2009
DOI: 10.1016/j.snb.2009.04.030
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Classification of data from electronic nose using relevance vector machines

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
4
1

Citation Types

0
38
0

Year Published

2016
2016
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
4
1
1

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 69 publications
(39 citation statements)
references
References 32 publications
0
38
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Considering that there is a lack of information in most related papers concerning the determination of the optimal σ for RVM, a procedure of its estimation was conducted, in which several different values of σ were checked to determine which one of them gives better classification capabilities. As landslide hazard assessment is linearly non-separate problem, a cross-validation approach is adopted for the parameter search [13,30]. The accuracy is defined as the percentage of correct predictions for slope failure probabilities among all testing slopes [30].…”
Section: Parameter Determinationmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 4 more Smart Citations
“…Considering that there is a lack of information in most related papers concerning the determination of the optimal σ for RVM, a procedure of its estimation was conducted, in which several different values of σ were checked to determine which one of them gives better classification capabilities. As landslide hazard assessment is linearly non-separate problem, a cross-validation approach is adopted for the parameter search [13,30]. The accuracy is defined as the percentage of correct predictions for slope failure probabilities among all testing slopes [30].…”
Section: Parameter Determinationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…As landslide hazard assessment is linearly non-separate problem, a cross-validation approach is adopted for the parameter search [13,30]. The accuracy is defined as the percentage of correct predictions for slope failure probabilities among all testing slopes [30]. In this research, "correct" could be defined as follows: for a failed slope, the model's prediction is considered "correct" if the model's output is greater than 0.5; on the other hand, for a stable slope, it is considered "correct" if the model's output is less than 0.5.…”
Section: Parameter Determinationmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 3 more Smart Citations