## 3 Experimental Results
### Comparison of Multi-Focus Image (i.e., Flower)  
The evaluation of the fourth multi-focus image is the flower, illustrated in Figure 12a represents the original image. Figure 12b,c illustrates left-focused and right-focused images, respectively. The term \"left-focused image\" refers to the fact that the image's left side is focused while the right side is not. A right-focused image is one in which the image's right side is focused, but its left side is not. Figure 12d shows that the all-in-focus image is created when the approach is implemented. _E(F)_, _AG\({}_{F}\)_, _CC_, _QAB/F_, _SSIM_, and _QE_ are calculated to assess the proposed methodology performance. Finally, the performance of the proposed approach is compared to that of other methods previously published in the literature. The comparison results are shown in Tables 22 and 23 of the report. The letter X indicates that metrics are not calculated for the article depicted in the image. According to the literature [21; 24], the proposed method is more successful than those approaches, and the best outcomes of methods are indicated in bold. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Evaluation** & **PA-** & **NGC-** & **BERV-TS** & **LG-MW** & **GPDF** & **DCT-CV** & **IM** & **CNN** & **GF** & **MST-** & **BF** & **QT** & **CSR** & **DSIFT** & **SSDI** & **Proposed Method** \\
**Metric** & **DCTCNN** & **PCCNN** & **PRD-TS** & **LG-MW** & **GPDF** & **DCT-CV** & **IM** & **CNN** & **GF** & **SR** & **BF** & **QT** & **CSR** & **DSIFT** & **SSDI** & **Proposed Method** \\ \hline SSIM & 0.954 & 0.952 & 0.952 & 0.951 & 0.952 & 0.952 & 0.951 & 0.952 & 0.952 & 0.952 & 0.951 & 0.952 & 0.952 & 0.953 & 0.952 & 0.952 & 0.952 & 0.950 \\ \(Q^{\text{diff}}\) & 0.915 & 0.906 & 0.907 & 0.905 & 0.907 & 0.905 & 0.905 & 0.908 & 0.908 & 0.908 & 0.906 & 0.905 & 0.908 & 0.906 & 0.907 & 0.938 \\ \(CC\) & 0.963 & 0.982 & 0.982 & 0.962 & 0.982 & 0.982 & 0.982 & 0.982 & 0.982 & 0.982 & 0.982 & 0.982 & 0.982 & 0.982 & 0.982 & 0.982 & **0.989** \\ \(AG\) & **13.706** & 13.377 & 13.412 & 13.436 & 13.409 & 13.418 & 13.354 & 13.373 & 13.337 & 13.518 & 13.411 & 13.428 & 26.165 & 13.487 & 13.521 \\ \(QE\) & 0.884 & 0.879 & 0.882 & 0.881 & 0.882 & 0.879 & 0.876 & 0.883 & 0.883 & 0.883 & 0.881 & 0.880 & 0.883 & 0.881 & 0.882 & **0.917** \\ \(E(t)\) & 7.296 & 7.295 & 7.271 & 7.270 & 7.268 & 7.270 & 7.266 & 7.270 & 7.265 & 7.275 & 7.269 & 7.271 & 7.249 & 7.273 & 7.271 & **7.436** \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 16: The outcomes for the book image and comparisons with existing techniques in the literature ([21]). \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Evaluation Metric** & **[PERSON] et al.** & **[PERSON] et al.** & **[PERSON] et al.** & **[PERSON] et al.** & **[PERSON] et al.** & **[PERSON] et al. SR** & **[PERSON] et al.** & **Proposed Method** \\  & **without SR** & & & & & & & & & & \\ \hline \(AG\) & 10.83 & X & X & X & 9.36 & **13.9** & X & 13.021 \\ \(Q^{\text{diff}}\) & 0.81 & 0.71 & 0.71 & 0.72 & 0.79 & 0.92 & 0.73 & **0.938** \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 18: The outcomes for the book image and comparisons with existing techniques in the literature ([25]). Figure 11: (Book): (a) original image; (b,c) multi-focus input images; and (d) proposed fusion. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c} \hline \hline
**Methods** & \(\mathbf{Q^{AB\!F}}\) \\ \hline [PERSON] et al. & 0.71 \\ [PERSON] et al. & 0.73 \\ [PERSON] et al.—with SR-4 & 0.93 \\ [PERSON] et al. & 0.73 \\ [PERSON] et al. & 0.73 \\ [PERSON] et al. & \(\chi\) \\ [PERSON] et al. & \(\chi\) \\ [PERSON] et al. & 0.73 \\ [PERSON] et al. & \(\chi\) \\ [PERSON] et al.—with SR-3 & 0.91 \\ [PERSON] et al. & 0.76 \\ [PERSON] et al. & \(\chi\) \\ [PERSON] et al. & 0.76 \\ [PERSON] et al. & \(\chi\) \\ [PERSON] et al. & 0.92 \\ [PERSON] et al.—with SR-2 & 0.9 \\ [PERSON] et al. & 0.72 \\ [PERSON] et al. & 0.71 \\ Proposed Method & **0.938** \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}