Evaluating Deep Neural Nets and Optimized Hyperparameters Random Forest for Decision Support Systems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The use of telemarketing by business enterprises can be intrusive to customers and time consuming for the businesses. A way to mitigate it, is to use an intelligent decision support system (DSS) that will effectively target potential customers likely to buy into the business. Therefore, there is need for a targeted, effective, and trained predictive Decision Support Systems DSS. This research work uses deep learning and optimized hyperparameters Random Forest to build predictive DSS and compared the performance accuracy and ROC Area to that of Support Vector Machines (SVM). The research uses a dataset from a Portuguese bank collected over a period of 2008 to 2013 at the onset of a financially difficult time for banks. The experimental results show that there are no significant differences between the performance accuracy of the different deep learning algorithms. However, the deep learning algorithms performance accuracy and ROC Area are better than that of SVM (which was used in a previous work on the same dataset). The optimized hyperparameters Random Forest has the best accuracy of 99.74% and ROC Area of 100% compared to the best deep learning algorithm with 90.87% (for RNN and Seq2Seq), and ROC Area of 92.64.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".