It's worth trying both methods: the results are so good it's hard to choose.
It's worth trying both methods: the results, though very different, are so good it's hard to choose between them.
For all methods, the results are satisfying.
For these methods, the results depend on the accuracies of the initial appearance models.
For the replacing dummy methods, the results differ to the additional public holiday dummy models.
For the four classical methods, the results of each feature set are also listed.
For other methods, the results may alter by adding more noise to the pure signal.
Unlike previous methods, the results are obtained in terms of LMI, which can be easily obtained by Matlab's LMI toolbox.
By including the proposed periodic features into the methods, the results show an average increase in savings of 13%.
Compared with previous methods, the results show that our approach is very effective in defending AL-DDoS attacks at backbones.
To ensure the validity of the proposed methods, the results were compared with those of a comparison differential pulse (DPP) polarographic method [13].
