Comparing the effectiveness of hyperspectral imaging and Raman spectroscopy: a case study on Armenian manuscripts

Heritage Science

Table 5 A comparison of the percentage agreement obtained using the different methods, databases, and wavelength ranges

Percentage success
Database	1			2			3			4			5			Sample size
Algorithm	SFF	SAM	BE	SFF	SAM	BE	SFF	SAM	BE	SFF	SAM	BE	SFF	SAM	BE	Sample size
Default settings	20	9	13	71	49	37	60	23	22	27	14	18	43	44	44	91 (73 for databases 2 and 3)
Tailored wavelength range	66	47	67	89	89	93	89	81	92	81	66	65	89	87	84	91 (73 for databases 2 and 3)
400–800 nm	22	15	16	71	49	37	42	33	19	26	16	30	47	43	48	91 (73 for databases 2 and 3)
Difference (400–800 and default)	2	7	3	0	0	0	− 18	10	− 3	− 1	2	12	4	− 1	4	91 (73 for databases 2 and 3)
Difference (tailored and default)	46	38	54	18	40	56	29	58	70	54	52	47	46	43	40	91 (73 for databases 2 and 3)
Difference (tailored and 400–800)	44	32	51	18	40	56	47	48	73	55	49	35	42	44	35	91 (73 for databases 2 and 3)

The difference between 400–800 and default was calculated as the percentage success of the 400–800 nm range minus the percentage success of the default wavelength range, similarly Difference (tailored and default) was %tailored − %default and Difference (tailored and 400–800) was %tailored − %400–800