ArticleF1000Research2025
Impact of sample size on optimisation algorithms for the MLP used in the prediction of client subscription to a term deposit.
Article in F1000Research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: One of the disadvantages of the multilayer perception (MLP), which is a machine learning (ML) algorithm used in various fields, includes the uncontrollable growth of the number of total parameters, which may make MLP redundant in such high dimensions, and the uncontrollable growing stack of layers that ignores spatial information. Optimization algorithms were developed to determine the optimum number of parameters for MLP. Methods: In this paper, the performances of the Genetic Algorithm (GA), Grasshopper Optimization Algorithm (GOA), and Covariance Matrix Adaptation Evolution Strategy (CMA-ES) are compared. The study also sought to determine the impact of sample size variations on these optimization algorithms. A dataset on the direct marketing campaigns of a Portuguese banking institution from the UCI Machine Learning Repository with a sample size of 4 521 was used. Synthetic Minority Oversampling Technique (SMOTE) was applied to balance the binary dependent variables for the training data across various sample sizes. Results: Based on the classification accuracy, specificity, sensitivity, precision, F-score, and execution time, the MLP based on CMA-ES (CMA-ES-MLP) was identified as the best classifier overall, as it maintained high rates of these classification metrics and was the second fastest to train. CMA-ES-MLP with a training sample of 5 114 was our ideal classifier, and it competes well with the classifiers that have been built by previous studies that used the same dataset. Conclusions: The study found no consistent increase or decrease in the classification performance of the algorithms as the sample size increased, and the metrics fluctuated rapidly across sample sizes. It is recommended that future studies be conducted to compare the best-performing classifiers identified in previous studies with the CMA-ES-MLP in this study under the same experimental conditions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.