REVIEW 1 cited by
Performance Analysis and Comparison of Machine and Deep Learning Algorithms for IoT Data Classification
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
Signed reviews
read the original abstract
In recent years, the growth of Internet of Things (IoT) as an emerging technology has been unbelievable. The number of networkenabled devices in IoT domains is increasing dramatically, leading to the massive production of electronic data. These data contain valuable information which can be used in various areas, such as science, industry, business and even social life. To extract and analyze this information and make IoT systems smart, the only choice is entering artificial intelligence (AI) world and leveraging the power of machine learning and deep learning techniques. This paper evaluates the performance of 11 popular machine and deep learning algorithms for classification task using six IoT-related datasets. These algorithms are compared according to several performance evaluation metrics including precision, recall, f1-score, accuracy, execution time, ROC-AUC score and confusion matrix. A specific experiment is also conducted to assess the convergence speed of developed models. The comprehensive experiments indicated that, considering all performance metrics, Random Forests performed better than other machine learning models, while among deep learning models, ANN and CNN achieved more interesting results.
Forward citations
Cited by 1 Pith paper
-
CNN-ViT Hybrid for Pneumonia Detection: Theory and Empiric on Limited Data without Pretraining
A from-scratch CNN-ViT hybrid outperformed standalone CNN and ViT on limited and imbalanced pneumonia chest X-ray data, achieving 0.9443 recall at 50% data and F1 around 0.85.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.