## 4 Experimental Results
In this study, we focus on the performance evaluation of data hiding techniques, specifically assessing the effectiveness of various methods ([PERSON] et al. (2007) [17], [PERSON] et al. (2015) [14], [PERSON] et al. (2019) [22], [PERSON] et al. [23]), including the approach we propose, in \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Images** & **[PERSON] \& [PERSON] [25]** & **[PERSON] et al. [14]** & **[PERSON] \& [PERSON] [22]** & **[PERSON] et al. [20]** & **[PERSON] \& [PERSON] [23]** & **Proposed** \\ \hline Lena & 1.07 & 1.0 & 1.0 & 1.07 & 1.0 & 1.10 \\ Baboon & 1.07 & 0.9 & 1.0 & 1.07 & 0.9 & 1.10 \\ Pepper & 1.07 & 0.9 & 1.0 & 1.07 & 0.9 & 1.10 \\ Boat & 1.07 & 0.9 & 1.0 & 1.07 & 1.0 & 1.10 \\ Airplane & 1.07 & 0.9 & 1.0 & 1.07 & 1.0 & 1.10 \\ Goldhill & 1.07 & 0.9 & 1.0 & 1.07 & 1.0 & 1.10 \\ Barbara & 1.07 & 0.9 & 1.0 & 1.07 & 1.0 & 1.10 \\ Tiffany & 1.07 & 0.9 & 1.0 & 1.07 & 1.0 & 1.10 \\ Zelda & 1.07 & 1.0 & 1.0 & 1.07 & 1.0 & 1.10 \\ \hline Average & 1.07 & 0.92 & 1.0 & 1.07 & 0.97 & 1.10 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 2: Comparison of maximum embedding ratio with different schemes. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Image** & **Methods** & **[PERSON] et al. [17]** & **[PERSON] et al. [14]** & **[PERSON] et al. [22]** & **[PERSON] et al. [23]** & **Proposed** \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{[PERSON]} & PSNR & \(\Delta I_{1}\) & 45.19 & 49.12 & 51.17 & 51.14 & 50.34 \\  & EC (bits) & \(\Delta I_{2}\) & 45.20 & 49.13 & 49.41 & 51.13 & 51.13 \\  & EC (bits) & 524,288 & 524,288 & 524,288 & 524,288 & 576,565 \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{Baboon} & PSNR & \(\Delta I_{1}\) & 45.18 & 47.95 & 51.16 & 51.14 & 50.34 \\  & EC (bits) & \(\Delta I_{2}\) & 45.19 & 49.15 & 49.41 & 51.14 & 51.13 \\  & EC (bits) & 522,888 & 522,996 & 524,288 & 524,210 & 576,203 \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{Pepper} & PSNR & \(\Delta I_{1}\) & 45.21 & 49.11 & 51.14 & 51.14 & 50.35 \\  & EC (bits) & \(\Delta I_{2}\) & 45.21 & 49.08 & 49.72 & 51.14 & 51.13 \\  & EC (bits) & 523,356 & 524,192 & 524,288 & 524,240 & 576,659 \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{Boat} & PSNR & \(\Delta I_{1}\) & 45.20 & 49.00 & 51.18 & 51.14 & 50.35 \\  & EC (bits) & \(\Delta I_{2}\) & 45.21 & 49.07 & 49.41 & 51.14 & 51.15 \\  & EC (bits) & 524,208 & 524,208 & 524,288 & 524,288 & 576,521 \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{Airplane} & PSNR & \(\Delta I_{1}\) & 45.11 & 49.39 & 51.13 & 51.13 & 50.34 \\  & EC (bits) & \(\Delta I_{2}\) & 45.11 & 49.03 & 49.73 & 51.13 & 51.13 \\  & EC (bits) & 524,208 & 524,288 & 524,288 & 524,288 & 576,558 \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{Goldhill} & PSNR & \(\Delta I_{1}\) & 45.2 & 49.17 & 51.12 & 51.13 & 50.35 \\  & EC (bits) & \(\Delta I_{2}\) & 45.17 & 49.09 & 49.72 & 51.12 & 51.15 \\  & EC (bits) & 524,288 & 524,288 & 524,288 & 524,288 & 576,399 \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{Barbara} & PSNR & \(\Delta I_{1}\) & 45.2 & 49.14 & 51.12 & 51.13 & 50.34 \\  & EC (bits) & \(\Delta I_{2}\) & 45.21 & 49.11 & 49.73 & 51.13 & 51.12 \\  & EC (bits) & 524,288 & 524,288 & 524,288 & 524,288 & 577,040 \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{Tiffany} & PSNR & \(\Delta I_{1}\) & 45.18 & 49.38 & 51.15 & 51.16 & 50.35 \\  & EC (bits) & \(\Delta I_{2}\) & 45.19 & 49.06 & 49.73 & 51.16 & 51.16 \\  & EC (bits) & 524,288 & 524,288 & 524,288 & 524,288 & 576,947 \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{Zelda} & PSNR & \(\Delta I_{1}\) & 45.66 & 49.14 & 51.14 & 51.14 & 50.36 \\  & \(\Delta I_{2}\) & 45.20 & 49.09 & 49.71 & 51.14 & 51.14 \\ \cline{1-1}  & EC (bits) & 524,288 & 524,288 & 524,288 & 524,288 & 576,705 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 3: Comparison with existing dual-image-based scheme in terms of PSNR and EC(bpp) after maximum data. embedding data within the 'Lena' image to its maximum capacity. The metric employed to gauge the data hiding performance is the peak signal-to-noise ratio (PSNR), a widely recognized standard for quantifying the quality of stego images--images into which data has been embedded--in comparison to the original images.