Table 3 Performances of the two-class PaleAle and PaleAle_H compared with a number of recent methods on the Manesh dataset [39].
| Method | |
|---|---|
| PaleAle_H | 86.0% |
| PaleAle | 79.2% |
| NETASA [15] | 70.3% |
| [21] | 78.1% |
| PP [47] | 78.1% |
| PredAcc [11] | 70.7% |
| JNET [13] | 75.0% |
| ACCpro [16] | 77.2% |
| SABLE [17] | 77.6% |
