## 3 Experimental Results
### Comparison of Multi-Focus Image (i.e., Flower)

Table 20: The outcomes for the book image and comparisons with existing techniques in the literature ([27]). \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c} \hline \hline
**Methods** & \(\mathbf{L^{AB\!F}}\) \\ \hline DCT + Average & 0.5002 & 0.4985 & **0.0025** \\ DCT + Variance & 0.266 & 0.721 & 0.0277 \\ DCT + Contrast & 0.2384 & 0.647 & 0.3736 \\ DWT & 0.2294 & 0.6621 & 0.3569 \\ DCT + Eng\_Corr & 0.2622 & 0.7284 & 0.0202 \\ DCHWT & 0.3014 & 0.6684 & 0.0705 \\ SIDWT & 0.2637 & 0.6932 & 0.1279 \\ DCT + EOL & 0.262 & 0.7283 & 0.0206 \\ DCT + SML & 0.2928 & 0.696 & 0.0241 \\ DCT + SF & 0.2757 & 0.7151 & 0.0197 \\ DCT + VOL & 0.2619 & 0.7284 & 0.0207 \\ DCT + Corr & 0.2622 & 0.7281 & 0.0207 \\ DCT + AC\_Max & 0.2781 & 0.7081 & 0.0294 \\ Proposed Method & **0.0422** & **0.938** & 0.0403 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 19: The outcomes for the book image and comparisons with existing techniques in the literature ([26]). \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} 
Table 21: The outcomes for the book image and comparisons with existing techniques in the literature ([30]). Figure 12: (Flower): (**a**) original image; (**b,c**) multi-focus input images; and (**d**) proposed fusion. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Evaluation Metric** & **PA-** & **NSC-** & **CSR-** & **SRW-TS** & **LC-MW** & **CNN** & **DCT-CV** & **IM** & **GF** & **CSR** & **QT** & **DSHFT** & **MST-** & **SR** & **SFD** & **BF** & **GFDF** & **Proposed Method** \\ \hline
55 MM & 0.912 & 0.809 & 0.907 & 0.905 & 0.907 & 0.906 & 0.904 & 0.910 & 0.909 & 0.906 & 0.906 & 0.911 & 0.907 & 0.907 & 0.907 & **0.964** \\ \(AG\) & 6.647 & 6.336 & 6.482 & 6.514 & 6.457 & 6.466 & 6.484 & 6.425 & 6.126 & 6.504 & 6.534 & 6.594 & 6.539 & 6.456 & 6.479 & 7.589 \\ \(Q^{\text{diff}}\) & 0.900 & 0.893 & 0.896 & 0.892 & 0.896 & 0.893 & 0.898 & 0.896 & 0.896 & 0.896 & 0.900 & 0.897 & 0.895 & 0.896 & 0.991 \\ \(EJ\) & 7.118 & 6.992 & 7.075 & 7.037 & 7.022 & 6.982 & 7.566 & 7.080 & 7.043 & 7.033 & 7.074 & 7.110 & 7.086 & 0.989 & 7.032 & **7.322** \\ \(CC\) & **0.979** & 0.979 & 0.977 & 0.977 & 0.977 & 0.977 & 0.977 & 0.978 & 0.977 & 0.977 & 0.977 & 0.977 & 0.977 & 0.977 & 0.977 & 0.978 \\ \(Q^{\text{diff}}\) & 0.868 & 0.850 & 0.865 & 0.862 & 0.865 & 0.863 & 0.861 & 0.867 & 0.864 & 0.865 & 0.864 & 0.868 & 0.865 & 0.863 & 0.865 & **0.919** \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 24: The outcomes for the lab 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 c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Evaluation Metric** & **[PERSON] et al.** & **[PERSON] et al. without SR** & **[PERSON] et al. SR** & **Proposed Method** \\ \hline \(AG\) & 9.22 & 9.47 & **18.08** & 14.733 \\ \(Q^{\text{diff}}\) & 0.71 & 0.79 & 0.85 & **0.992** \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 23: The outcomes for the flower image and comparisons with existing techniques in the literature ([24]). \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Evaluation Metric** & **PA-** & **NSC-** & **CSR-** & **CSR-MV** & **CSR-CV** & **IM** & **GF** & **CSR-CV** & **IM** & **GF** & **CSR** & **QT** & **CSR** & **DSHFT** & **MST-** & **SR** & **BF** & **GFDF** & **Proposed Method**