## 4 Experimental Results
### Comparison with Related Works
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Image** & \multicolumn{2}{c}{[28]} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{[30]} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Proposed Method**} \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{Airplane} & Total BR & — & 0.609 & 0.666 \\ \cline{2-5}  & Data BR & — & 0.188 & 0.236 \\ \cline{2-5}  & Image BR & — & 0.421 & 0.429 \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{Baboon} & Total BR & 0.578 & 0.720 & 0.726 \\ \cline{2-5}  & Data BR & 0.061 & 0.138 & 0.179 \\ \cline{2-5}  & Image BR & 0.516 & 0.581 & 0.547 \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{Boat} & Total BR & — & — & 0.631 \\ \cline{2-5}  & Data BR & — & — & 0.245 \\ \cline{2-5}  & Image BR & — & — & 0.386 \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{Lena} & Total BR & 0.567 & 0.603 & 0.618 \\ \cline{2-5}  & Data BR & 0.061 & 0.162 & 0.241 \\ \cline{2-5}  & Image BR & 0.505 & 0.440 & 0.377 \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{Peppers} & Total BR & 0.474 & 0.599 & 0.671 \\ \cline{2-5}  & Data BR & 0.061 & 0.174 & 0.260 \\ \cline{2-5}  & Image BR & 0.412 & 0.425 & 0.410 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 6: Total bitrate, data bitrate, and image bitrate of de-clustering schemes. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Image** & \multicolumn{2}{c}{[20]} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{[21] (m = 2)} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{[21] (m = 3)} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{[23]} & **Proposed Method** \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{Airplane} & EC (bits) & 4096 & 10,208 & 11,348 & 12,933 & 62,066 \\ \cline{2-5}  & File size & 16,252 & 14,647 & 14,942 & 13,664 & 21,838 \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{Baboon} & EC (bits) & — & 3774 & 5482 & — & 47,069 \\ \cline{2-5}  & File size & — & 16,744 & 16,711 & — & 23,809 \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{Boat} & EC (bits) & 4096 & 10,007 & 10,993 & 12,671 & 64,361 \\ \cline{2-5}  & File size & 16,449 & 14,680 & 14,974 & 13,762 & 20,696 \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{Lena} & EC (bits) & 4096 & 10,183 & 11,390 & 12,770 & 63,299 \\ \cline{2-5}  & File size & 17,727 & 14,614 & 14,811 & 13,631 & 20,279 \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{Peppers} & EC (bits) & 4096 & 9586 & 10,787 & 12,803 & 68,412 \\ \cline{2-5}  & File size & 17,006 & 14,843 & 15,106 & 13,729 & 22,013 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 7: Comparisons of EC and file size with SOC-based schemes. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Image** & \multicolumn{2}{c}{[28]} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{[30]} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Proposed Scheme**} \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{Airplane} & EC (bits) & — & 49,394 & 62,066 \\ \cline{2-5}  & File size (bytes) & — & 19,982 & 21,838 \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{Baboon} & EC (bits) & 16,129 & 36,436 & 47,069 \\ \cline{2-5}  & File size (bytes) & 18,947 & 23,594 & 23,809 \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{Boat} & EC (bits) & — & — & 64,361 \\ \cline{2-5}  & File size (bytes) & — & — & 20,696 \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{Lena} & EC (bits) & 16,129 & 42,630 & 63,299 \\ \cline{2-5}  & File size (bytes) & 18,588 & 19,761 & 20,279 \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{Peppers} & EC (bits) & 16,129 & 45,623 & 68,412 \\ \cline{2-5}  & File size (bytes) & 15,548 & 19,644 & 22,013 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 5: Comparisons of EC and file size with de-clustering schemes. Figure 19: Comparisons with de-clustering RDH schemes. EC (**a**), file size (**b**), total bitrate (**c**), image bitrate (**d**).