IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0284209.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Improved accuracy and less fault prediction errors via modified sequential minimal optimization algorithm

Author

Listed:
  • Muhammad Asim Shahid
  • Muhammad Mansoor Alam
  • Mazliham Mohd Su’ud

Abstract

The benefits and opportunities offered by cloud computing are among the fastest-growing technologies in the computer industry. Additionally, it addresses the difficulties and issues that make more users more likely to accept and use the technology. The proposed research comprised of machine learning (ML) algorithms is Naïve Bayes (NB), Library Support Vector Machine (LibSVM), Multinomial Logistic Regression (MLR), Sequential Minimal Optimization (SMO), K Nearest Neighbor (KNN), and Random Forest (RF) to compare the classifier gives better results in accuracy and less fault prediction. In this research, the secondary data results (CPU-Mem Mono) give the highest percentage of accuracy and less fault prediction on the NB classifier in terms of 80/20 (77.01%), 70/30 (76.05%), and 5 folds cross-validation (74.88%), and (CPU-Mem Multi) in terms of 80/20 (89.72%), 70/30 (90.28%), and 5 folds cross-validation (92.83%). Furthermore, on (HDD Mono) the SMO classifier gives the highest percentage of accuracy and less fault prediction fault in terms of 80/20 (87.72%), 70/30 (89.41%), and 5 folds cross-validation (88.38%), and (HDD-Multi) in terms of 80/20 (93.64%), 70/30 (90.91%), and 5 folds cross-validation (88.20%). Whereas, primary data results found RF classifier gives the highest percentage of accuracy and less fault prediction in terms of 80/20 (97.14%), 70/30 (96.19%), and 5 folds cross-validation (95.85%) in the primary data results, but the algorithm complexity (0.17 seconds) is not good. In terms of 80/20 (95.71%), 70/30 (95.71%), and 5 folds cross-validation (95.71%), SMO has the second highest accuracy and less fault prediction, but the algorithm complexity is good (0.3 seconds). The difference in accuracy and less fault prediction between RF and SMO is only (.13%), and the difference in time complexity is (14 seconds). We have decided that we will modify SMO. Finally, the Modified Sequential Minimal Optimization (MSMO) Algorithm method has been proposed to get the highest accuracy & less fault prediction errors in terms of 80/20 (96.42%), 70/30 (96.42%), & 5 fold cross validation (96.50%).

Suggested Citation

  • Muhammad Asim Shahid & Muhammad Mansoor Alam & Mazliham Mohd Su’ud, 2023. "Improved accuracy and less fault prediction errors via modified sequential minimal optimization algorithm," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 18(4), pages 1-63, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0284209
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0284209
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0284209
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0284209&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0284209?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0284209. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.