## 3 Results
### Linear Discriminant Analysis (LDA)
\begin{tabular}{c} 55.57\% \\ 76.56\% \\ \end{tabular}  & 2984 & \begin{tabular}{c} 65.41\% \\ \end{tabular}  \\ \hline
30 & No transformation  
Quantifying the hierarchy misidentification of the data transformation blocks (Table 5), we observe that the log\({}_{10}\) combinations have the best overall accuracy (_GAM.dB_: 68.85%). The log\({}_{10}\) combinations have the best oil-spill identification rate (1848 _GAM.dB_ and _BET.dB_) but correctly detect the least amount of oil seeps (1288: _BET.dB.FF_). On the other hand, the not-transformed original data are inversely propositional to log\({}_{10}\)--i.e., have a poorer overall accuracy (size only: 63.90%) being the worst one to identify oil spills (1341: size only) but the best one to correctly identify oil seeps (1580: _GAM_ and _BET_, both with _amp_ and _amp.FF_). Table 6 presents a summary of the seep-spill discrimination statistics regarding the transformation blocks. Even though the log-transformed combinations (_GAM.dB_: 68.85%) outperform the cube-combinations (_GAM.amp.FF_: 68.35%), the latter show more balanced seep-spill correct identification capabilities. The unbalanced seep (spill) log\({}_{10}\) dispersal is: min 1288 (1799) and max 1324 (1848). The balanced min seep (spill) correct cube root identification is 1378 (1685) and its max seep (spill) correct detection is 1410 (1730). Equivalently, the best original not-transformed data also have a fairly balanced seep (spill) identification rate; however, with less oil slicks correctly identified (_GAM.dB.FF_: 65.67%)--min 1554 (1341) and max 1580 (1433). From Table 6 we also note the range (226) of the three transformations: oil slicks correctly identified varied from 3141 (log\({}_{10}\)_GAM.dB_) to as low as 2915 (not-transformed size only). While the oil seeps' range (292) varied from 1580 (no transformation: _GAM_ and _BET_, both with _amp_ and _amp.FF_) to 1288 (log\({}_{10}\)_BET.dB.FF_), the oil spills' range is larger (507) and goes from 1848 (log\({}_{10}\)_GAM.dB_ and _BET.dB_) to 1341 (not-transformed size only). Some equivalence exists between the seep, spill, and slick ranges of the log\({}_{10}\) (36, 49, and 22) and cube (32, 45, and 33) combinations. The original data ranges are: 26 (seeps), 92 (spills), and 81 (slicks). \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**All Three Transformations** & **Oil Seeps** & **Sensitivity** & **Oil Spills** & **Specificity** & **Oil Slicks** & **Overall Accuracy** \\ \hline
**Maximum** & 1580 & 79.24\% & 1848 & 71.96\% & 3141 & 68.85\% \\
**Minimum** & 1288 & 64.59\% & 1341 & 52.22\% & 2915 & 63.90\% \\ \hline
**Average** & 1424 & 71.40\% & 1639 & 63.81\% & 3063 & 67.13\% \\ \hline
**Range** & 292 & & 507 & & 226 & \\ \hline
**log\({}_{10}\)** & **Oil Seeps** & **Sensitivity** & **Oil Spills** & **Specificity** & **Oil Slicks** & **Overall Accuracy** \\ \hline
**Maximum** & 1324 & 66.40\% & 1848 & 71.96\% & 3141 & 68.85\% \\
**Minimum** & 1288 & 64.59\% & 1799 & 70.05\% & 3119 & 68.37\% \\ \hline
**Average** & 1305 & 65.45\% & 1824 & 71.04\% & 3129 & 68.60\% \\ \hline
**Range** & 36 & & 49 & & 22 & \\ \hline
**Cube root** & **Oil Seeps** & **Sensitivity** & **Oil Spills** & **Specificity** & **Oil Slicks** & **Overall Accuracy** \\ \hline
**Maximum** & 1410 & 70.71\% & 1730 & 67.37\% & 3118 & 68.35\% \\
**Minimum** & 1378 & 69.11\% & 1685 & 65.62\% & 3085 & 67.62\% \\ \hline
**Average** & 1397 & 70.06\% & 1711 & 66.62\% & 3108 & 68.12\% \\ \hline
**Range** & 32 & & 45 & & 33 & \\ \hline
**No Transformation** & **Oil Seeps** & **Sensitivity** & **Oil Spills** & **Specificity** & **Oil Slicks** & **Overall Accuracy** \\ \hline
**Maximum** & 1580 & 79.24\% & 1433 & 55.80\% & 2996 & 65.67\% \\
**Minimum** & 1554 & 77.93\% & 1341 & 52.22\% & 2915 & 63.90\% \\ \hline
**Average** & 1569 & 78.70\% & 1381 & 53.79\% & 2951 & 64.68\% \\ \hline
**Range** & 26 & & 92 & & 81 & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}