基于前向选择确定 Nurul Jadid 伊斯兰寄宿学校最佳管理者的 Naïve Bayes 与决策树比较

Farhan Dardiri
{"title":"基于前向选择确定 Nurul Jadid 伊斯兰寄宿学校最佳管理者的 Naïve Bayes 与决策树比较","authors":"Farhan Dardiri","doi":"10.33395/sinkron.v8i2.13498","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In an effort to find a solution for determining the best administrators, Islamic boarding school administrators try to determine the nominations for the best administrators using existing service data and knowledge. The process of determining nominations for the best administrators is less accurate, requiring computational methods to classify which administrators fall into the best category. In the context of data mining, classification is an important aspect. One of the classification models used is Naïve Bayes which focuses on class probability, and Decision Tree C4.5 which produces a decision tree to determine the priority of indicators that are most influential in predicting the best management. Both of these algorithms have their respective advantages. This research aims to analyze and compare the performance of the Naïve Bayes and Decision Tree classification algorithms. The comparative results of testing the Naïve Bayes and C4.5 algorithms in determining the nominations for the best administrators at the Nurul Jadid Paiton Probolinggo Islamic Boarding School on 455 administrator data tested in this study show that there is a fairly large comparison of accuracy. Naïve Bayes with Forward Selection has an accuracy rate of 91.21%, higher than Naïve Bayes itself whose accuracy results are only 87.64%. there is a difference of 3.57%. Likewise, the accuracy of C4.5 with Forward Selection has an accuracy rate of 90.99%, higher than C4.5 alone which has an accuracy rate of 90.11%. there is a difference of 0.88%. So in the comparison between 4 algorithm model trials, Naïve Bayes and Forward Selection had the most dominant accuracy with an accuracy result of 91.21%.","PeriodicalId":34046,"journal":{"name":"Sinkron","volume":"15 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison Of Naïve Bayes And Decision Trees In Determining The Best Manager Of Nurul Jadid Islamic Boarding School Based On Forward Selection\",\"authors\":\"Farhan Dardiri\",\"doi\":\"10.33395/sinkron.v8i2.13498\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In an effort to find a solution for determining the best administrators, Islamic boarding school administrators try to determine the nominations for the best administrators using existing service data and knowledge. The process of determining nominations for the best administrators is less accurate, requiring computational methods to classify which administrators fall into the best category. In the context of data mining, classification is an important aspect. One of the classification models used is Naïve Bayes which focuses on class probability, and Decision Tree C4.5 which produces a decision tree to determine the priority of indicators that are most influential in predicting the best management. Both of these algorithms have their respective advantages. This research aims to analyze and compare the performance of the Naïve Bayes and Decision Tree classification algorithms. The comparative results of testing the Naïve Bayes and C4.5 algorithms in determining the nominations for the best administrators at the Nurul Jadid Paiton Probolinggo Islamic Boarding School on 455 administrator data tested in this study show that there is a fairly large comparison of accuracy. Naïve Bayes with Forward Selection has an accuracy rate of 91.21%, higher than Naïve Bayes itself whose accuracy results are only 87.64%. there is a difference of 3.57%. Likewise, the accuracy of C4.5 with Forward Selection has an accuracy rate of 90.99%, higher than C4.5 alone which has an accuracy rate of 90.11%. there is a difference of 0.88%. So in the comparison between 4 algorithm model trials, Naïve Bayes and Forward Selection had the most dominant accuracy with an accuracy result of 91.21%.\",\"PeriodicalId\":34046,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Sinkron\",\"volume\":\"15 3\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-03-31\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Sinkron\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.33395/sinkron.v8i2.13498\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Sinkron","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.33395/sinkron.v8i2.13498","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

为了找到确定最佳行政人员的解决方案,伊斯兰寄宿学校的行政人员试图利用现有的服务数据和知识来确定最佳行政人员的提名。确定最佳管理员提名的过程不太准确,需要通过计算方法对哪些管理员属于最佳类别进行分类。在数据挖掘中,分类是一个重要方面。使用的分类模型之一是奈伊夫贝叶斯(Naïve Bayes),它侧重于类别概率,而决策树 C4.5 则生成一棵决策树,以确定对预测最佳管理者最有影响的指标的优先级。这两种算法各有优势。本研究旨在分析和比较奈维贝叶斯分类算法和决策树分类算法的性能。在本研究测试的 455 名管理人员数据中,奈伊夫贝叶斯算法和 C4.5 算法在确定 Nurul Jadid Paiton Probolinggo 伊斯兰寄宿学校最佳管理人员提名方面的比较结果表明,两者的准确性有相当大的可比性。带有前向选择功能的 Naïve Bayes 的准确率为 91.21%,高于 Naïve Bayes 本身的准确率,后者的准确率仅为 87.64%,两者相差 3.57%。同样,带有前向选择功能的 C4.5 算法的准确率为 90.99%,高于单独使用 C4.5 算法的 90.11%,两者相差 0.88%。因此,在 4 种算法模型试验的比较中,奈伊夫贝叶斯和前向选择的准确率最高,准确率为 91.21%。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Comparison Of Naïve Bayes And Decision Trees In Determining The Best Manager Of Nurul Jadid Islamic Boarding School Based On Forward Selection
In an effort to find a solution for determining the best administrators, Islamic boarding school administrators try to determine the nominations for the best administrators using existing service data and knowledge. The process of determining nominations for the best administrators is less accurate, requiring computational methods to classify which administrators fall into the best category. In the context of data mining, classification is an important aspect. One of the classification models used is Naïve Bayes which focuses on class probability, and Decision Tree C4.5 which produces a decision tree to determine the priority of indicators that are most influential in predicting the best management. Both of these algorithms have their respective advantages. This research aims to analyze and compare the performance of the Naïve Bayes and Decision Tree classification algorithms. The comparative results of testing the Naïve Bayes and C4.5 algorithms in determining the nominations for the best administrators at the Nurul Jadid Paiton Probolinggo Islamic Boarding School on 455 administrator data tested in this study show that there is a fairly large comparison of accuracy. Naïve Bayes with Forward Selection has an accuracy rate of 91.21%, higher than Naïve Bayes itself whose accuracy results are only 87.64%. there is a difference of 3.57%. Likewise, the accuracy of C4.5 with Forward Selection has an accuracy rate of 90.99%, higher than C4.5 alone which has an accuracy rate of 90.11%. there is a difference of 0.88%. So in the comparison between 4 algorithm model trials, Naïve Bayes and Forward Selection had the most dominant accuracy with an accuracy result of 91.21%.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
204
审稿时长
4 weeks
期刊最新文献
Sales Trend Analysis With Machine Learning Linear Regression Algorithm Method Classification of Breast Cancer with Transfer Learning on Convolutional Neural Network Models Comparison Of Exponesial Smoothing With Linear Regression Predicting Amount Of Goods Sales Decision Support System Using the TOPSIS Method in New Teacher Selection A CNN Model for ODOL Truck Detection
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1