The random forest algorithm was the most successful among the trained algorithms with an accuracy rate of 97%.
📌 3 Maddede Bu Makale
🎯
Amaç & Hipotez:With the introduction of artificial intelligence into our lives, artificial intelligence researches and applications in different fields such as agriculture, health, military and engineering applications have become very popular iris flower was classified using the popular Random Forest, support vector machine and Artificial neural network machine learning classifiers with high accuracy rates.
📊
Temel Bulgular & Veri:As a result of the classification, the performance of the trained models was evaluated according to the confusion matrix, sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, F1 score, ROC curve and AUC evaluation criteria.
💡
Sonuç & Katkı:The random forest algorithm was the most successful among the trained algorithms with an accuracy rate of 97%.
With the introduction of artificial intelligence into our lives, artificial intelligence researches and applications in different fields such as agriculture, health, military and engineering applications have become very popular iris flower was classified using the popular Random Forest, support vector machine and Artificial neural network machine learning classifiers with high accuracy rates. As a result of the classification, the performance of the trained models was evaluated according to the confusion matrix, sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, F1 score, ROC curve and AUC evaluation criteria. The random forest algorithm was the most successful among the trained algorithms with an accuracy rate of 97%.
Bayrakçı, H., Keşkekçi, A. B., Arslan, R. (2022). Classification of Iris Flower by Random Forest Algorithm. Advances in Artificial Intelligence Research, Cilt: 2 Sayı: 1, 7–14. https://doi.org/10.54569/aair.1018444
Özkan, İ. N. İ. K., & Ülker, E. (2017). Derin Öğrenme ve Görüntü Analizinde Kullanılan Derin Öğrenme Modelleri. Gaziosmanpaşa Bilimsel Araştırma Dergisi, 6(3), 85-104.
Russell SJ, Norvig P. Artificial intelligence: a modern approach. 3rd ed. Pearson Education Inc:New Jersey;2016.
Jiang F, Jiang Y, Zhi H, Dong Y, Li H, Ma S, et al. Artificial intelligence in healthcare: past, present and future. Stroke and Vascular Neurology. 2017;2(4):230-243.
Aksoy, B, Halis, H, Salman, O. (2020). Elma Bitkisindeki Hastalıkların Yapay Zekâ Yöntemleri ile Tespiti ve Yapay Zekâ Yöntemlerinin Performanslarının Karşılaştırılması. International Journal of Engineering and Innovative Research, 2 (3), 194-210. DOI: 10.47933/ijeir.772514
Mitchell T. Machine Learning. New York, USA, McGraw Hill, 1997.
Kalaycı, T. E. (2018). Kimlik hırsızı web sitelerinin sınıflandırılması için makine öğrenmesi yöntemlerinin karşılaştırılması. Pamukkale Üniversitesi Mühendislik Bilimleri Dergisi, 24(5), 870-878.
Harrington P. Machine Learning in Action. New York, USA, Manning Publications, 2012.
Osisanwo, F. Y., Akinsola, J. E. T., Awodele, O., Hinmikaiye, J. O., Olakanmi, O., & Akinjobi, J. (2017). Supervised machine learning algorithms: classification and comparison. International Journal of Computer Trends and Technology (IJCTT), 48(3), 128-138.
Breiman, L. Rastgele Ormanlar. Machine Learning 45, 5-32 (2001).
Akar, Ö., & Güngör, O. (2012). Rastgele orman algoritması kullanılarak çok bantlı görüntülerin sınıflandırılması. Jeodezi ve Jeoinformasyon Dergisi, ss, 139-146.
Korkmaz, D., Çelik, H. E., & Kapar, M. Sınıflandırma ve Regresyon Ağaçları ile Rastgele Orman Algoritması Kullanarak Botnet Tespiti: Van Yüzüncü Yıl Üniversitesi Örneği. Yüzüncü Yıl Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü Dergisi, 23(3), 297-307.
Chen, J., Li, K., Tang, Z., Bilal, K., Yu, S., Weng, C., & Li, K. (2016). A parallel random forest algorithm for big data in a spark cloud computing environment. IEEE Transactions on Parallel and Distributed Systems, 28(4), 919-933.
Mohammadi, K., Shamshirband, S., Anisi, M. H., Alam, K. A., & Petković, D. (2015). Support vector regression based prediction of global solar radiation on a horizontal surface. Energy Conversion and Management, 91, 433-441.
Zhang, L., Zhou, W. D., Chang, P. C., Yang, J. W., & Li, F. Z. (2013). Iterated time series prediction with multiple support vector regression models. Neurocomputing, 99, 411-422.
Yang, Z., Cai, Y., Li, Q., Li, H., Jiang, Y., Lin, R.,. & Gao, X. (2021). Predicting particle collection performance of a wet electrostatic precipitator under varied conditions with artificial neural networks. Powder Technology, 377, 632-639.
Taşar, B., Üneş, F., Demirci, M., & Kaya, Y. Z. (2018). Yapay sinir ağları yöntemi kullanılarak buharlaşma miktarı tahmini. DÜMF Mühendislik Dergisi, 9(1), 543-551.
Budak, H., & Erpolat, S. (2012). Kredi Riski Tahmininde Yapay Sinir Ağları ve Lojistik Regresyon Analizi Karşılaştırılması. AJIT‐e: Online Academic Journal of Information Technology, 3(9), 23-30.
Zhu, W., Zeng, N., & Wang, N. (2010). Sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, associated confidence interval and ROC analysis with practical SAS implementations. NESUG proceedings: health care and life sciences, Baltimore, Maryland, 19, 67.
Lalkhen, A. G., & McCluskey, A. (2008). Clinical tests: sensitivity and specificity. Continuing Education in Anaesthesia Critical Care & Pain, 8(6), 221-223.
Eusebi, P. (2013). Diagnostic accuracy measures. Cerebrovascular Diseases, 36(4), 267-272.
Chicco, D., & Jurman, G. (2020). The advantages of the Matthews correlation coefficient (MCC) over F1 score and accuracy in binary classification evaluation. BMC genomics, 21(1), 6.
Ekrem, Ö., Salman, O. K. M., Aksoy, B., & İnan, S. A. (2020). Yapay Zekâ Yöntemleri Kullanilarak Kalp Hastaliğinin Tespiti. Mühendislik Bilimleri ve Tasarım Dergisi, 8(5), 241-254.
Yang, Z., Cai, Y., Li, Q., Li, H., Jiang, Y., Lin, R.,. & Gao, X. (2021). Predicting particle collection performance of a wet electrostatic precipitator under varied conditions with artificial neural networks. Powder Technology, 377, 632-639.