Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 6 minor 46 references

An analysis of the combination of feature selection and machine learning methods for an accurate and timely detection of lung cancer

T0 review · 5 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read SVM with Chi-squared feature selection is claimed to improve lung-cancer diagnosis accuracy and runtime.

desk verdict Central claim is never tested: no results for the described lung-cancer experiment, and the only results table concerns Alzheimer's disease. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.10980 v1 pith:5SD3K6ZM submitted 2025-01-19 cs.LG

Omid Shahriyar , Babak Nuri Moghaddam , Davoud Yousefi , Abbas Mirzaei , Farnaz Hoseini This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.LG
keywords lungcancermachinelearningfeatureselectionChi-squaredtestSupportVectorRandomForestearlydetection
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper argues that combining the Chi-squared test for feature selection with Support Vector Machine (SVM) classification improves the accuracy, recall, and runtime of lung-cancer detection, and that Random Forest (RF) is a strong comparator especially on complex data. The intended payoff is practical: a cheap statistical filter on features could make automated lung-cancer screening faster and more reliable, which matters because early diagnosis greatly improves survival. The paper also reviews kernel-based selection and SVM-RFE as complementary feature-selection routes for high-dimensional gene-expression data. In short, the authors aim to establish that a simple statistical preprocessing step plus a well-chosen classifier can deliver timely, accurate diagnosis.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is the Chi-squared feature-selection test, a univariate statistical test that measures the dependence between each feature and the target label: for feature $X$ and class $Y$, it computes $\chi^2 = \sum \frac{(O_i - E_i)^2}{E_i}$ over the contingency table, and features with low dependence (low $\chi^2$) are discarded before classification. This dimensionality reduction is what the paper claims both speeds up SVM/RF training and improves accuracy by removing noise. The SVM classifier, using a maximum-margin hyperplane (with kernel functions such as the Gaussian kernel $\exp(-\|X_i-X_j\|^2/2\sigma^2)$), and Random Forest, an ensemble of decision trees, are the two classification machines the feature selection feeds.

What would settle it

Run the described lung-cancer experiment—25 features, 1000 samples, three classes, 65/35 train/test split—with and without Chi-squared selection, training SVM and Random Forest; if SVM with selected features does not beat SVM without selection in accuracy or recall across repeated splits, the central claim collapses. The displayed Table 3 (labeled AD) does not involve Chi-squared at all, so it cannot serve as the needed evidence.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that applying the Chi-squared test to score and select features before training an SVM classifier yields better lung-cancer diagnosis than training on the full feature set, in both accuracy/recall and runtime. The paper further claims that Random Forest handles complex, high-dimensional data well and remains competitive, and that feature-selection methods generally reduce computational complexity while increasing model accuracy in medical data. The intended upshot is that a univariate statistical filter—dropping features that show little dependence on the target—can be added to existing classifiers as a low-cost step toward earlier screening.

Load-bearing premise

The paper's conclusion that Chi-squared selection improves lung-cancer diagnosis rests on Table 3, which reports Alzheimer's-disease classification results using MRMR, CFS, and SDS selectors, so the transferability of those results to lung cancer with Chi-squared is assumed, not demonstrated.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the pairing works, adding Chi-squared selection before SVM yields higher detection accuracy and lower false negatives in lung-cancer screening.
  • Feature selection reduces runtime, making near-real-time screening feasible on high-dimensional medical data.
  • Random Forest's ensemble structure gives a robust alternative for complex datasets, as the paper claims.
  • The combination could become a template for other cancer diagnostics where univariate filters are cheap to apply.
  • The paper suggests replacing slower genetic-algorithm-based feature selection with statistical tests for faster model development.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The real test of the paper's claim is a direct comparison of SVM with and without Chi-squared on the same lung-cancer data; since Table 3 is about Alzheimer's with different selectors, the lung-cancer evidence remains to be produced.
  • If Chi-squared selection is genuinely effective, it should generalize to other high-dimensional medical datasets, offering a cheap baseline before deep-learning models are tried.
  • The runtime-reduction claim depends on actual measured wall-clock times, which the paper does not report; counting feature-selection overhead would clarify the practical gain.
  • The paper's limited model set leaves open whether tuned neural networks or gradient boosting would outperform SVM once the same filter is applied.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

5 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper aims to evaluate the combination of Chi-squared feature selection with Support Vector Machine (SVM) and Random Forest (RF) for early lung cancer detection. It describes an intended experiment on a 25-feature, 1000-sample dataset (Section 1.3) and also discusses microarray and radiomics datasets (Sections 2 and 3), but it reports no quantitative results for any lung cancer experiment. The only results table (Table 3) reports classification metrics for Alzheimer's disease using MRMR, CFS, and SDS feature selection with decision tree, Naive Bayes, and neural network classifiers. The conclusion nonetheless states that 'the SVM model and the Chi-squared Test feature selection technique significantly improve lung cancer diagnostic accuracy' (Section 5). This conclusion is not supported by any experiment presented in the manuscript.

Significance. If substantiated, the combination of Chi-squared feature selection with SVM/RF for lung cancer diagnosis could be practically relevant, potentially reducing runtime and improving accuracy in a clinical screening context. However, the manuscript provides no reproducible code, no full experimental protocol, no quantitative predictions, and no results for its central claim. The only quantitative table is for a different disease and different methods, so the significance of the claimed finding cannot currently be assessed.

major comments (5)
  1. [Section 1.3 and Section 5] The lung cancer experiment described in Section 1.3 (a 25-feature, 1000-sample dataset, 65/35 train/test split, Chi-squared feature selection, followed by SVM and RF classification) is never accompanied by any reported results. No accuracy, recall, precision, F1, or runtime figures appear anywhere for this experiment. Consequently, the Section 5 conclusion that 'the SVM model and the Chi-squared Test feature selection technique significantly improve lung cancer diagnostic accuracy' is empirically unsupported.
  2. [Table 3 and Section 4] The only quantitative results table, Table 3, reports classification results for Alzheimer's disease (AD), using MRMR, CFS, and SDS feature selection with decision tree, Naive Bayes, and neural network classifiers. This table does not involve lung cancer, Chi-squared selection, SVM, or Random Forest, and therefore cannot serve as evidence for the paper's central claim. Section 4's discussion consists of broad bullet points without any numeric comparison of the described lung cancer models.
  3. [Abstract and Section 1] The paper self-identifies as a 'review' in the Abstract and Section 1, yet it also describes original experimental comparisons and draws new empirical conclusions. These two modes of presentation have different evidentiary requirements, and the manuscript satisfies neither: a review should synthesize published results with proper citations (which is not done, see reference issues), while an experimental study must provide a complete methods-and-results account, which is absent.
  4. [Sections 2 and 3] Sections 2 and 3 introduce two additional datasets and feature-selection methods: a microarray dataset with 7,129 features and kernel-based/SVM-RFE selection, and a TCGA radiomics dataset with SDS selection. Although performance criteria are listed in Section 2.4, no results are reported for either dataset. The reader cannot determine whether these sections describe the authors' own experiments or prior work, as no quantitative outcomes are provided and the cited references do not supply the missing data.
  5. [Section 5] The phrase 'significantly improve' in Section 5 is used without any statistical analysis. There are no significance tests, confidence intervals, or repeated-run variability estimates reported for any model, so the claim of significant improvement is not justified even if the missing experimental results were supplied.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 2.3] The text refers to 'Backup vector machine (SVM)'; this should be 'Support vector machine.' The same section uses 'superpage' where 'hyperplane' is intended.
  2. [Section 2.2] The name 'Gayon' is a typo; the correct name is 'Guyon' for the SVM-RFE method.
  3. [Section 1.4] The sentence says 'three classification algorithms, random forest and support vector machine' but then lists only two algorithms; 'three' is inconsistent.
  4. [Figure 1] Figure 1 is captioned as a flowchart of the current work, but the figure actually depicts the SVM maximum-margin hyperplane; no flowchart of the proposed methodology is shown anywhere.
  5. [Table 1] The confusion matrix in Table 1 is unclear: the row and column labels appear to be interchanged, and the typeset table does not match the standard TP/TN/FP/FN convention described in the bullet points below it.
  6. [Section 3] The section title 'Random release (SDS)' should read 'Stochastic Diffusion Search (SDS),' as the acronym and the algorithm description indicate.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the central claim is unsupported by reported data, but no derived result reduces to its own input.

full rationale

The manuscript does not present a derivation chain on which a circularity could operate. Section 1.1 states the target: comparing SVM and Random Forest with and without Chi-squared feature selection, with the objective of improving accuracy, recall, and runtime. Section 5 restates that target as the finding that 'the SVM model and the Chi-squared Test feature selection technique significantly improve lung cancer diagnostic accuracy.' However, no results for the described lung-cancer experiment are reported. Section 1.3 describes a 25-feature, 1000-sample dataset and a 65/35 train/test split, but no table or figure reports the SVM/RF with-versus-without Chi-squared outcome for that dataset. The only quantitative results, Table 3 and the Section 4 discussion, concern Alzheimer's disease classification using MRMR, CFS, and SDS with decision tree, Naive Bayes, and neural network classifiers, which are different diseases, feature selectors, and classifiers. Thus the central claim is empirically unsupported, and the paper's self-description as a review is inconsistent with its asserted experimental conclusion. Unsupported is not circular: the conclusion is not derived from the missing results, but merely asserted in their place, and no quoted equation or fitted parameter makes an output equal to an input. The numerous self-citations, including refs. [4], [8], [10], [12], [14], [16], [18], [22], [23], [28], [30], [31], [33], [35], [37], [39], [42], [44], [45], and [46], point to unrelated resource-allocation, networking, or fraud-detection papers and do not carry any claimed result in the lung-cancer comparison; they are therefore not a load-bearing self-citation chain. Section 5 itself acknowledges limitations of generalization, which is a soundness caveat rather than a circular step. Consequently, no circularity step meets the evidentiary bar of quoting a construction under which a reported result reduces to its own input; the appropriate finding is no significant circularity with score 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new entities. Its central claim rests on unverified assumptions about the datasets, the suitability of chi-square selection, and the relevance of an unrelated results table.

free parameters (2)
  • train/test split ratio for the 25-feature dataset = 65/35
    Chosen without justification in Section 1.3; any reported accuracy would depend on this split.
  • SDS split ratio = 80/20
    Mentioned in Section 3.3 for the SDS algorithm; chosen by hand and not justified.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The 'data site. world' dataset with 25 features and 1000 samples is a valid source for lung cancer classification.
    Section 1.3 states the data source without URL or validation.
  • domain assumption The chi-squared test is a suitable feature selection method for the target classification task.
    Section 1.2.1 asserts this without justification or comparison.
  • ad hoc to paper Table 3 is relevant evidence for the paper's claim about chi-square selection and lung cancer.
    The table reports AD classification results with MRMR/CFS/SDS, which are not used in the described lung cancer experiments.
  • standard math Standard SVM and RF formulations are assumed correct.
    Sections 1.2.2 and 1.2.3 restate textbook definitions without modification.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of An analysis of the combination of feature selection and machine learning methods for an accurate and timely detection of lung cancer." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5SD3K6ZM

@misc{pith2026250110980,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: An analysis of the combination of feature selection and machine learning methods for an accurate and timely detection of lung cancer},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5SD3K6ZM}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.10980}
}
read the original abstract

One of the deadliest cancers, lung cancer necessitates an early and precise diagnosis. Because patients have a better chance of recovering, early identification of lung cancer is crucial. This review looks at how to diagnose lung cancer using sophisticated machine learning techniques like Random Forest (RF) and Support Vector Machine (SVM). The Chi-squared test is one feature selection strategy that has been successfully applied to find related features and enhance model performance. The findings demonstrate that these techniques can improve detection efficiency and accuracy while also assisting in runtime reduction. This study produces recommendations for further research as well as ideas to enhance diagnostic techniques. In order to improve healthcare and create automated methods for detecting lung cancer, this research is a critical first step.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.10980 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Outlining the various sections and subsections aids in a better understanding of the article and helps to solidify its structure in the reader's mind. 1.1.Target In order to diagnose lung cancer, this study compares the effectiveness of two models: Random Forest (RF) and Support Vector Machine (SVM). The performance of models with and without the Chi-squared feature selection technique has been analyzed in this cont… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Random Forest Decision Tree- Decision Tree-2 Decision Majority Voting/Averaging Final Result Dataset Result- Result- Result - [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Diagram of the proposed methodology [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

46 extracted references · 46 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Performance analysis of various machine learning -based approaches for detection and classification of lung cancer in humans,

    G. A. P. Singh and P. K. Gupta, “Performance analysis of various machine learning -based approaches for detection and classification of lung cancer in humans,” Neural Comput Appl , vol. 31, no. 10, pp. 6863–6877, 2019

    work page 2019

  2. [2]

    Duan, H., & Mirzaei, A. (2023). Adaptive Rate Maximization and Hierarchical Resource Management for Underlay Spectrum Sharing NOMA HetNets with Hybrid Power Supplies. Mobile Networks and Applications, 1-17

    work page 2023

  3. [3]

    Prediction lung cancer–in machine learning perspective,

    N. Banerjee and S. Das, “Prediction lung cancer–in machine learning perspective,” in 2020 International conference on computer science, engineering and applications (ICCSEA), 2020, pp. 1–5

    work page 2020

  4. [4]

    Mirzaei, A., & Najafi Souha, A. (2021). Towards optimal configuration in MEC Neural networks: deep learning -based optimal resource allocation. Wireless Personal Communications, 121(1), 221-243

    work page 2021

  5. [5]

    Predicting outcomes of nonsmall cell lung cancer using CT image features,

    S. H. Hawkins et al., “Predicting outcomes of nonsmall cell lung cancer using CT image features,” IEEE access, vol. 2, pp. 1418–1426, 2014

    work page 2014

  6. [6]

    M., Barari, M., & Zarrabi, H

    Somarin, A. M., Barari, M., & Zarrabi, H. (2018). Big data based self-optimization networking in next generation mobile networks. Wireless Personal Communications, 101(3), 1499-1518

    work page 2018

  7. [7]

    Multi -stage lung cancer detection and prediction using multi -class svm classifie,

    Alam, S. Alam, and A. Hossan, “Multi -stage lung cancer detection and prediction using multi -class svm classifie,” in 2018 International conference on computer, communication, chemical, material and electronic engineering (IC4ME2), 2018, pp. 1–4

    work page 2018

  8. [8]

    Narimani, Y., Zeinali, E., & Mirzaei, A. (2022). QoS-aware resource allocation and fault tolerant operation in hybrid SDN using stochastic network calculus. Physical Communication, 53, 101709

    work page 2022

Show all 46 references
  1. [9]

    AI -based smart prediction of clinical disease using random forest classifier and Naive Bayes,

    V. Jackins, S. Vimal, M. Kaliappan, and M. Y. Lee, “AI -based smart prediction of clinical disease using random forest classifier and Naive Bayes,” J Supercomput, vol. 77, no. 5, pp. 5198–5219, 2021

    2021

  2. [10]

    Mirzaei, A. (2022). A novel approach to QoS‐ aware resource allocation in NOMA cellular HetNets using multi‐layer optimization. Concurrency and Computation: Practice and Experience, 34(21), e7068

    2022

  3. [11]

    Early lung cancer detection using nucleus segementation based features,

    K. Kancherla and S. Mukkamala, “Early lung cancer detection using nucleus segementation based features,” in 2013 IEEE Symposium on Computational Intelligence in Bioinformatics and Computational Biology (CIBCB), 2013, pp. 91–95

    2013

  4. [12]

    Jahandideh, Y., & Mirzaei, A. (2021). Allocating Duplicate Copies for IoT Data in Cloud Computing based on Harmony Search Algorithm. IETE Journal of Research, 1-14

    2021

  5. [13]

    Using an hebbian learning rule for multi-class svm classifiers,

    T. Viéville and S. Crahay, “Using an hebbian learning rule for multi-class svm classifiers,” J Comput Neurosci, vol. 17, pp. 271–287, 2004

    2004

  6. [14]

    Mirzaei, A., Barari, M., & Zarrabi, H. (2019). Efficient resource management for non -orthogonal multiple access: A novel approach towards green hetnets. Intelligent Data Analysis, 23(2), 425-447

    2019

  7. [15]

    Nonlinear component analysis as a kernel eigenvalue problem,

    B. Schölkopf, A. Smola, and K. -R. Müller, “Nonlinear component analysis as a kernel eigenvalue problem,” Neural Comput , vol. 10, no. 5, pp. 1299 – 1319, 1998

    1998

  8. [16]

    Mirzaei, A., & Rahimi, A. (2019). A Novel Approach for Cluster Self-Optimization Using Big Data Analytics. Information Systems & Telecommunication, 50

    2019

  9. [17]

    Cristianini and J

    N. Cristianini and J. Shawe -Taylor, An introduction to support vector machines and other kernel-based learning methods . Cambridge university press, 2000

    2000

  10. [18]

    J., & Mirzaei, A

    Rad, K. J., & Mirzaei, A. (2022). Hierarchical capacity management and load balancing for HetNets using multi -layer optimisation methods. International Journal of Ad Hoc and Ubiquitous Computing, 41(1), 44-57

    2022

  11. [19]

    Fuzzy kernel k - medoids algorithm for multiclass multidimensional data classification,

    Z. Rustam and A. S. Talita, “Fuzzy kernel k - medoids algorithm for multiclass multidimensional data classification,” J Theor Appl Inf Technol, vol. 80, no. 1, pp. 147–151, 2015

    2015

  12. [20]

    Barari, M., Zarrabi, H., & Somarin, A. M. (2016). A New Scheme for Resource Allocation in Heterogeneous Wireless Networks based on Big Data. Bulletin de la Société Royale des Sciences de Liège, 85, 340-347

    2016

  13. [21]

    Development of two -stage SVM -RFE gene selection strategy for microarray expression data analysis,

    Y. Tang, Y. -Q. Zhang, and Z. Huang, “Development of two -stage SVM -RFE gene selection strategy for microarray expression data analysis,” IEEE/ACM Trans Comput Biol Bioinform, vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 365–381, 2007

    2007

  14. [22]

    Ziaeddini, A., Mohajer, A., Yousefi, D., Mirzaei, A., & Gonglee, S. (2022). An optimized multi- layer resource management in mobile edge computing networks: a joint computation offloading and caching solution. arXiv preprint arXiv:2211.15487

    2022 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Mirzaei, A. (2021). QoS -aware Resource Allocation for Live Streaming in Edge -Clouds Aided HetNets Using Stochastic Network Calculus. An analysis of the combination of feature selection and machine learning methods for an accurate and timely detection of lung cancer

    2021

  16. [24]

    Multiple SVM -RFE for gene selection in cancer classification with expression data,

    K.-B. Duan, J. C. Rajapakse, H. Wang, and F. Azuaje, “Multiple SVM -RFE for gene selection in cancer classification with expression data,” IEEE Trans Nanobioscience, vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 228–234, 2005

    2005

  17. [25]

    Mikaeilvand, N., Ojaroudi, M., & Ghadimi, N. (2015). Band -Notched Small Slot Antenna Based on Time-Domain Reflectometry Modeling for UWB Applications. The Applied Computational Electromagnetics Society Journal (ACES), 682-687

    2015

  18. [26]

    Scheduling algorithm for bidirectional LPT

    Hozouri, A., EffatParvar, M., Yousefi, D., & Mirzaei, A. Scheduling algorithm for bidirectional LPT

  19. [27]

    Recursive fuzzy granulation for gene subsets extraction and cancer classification,

    Y. Tang, Y. -Q. Zhang, Z. Huang, X. Hu, and Y. Zhao, “Recursive fuzzy granulation for gene subsets extraction and cancer classification,” IEEE Transactions on Information Technology in Biomedicine, vol. 12, no. 6, pp. 723–730, 2008

    2008

  20. [28]

    Nemati, Z., Mohammadi, A., Bayat, A., & Mirzaei, A. (2024). Fraud Risk Prediction in Financial Statements through Comparative Analysis of Genetic Algorithm, Grey Wolf Optimization, and Particle Swarm Optimization. Iranian Journal of Finance, 8(1), 98-130

    2024

  21. [29]

    Gene selection for cancer classification using support vector machines,

    I. Guyon, J. Weston, S. Barnhill, and V. Vapnik, “Gene selection for cancer classification using support vector machines,” Mach Learn , vol. 46, pp. 389–422, 2002

    2002

  22. [30]

    Zhang, S., Madadkhani, M., Shafieezadeh, M., & Mirzaei, A. (2019). A novel approach to optimize power consumption in orchard WSN: Efficient opportunistic routing. Wireless Personal Communications, 108(3), 1611-1634

    2019

  23. [31]

    & Mirzapour, R

    Yousefi, D., Yari, H., Osouli, F., Ebrahimi, M., Esmalifalak, S., Johari, M., ... & Mirzapour, R. Energy Efficient Computation Offloading and Virtual Connection Control in. learning (DL), 44, 43

  24. [32]

    Comparison of support vector machine recursive feature elimination and kernel function as feature selection using support vector machine for lung cancer classification,

    Z. Rustam and S. A. A. Kharis, “Comparison of support vector machine recursive feature elimination and kernel function as feature selection using support vector machine for lung cancer classification,” in Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 2020, p. 12027

    2020

  25. [33]

    Nemati, Z., Mohammadi, A., Bayat, A., & Mirzaei, A. (2024). The impact of financial ratio reduction on supervised methods' ability to detect financial statement fraud. Karafan Quarterly Scientific Journal

    2024

  26. [34]

    Application of machine learning techniques for the diagnosis of lung cancer with ANT colony optimization,

    R. Kohad and V. Ahire, “Application of machine learning techniques for the diagnosis of lung cancer with ANT colony optimization,” Int J Comput Appl, vol. 113, no. 18, pp. 34–41, 2015

    2015

  27. [35]

    Nemati, Z., Mohammadi, A., Bayat, A., & Mirzaei, A. (2023). Financial Ratios and Efficient Classification Algorithms for Fraud Risk Detection in Financial Statements. International Journal of Industrial Mathematics

    2023

  28. [36]

    Early Detection of Lung Cancer from CT Scan Images Using Binarization Technique,

    F. T. Johora, M. H. Jony, P. Khatun, and H. K. Rana, “Early Detection of Lung Cancer from CT Scan Images Using Binarization Technique,” 2018

    2018

  29. [37]

    Nemati, Z., Mohammadi, A., Bayat, A., & Mirzaei, A. (2025). Fraud Prediction in Financial Statements through Comparative Analysis of Data Mining Methods. International Journal of Finance & Managerial Accounting, 10(38), 151-166

    2025

  30. [38]

    Feature selection using stochastic diffusion search,

    H. Alhakbani and M. M. Al -Rifaie, “Feature selection using stochastic diffusion search,” in Proceedings of the Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference, 2017, pp. 385–392

    2017

  31. [39]

    Mirzaei, A., & Zandiyan, S. (2023). A Novel Approach for Establishing Connectivity in Partitioned Mobile Sensor Networks using Beamforming Techniques. arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.04797

    2023 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Comparative study of K -NN, naive Bayes and decision tree classification techniques,

    S. D. Jadhav and H. P. Channe, “Comparative study of K -NN, naive Bayes and decision tree classification techniques,” International Journal of Science and Research (IJSR) , vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 1842 – 1845, 2016

    2016

  33. [41]

    Allahviranloo, T., & Mikaeilvand, N. (2011). Non zero solutions of the fully fuzzy linear systems. Appl. Comput. Math, 10(2), 271-282

    2011

  34. [42]

    Nematia, Z., Mohammadia, A., Bayata, A., & Mirzaeib, A. (2024). Predicting fraud in financial statements using supervised methods: An analytical comparison. International Journal of Nonlinear Analysis and Applications, 15(8), 259-272

    2024

  35. [43]

    Lung cancer prediction using feed forward back propagation neural networks with optimal features,

    S. Senthil and B. Ayshwarya, “Lung cancer prediction using feed forward back propagation neural networks with optimal features,” International Journal of Applied Engineering Research , vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 318–325, 2018

    2018

  36. [44]

    Nemati, Z., Mohammadi, A., Bayat, A., & Mirzaei, A. (2024). Metaheuristic and Data Mining Algorithms-based Feature Selection Approach for Anomaly Detection. IETE Journal of Research, 1-15

    2024

  37. [45]

    Nematollahi, M., Ghaffari, A., & Mirzaei, A. (2024). Task and resource allocation in the internet of things based on an improved version of the moth -flame optimization algorithm. Cluster Computing, 27(2), 1775-1797

    2024

  38. [46]

    Yousefi, D., Farhad, F., Abed, M., & Gavidel, S. (2024). Presenting a new approach in security in inter-vehicle networks (VANET). arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.19002

    2024 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.