Shaikh, Usman QamarKalra, Anubha ManjuLowe, AndrewNiazi, Imran Khan2026-04-232026-04-232026-04-22Sensors, ISSN: 1424-8220 (Online), MDPI AG, 26(9), 2581-2581. doi: 10.3390/s260925811424-8220http://hdl.handle.net/10292/20974<jats:p>Objective: Single-channel EEG artifact suppression often relies on signal decomposition; however, it is not always clear how much clean EEG is recoverable from a given decomposition when component weighting is ideal. We present an oracle-based benchmark that characterises this best-case recoverability across common 1-D decomposition families under controlled EOG, EMG, and mixed contamination. This work does not propose a new denoising algorithm; rather, it isolates representation capacity from component-selection heuristics by computing an upper bound on reconstruction quality. Approach: Using EEGdenoiseNet, we constructed a synthetic benchmark of 4500 single-channel 2 s segments (125 Hz; T = 250) by mixing clean EEG with ocular (EOG) and/or cranial EMG exemplars at noise-to-signal ratios (NSRs) spanning −10 to +10 dB (floor −10 dB denotes an absent modality). We evaluated variational mode decomposition (VMD), singular spectrum analysis (SSA), discrete wavelet transform (DWT), and CEEMDAN by decomposing each mixture and reconstructing the clean EEG using a bounded nonnegative linear combination of components obtained via constrained least squares (the oracle). Main results: Under this oracle benchmark, SSA achieved the lowest reconstruction error in most tested conditions, while DWT tended to rank best in milder ocular regimes; VMD performance improved, with an increased mode count at higher computational cost. CEEMDAN exhibited higher latency dominated by ensemble settings. Significance: These results should be interpreted as decomposition-level upper bounds under controlled mixtures, not field-ready denoising performance. The benchmark provides a tool with which to compare representational recoverability across decompositions and to inform the subsequent design of practical component-selection strategies.</jats:p>© 2026 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license.https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/0301 Analytical Chemistry0502 Environmental Science and Management0602 Ecology0805 Distributed Computing0906 Electrical and Electronic EngineeringAnalytical Chemistry3103 Ecology4008 Electrical engineering4009 Electronics, sensors and digital hardware4104 Environmental management4606 Distributed computing and systems softwareJournal ArticleOpenAccess10.3390/s26092581