Machine-learning-based spectrum sensing
enhancement for software-defined radio applications
Shirin AGHABEIKI
Direction R&I
2021 IEEE Cognitive Communications for Aerospace Applications Workshop (CCAAW) | 978-1-6654-1258-2/21/$31.00 ©2021 IEEE | DOI: 10.1109/CCAAW50069.2021.9527294
Capgemini Engineering
Rennes, France
shirin.aghabeiki@altran.com christophe.hallet@altran.com
Nadège RASSEM
Direction R&I
Capgemini Engineering
Rennes, France
nadege.rassem@altran.com
Abstract—The Software-defined radio (SDR) technology is
considered as a promising solution to address the issue of
spectrum scarcity by providing a high level of flexibility and
configurability to wireless communication systems. This
technology, widely used in cognitive radio (CR) networks, aims
at optimizing the spectrum efficiency. However, to reach this
objective, a new conception of spectrum sensing methods needs
to be adopted. Indeed, in the emerging wireless communications
systems, telecom researchers face the challenge of detecting the
presence of energy with a very low signal-to-noise ratio (SNR)
in a very complex environment. For this purpose, for complex
environments such as CR networks, machine-learning (ML)
algorithms seem to be a suitable solution allowing a smart
spectrum-sensing scheme. This scheme enables the increase of
the signal detection probability and the decrease the false
detection probability of signal detection. In this paper, four
supervised ML models are compared: Naïve Bayes classifier,
Support Vector Machine, Gradient Boosting Machine and
Distributed Random Forest. Furthermore, a principal
component analysis (PCA) is performed to reduce the
dimensionality of the complex dataset while preserving the
useful variability. Their performance is subsequently evaluated
by computing their receiver operating characteristic (ROC)
curves. The entire algorithms are then implemented and
demonstrated using the GNU (GNU’s Not Unix) Radio platform
and an SDR-based electronic card, HackRF One.
Keywords—software-defined radio, cognitive radio, spectrum
sensing, machine learning, naïve Bayes classifier, support vector
machine, gradient boosting machine and distributed random
forest.
I. INTRODUCTION
Since the first article published on software radios in 1995
[1], the Software-Defined Radio (SDR) technology has
revolutionized wireless communication. Expensive and heavy
analog systems that were designed for a specific purpose are
replaced by low-cost, lightweight SDR systems whose
flexibility enables the design of multi-purpose systems [3].
Many applications are based on SDR to simplify their use in
communication systems; Cognitive Radio (CR) and spectrum
efficiency are examples of such applications [2].
CR introduced by Joseph Mitola III in 1998 [4] is the key
solution to one of the most challenging issues in wireless
communications: spectral congestion [5]. The radio use has
outgrown the available spectrum and finding an unassigned
frequency band is a challenging technical task [6]. Meanwhile,
the number of wireless communication applications and their
978-1-6654-1258-2/21/$31.00 ©2021 IEEE
Authorized licensed use limited to: Universite Gustave Eiffel. Downloaded on September 13,2022 at 13:49:16 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
Christophe HALLET Nathan El-Roi NOUTEHOU
Direction R&I Direction R&I
Capgemini Engineering Capgemini Engineering
Rennes, France Rennes, France
nathanel-roi.noutehou@altran.com
Imad ADJALI Mouna BEN MABROUK
Direction R&I Direction R&I
Capgemini Engineering Capgemini Engineering
Rennes, France Paris, France
imad.adjali@altran.com mouna.benmabrouk@altran.com
users is increasing every day, which causes a growth in the
requests to use the limited frequency spectrum [7]. CR allows
the use of unoccupied frequency bands in a specific place and
time and provides management access in a way that does not
interfere with primary licensed users [8]. Spectrum sensing is
an important step in the CR cycle [9], which allows the
identification of available frequency bands also known as
spectrum holes [10].
Different methods have been proposed for spectrum
sensing, all of which aim to verify the presence or absence of
a transmitted signal [11]. In [11] this latter is denoted as an
unknown signal from a primary user. Furthermore, energy
detection has been widely used due to its low computational
complexities and its independency of the additional
information about the transmitted signal under detection [9].
However, this method has a major drawback in computing
energy with a low signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) [12]. Indeed,
this method has a poor performance for spread spectrum
sensing.
Machine-learning (ML) based spectrum sensing has been
proposed to provide high detection accuracy with low
complexity algorithms, which are able to adapt to the
environment by optimizing more features [13-14]. In this
paper, four supervised ML algorithms are compared according
to their receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve and
their area under curve (AUC). Naïve Bayes classifier (NB),
support vector machine (SVM), gradient boosting machine
(GBM) and distributed random forest (DRF) all achieved a
more accurate sensing than energy detection in high-noise
environment. Their performances are evaluated in several
channels with various SNR. The principal component analysis
method is applied to the received signal in order to improve
the detection accuracy. The implementation of the algorithms
on a SDR card, HackRF One, leads to an experimental
validation.
The rest of the paper is organized as follows. In Section
II, the CR system model and the assumptions are presented.
The machine learning spectrum sensing algorithms are
introduced and the use of these algorithms in our proposed
model is shown in Section III. In Section IV, the entire
simulated transmission chain and its essential blocks are
presented, as well as the obtained results. The implementation
of the algorithms on HackRF one via GNU radio is
demonstrated in Section V. A discussion of simulation and
experiment results are given in Section VI. Finally, the
conclusion and future works are provided in Section VII.
 II. SYSTEM MODEL AND ASSUMPTION
In this Section, we study a cognitive radio unit that is
responsible for a secondary-user (SU) access to an available
and authorized frequency band. The SU should not disturb
the primary-user access. Therefore, it is important to verify
the spectrum availability and occupancy in the radio
environment. By supposing an additive white Gaussian noise
(AWGN) channel, the signal detection is possible by
employing the following hypothesis [15]:
ℋ: = (1)
ℋ: = +
where w[n] is the noise signal and is the primary user
signal which is distorted by the zero mean additive white
Gaussian noise ~ (0, ) [16],. By considering these
two hypotheses, the signal detection is included in binary
classification problems:
• ℋ indicates the absence of primary users.
• ℋ corresponds to its presence.
The evaluation of the effectiveness of a signal detection
method is based on the probability that these hypotheses are
satisfied. When a signal is detected, there are two
possibilities: a signal is truly there or it is a false detection
event, which means that the primary user was absent. The
probability of these cases is respectively denoted as true
positive rate or sensitivity ( ), and false positive rate ( ).
These two variables, are sufficient for the evaluation and
comparison of signal detection methods and there is no need
to compute further criteria, since and are mutually
exclusive with the probability of false negative (signal is
there but is not detected) and true negative (the absence of
signal is truly detected) respectively. It is important to
mention that the purpose of optimizing signal detection is to
increase the true positive rate while decreasing false
positive rate , in other words to increase the sensitivity of
the detection to the extent that all available signals are
detected only when they are truly present.
As mentioned above, determining the presence of a signal
based on its energy is the simplest way as it does not require
additional information about the received signal. In this work,
the energy for a received signal is computed for a limited
series of signal samples and is evaluated according to the
following equation:
! determined as [20]:
= | | (3)
"#
where is the first sample and $ is the series length.
Computing the energy of a set of samples instead of only one
sample causes a memory effect on the results which helps in
signal detection even with high noise or disturbance.
$ deserves further study and optimization since it determines
the detection duration. In simple terms, the higher $ is, the
more samples are included in the energy computation, and
subsequently detection takes longer, which means a shorter
channel allocation time for the secondary user. This article
Authorized licensed use limited to: Universite Gustave Eiffel. Downloaded on September 13,2022 at 13:49:16 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
does not focus on optimizing this variable, and it is instead
chosen to be constant across all the implemented algorithms.
Once the signal energy is calculated, a threshold must be
set in such a manner that if the signal energy is below the
threshold level, then hypothesis ℋ is considered correct;
otherwise ℋ . The ML algorithms can enhance the signal
detection by determining the appropriate threshold, which
considers all signal properties, and the propagation channel
features. Although ML algorithms are powerful at detecting
signals in high-noise environments, any methods that helps to
reduce noise can improve system performance. For this
purpose, we propose to use a band-pass Butterworth filter as
well as principal component analysis (PCA) method in the
receiver. The effect of PCA is briefly explained below.
(2)
The PCA method is known as a projection method is able
to extract the main uncorrelated data from a larger set of
correlated data. After passing through this analysis only
principal characteristics of data are accounted, as a result the
computation time is considerably reduced [17].
III. MACHINE LEARNING BASED SENDING FRAMEWORK
In this Section, the proposed framework of the ML
algorithms used for spectrum sensing is introduced. A block
scheme of the transceiver is shown in Fig. 1. In the algorithm-
training block, the collected information about the channel in
the network are used to design the classification rules. This
sort of information is usually provided by the base station in
a network or can be obtained by studying the whole system.
In the receiver part, trained patterns are used in order to detect
the signals. The four chosen ML algorithms are described in
the following.
A. Design of random forest classifier
Tim Kam Ho created the first random decision forest
algorithm in 1995 [18]. This method belongs to the family of
ensemble learning algorithms. The Decision Tree is the
building block of the random forest, which is a supervised
learning algorithm. Random forest makes several decision
trees and merges them together to make more accurate and
stable predictions. Instead of searching for the most important
features when splitting a “node”, the algorithm looks for the
best features among a random set of features [19]. This leads
to a lot of variety and ultimately a better model. Thus, in a
random forest, only one subset of features is considered by
the algorithm to split a node. There are many approaches to
select a pruning method used for decision tree induction. The
number of trees for the random forest is equal to one hundred
in this article. A Gini Index is chosen as the attribute selection
measure in decision tree induction and is a measure of
inequality by means of a relative analysis. Gini Index is
%(&' , () %)&* , (+
( )( ) (4)
|(| |(|
*,'
where ( is a given training set, &' is a random class and
(- ,/)
( . ) is the probability that a selected case belongs to &' .
|/|
The least value of Gini Index shows the purity of
classification.
B. Design of naïve Bayes
Fig. 1. TX/RX chaine with training and test of ML models.
In the field of ML, the technique and method of naïve
Bayes Classifiers using Bayes theorem and assuming
independence between variables, are classified as a member
of the family of probabilistic classifiers [21-22]. The
estimation of model parameters is possible by maximizing a
likelihood function (Likelihood maximization) and the naïve
Bayes classification technique uses the Bayesian theorem to
separate probabilities. By supposing 0 = ( , … , " ) a
vector of attributes, which are independent variables, the
probability of & occurring, i.e. 2(& ∣ , … , " ) can be
represented as one of the states of different event classes for
different $, as shown below:
2(& )2(0|& )
2(& |0) =
2(0)
Thus, to calculate the probability 2(& ∣ , … , " ), it is
enough to use joint probability and simplify it with the help
of conditional probability according to the independence of
variables. As a result, the probability of an observation
belonging to group & with respect to observations 0 will be
determined according to the following relation:
"
1
2(& ∣ , … , " ) = 2(& ) 6 2( ' ∣& )
5 Regularization is an important factor to prevent the
'#
Here the probability of evidence (observations) is
considered as 5 = 2 (0) = ∑2 (& ) 2 (0 ∣ & ). It is clear
that 5 depends on the evidence and observations , … , " .
With the help of the decision rule, we create and complete the
Bayesian category. One of the most basic rules of decision-
making is choosing the most probable hypothesis. In this
way, among the various decisions, we determine what is most
likely to happen based on the gathered evidence. This rule is
called “the Maximum Posterior” (MP). Thus, the Bayesian
classification can be considered as a function of & decisions,
which is estimated by the 89 function. The maximization of
this function is shown as follows:
" data sample is plotted as a point in the th-dimensional space
89 = argmax 2(& ) 6 2( ' ∣& )
∈{ ,…,A}
'#
As a result, the parameters can be calculated or estimated
according to different distributions that may have a random
Authorized licensed use limited to: Universite Gustave Eiffel. Downloaded on September 13,2022 at 13:49:16 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
sample, i.e. 2( ' | & ). In this article, the observations and
data are continuous, and a probabilistic model with a
Gaussian or normal distribution for evidence-related
variables is used. In this case, each category or group has a
Gaussian distribution. In this way, for $ categories or classes,
the mean and the variance for each category are computed
and their normal distribution parameters are estimated. We
assume that C is the mean and is the variance of $-th
category, i.e. & . We also consider D as observations of
random variables 0 . Since the 0 distribution in each
Gaussian category is assumed to be normal, we have:
!(J!KL )²
1 NLO
2( = E ∣ & ) = I (8)
F2H
C. Design of gradient boosting machine
This algorithm, like the random forest, is classified in the
family of ensemble-learning algorithms. This algorithm is a
linear combination of a group of weak models that creates a
strong and efficient model. In gradient boosting, the function
PQ that minimizes a loss function, is optimized intermittently
with R stages, and is expressed according to the final model
below [23]:
U
PQ ( ) = S' ℎ' ( ) + P (9)
'#
(5)
where P is the first model, which is a constant and S' is a
weight dedicated to ℎ' ( ). In other words, PQ is the weighted
sum of ℎ' ( ) and is known as an estimator. In gradient
boosting tree, our models are decision trees. In step , the
learned model is a tree called ℎ ( ) that was able to model
negative gradients. The function is updated at each stage
in this way:
P ( )=P ! ( )+S ℎ ( ) (10)
(6)
overfitting. The shrinkage is usually used to regularize the
model by modifying the above formula as below:
P ( )=P ! ( ) + V. S ℎ ( ) (11)
where V , which is always positive and less than unity, is
known as the learning rate. The loss function is the computed
deviance in this article. The learning rate and the estimator
number are equal to 0.1 and 100 respectively in order to
achieve an acceptable tradeoff between computational time
and the precision of model.
D. Design of support vector machine
In the support vector machine (SVM) algorithm, each
(7) on the data-scatter diagram ( is the number of properties of
a given data sample). The value of each data attribute
specifies one of the component coordinates of the point on
the graph; then, by drawing a straight line, it categorizes
different and distinct data elements [24]. In other words, a
vector support machine is the one that best separates data sets.
The kernel functions are used to solve the nonlinear
separation problems. These functions find a process by which
they can separate the data based on user-defined tags.
In this paper, radial basis function or rbf kernel type is
used as it is useful for non-straight separator line. Another
important factor for SVM algorithm is gamma, which is the
kernel coefficient for rbf. The higher the value of gamma, the
more the algorithm tries to perform the fit exactly based on
the training data set, and this leads to the generalization of the
error and the occurrence of the over-fitting problem. A
gamma value equal to 0.5 is given in this work. The cost
parameter for the error sentence controls the balance between
smooth decision-making boundaries and the classification of
training data points. The cost parameter is equal to unity to
achieve the results presented in the next Section.
IV. SIMULATIONS AND RESULTS
The transceiver shown on Fig. 1 is simulated with Python.
After generating a ten-bit random binary signal with a symbol
rate of 300 Bd, the signal is sampled with a rate of 44.1 kHz.
Then, a pulse shaping follows an amplitude-shift keying
modulation included in a digital front-end block. The channel
model has been realized by the simulation of an AWGN
channel with several levels of SNR: -20, -15, -10, 0, 10, 15
dB. In the first stage of signal reception, a fourth-order
Butterworth pass-band filter is applied, to reduce the noise of
the received signal. However, if we leverage a classic
criterion, like a Neyman-Pearson detector [25], in order to
define the threshold, the filter will, not only, not be useful but
also will cause a lower detection rate. This is due to the
impact of the signal noise in the threshold computation. As a
result, the knowledge of channel noise is not convenient to
(a)
(b)
Fig. 2. ROC curves acheived from Neyman-pearson method for
channels with different SNR: (a) before filtering, (b) after filtering.
Authorized licensed use limited to: Universite Gustave Eiffel. Downloaded on September 13,2022 at 13:49:16 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
compute the threshold and it is necessary to re-compute the
noise level after filtering. In Fig. 2 the probability is
traced for different values of , which is known as the
receiving operating characteristics (ROC) curve. The
weakness of this classic detection method is the lack of
flexibility while adding a new element, for example here a
filter, as shown in Fig.2.
By replacing the Neyman-Pearson criterion with ML
algorithms, the results shown in Fig. 3 are achieved. The
algorithms are trained before creating the models, which are
then used to predict the new data as shown in Fig. 1. The ROC
curves for SNR of -10 dB after and before filtering are shown
in Fig. 3. Thanks to the flexible ML algorithms, an
enhancement of the filtering process is clearly observed. The
area under curves (AUC) of ROC curves are summarized in
Table I. A significant difference is observed for the three
lowest SNRs and their AUC are enhanced with filter from
0.49, 0.56 and 0.74 to 0.72, 0.89 and 0.91 (results for naïve
Bayes algorithm) respectively for SNR of -20, -10 and 0 dB.
According to the results shown in Table I, the random
forest algorithm has the lowest AUC for all SNRs between
the four selected ML algorithms. This would be caused by
overfitting, which is one of the predominant problems in ML
and the main limitation of random forest, where the large
numbers of trees can make the algorithm for real-world
predictions inaccurate and ineffective. In general, the training
of this algorithm is fast, but the prediction which occurs after
the training model is slow. A more accurate prediction
requires more trees, which leads to a slower model. Gradient
boosting algorithm is the algorithm with the second lowest
AUC. This algorithm is greedy and can quickly fit over
(a)
(b)
Fig. 3. ROC curves achieved from machine learning algorithms for a
channel with SNR=-10 dB: (a) before filtering, (b) after filtering.
 TABLE II. AREA UNDER CURVE FOR SIMULATION RESULTS

Before filtering After filtering

SNR (dB) -20 -10 0 10 15 -20 -10 0 10 15
Random forest
0.48 0.51 0.70 0.89 0.87 0.46 0.80 0.88 0.93 0.93
classifier
algorithm
Machine
learning

Naïve Bayes 0.49 0.56 0.74 0.92 0.93 0.72 0.89 0.91 0.96 0.97
Support vector
0.50 0.64 0.75 0.93 0.93 0.71 0.89 0.91 0.96 0.97
machine
Gradient
0.49 0.51 0.73 0.91 0.89 0.69 0.86 0.90 0.95 0.94
boosting machine

training data sets. Naïve Bayes and SVM algorithms have the
same efficiency and perform equally well. TABLE I. AREA UNDER CURVE FOR EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS

V. ENERGY DETECTION IMPLEMENTATION USING HACKRF

ONE AND GNU RADIO
ML algorithms were compared practically using HackRF
One as a transmitter and an RTL-SDR as a receiver. The
communication system is shown in Fig. 4. HackRF One and
RTL-SDR are connected to two computers independently. A
GNU Radio program draws up the binary data for
transmission with the same baud rate and sampling rate as in
simulation, i.e. 300 Bd and 44 kHz, respectively. On the other
side, the RTL-SDR receives this data, which arrive through a
noisy propagation channel, and after an amplitude
demodulation step in GNU Radio, the data are stored in a file.
A band-pass Butterworth filter and the ML algorithms are at
Fig. 4. Wireless communication at unliscenced 868 MHz frequency.
Fig. 5. ROC curves experimentally achieved from machine learning
algorithms.
Random Support Gradient
forest Naïve Bayes vector boosting
classifier machine machine
0.64 0.74 0.51 0.64
first trained with the first part of saved data and then applied
to the second part of this data by a Python program. The
results are shown in Fig. 5.
In order to be accurate in the comparison of ML
algorithms, the AUCs of the ROC curves shown in Fig. 5 are
computed. The values are presented in Table II. As the results
show, the propagation channel suffers from a high noise
level. By comparing Table II with Table I, it is possible to
estimate the SNR to be more than -20 dB and less than -10
dB. As expected from simulation results, the naïve Bayes
algorithm performed better than random forest and GBM.
However, the experimental results obtained with SVM are
significantly different from the simulation results. The
difference may be due to the sensitivity of this algorithm to
the compromise between the training errors and the
complexity of model [24] which makes this algorithm
unsuitable for large amounts of noisy data.
VI. CONCLUSIONS
The performance of four ML algorithms applied to the
field of spectrum sensing is compared in this article. The
simulation results show that all the algorithms have a better
performance than the Neyman-Pearson classic detection
method. Furthermore, naïve Bayes and SVM obtained more
accurate results than GBM and random forest. However, in
practice, SVM did not perform as precisely as predicted by
the simulation. As a result, naïve Bayes is identified as the
most suitable algorithm between the four studied ML
algorithms for the spectrum sensing. More precise results can
be obtained by expanding the scope of research to the
cooperative signal detection.
REFERENCES
[1] Jondral, F.K. “Software-Defined Radio—Basics and Evolution to
Cognitive Radio.” J Wireless Com Network 2005, 652784 (2005).
[2] Fette, Bruce. "Introducing Adaptive, Aware and Cognitive Radios." In
Cognitive Radio, Software Defined Radio, and Adaptive Wireless
Systems, edited by Huseyin Arslan, 1-16. AA Dordrecht: Springer,
2007.
[3] T. Ulversoy, "Software Defined Radio: Challenges and Opportunities,"
in IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials, vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 531-
550, Fourth Quarter 2010.

Authorized licensed use limited to: Universite Gustave Eiffel. Downloaded on September 13,2022 at 13:49:16 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
[4] I. Mitola, J. and J. Maguire, G. Q., “Cognitive radio: making software
radios more personal,” IEEE Personal Commun. Mag., vol. 6, no. 4,
pp. 13–18, Aug. 1999.
[5] Federal Communications Commission, “Notice of proposed rule
making and order: Facilitating opportunities for flexible, efficient, and
reliable spectrum use employing cognitive radio technologies,” ET
Docket No. 03-108, Feb. 2005.
[6] I. F. Akyildiz, W. Lee, M. C. Vuran and S. Mohanty, "A survey on
spectrum management in cognitive radio networks," in IEEE
Communications Magazine, vol. 46, no. 4, pp. 40-48, April 2008.
[7] E. Axell, G. Leus, E. G. Larsson and H. V. Poor, "Spectrum Sensing
for Cognitive Radio: State-of-the-Art and Recent Advances," in IEEE
Signal Processing Magazine, vol. 29, no. 3, pp. 101-116, May 2012.
[8] S. Haykin, D. J. Thomson and J. H. Reed, "Spectrum Sensing for
Cognitive Radio," in Proceedings of the IEEE, vol. 97, no. 5, pp. 849-
877, May 2009.
[9] T. Yucek and H. Arslan, "A survey of spectrum sensing algorithms for
cognitive radio applications," in IEEE Communications Surveys &
Tutorials, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 116-130, First Quarter 2009.
[10] Patil, V. M., & Patil, S. R., "A survey on spectrum sensing algorithms
for cognitive radio, " International Conference on Advances in Human
Machine Interaction (HMI), 2016.
[11] D. Cabric, S. M. Mishra and R. W. Brodersen, "Implementation issues
in spectrum sensing for cognitive radios," Conference Record of the
Thirty-Eighth Asilomar Conference on Signals, Systems and
Computers, pp. 772-776 Vol.1, 2004.
[12] A. Ghasemi and E. S. Sousa, "Spectrum sensing in cognitive radio
networks: requirements, challenges and design trade-offs," in IEEE
Communications Magazine, vol. 46, no. 4, pp. 32-39, April 2008.
[13] K. M. Thilina, K. W. Choi, N. Saquib and E. Hossain, "Machine
Learning Techniques for Cooperative Spectrum Sensing in Cognitive
Radio Networks," in IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in
Communications, vol. 31, no. 11, pp. 2209-2221, November 2013.
Authorized licensed use limited to: Universite Gustave Eiffel. Downloaded on September 13,2022 at 13:49:16 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
[14] D. Wang and Z. Yang, "An novel spectrum sensing scheme combined
with machine learning," 2016 9th International Congress on Image and
Signal Processing, BioMedical Engineering and Informatics (CISP-
BMEI), pp. 1293-1297, 2016.
[15] Travis F. Collins, Robin Getz, Di Pu, and Alexander M. Wyglinski,
Software-Defined Radio for Engineers, 2018.
[16] Haozhou Xue and Feifei Gao, "A machine learning based spectrum-
sensing algorithm using sample covariance matrix," 2015 10th
International Conference on Communications and Networking in
China (ChinaCom), Shanghai, China, pp. 476-480, 2015.
[17] P. Liton, A. Suman, N. Sultan, "Methodological analysis of principal
component analysis (PCA) method," International Journal of
Computational Engineering & Management. 16. 32-38, 2013.
[18] Tin Kam Ho, "Random decision forests," Proceedings of 3rd
International Conference on Document Analysis and Recognition,
Montreal, QC, Canada, pp. 278-282 vol.1, 1995.
[19] Breiman, L. Random Forests. Machine Learning 45, PP. 5-32, 2001.
[20] M. Pal, "Random forest classifier for remote sensing classification,"
International Journal of Remote Sensing, 26:1, 217-222, 2005.
[21] Lewis, D. D., "Naive Bayes at forty: The independence assumption in
information retrieval", In Proceedings of the 10th European conference
on machine learning (pp. 4–15), New York: Springer, 1998.
[22] McCallum, A. & Nigam, K., "A comparison of event models for naive
Bayes text classification", In AAAI-98 workshop on learning for text
categorization, 1998.
[23] Friedman, Jerome H. "Greedy Function Approximation: A Gradient
Boosting Machine." The Annals of Statistics, vol. 29, no. 5, pp. 1189–
1232. JSTOR, 2001.
[24] V. Jakkula, "Tutorial on Support Vector," School of EECS,
Washington State University, Pullman 99164.
[25] Yih-Fang Huang, 6 - Statistical Signal Processing, Editor(s): WAI-KAI
CHEN, The Electrical Engineering Handbook, Academic Press, 2005,
pp. 921-932.