## 3 Analysis and Results of CGAN-IFCM
### Performance Evaluation of CGAN-IFCM
#### 3.1.1 Binary Detection Model using CGAN-IFCM
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Control Weighting Factors**} & \multicolumn{8}{c}{**TNR (\%)/TPR (\%) with Varying \(\mathbf{N_{c}}\)**} \\ \hline \hline \(\omega_{n}\) & \(\omega_{0}\) & **3** & **4** & **5** & **6** & **7** & **8** & **9** & **10** \\ \hline \multirow{8}{*}{2} & 2 & 90.9/90.2 & 93.6/95.2 & 91.3/93.6 & 88.2/89.3 & 85.3/86.3 & 82.6/83.3 & 77.7/78.8 & 74.3/73.8 \\ \cline{2-9}  & 2.1 & 87.8/88.5 & 89.7/90.2 & 87.3/88.2 & 85.4/87.0 & 82.9/82.1 & 80.1/80.8 & 75.6/74.5 & 72.3/71.7 \\ \cline{2-9}  & 2.2 & 86.1/85.8 & 87.7/86.9 & 86.8/85.0 & 84.2/84.5 & 81.3/81.5 & 78.8/78.0 & 74.1/73.2 & 70.8/71.8 \\ \cline{2-9}  & 2.3 & 84.9/84.6 & 85.8/86.1 & 84.2/83.5 & 83.3/82.7 & 80.8/81.2 & 77.1/77.3 & 73.8/72.5 & 69.8/70.2 \\ \cline{2-9}  & 2.4 & 82.5/82.1 & 83.9/84.1 & 83.1/82.7 & 82.4/81.8 & 80.4/79.7 & 75.5/76.3 & 71.8/73.1 & 68.6/69.1 \\ \hline \multirow{8}{*}{2.1} & 2 & 91.6/91.8 & 94.3/95.1 & 92.8/92.1 & 89.7/90.6 & 86.8/85.6 & 84.2/84.8 & 78.3/79.6 & 74.3/73.8 \\ \cline{2-9}  & 2.1 & 90.3/91.2 & 93.7/92.8 & 92.0/91.7 & 90.1/89.2 & 86.3/85.7 & 83.5/82.9 & 77.3/77.8 & 73.6/73.1 \\ \cline{2-9}  & 2.2 & 89.1/89.4 & 91.6/92.0 & 90.7/91.1 & 89.5/88.8 & 85.3/84.6 & 82.4/82.1 & 76.5/76.9 & 72.1/72.9 \\ \cline{2-9}  & 2.3 & 87.6/87.0 & 90.2/90.5 & 88.9/87.7 & 87.4/85.8 & 84.7/84.0 & 81.8/81.1 & 75.9/75.2 & 71.4/72.0 \\ \cline{2-9}  & 2.4 & 85.8/85.1 & 88.4/88.9 & 86.5/86.1 & 85.4/85.1 & 84.1/84.5 & 80.6/80.0 & 73.6/73.5 & 72.1/71.2 \\ \hline \multirow{8}{*}{2.2} & 2 & 91.9/92.3 & 94.6/95.4 & 93.2/92.3 & 89.9/91.0 & 87.5/85.9 & 84.6/85.2 & 78.7/78.2 & 74.8/74.2 \\ \cline{2-9}  & 2.1 & 90.6/91.4 & 94.1/93.2 & 92.4/92.2 & 90.5/89.6 & 86.7/86.2 & 84.0/83.3 & 77.7/78.1 & 73.9/73.3 \\ \cline{2-9}  & 2.2 & 89.6/89.9 & 91.8/92.3 & 91.0/91.3 & 89.8/88.9 & 85.7/84.9 & 82.8/82.4 & 76.9/77.2 & 72.4/73.5 \\ \cline{2-9}  & 2.3 & 87.8/87.3 & 90.4/90.6 & 89.2/87.9 & 87.8/87.5 & 85.2/84.5 & 82.4/81.3 & 76.3/75.5 & 71.7/72.3 \\ \cline{2-9}  & 2.4 & 86.0/85.5 & 88.8/89.2 & 86.8/86.3 & 85.8/86.3 & 84.6/84.8 & 80.9/80.3 & 74.0/73.9 & 72.5/71.4 \\ \hline \multirow{8}{*}{2.3} & 2 & 91.2/92.3 & 94.3/95.3 & 93.1/91.9 & 89.8/90.6 & 86.9/85.7 & 84.6/84.6 & 77.6/77.2 & 73.0/73.5 \\ \cline{2-9}  & 2.1 & 90.1/90.4 & 93.8/92.9 & 91.3/91.6 & 90.0/89.1 & 85.8/85.3 & 83.3/82.9 & 77.3/77.1 & 72.8/72.3 \\ \cline{1-1} \cline{2-9}  & 2.2 & 87.8/88.2 & 90.2/91.1 & 90.3/89.9 & 88.7/88.1 & 84.9/84.1 & 82.2/81.8 & 76.4/76.8 & 71.1/70.9 \\ \cline{1-1} \cline{2-9}  & 2.3 & 86.5/87.1 & 88.9/89.5 & 89.6/88.8 & 87.4/87.0 & 84.2/83.6 & 81.2/80.5 & 75.6/76.1 & 70.9/70.3 \\ \cline{1-1} \cline{2-9}  & 2.4 & 85.4/86.3 & 87.5/88.2 & 88.2/87.3 & 86.8/86.2 & 83.6/82.8 & 80.3/79.7 & 74.2/74.5 & 69.5/69.8 \\ \hline \multirow{8}{*}{2.4} & 2 & 90.4/91.8 & 93.1/94.2 & 92.5/91.3 & 88.6/89.5 & 86.1/84.9 & 83.5/83.9 & 76.9/76.3 & 72.1/72.3 \\ \cline{1-1} \cline{2-9}  & 2.1 & 89.2/89.1 & 92.8/92.4 & 90.7/91.1 & 89.2/88.4 & 85.2/84.7 & 82.7/82.2 & 76.7/76.2 & 72.0/71.5 \\ \cline{1-1} \cline{2-9}  & 2.2 & 87.5/87.9 & 89.7/90.8 & 89.6/89.2 & 88.2/87.4 & 84.4/82.6 & 81.7/81.1 & 75.8/76.0 & 70.4/70.1 \\ \cline{1-1} \cline{2-9}  & 2.3 & 85.8/86.3 & 88.1/88.9 & 89.0/88.1 & 86.9/86.3 & 83.8/83.2 & 80.4/79.8 & 75.1/75.7 & 70.2/69.9 \\ \cline{1-1} \cline{2-9}  & 2.4 & 84.9/85.8 & 87.1/87.8 & 87.5/86.8 & 86.2/85.8 & 83.1/82.5 & 80.0/79.5 & 73.7/74.1 & 69.2/69.5 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 2: Performance evaluation of the binary detection model using CGAN-improved fuzzy c-means clustering (IFCM) with varying \(N_{c}\), \(\omega_{n}\), and \(\omega_{0}\) values using the SVD database. (a) Fixed \(\omega_{n}=1.8\). (b) Fixed \(\omega_{n}=2.0\). (c) Fixed \(\omega_{n}=2.1\). (e) Fixed \(\omega_{n}=2.2\).