# Dual Partial Reversible Data Hiding Using Enhanced Hamming Code
## 4 Experimental Results and Discussions
* PSNR(SI\(-\)CI): The PSNR between the cover image and the stego image (SI), measuring the level of distortion caused by data embedding. * PSNR(SI\(-\)OI): The PSNR between the stego image and the original image, providing an overall assessment of image quality after data embedding. Across all test images, PSNR(CI\(-\)OI) exhibits stable values around 47 dB for cover image #1 and 48 dB for cover image #2, indicating that the initial cover image generation introduces minimal distortion. Notably, PSNR(SI\(-\)CI) reaches approximately 67 dB for stego image #1 and 68 dB for stego image #2, demonstrating that the data embedding process maintains high image quality with minimal impact on the cover image. The final PSNR(SI\(-\)OI) values, which range between 47 dB and 48.7 dB, further confirm that the proposed method effectively preserves the original image quality. Given these results, \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Images**} & **PSNR(CI\(-\)OI)** & **PSNR(CI\(-\)OI)** & **PSNR(SI\(-\)CI)** & **PSNR(SI\(-\)OI)** & **PSNR(SI\(-\)OI)** \\ \cline{2-7}  & **\#1** & **\#2** & **\#1** & **\#2** & **\#1** & **\#2** \\ \hline Elaine & 47.0974 & 48.6768 & 67.1575 & 68.0772 & 47.0974 & 48.6768 \\ Peppers & 47.1624 & 48.7094 & 67.1219 & 67.7983 & 47.1326 & 48.6648 \\ Airplane & 47.2557 & 48.7013 & 67.1827 & 68.1199 & 47.2268 & 48.6643 \\ Boat & 47.3741 & 48.7739 & 67.2000 & 68.0625 & 47.345 & 48.7325 \\ Goldhill & 47.1820 & 48.7160 & 67.3303 & 68.1748 & 47.1572 & 48.6749 \\ Couple & 46.9334 & 48.5882 & 67.2376 & 68.0349 & 46.9039 & 48.5485 \\ Baboon & 47.2004 & 48.7209 & 67.2417 & 67.8930 & 47.1744 & 48.6777 \\ Zelda & 47.2009 & 48.7249 & 67.1814 & 67.9371 & 47.1751 & 48.6850 \\ [PERSON] & 47.3593 & 48.6522 & 67.3372 & 68.1084 & 47.3307 & 48.6082 \\ Average & 47.1962 & 48.696 & 67.2211 & 68.0229 & 47.1715 & 48.6592 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 1: Comparison of PSNR for all enhanced HC(7,4) PRDH when embedding bits is 10,000 bits. PSNR(SI\(-\)CI) was selected as the primary metric for evaluating stego image quality in this study, as it directly reflects the influence of the embedding process while isolating any distortions introduced during cover image generation. These findings validate the efficiency of our enhanced HC(7,4) PRDH method in achieving high embedding capacity while maintaining superior image fidelity. Table 2 presents a comparative analysis of the maximum embedding ratio (ER) across various reversible data hiding methods, including those proposed by [PERSON] et al. (2013) [15], [PERSON] et al. (2018) [20], [PERSON] et al. (2018) [20], [PERSON] et al. (2019) [24], [PERSON] et al. (2020) [22], [PERSON] et al. (2021) [23], and [PERSON] et al. (2018) [21], alongside our proposed method. Among the evaluated techniques, the highest embedding ratio is achieved by the method of [PERSON] et al. (2021) [23], which reaches a maximum ER of 1.56, demonstrating its superior capacity for data embedding. Our proposed method achieves an ER of 1.50, which is the second-highest among the compared methods and only 0.06 lower than [PERSON] et al. (2021) [23]. Despite this slight reduction in embedding capacity, our approach maintains a balance between embedding efficiency and computational complexity, offering a simpler and more efficient process for data hiding, extraction, and restoration. Other methods, such as those presented by [PERSON] et al. (2013) [15], [PERSON] et al. (2018) [20], and [PERSON] et al. (2019) [24], which exhibit embedding ratios ranging from 1.00 to 1.14. In comparison, our proposed method offers a significant improvement in data hiding capacity. Notably, the method presented by [PERSON] et al. (2018) [21] has the lowest embedding ratio of 0.21, indicating a strong tradeoff between image quality preservation and data embedding capacity.