000 & **-** & **-** & 0.9722 & 0.9446 \\ Peppers & 0.6412 & **-** & **-** & **-** & **-** & 0.9506 & 0.9333 \\ \hline \multicolumn{6}{|c|}{**Salt \& Peppers Noise**} \\ Lena & **-** & 0.8900 & **-** & 0.9600 & **-** & 0.9753 & **0.9958** \\ Lake & **-** & 0.9100 & **-** & **-** & 0.9858 & **0.9940** \\ Mandrill & **-** & 0.8100 & **-** & **-** & **-** & 0.9877 & **0.9955** \\ Peppers & 0.5852 & **-** & **-** & **-** & **-** & 0.9784 & **0.9959** \\ \hline \multicolumn{6}{|c|}{**Speckle Noise**} \\ Lena & **-** & **-** & **-** & 0.9700 & **-** & 0.9890 & 0.9571 \\ Lake & **-** & **-** & **-** & **-** & **-** & 0.9536 \\ Mandrill & **-** & **-** & **-** & **-** & **-** & 0.9611 \\ Peppers & **-** & **-** & **-** & **-** & **-** & 0.9548 \\ \hline \multicolumn{6}{|c|}{**Poisson Noise**} \\ Lena & **-** & **-** & **-** & 0.9600 & **-** & 0.9612 & 0.9410 \\ Lake & **-** & **-** & **-** & **-** & **-** & 0.9374 \\ Mandrill & **-** & **-** & **-** & **-** & **-** & 0.9471 \\ Peppers & **-** & **-** & **-** & **-** & **-** & 0.9409 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 7: Quantitative comparison of the proposed approach with the state-of-the-art approaches. in Table 7 revealed that our proposed approach outperforms the other six approaches in the JPEG compression attack, with an obtained average value of 99%. Furthermore, it exceeds the other approaches for the median filtering attack, with an average value of 94%. The same improvement occurred in the proposed approach for Gaussian and salt and pepper noises attacks, with average values of 96% and 99%. For the rotation, Gaussian noise, speckle noise and Poisson noise, the proposed approach achieved comparable results. Hence, it can be said that the proposed approach, on average, is better than the compared state-of-the-art approaches after the exposure of the images to different kinds of attacks.