## 4 Experiment Evaluation
### Experimental Analysis
#### 4.3.2 Drift Detection Performance Analysis
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Classifier**} & **Datasets** & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Sine—**Abrupt} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Mixed—**Abrupt} \\ \cline{2-7}  & **Metrics** & **TP** & **FP** & **DD** & **TP** & **FP** & **DD** \\ \hline \multirow{9}{*}{NB} & FHDDM & **4.00** & **0.00** & 43.50 \(\pm\) 4.28 & **4.00** & **0.20 \(\pm\) 0.45** & 51.35 \(\pm\) 17.46 \\  & MWDDM & **4.00** & 0.40 \(\pm\) 0.55 & **34.00 \(\pm\) 4.65** & **4.00** & 3.60 \(\pm\) 0.89 & **33.25 \(\pm\) 1.16** \\  & MDDM & **4.00** & **0.00** & 40.90 \(\pm\) 4.51 & **4.00** & 0.40 \(\pm\) 0.55 & 41.45 \(\pm\) 0.74 \\  & WMDDM & **4.00** & **0.00** & 43.50 \(\pm\) 4.28 & **4.00** & 0.80 \(\pm\) 0.45 & 43.50 \(\pm\) 1.31 \\  & BDDM & **4.00** & **0.00** & 38.00 \(\pm\) 4.69 & **4.00** & **0.20 \(\pm\) 0.45** & 37.45 \(\pm\) 1.02 \\  & RDDM & **4.00** & 2.60 \(\pm\) 3.13 & 86.10 \(\pm\) 22.02 & **4.00** & **2.20 \(\pm\) 1.48 & 98.55 \(\pm\) 13.00 \\  & HDDM\_A & **4.00** & 0.40 \(\pm\) 0.55 & 88.70 \(\pm\) 15.83 & **4.00** & **0.20 \(\pm\) 0.45** & 72.80 \(\pm\) 23.88 \\  & HDDM\_W & **4.00** & **0.00** & 34.85 \(\pm\) 4.84 & **4.00** & 2.40 \(\pm\) 0.55 & 35.85 \(\pm\) 5.80 \\  & DDM & 2.60 \(\pm\) 0.89 & 2.60 \(\pm\) 0.55 & 155.02 \(\pm\) 23.98 & 3.20 \(\pm\) 0.84 & 2.20 \(\pm\) 2.39 & 162.55 \(\pm\) 8.49 \\  & VFDDM\_K & **4.00** & **0.00** & 40.85 \(\pm\) 5.06 & **4.00** & 0.40 \(\pm\) 0.55 & 41.85 \(\pm\) 0.88 \\  & VFDDM\_H & **4.00** & **0.00** & 39.80 \(\pm\) 4.56 & **4.00** & 0.40 \(\pm\) 0.55 & 39.25 \(\pm\) 1.02 \\  & VFDDM\_M & **4.00** & **0.00** & 40.15 \(\pm\) 4.51 & **4.00** & 0.40 \(\pm\) 0.55 & 39.70 \(\pm\) 1.05 \\ \hline \multirow{9}{*}{HT} & FHDDM & **4.00** & **0.00** & 44.10 \(\pm\) 3.69 & **4.00** & **0.40 \(\pm\) 0.55** & 43.95 \(\pm\) 1.11 \\  & MWDDM & **4.00** & 0.60 \(\pm\) 0.55 & **33.50 \(\pm\) 4.25** & **4.00** & 6.60 \(\pm\) 2.07 & **32.65 \(\pm\) 1.43** \\  & MDDM & **4.00** & **0.00** & 41.10 \(\pm\) 3.97 & **4.00** & 1.00 \(\pm\) 0.71 & 41.10 \(\pm\) 0.68 \\  & WMDDM & **4.00** & 0.40 \(\pm\) 0.55 & 44.25 \(\pm\) 3.55 & **4.00** & 6.00 \(\pm\) 0.55 & 44.45 \(\pm\) 0.87 \\  & BDDM & **4.00** & **0.00** & 37.85 \(\pm\) 4.91 & **4.00** & 2.20 \(\pm\) 2.39 & 37.95 \(\pm\) 1.62 \\  & RDDM & 3.60 \(\pm\) 0.55 & 3.40 \(\pm\) 3.65 & 97.60 \(\pm\) 11.00 & 3.00 \(\pm\) 0.71 & 5.20 \(\pm\) 2.17 & 101.35 \(\pm\) 10.11 \\  & HDDM\_A & **4.00** & 0.80 \(\pm\) 0.84 & 57.60 \(\pm\) 11.88 & **4.00** & 2.00 \(\pm\) 1.58 & 66.55 \(\pm\) 14.72 \\  & HDDM\_W & **4.00** & 0.20 \(\pm\) 0.45 & 35.25 \(\pm\) 3.73 & **4.00** & 3.40 \(\pm\) 1.52 & 33.80 \(\pm\) 1.90 \\  & DDM & 3.60 \(\pm\) 0.55 & 2.40 \(\pm\) 2.79 & 150.68 \(\pm\) 11.34 & 3.00 \(\pm\) 0.71 & 1.40 \(\pm\) 0.89 & 172.03 \(\pm\) 16.76 \\  & VFDDM\_K & **4.00** & 0.20 \(\pm\) 0.45 & 39.00 \(\pm\) 4.76 & **4.00** & 1.00 \(\pm\) 0.71 & 41.95 \(\pm\) 0.33 \\  & VFDDM\_H & **4.00** & 0.20 \(\pm\) 0.45 & 39.00 \(\pm\) 4.76 & **4.00** & 1.20 \(\pm\) 1.10 & 39.55 \(\pm\) 1.72 \\  & VFDDM\_M & **4.00** & 0.20 \(\pm\) 0.45 & 39.00 \(\pm\) 4.76 & **4.00** & 1.20 \(\pm\) 0.84 & 39.95 \(\pm\) 1.56 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 5: The true positives, false positives, and detection delay performance of different drift detectors on abrupt drift datasets (The best results are highlighted in bold). From the right graph, it can be observed that VFDDMs maintain a low false positive rate, indicating a lower false alarm rate and reducing unnecessary reboots, thereby ensuring classifier accuracy. Hence, VFDDMs perform best in terms of classification accuracy, consistent with the findings in the classification accuracy experiment section of this paper. It is noteworthy that the second place is consistently occupied by WMDDM, but with a frequency of only 1, indicating that it achieved the second place only in the NB-Mixed scenario. In terms of false positive rate ranking analysis, FHDDM has the lowest overall false positive rate. However, in terms of detection delay ranking, FHDDM ranks lower, indicating its conservative detection strategy.