Using Adaboost and Stochastic gradient descent
(SGD) Algorithms with R and Orange Software for
Filtering E-mail Spam
Huwaida T. Elshoush
Faculty of Mathematical Sciences
University of Khartoum
Khartoum, Sudan
htelshoush@uofk.edu
Abstract—With the increasing usage of electronic emails, the
ratio of spam is increasing day by day. Thus, spam emails
have become a major threat that lowers the usage of electronic
emails as a way for communication. There are several machine
learning techniques that provide email spam filtering methods,
such as Naive Bayes (NB), K-Nearest Neighbor (KNN), Support
Vector Machine (SVM), Artificial Neural Network (ANN) and
Decision tree (DT). This paper considers different machine
learning techniques to filter spam emails, specifically Adaboost
and Stochastic Gradient Descent (SGD). R tool was used for the
pre-processing stage. Adaboost and SGD were implemented in
Orange software for building the classifiers. Using Orange tool,
the experimental results showed that the algorithms Adaboost
and stochastic gradient descent (SGD) provided true positive
value of 100 % and 98.1% respectively and false positive rates
of 0.0% and 1.9% respectively. The good accuracy of these
algorithms and the favorable results put them among the best
choices of spam filtering methods.
Index Terms—Spam Filtering, Machine Learning, R tool,
Orange tool, Adaboost, Stochastic gradient descent (SGD)
I. I NTRODUCTION
Emails, which are used in nearly all of the fields of com-
munication, education, and manufacturing, can be categorized
into ham (legitimate emails) and spam. Spam emails have
grown into critical threat that lowers the usage of electronic
emails as a way of communication. Spam consumes network
bandwidth and server storage spaces thus slowing down email
servers, and providing media for harmful and/or insulting
materials [1]. There are numbers of critical troubles linked
with the increasing volumes of spam; stuffing users mailboxes,
wasting network resources namely storage space and e-mail
bandwidth, consuming users time for removing all spam
letters and in addition damaging computers and laptops due
to viruses [2]. Security of email system is very necessary
in our daily lives. If the spam finds a way to conquer that,
it will cause wastage of resources and also pollute email
environment. Moreover, with the unwanted emails the server’s
storage memory will be compromised.
Section 2 discusses various techniques that were used in
the spam filtering process. The previous studies that were
978-1-7281-2952-5/19/$31.00 ©2019 IEEE 41
Esraa A. Dinar
Faculty of Computing and Information Systems
Sudan International University
Khartoum, Sudan
esra.dinar7@gmail.com
conducted in this field were mentioned in section 3 along
with their methodologies, main steps, and final results. Section
4 explains the proposed method in details starting with the
software and the tested dataset. It then thoroughly explains
the spam filtering process. Namely, R and orange software
were the tools used for the pre-processing steps and building
the classifiers respectively. Section 5 depicted the experimental
results. Finally, the paper is concluded in section 6.
II. S PAM F ILTERING T ECHNIQUES
A. Non-Machine Learning Spam Filtering Methods
The non-machine learning spam filtering methods can be
classified into four categories which are briefly explained
below:
• List Based
List based is a technique used for filtering spam emails. It
attempts to stop spam emails by categorizing the senders
as spammers or trusted users, and allowing or blocking
their emails accordingly [3].
• Content Based
Content-based filters deal with emails by evaluating
words and phrases to determine whether an email is spam
or legitimate [3].
• Challenge/Response System
In this technique, the system block undesirable emails by
forcing the sender to perform a task before their message
can be delivered. If the task, which is the challenge, did
not complete after a certain time period, the message is
rejected [3].
• Collaborative Filters
This technique collects input from millions of email users
around the globe. Users of these systems can give a
notice on any incoming emails as legitimate or spam and
these notations are reported to a central database. After
a certain number of users marking a particular email as
junk, the filter automatically bocks it from reaching the
rest of the community’s inboxes [3].
B. Machine Learning Techniques for Spam Filtering
Machine learning (ML) is a branch of knowledge that is
involved with the design and implementation of algorithms
that allow computers to adjust their behavior according to data
[4]. ML automatically learns to identify composite patterns and
makes intelligent judgment based on data. The development
of the data mining applications such as classification and
clustering led to the need for the ML algorithms to be applied
for huge scale data. The aim of ML is to resolve problems
in intelligent ways by enhancing the performance of computer
programs [2].
a) Commonly Used ML Techniques for Spam Filtering:
First, the most commonly used ML algorithms in the field
of spam filtering are explained here:
• K- Nearest Neighbor (KNN)
This algorithm does not make any consideration on the
distribution of the initial data, also there is no training
stage [5]. It is well-known for its lazy learning stage [5].
KNN keeps all the training data with it and this nature
of KNN is termed as ‘lack of generalization’ [5]. This
training data is used further in the testing stage. The entire
training datasets are taken under consideration to lead to
the final decision [5]. This algorithm works under the
idea ‘characteristics vector’; which works by setting up
the contents of all messages [5].
• Decision Tree
Decision tree is one of the data mining approaches that is
based upon the tree data design. The common statistical
technique normally can only analyze the handling of the
exterior of the data, whereas decision tree algorithms can
discover the possible association rules among the signifi-
cant attributes from the existing data [6]. Furthermore, the
forecasting of classification of the unexplored data can
be further received through comparing their associated
attribute values to these association rules [6].
• Naı̈ve Bayesian
Naive Bayes classifier is an understandable probabilistic
classifier escorted by powerful separation presumption
[7]. It can be trained very efficiently within a supervised
learning setting [7]. The fundamental impression about
it is to discover whether an e-mail is spam or not by
looking at which terms are located in the message and
which terms are missing from it [7].
• Support Vector Machine (SVM)
Support Vector Machine (SVM) is a popular category
of machine learning classifiers. It takes its creativity
from statistical learning hypothesis along with the
constructional minimization standard. Due to its strength
in dealing with elevated dimensional data through the
utilization of kernel functions, it is one of the most
widely used classifier in the involved area of study [8].
978-1-7281-2952-5/19/$31.00 ©2019 IEEE
• Artificial Neural Network
Artificial Neural network (ANN) was initiated by McCul-
loch and Pitts in 1943 [4]. Since the launch it has been
progressively used in words classification [4]. It essen-
tially imitate the functionality of human mind in which
neurons (nerves cells) contact with each other via sending
messages among them [4]. It represents the statistical
model of these biological neurons [4]. Neural network has
huge mapping ability or pattern association thus revealing
generalization, robustness, high fault tolerance, and high
speed equivalent information processing [4].
b) Proposed ML Techniques for Spam Filtering:
The two proposed ML algorithms for spam filtering, Ad-
aboost and SGD, are introduced herein:
• Adaboost
Boosting is a popular grouping approach that creates a
powerful classifier from a number of weak classifiers. It
was the earliest successful boosting algorithm that meets
the needs of binary classification [9]. Adaboost can be
used to increase the performance of any machine learning
algorithm, and it is best used with weak learners [9].
These are models that accomplish accuracy just beyond
random probability on a classification obstacle [9].
• Stochastic Gradient Descent (SGD)
SGD is an understandable and highly effective approach
to discriminative learning of linear classifiers under con-
vex loss functions such as (linear) SVM and logistic
regression [10]. It has been around in the ML society for
a long time, and has been given a great amount of notice
just recently in the context of large-scale learning [10].
SGD has been famously applied to large-scale and sparse
machine learning obstacle frequently experienced in text
classification and natural language processing [10].
III. R ELATED W ORK
Over the last decade, many researchers have come up with
new techniques to enhance the spam filtering techniques. A
brief analysis depicting the analysis and proposed approaches
are defined in this section.
In 2015 Li et al [11] proposed an empirical study with
three different environments which are Research Institute,
Academic University and Commercial Company from their
users’ perspective point of view. Five basic supervised machine
learning classifiers were conducted which are Naive Bayes,
J48, IBK, Radial Basis Function Network (RBF-Network)
and Library for Support Vector Machines (Lib-SVM). The
classification outcome indicates that decision tree along with
support vector machines can accomplish better results than the
other classifiers that were in this study [11].
Notice that SVM accomplished better results in this study
than ours because of the environment that has been tested on
and that it works under the concept of clustering. Actually, in
42
this study, it is noticed that it is already divided into different
groups, so it was easy to separate each cluster from the other.
Aski et al [12] in 2016 proposed machine-learning algo-
rithms to filter spam from valid emails with low error rates
and high productivity using a multilayer perceptron model and
several methods including C4.5 decision tree classifier [12].
The outcome results were obtained from Waikato Environment
for Knowledge Analysis software tool (WEKA) which is a
highly dominant open source and handy tool with a powerful
user interface to run machine learning algorithms techniques
and pre-processing steps [12]. The results of the proposed
model indicate higher efficiency than Naı̈ve Bayes classifier
algorithms and J48 with a low rate of false positives [12].
In 2017, Alurkar et al [13] proposed an approach that uses
ML techniques to classify spam emails from ham, which uses
the parameters of the email body such as - To field, From field,
Message-ID, Cc/Bcc field, etc [13]. It also considers the email
body with commonly used keywords and punctuations [13].
There are four stages for this technique which are preparation
of data, data analysis, assessment and deployment. Enron and
UCI are the datasets that were used and the corpus contains
a total of about 0.5M messages [13]. The interface that is
used for expressing ML algorithms is called TensorFlow which
can be implemented on all kinds of devices ranging from
phones and tablets to distributed systems [13]. This grants the
proposed system greater flexibility. Even though, this interface
has not been used a lot in the following years.
In 2018, Bassiouni et al [14] and Subasi et al [15] reached
to results that proved that the decision tree algorithms were
successful in detecting spam emails [14]. Bassiouni et al [14]
focused on the decision tree algorithms like Classification and
Regression Tree (CART), C4.5, REP Tree, NB Tree, AD Tree,
LAD Tree, Random Forest (RF) and Rotation Forest (RoF),
where the dataset was downloaded from UCI ML data repos-
itory. The size of the dataset was 4601 messages out of 1813
which are categorized as spam emails.The experimental results
shows that RF and RoF achieved the highest results among
the other decision tree classifiers [14]. On the other hand,
Subasi et al [15] focused on the random forest and random
tree algorithms along with another eight other algorithms. The
dataset was downloaded from spam base UCI website. Their
final results show that random forest technique accomplished
the highest accuracy result among the other algorithms.
Jawale et al [16] in 2018 proposed a hybrid approach
that joins support vector machine (SVM) and Naive Bayes
algorithms (NB) together. The mechanism for this method is
done by processing the training dataset by the NB algorithm in
which it calculates the probability for each word and message
in the dataset and compares it with a threshold which classifies
the data. After that, the data is processed by the SVM to
improve the accuracy by calculating the feature vector in
which it draws the hyper plan along with these vectors and
classifies the data. This approach shows that this combination
has more accuracy than the performance of each implemented
separately in the model.
Also in 2018, R. Mallik et al [17] used text analytics in the
978-1-7281-2952-5/19/$31.00 ©2019 IEEE
field of spam filtering to analyze text which is incorporated
within spam mails. Naı̈ve Bayesian classification algorithm
is used for building the model and R tool is used for the
preprocessing step. This method identified the most used plus
the unused subjects of the spam emails. This approach could
be used with different algorithms to get to the best results.
It could also be used with hybrid algorithms to achieve the
best results. Furthermore, Orange software could be used to
find the result of each algorithm in a short time. After that,
it could be developed into real life environment system and
organizations.
This paper considers different ML techniques to filter spam
emails, specifically Adaboost and SGD, which were not used
in recent work. Hereafter, the proposed method is explained.
IV. T HE P ROPOSED M ETHOD
A. Instrumentation
1) R software: R is a language and an environment for sta-
tistical computing and graphics. It is similar to the S language
and environment which was developed at Bell Laboratories.
R can be considered as a different implementation of S.
R provides a wide variety of statistical (linear and nonlin-
ear modeling, classical statistical tests, time-series analysis,
classification, clustering, ... etc) and graphical techniques, and
is highly extensible. The S language is often the vehicle of
choice for research in statistical methodology, and R provides
an Open Source route to participation in that activity [23].
2) Orange software: Orange is an open-source software
package released under General Programming Language
(GPL). Versions up to 3.0 include core components in C++
with wrappers in Python are available on Github. From ver-
sion 3.0 onwards, Orange uses common Python open-source
libraries for scientific computing, such as numpy, scipy and
scikit-learn, while its graphical user interface operates within
the cross-platform framework. Orange3 has a separate Github.
Orange is a component-based visual programming software
package for data visualization, machine learning, data mining
and data analysis [21] [22]. Orange tool is easier to use and
has a friendly user interface compared to WEKA tool.
B. Dataset
The data set used in this research is an email data set
that was downloaded from https://github.com/mic0331/MITx-
15.071x-The-Analytics-Edge—2016/tree/master/dataset. The
analytics edge course was last updated on 22nd May 2019
and the file format is .csv file. It is a free online courses site
that is corresponding to MIT classes. There were 5728 emails
in the data set containing 1368 spam and 4360 ham emails.
C. The Proposed Spam Filtering Process
The proposed spam filtering process consists of preprocess-
ing, feature selection, and finally building the model for each
classifier. Figure 1 illustrates the data flow of the proposed
model. It depends on the idea of cleaning the data set file
which is legitimate or spam email as shown in figure 2 and 3
respectively. Pre-processing operations were performed using
43
 figure 4, then the targeted class was selected, which was the
spam column. The selected features were tested by each algo-
rithm individually to perform the learning part on the emails.
By default in Orange tool, the learning part is performed in
40% of the total number emails and the other 60% is kept
for the testing phase, but the user can customize this. After
the learning is done, it is tested and hence the final score is
calculated.
Fig. 1. The Proposed Model TABLE I
S ELECTED ROWS AND C OLUMNS OF THE S PARSE F ILE
file type york yet yesterday year worldwid
R software, which performs the lower case, stop word removal
and stemming. The result is a sparse file as shown in table 1, 1 0 0 0 0 0
which shows only selected rows and columns of the sparse 1 0 0 0 3 0
file. Table 1 is a file in the format of Comma Separated 1 0 0 0 0 0
Value (CSV). This table presents each email after carrying out 1 0 1 4 0 0
feature selection, in which each word will be treated as a single 1 0 0 1 8 0
feature and its frequency of occurrence in the spam or ham 1 0 1 6 0 0
email is shown. As an example, 11 emails have been taken out 0 0 4 0 1 0
of 5728 randomly. After that, the sparse file is imported by the 0 0 0 0 2 0
Orange software to do the test on the classification algorithms 0 0 0 1 3 0
as illustrated in figure 4. The final result is a confusion matrix 0 0 0 0 0 0
table showing the performance of each classifier. In this paper, 0 0 1 0 1 0
two algorithms, which are Adaboost and stochastic gradient
descent, were tested and compared with commonly used ML
techniques to see their accuracy performance.
The three steps of the proposed model are herein described:
a) Corpus Preprocessing: Eliminating the unnecessary
information in the email enhances the classification perfor-
mance. Thus, Corpus prepossessing transforms the content of
the email into a uniform shape that is more understandable to
the ML algorithms [18] [19]. Hereby the steps are explained:
• Lexical Analysis (Tokenization): Headers, attachments,
and HTML tags are eliminated and thus leaving the email
body and subject line to be considered as tokens.
Fig. 2. An Example of a Legitimate Email
• Stop-word Removal: Non-informative words or symbols,
e.g. ‘a’, ‘an’, ‘the’, ‘#’, ‘is’, .. etc. are being discarded
to make the selection of candidate terms more efficient.
• Stemming: Here, the words are converted into their
morphological base forms by eliminating plurals, tenses,
gerund forms, prefixes and suffixes.
• Representation: The email message is converted into
specific format to be understood by the ML algorithms.
b) Features Selection: This process is done through Bag
of Words (BOW) model (or vector-space model) in which
Fig. 3. An Example of a Spam Email
words occurring in the e-mail are treated as features. Given a
set of terms T = t1 , t2 , t3 ..tn , the bag of words model represents V. E XPERIMENTAL R ESULTS
a document d as an n-dimensional feature vector x = x1 , x2 , A. Confusion Matrix
x3 ..xn where xi is a function of the occurrence of ti in d. It Confusion matrix (fault matrix) is a special table layout that
is possible to use all the features for classification. Table 1 enables visualization of the performance of an algorithm [12].
explains the process by showing each word and its frequency • TP (True Positive): Spam correctly detected as spam.
in each spam or ham email. The value 1 in the file type column • FP (False Positive): Ham email predicted as spam by
indicates a spam email, and 0 indicates ham email [18] [19]. mistake.
c) Building the Model for Classifiers: In this process, • TN (True Negative): Ham email correctly predicted as
the sparse file is imported by the Orange tool as shown in ham email.

978-1-7281-2952-5/19/$31.00 ©2019 IEEE 44

 Fig. 4. Building the Classifiers Models Using Orange

TABLE II
E XPERIMENTAL R ESULTS

Technique Classifier accuracy TP TN FP FN

Naı̈ve Bayes 96.3 95.3 4.7 0.5 99.5
KNN 100 100 0.0 0.0 100
Artificial Neural 98.8 98.8 1.2 1.2 98.8
Network
SVM 62.3 55.6 44.4 16.4 83.6
Random Forest 99.6 99.9 0.1 1.5 98.5
Adaboost 100 100 0.0 0.0 100
SGD 98.1 98.1 1.9 1.9 98.1

Fig. 5. Classifiers Test Result for Accuracy

• FN (False Negative): Spam email predicted as ham mail
by mistake.
The classifiers test results of the proposed algorithms com-
pared to the commonly used ML techniques are presented in
figure 5 and table 2. They assess the accuracy for each classi-
fier in detecting spam emails from the given data set. Adaboost
and SGD, which are the proposed algorithms in this research,
showed excellent results along with Naı̈ve Bayes, KNN, ANN
and Random Forest, while SVM showed the lowest result
compared to the other techniques. SVM accomplishes better
results when there is a clustering environment.
Figure 6 shows the results for each classifier according to its
accuracy in true predicted spam emails as spam (TP) and false
predicted ham as spam (FP). Figure 7 shows that Adaboost Fig. 6. Classifiers Test Result for True Positives (TP) and False Positives FP)
gave 100% TP and 0.0% for FP whereas SGD showed 98.1%
TP and 1.9% for FP, which were excellent results along with
Naı̈ve Bayes, KNN, ANN and Random Forest. On the other setting. Figure 8 depicts the performance of the algorithms of
hand, SVM demonstrated the lowest result. Adaboost and SGD, along with the previously used techniques,
where the results are gathered near to the highest TP value
B. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) Analysis which is 1, while SVM value is near the FP rate.
ROC curve is a graphical plot that illustrates the diagnostic .
VI. C ONCLUSION AND F UTURE WORK
ability of the binary classifier systems, which in this case if the
result is spam or ham [20]. The ROC plots the true positive rate This paper focuses on using the machine learning algorithms
(TPR) against the false positive rate (FPR) at various threshold Adaboost and Stochastic Gradient Descent (SGD) for filtering

978-1-7281-2952-5/19/$31.00 ©2019 IEEE 45


Fig. 7. Performance of the proposed algorithms
Fig. 8. ROC Curve for spam emails
spam emails. R software was used for preprocessing and
Orange software for classification and building the model. The
spam filtering process involves three phases: preprocessing,
feature selection, and building the model for each classifier.
The three phases were implemented using a dataset containing
5728 emails, where 1368 are spam and 4360 are ham emails.
After performing preprocessing on the dataset, the size of the
data has been decreased significantly and data items have been
grouped into meaningful abstractions. After the model was
built for each classifier, the results showed that Adaboost and
SGD achieved excellent results specifically true positive value
of 100% and 98.1% respectively and false positive rates of
0.0% and 1.9% respectively. Hence, the proposed algorithms
Adaboost and SGD proved efficacious in filtering the spam
email using Orange tool and R software.
R EFERENCES
[1] Q.D.Dinh, Q.A.Tran, and F.Jiang, “Automated generation of ham rules
for Vietnamese spam filtering,” in Computational Intelligence for Security
978-1-7281-2952-5/19/$31.00 ©2019 IEEE
and Defense Applications (CISDA), 2014 Seventh IEEE Symposium, pp.
1-5. 2014.
[2] N.O.F.Elssied and O.Ibrahim, “K-means clustering scheme for enhanced
spam detection,” Research Journal of Applied Sciences, Engineering and
Technology, vol. 7, no. 10, pp. 1940-1952, 2014.
[3] A.Bhowmick and S.M.Hazarika, “Machine learning for e-mail spam fil-
tering: Review, techniques and trends,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1606.01042,
2016.
[4] T.Subramaniam, H.A.Jalab, and A.Y.Taqa, “Overview of textual anti-
spam filtering techniques,” International Journal of Physical Sciences, vol.
5, no. 12, pp. 1869-1882, 2010.
[5] A.G.Kakade, P.K.Kharat, A.K.Gupta, and T.Batra, “Spam filtering tech-
niques and mapreduce with svm: A study,” in Computer Aided System
Engineering (APCASE), 2014 Asia-Pacific Conference on. IEEE, pp. 59-
64. 2014.
[6] J.-J.Sheu, Y.-K.Chen, K.-T.Chu, J.-H.Tang, and W.-P.Yang, “An intelligent
three phase spam filtering method based on decision tree data mining,”
Security and Communication Networks, vol. 9, no. 17, pp. 4013-4026,
2016.
[7] D.K.Renuka, T.Hamsapriya, M.R.Chakkaravarthi, and P.L.Surya, “Spam
classification based on supervised learning using machine learning tech-
niques,” in Process Automation, Control and Computing (PACC), 2011
International Conference on, 2011, pp. 1-7.
[8] S.K.Trivedi and S.Dey, “Interaction between feature subset selection
techniques and machine learning classifiers for detecting unsolicited
emails,” ACM SIGAPP Applied Computing Review, vol. 14, no. 1, pp.
53-61, 2014.
[9] R.E.Schapire, “The boosting approach to machine learning: An overview,”
in Nonlinear estimation and classification. Springer, 2003, pp. 149-171.
[10] L.Bottou, “Large-scale machine learning with stochastic gradient de-
scent,” in Proceedings of COMPSTAT’2010. Springer, 2010, pp. 177-186.
[11] W.Li and W.Meng, “An empirical study on email classification using
supervised machine learning in real environments,” in IEEE International
Conference on Communications (ICC), 2015, pp. 7438-7443.
[12] A.S.Aski and N.K.Sourati, “Proposed efficient algorithm to filter spam
using machine learning techniques,” Pacific Science Review A: Natural
Science and Engineering, vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 145-149. 2016.
[13] A.A.Alurkar, S.B.Ranade, S.V.Joshi, S.S.Ranade, P.A.Sonewar,
P.N.Mahalle, et al., “A proposed data science approach for email spam
classification using machine learning techniques,” in Internet of Things
Business Models, Users, and Networks, pp. 1-5. 2017.
[14] M.Bassiouni, M.Ali, E.El-Dahshan, “Ham and Spam E-Mails Classifi-
cation Using Machine Learning Techniques,” Journal of Applied Security
Research, 13, pp. 315-331. 2018.
[15] A.Subasi, S.Alzahrani, A.Aljuhani, M.Aljedani, “Comparison of De-
cision Tree Algorithms for Spam E-mail Filtering,” 2018 1st Interna-
tional Conference on Computer Applications and Information Security
(ICCAIS). IEEE, pp. 1-5. 2018
[16] D.S.Jawale, A.G.Mahajan, K.R.Shinkar, V.V.Katdare, “Hybrid spam
detection using machine learning,” International Journal of Advance
Research, Ideas and Innovations in Technology, 4, pp. 2828-2832. 2018.
[17] R.Mallik, and A.K.Sahoo, “A Novel Approach to Spam Filtering Using
Semantic Based Naive Bayesian Classifier in Text Analytics,” In Emerg-
ing Technologies in Data Mining and Information Security (pp. 301-309).
Springer, Singapore. 2019.
[18] I.Katakis, G.Tsoumakas, I.Vlahavas, “Email mining: emerging tech-
niques for email management,” Web Data Management Practices: Emerg-
ing Techniques and Technologies, pp. 219-240. 2006.
[19] L.Shi, Q.Wang, X.Ma, M.Weng, H.Qiao, “Spam email classification
using decision tree ensemble,” Journal of Computational Information
Systems, 8, pp. 949-956. 2012.
[20] S.B.Cantor and M.W.Kattan, “Determining the Area under the ROC
Curve for a Binary Diagnostic Test’,” Medical Decision Making, 20(4),
pp. 468–470. 2000.
[21] Bioinformatics, “Orange-Data Mining Fruitful and Fun”,
Orange.biolab.si, 2019 [online]. Available: https://orange.biolab.si/.
[Last accessed 30-Jul-2019].
[22] Orange Data Mining [online]. Available:
http://predictiveanalyticstoday.com/orange-data-mining. [Last accessed
31-Jul-2019]
[23] The R Project for Statistical Computing. [online]. Available:
https://www.r-project.org/. [Last accessed: 30-Jul-2019]
46