+First of all, in our experiments and with the adaptive scheme,
+the average size of the message that can be embedded is 16,445 bits.
+Its corresponds to an average payload of 6.35\%.
+The two other tools will then be compared with this payload.
+The Sections~\ref{sub:quality} and~\ref{sub:steg} respectively present
+the quality analysis and the security of our scheme.
+
+
+
+
+
+\subsection{Image Quality}\label{sub:quality}
+The visual quality of the STABYLO scheme is evaluated in this section.
+For the sake of completeness, three metrics are computed in these experiments:
+the Peak Signal to Noise Ratio (PSNR),
+the PSNR-HVS-M family~\cite{psnrhvsm11},
+%the BIQI~\cite{MB10},
+and
+the weighted PSNR (wPSNR)~\cite{DBLP:conf/ih/PereiraVMMP01}.
+The first one is widely used but does not take into
+account the Human Visual System (HVS).
+The other ones have been designed to tackle this problem.
+
+If we apply them on the running example,
+the PSNR, PSNR-HVS-M, and wPSNR values are respectively equal to
+68.39, 79.85, and 89.71 for the stego Lena when $b$ is equal to 7.
+If $b$ is 6, these values are respectively equal to
+65.43, 77.2, and 89.35.
+
+
+
+
+\begin{table*}
+\begin{center}
+\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c||c|c|c|c|c|}
+\hline
+Schemes & \multicolumn{3}{|c|}{STABYLO} & \multicolumn{2}{|c|}{HUGO}& \multicolumn{2}{|c|}{EAISLSBMR} \\
+\hline
+Embedding & Fixed & \multicolumn{2}{|c|}{Adaptive} & \multicolumn{2}{|c|}{Fixed}& \multicolumn{2}{|c|}{Fixed} \\
+\hline
+Rate & 10\% & + sample & + STC & 10\%&6.35\%& 10\%&6.35\%\\
+\hline
+PSNR & 61.86 & 63.48 & 66.55 (\textbf{-0.8\%}) & 64.65 & {67.08} & 60.8 & 62.9\\
+\hline
+PSNR-HVS-M & 72.9 & 75.39 & 78.6 (\textbf{-0.8\%}) & 76.67 & {79.23} & 61.3 & 63.4\\
+%\hline
+%BIQI & 28.3 & 28.28 & 28.4 & 28.28 & 28.28 & 28.2 & 28.2\\
+\hline
+wPSNR & 77.47 & 80.59 & 86.43(\textbf{-1.6\%}) & 83.03 & {87.8} & 76.7 & 80.6\\
+\hline
+\end{tabular}
+
+\begin{footnotesize}
+\vspace{2em}
+Variances given in bold font express the quality differences between
+HUGO and STABYLO with STC+adaptive parameters.
+\end{footnotesize}
+
+\end{center}
+\caption{Quality Measures of Steganography Approaches\label{table:quality}}
+\end{table*}
+
+
+
+Results are summarized into the Table~\ref{table:quality}.
+Let us give an interpretation of these experiments.
+First of all, the adaptive strategy produces images with lower distortion
+than the one of images resulting from the 10\% fixed strategy.
+Numerical results are indeed always greater for the former strategy than
+for the latter.
+These results are not surprising since the adaptive strategy aims at
+embedding messages whose length is decided according to an higher threshold
+into the edge detection.
+Let us focus on the quality of HUGO images: with a given fixed
+embedding rate (10\%),
+HUGO always produces images whose quality is higher than the STABYLO's one.
+However our approach always outperforms EAISLSBMR since this one may modify
+the two least significant bits whereas STABYLO only alter LSB.
+
+If we combine \emph{adaptive} and \emph{STC} strategies
+(which leads to an average embedding rate equal to 6.35\%)
+our approach provides equivalent metrics than HUGO.
+The quality variance between HUGO and STABYLO for these parameters
+is given in bold font. It is always close to 1\% which confirms
+the objective presented in the motivations:
+providing an efficient steganography approach with a lightweight manner.
+
+
+Let us now compare the STABYLO approach with other edge based steganography
+approaches, namely~\cite{DBLP:journals/eswa/ChenCL10,Chang20101286}.
+These two schemes focus on increasing the
+payload while the PSNR is acceptable, but do not
+give quality metrics for fixed embedding rates from a large base of images.
+
+
+
+
+\subsection{Steganalysis}\label{sub:steg}
+
+
+
+The steganalysis quality of our approach has been evaluated through the two
