## 4 Analysis of Experimental Results
### Evaluation Results
This algorithm consistently achieves a high correct initialization rate under low and medium false alarm rates, with only marginal decreases of 0.21%, 0.22%, and 0.22% as the false alarm rate increases. In contrast, when compared to other algorithms, the average initialization rate experiences reductions of 4.76%, 3.71%, 5.32%, and 7.48%. The notable finding is the significantly smaller decrease in the correct initialization rate of the MDF-clustering algorithm in comparison to other methods, particularly evident in visually complex cloud backgrounds. Consequently, the MDF-clustering algorithm demonstrates superior performance in correct tracking relative to alternative approaches. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline
**False Alarm Rate** & **MDF Clustering** & **NN** & **Hough Transform** & **Intuitivenotion** & **Sliding Window** \\ \hline
3\% & 100.00\% & 95.00\% & 98.33\% & 96.67\% & 83.33\% \\
4\% & 100.00\% & 93.33\% & 96.67\% & 95.00\% & 80.00\% \\
5\% & 100.00\% & 91.67\% & 95.00\% & 93.33\% & 78.33\% \\
6\% & 100.00\% & 90.00\% & 93.33\% & 91.67\% & 73.33\% \\
7\% & 100.00\% & 86.66\% & 91.67\% & 86.66\% & 75.00\% \\
8\% & 100.00\% & 83.33\% & 86.66\% & 80.00\% & 60.00\% \\
9\% & 98.33\% & 73.33\% & 81.66\% & 73.33\% & 56.66\% \\
10\% & 98.33\% & 73.33\% & 81.66\% & 73.33\% & 56.66\% \\
11\% & 98.33\% & 68.33\% & 78.33\% & 64.99\% & 48.33\% \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 10: Average starting batch rate of correct trajectories for each algorithm with different false alarm rates for target leakage scenarios. Figure 7: Average false track occupancy of each algorithm with different false alarm rates in the cloud context. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**False Alarm Rate** & **MDF Clustering** & **NN** & **Hough Transform** & **Intuitivenotion** & **Sliding Window** \\ \hline
3\% & 100.00\% & 96.67\% & 98.33\% & 93.33\% & 88.33\% \\
4\% & 100.00\% & 95.00\% & 96.67\% & 90.00\% & 83.33\% \\
5\% & 100.00\% & 93.33\% & 93.33\% & 86.66\% & 80.00\% \\
6\% & 100.00\% & 90.00\% & 91.67\% & 85.00\% & 76.66\% \\
7\% & 100.00\% & 83.33\% & 86.66\% & 81.66\% & 66.66\% \\
8\% & 100.00\% & 78.33\% & 83.33\% & 78.33\% & 60.00\% \\
9\% & 100.00\% & 75.00\% & 81.66\% & 75.00\% & 58.33\% \\
10\% & 98.33\% & 71.66\% & 78.33\% & 71.66\% & 55.00\% \\
11\% & 98.33\% & 66.66\% & 76.66\% & 65.00\% & 50.00\% \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 11: Average starting batch rate of correct trajectories for different algorithms with different false alarm rates in trajectory intersection scenarios. Figure 8: Average starting batch rate of correct trajectories for each algorithm with different false alarm rates for target leakage scenarios. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**False Alarm Rate** & **MDF Clustering** & **NN** & **Hough Transform** & **Intuitivenotion** & **Sliding Window** \\ \hline
3\% & 100.00\% & 96.67\% & 98.33\% & 93.33\% & 88.33\% \\
4\% & 100.00\% & 95.00\% & 96.67\% & 90.00\% & 83.33\% \\
5\% & 100.00\% & 93.33\% & 93.33\% & 86.66\% & 80.00\% \\
6\% & 100.00\% & 90.00\% & 91.67\% & 85.00\% & 76.66\% \\
7\% & 100.00\% & 83.33\% & 86.66\% & 81.66\% & 66.66\% \\
8\% & 100.00\% & 78.33\% & 83.33\% & 78.33\% & 60.00\% \\
9\% & 100.00\% & 75.00\% & 81.66\% & 75.00\% & 58.33\% \\
10\% & 98.33\% & 71.66\% & 78.33\% & 71.66\% & 55.00\% \\
11\% & 98.33\% & 66.66\% & 76.66\% & 65.00\% & 50.00\% \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 12: Average batch rate of correct trajectories for different algorithms with different false alarm rates in the cloud context. (4) Trajectory leakage rate  
The statistics of the trajectory leakage rate in each scenario and the calculation of different algorithmic trajectory leakage rates in each scenario result in the following figures. Figures 11-13 depict the leakage rates of each algorithm across three distinct scenarios with varying false alarm rates. The performance evaluation highlights notable differences in the MDF-clustering algorithm's performance across all test scenarios.