## 5 Results
### Sticker Textual Recognition  
The performance of the OCR system was evaluated using three different subsets of sticker patterns, namely, A, B, and C. Table 4 presents the overall performance metrics for each subset, including Character Error Rate (CER), Field Error Rate (FER), and Sticker Accuracy. Additionally, the table also presents a macro of the average results for each metric used. The metrics displayed in the table are interdependent; a misclassified character will affect the CER, which in turn will influence the FER and Sticker Accuracy. It is important to note that a sticker is considered accurate only when there are no errors in any of its fields or characters. Despite the Sticker Accuracy appearing somewhat unsatisfactory for Subset A, the performance should be evaluated within the context of the stringent requirement for complete correctness in fields and characters. For Subset A, we have more characters than other sticker patterns (as the field \"IP padrao do terminal: 192.168.0.1\"), which justifies the performance of 0.76 accuracy. Meanwhile, Subset B demonstrates a marked improvement in Sticker Accuracy, with a value of 0.92. As for Subset C, it achieved the most favorable outcome, reaching a value of 0.95. Overall, the OCR system's performance varies depending on the sticker subset, with the most accurate results observed in Subset C. The overall accuracy for all sticker patterns was 0.88. For a more detailed analysis, Tables 5-7 display the CER and FER values for each field of the A, B, and C sticker patterns, respectively. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Subset** & \
\begin{tabular}{c} **Number of** \\ **Images** \\ \end{tabular} & **CER (\%)** & **FER (\%)** &
\begin{tabular}{c} **Sticker** \\ **Accuracy** \\ \end{tabular} \\ \hline A & 43 & 0.21 (0.42) & 2.16 (3.87) & 0.76 \\ B & 40 & 0.04 (0.16) & 0.62 (2.19) & 0.92 \\ C & 22 & 0.31 (1.42) & 0.34 (1.56) & 0.95 \\ \hline All & 105 & 0.17 & 1.04 & 0.88 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 4: The performance of the OCR system for Subsets A, B, and C is shown. The values in parentheses indicate the standard deviation. The ”Number of Images” column represents the total quantity of images used in each subset. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Classes** & **Precision** & **Recall** & **[EMAIL_ADDRESS]** & **[EMAIL_ADDRESS]:0.95** \\ \hline All & 0.982 & 0.968 & 0.984 & 0.861 \\ QR code & 0.987 & 0.972 & 0.988 & 0.855 \\ Barcode & 0.977 & 0.964 & 0.979 & 0.868 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 3: Results for the barcode and QR code detection model. The system achieved error-free performance for most fields, including CM MAC, EMTA MAC, IP address, MODEL, P/N, NETWORK WiFi 2.4 GHz, NETWORK WiFi 5 GHz, and S/N. However, it encountered some errors in the PASSWORD WiFi and Password fields, with CER values of 1.19% and 1.11%, respectively, and FER values of 9.52% and 14.29%, respectively. Overall, these results indicate that the system performed effectively on the A sticker database, with only minor errors. The low CER and FER values demonstrate a high level of accuracy and reliability in recognizing fields within the A sticker database. Most fields in Table 6 exhibit a CER and FER of 0, indicating no recognition errors occurred for those fields. However, the MAC and S/N fields experienced slightly higher CER and FER values, with 0.21% and 0.33% for CER, and 2.50% and 5.00% for FER, respectively. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c} \hline \hline
**Field** & **CER (\%)** & **FER (\%)** \\ \hline IP & 0 & 0 \\ MAC & 0.21 & 2.50 \\ Model & 0 & 0 \\ PN & 0 & 0 \\ PON/ID & 0 & 0 \\ Password & 0 & 0 \\ S/N & 0.33 & 5.00 \\ SAP & 0 & 0 \\ SSID 2.4 GHZ & 0 & 0 \\ SSID 5 GHZ & 0 & 0 \\ Senha 5 GHZ & 0 & 0 \\ User & 0 & 0 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 6: Result of the performance evaluation of the system for the fields of the B sticker database.