2015 4th International Conference on Advanced Information Technology and Sensor Application (AITS) 2015
DOI: 10.1109/aits.2015.28
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Leaf Plant Identification System Based on Hidden Naïve Bays Classifier

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
7
0
1

Year Published

2016
2016
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
7
2
1

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 15 publications
(8 citation statements)
references
References 9 publications
0
7
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Second Phase: Training set mode is a typical technique for model evaluation, but can lack the appropriate accuracy and performance when applied to the PID datasets with an HNB classifier. It can quickly determine the HNB classifier reliability and compare models that depend on the same structure by reviewing the returned statistics [ 28 ].…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Second Phase: Training set mode is a typical technique for model evaluation, but can lack the appropriate accuracy and performance when applied to the PID datasets with an HNB classifier. It can quickly determine the HNB classifier reliability and compare models that depend on the same structure by reviewing the returned statistics [ 28 ].…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The accuracy was slightly lower when using the individual classifier, namely 91.8% for SVM, 88.3% for Naïve Bayes, and 85.7% for decision tree. The high performance of Naïve Bayes classifier can also be seen from the findings of Eid et al [53]. The computational model was proposed using digital plant images based on biometric features such as shape and vein patterns.…”
Section: Support Vector Machine (Svm)mentioning
confidence: 86%
“…Further, there are others works in which five standard modalities are taken into account. For example, all three models, such as SVM, Naïve Bayes, and decision trees, were applied by Eid et al [6] in 2015. Consequently, the corresponding experimental results were 91.8%, 88.3%, and 85.7%, respectively.…”
Section: Fusion Based Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%