Proceedings of the International Conference on Augmented Intelligence and Sustainable Systems (ICAISS-2022)
IEEE Xplore Part Number: CFP22CB2-ART; ISBN: 978-1-6654-8962-1
Prediction of Rock and Mineral from Sound
Navigation and Ranging Waves using Artificial
Intelligence Techniques
2022 International Conference on Augmented Intelligence and Sustainable Systems (ICAISS) | 978-1-6654-8962-1/22/$31.00 ©2022 IEEE | DOI: 10.1109/ICAISS55157.2022.10011104
Akshat Khare
School of Computing
SRM Institute of Science and
Technology
Chennai, India
ak9219@srmist.edu.in
Abstract—Since sound waves penetrate the sea more
deeply than radar and light waves, SONAR (Sound
Navigation and Ranging) is used to explore and map the
ocean. When working in the mining industry, engineers may
find SONAR to be an invaluable tool for helping them
visualize the location of rocks and minerals by charting
frequency signals. Assuming an object is within the sound
pulse's range, the sound pulse will reflect off the target and
send an echo in the direction of the sonar transmitter if the
target is within the range of the sound pulse. The transmitter
uses the power source to receive signals and figure out how
strong the signals are. It establishes the pause in time
between the generation of the pulse and the receiving of its
corresponding signal. It analyzes the duration between the
emission of the pulse and its matching reception, which
estimates the distance and location of the matter. Engineers
determine the item using an audio wave. With the assistance
of AI, the process of evaluating, organizing, and identifying
the item is going to be circumvented in order to accomplish
the objectives of immediately identifying the item based on
the scheduled bandwidths. In this proposed method, PCA
and t-SNE are employed to extract features. Utilizing
classification approaches such as Logistic Regression and
Random Forest Tree, an accuracy of 72% and 91%,
respectively, was attained. Similarly, CNN and LSTM
models are also employed and finally they have yielded an
accuracy of about 80.77% and 99% respectively.
Keywords—CNN, LSTM, Random Forest, Logistic
Regression
I. INTRODUCTION
There has been much research done regarding SONAR
waves and their classification, but these researches have
not been very fruitful to scientific community regarding
their accuracy of AI models. This paper bring-forth
efficient and outperforming models by deeply analyzing
dataset and extracting out insightful features and attributes
to train models. The transducer uses the power source to
receive signals and determines the signal's amplitude. The
distance and placement of the material are determined by
measuring the interval between the creation of the pulse
and its matching reception. The main aim is to bypass this
978-1-6654-8962-1/22/$31.00 ©2022 IEEE
Authorized licensed use limited to: REVA UNIVERSITY. Downloaded on February 16,2024 at 09:01:15 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
Kanchana Mani
School of Computing
SRM Institute of Science and
Technology
Chennai, India
kanchanm@srmist.edu.in
procedure of determining, orienting, and classifying by
using Artificial Intelligence to directly classify the object
from the timed frequency signals.
II. LITERATURE REVIEW
1. The authors of [1] examined the multi-dimensional
Echolocation SONAR dataset and achieved an accuracy of
83.17 percent as well as an AUC of 0.92. While the
satisfactory design framework was examined to traditional
machine learning classifiers like those of SVM, Random
Forest, etc. through various assessment methods such like
accuracy, sensitivity, etc., interesting results were
discovered. Lack of precision in Deep Learning
Techniques was one of the obstacles they had to overcome.
2. Using a flutter sonar scanner, that is a statistical
acoustic analyzer used only to create significant reflection
patterns of the ocean bottom, the authors of [2] conducted
depositional categorization and estimated the propagation
characteristics of sediments. Utilizing a D/A translator
with an extensive dynamic range and a transceiver having
large lateral components, the energy, amplitude, and phase
characteristics of the FM sound pulse can also be precisely
controlled. For sediment identification, large
reproducibility and strong signal definition were required,
and this estimation was given. In order to identify marine
deposits and anticipate their material characteristics,
additional processing of pulse sonar data contributed
frequency response and dissipation patterns.
3. The authors of [3] distinguished metal cylinders
(mines) and tubular substances applying sonar pictures or
transmissions (rocks). To compress the dimensionality of
the data, authors used Neural Network classifier,
Functional Neuro-Fuzzy Inference Engine, and k-Nearest
Neighbor, coupled utilizing one of the most frequently
used feature selection methods, Sequential forward
selection (SFS). The conclusions were as continues to
follow: 76.92%, 86.5%, 89.42%, 81.73%, and 83.65%.
Lesser precision and model refinement posed
complications for the writers
140
 Proceedings of the International Conference on Augmented Intelligence and Sustainable Systems (ICAISS-2022)
IEEE Xplore Part Number: CFP22CB2-ART; ISBN: 978-1-6654-8962-1
4. The authors of [4] investigated research on a densely
spatial SONAR database, attaining a precision of 83.17
percent and an AUC of 0.92. With arbitrary frequency
assessment, the outcomes are also streamlined by
providing the possibility to acquire 90% accuracy. While
the accomplishment of the anticipated strategy is
contrasted to that of conventional algorithms such as SVM
and erratic woodland, employing distinctive evaluation
characteristics such as precision, influence, etc.,
dependable outcomes are discovered. We implemented
Deep Learning models with improved precision.
5. The authors of [5] employed Random Forest, to
estimate the rock type at Erdenet Copper Mine, Mongolia.
A database generated from exploratory drill holes were
also used create Random Forest models and estimate the
type of material based on their locations. Standards for
data exploration and edition assessment have indeed been
established to preserve usability in practical systems.
Random Forest operated effectively with a total success
rate of 89% in scenarios wherein type of rock was
presumed adjacent to regions where data was readily
available (such as those in the instance of blocks having
bombarded). Throughout this instance in which type of
rock was anticipated for 2 different slabs (i.e., 30 metres
under regarded positions), the total success rate quality
rating reached 86%. Whenever a prototype of a software
for investigation was undertaken, performance level
became unfavorable, with an total success rate of 59%.
6. Using Sonar frequencies, the authors of [6] devised a
technique for something like the forecasting of undersea
mines and rocks. Acoustic warnings are developed to
capture the varied vibrations of underwater materials from
sixty distinct points of view. Researchers established three
boolean classification models directly proportional to their
precision. Subsequently, algorithms of forecasting were
designed to estimate the mining and rock categories. Such
estimation outcomes were determined by Python and
Supervised Machine Learning Classification techniques.
7. Authors of [7] implemented two methods,
HSHFSCC and High Strength Self Compacting
Concrete(HSSCC) using different ML models to draw
information and segregate to train, test and validation
dataset. Next they implemented 19 various ML regression
models along with ANN to predict the flexural strength
related to HSHFSCC and HSSCC. For scoring they used
5-fold cross validation and root mean square via
MATLAB’s ML and DL toolkit.
8. Experimenters [8] introduced a novel process called
"t-SNE" for plotting high-spatial data by allocating every
data point a position on a 2D or 3D graph. This approach is
a variation of Stochastic Neighbor Embedding (Hinton and
Roweis, 2002) for refining, and it delivered significantly
improved renderings by lowering the potential to
concentrate points in the area of the map. t-SNE is
advantageous to existing methodologies. The t-SNE
process produces a single chart that reveals pattern at a
broad range of scales. This would be primarily useful for
multidimensional data which can be situated on numerous
unique yet associated with low-spatial dimensions, such as
particle photographs.
9. PCA is a multiple variable statistical technique that
investigates [9] a dataset within which the observations are
978-1-6654-8962-1/22/$31.00 ©2022 IEEE
Authorized licensed use limited to: REVA UNIVERSITY. Downloaded on February 16,2024 at 09:01:15 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
expressed by a collection of numeric regression model that
also are case of deviations. The key aim here is to retrieve
the essential and pertinent information from the statistical
evidence in order for it to be portrayed as a collection of
distinct orthogonal factors.
10. [10] introduced an efficient and effective called
long short-term memory (LSTM). LSTM can comprehend
to connect low-level time lags in abundant of 1000
distinct-time way by assessing persistent error flow
through constant error carousels within special units.
Multiplicative gate units comprehend to open and close
access towards constant error flow. LSTM is internally
local in space and time. Computational complexity of
LSTM is O(1). The experiments of LSTM resulted in
artificial data involving original, distributed, real-valued,
and noisy pattern representations.
III. DATASET
This dataset was implemented by Gorman and
Sejnowski throughout their numerous neural network
classification investigations of sonar signals. The original
purpose was to train a network to differentiate amongst
sonar pulses rebounded from a tubular metallic object. The
material makes a significant contribution to Terry
Sejnowski's existing collection of standards. Along with R.
Paul Gorman, this dataset was generated. The mineral
resources data comprises of 111 patterns created by
rebounding sonar transmissions out of a metal tube at such
a wide range of angles in a broad range of conditions. The
rock information consists of ninety-seven designs derived
from rocks grown under reasonable circumstances. The
broadcasted sonar noise might be an escalating resonance
flutter. The collection contains of impulses acquired from
an assortment of angles, spanning from 90 ° for the tube to
180 ° for the rock. Every pattern could be comprised of
sixty numbers that range from 0.0 to 1.0. Every number
reflects the stowed energy among a particular wavelength
band, summed over a particular period of time. The
particular record's label features the letters "R" and "M" if
the material is a rock or a mine, respectively. Table 1
provides attribute details for the data set.
Table 1 Data Set Attribute Details
141
 Proceedings of the International Conference on Augmented Intelligence and Sustainable Systems (ICAISS-2022)
IEEE Xplore Part Number: CFP22CB2-ART; ISBN: 978-1-6654-8962-1

IV. PROPOSED TECHNIQUES attempting to extract distinguishing traits in 2D and 3D

We proposed two techniques both machine learning
and deep learning, to explore deep insights of the dataset
we employed methods both from machine and learning
concepts. Simple Machine learning models from Logistic
Regression to complex deep learning models such as
LSTM and CNN models. To explore more depths of the
dataset to come up with efficient models to classify, we
implemented several methods to build models such as
Regularization, Transfer Learning, K-Fold, Randomized
Grid Search for optimal hyper parameters, data
augmentation, etc. Figure 1 shows the process workflow
we followed while executing the technical and, research
and development phase of this paper.
dimensions that are human-readable. For PCA 2D As
depicted in Fig. 3, despite lowering the dimensions of the
dataset from 60 to 2D in an attempt to identify
distinguishing traits, none are discovered. The dataset is
too disorganised and dispersed to categorise them into
distinct groupings (red for Rock and blue for Mineral). To
do additional research on this dataset, the authors increase
the dataset's dimension from 2D to 3D. The dimension of
the previous PCA dataset was increased by one to create
the 3D PCA dataset. Using the matplotlib utility of Python,
the authors created fig. 4's 3D graph to better grasp the
unique characteristics. In this case, too, the cases were
excessively disorganised and dispersed, making it
challenging to categorise them as distinct clusters.

Fig 2. PCA Dimensionality Reduction [14]

Fig 1. Technical Workflow for the paper

A. Feature Extraction Techniques Fig 3. PCA 2D Visualization

As total features in the SONAR dataset enumerates to
60, which is quite a large number of features for machine
learning to compute. We wanted to extract important
features from this dataset for our machine learning models
to predict on. So to extract only important and effective
features, we used algorithms such as PCA and t-SNE that
are dimension reduction techniques, which works on the
principle of creating new uncorrelated variables that
successively maximize variance and minimizes loss.
1) PCA
PCA[9] is one of several techniques for reducing
dimensionality which employs real data as source and
input feature configurations to optimally encompass the
actual data dispersion in effort to reduce its inherent
dimensionality, as shown in figure 2. In PCA, the data is Fig 4. 3D PCA
mapped upon a set of orthogonal axes, after which each
axis is evaluated. In this database, the dimensions will be 2) t-SNE
modified by minimizing the 60 original dimensions to 2- Similar to PCA, t-SNE[8] is also a method of reducing
dimensional and 3-dimensional datasets. We are dimensionality primarily employed for visualization of

978-1-6654-8962-1/22/$31.00 ©2022 IEEE 142

Authorized licensed use limited to: REVA UNIVERSITY. Downloaded on February 16,2024 at 09:01:15 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 Proceedings of the International Conference on Augmented Intelligence and Sustainable Systems (ICAISS-2022)
IEEE Xplore Part Number: CFP22CB2-ART; ISBN: 978-1-6654-8962-1
multi-dimensional datasets, explained by Equation 1 and 2.
We examined t-SNE with various 2D and 3D feature
reduction options. In the PCA-reduced data, there weren't
any detectable clustering of occurrences; but, in the 2D t-
SNE-reduced dataset shown in the Figure 5, individuals
with identical labels are clustered relatively closely,
suggesting many distinct clusters. To help understand and
study why t-SNE generated a more distinguishable cluster
than PCA, We made the t-SNE dataset three-dimensional
(3D)(Figure 6). Similar to PCA-3D dataset, it produced
mixtures of both class instances, making it difficult to draw
a plane across the dataset to distinguish the clusters of both
classes.
------(1)
-------(2)
Fig 5 2D t-SNE
Fig 6 3D t-SNE
B. Machine Learning Techniques
After extracting features by reducing dimensions using
PCA and t-SNE algorithms, we proceed with these features
978-1-6654-8962-1/22/$31.00 ©2022 IEEE
Authorized licensed use limited to: REVA UNIVERSITY. Downloaded on February 16,2024 at 09:01:15 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
to implementing machine learning models and feeding
them with these extracted features.
1) Logistic Regression
The simplest and most popular machine learning
algorithm, Logistic Regression is derived from statistics.
The model's input values are x, and its output values are
f(x), which are either 0 or 1. In order to construct a
machine learning model, each data point of the
independent variable will be x*w (i.e., the sum of x1 * w1
+ x2 * w2... ), which will result in a value between 0 and 1.
Based on the principle of sigmoid function(Figure 8), If
0.50 is viewed as a determining value or threshold, the
result was greater than 0.5, it would be considered 1;
otherwise, it would be 0.
Fig 8 Sigmoid Function for LR
2) Random Forest Classifier
The random forest tree is utilised to tackle
classification and regression difficulties. The Random
Forest[11] tree produces numerous trees as in figure 9, by
extracting 'K' number of data points from the dataset at
random. For each unique 'K' data point, many guesses are
possible, with the average of all forecasts being taken into
account for subsequent processing.
Fig 9 Random Forest Decision Trees
C. Deep Learning Techniques
1) Convolutional Neural Networks (CNN)
We have used CNN[12] models in this proposed
method which uses transfer learning technique. The
primary objective of implementing CNN model was to
extract feature insights like patterns of amplitude of the
SONAR wave for rock and mineral, which can be better
visualized using graphs. We have used these pre-trained
models in our work to get better results. To convert the
dataset into image dataset to be fed to the CNN models, we
converted the 60 attributes(frequencies) into a graph
images(Figure 10) with both axes removed to provide a
clear image. As only 208 instances are given in the dataset
which are too less for any deep learning model to perform
and may lead to over-fitting, we performed Data
143
 Proceedings of the International Conference on Augmented Intelligence and Sustainable Systems (ICAISS-2022)
IEEE Xplore Part Number: CFP22CB2-ART; ISBN: 978-1-6654-8962-1

Augmentation on the image dataset, to mitigate the

chances of over-fitting. The images were converted into
224 x 224 shape.

Fig 11 Window slide representation for LSTM Input

Fig 10 Graph representation of SONAR frequencies

2) LSTM Model
We implemented LSTM[10] model, with a different
dataset transformation approach. We took inspiration for
the dataset from the previous dataset transformation meant
for CNN classification. As shown in the Figure 11, We
converted the dataset instances from 60 attributes with 1
label to 30 x 30 attributes to 1 label, 31st attribute as
labels. A window was implemented of 30 attribute size
corresponding to same label and 31st attribute which
skimmed from 1st attribute to 30th attribute of the original
instance creating 30 more instances, hence increasing the
dataset size by thirty times. The aim of this approach was
to make the LSTM model learn the trends of the graphs of
the particular labels. As the architecture block (Figure 12)
describes, LSTM model takes input size as (Batch size,30)
which are 30 attributes(trend) of a particular instance. The
model is first implemented with a stack of 4 LSTM layers
which are the core layers of this model, these layers learn
the trends of the classes. Because each original instance
has frequency of the SONAR signal for a minute i.e 60
seconds therefore it has 60 attributes representing each
second in a minute. As for the model to learn the trend of
both the classes authors have implemented a window slide
of 30 attributes(trend) with labels as the class and the
corresponding 31st attribute. Furthermore, a Batch
normalization layer is added for regularization, the model
is split into 2 groups of layers, both group of layers are
implemented as a number of pairs of (Dense and Batch
Normalization). Batch Normalization layer should be
added to every layer immediately before activation layer.
That is to say, if the neurons of a layer are zero-centered
and have a variance of one as input values into an
activation function, then we reached the same result for the
activations themselves. First group focuses on
Classification of the instance, while another group focuses
on correctly predicting the 31st attribute of the instance.
These two groups' outputs their own prediction
representing class of the instance and 31st attribute
respectively. During Backtracking LSTM layers are
influenced by both the groups hence it works on both
classification and trend regression.
Fig 12 LSTM Model Flowchart
V. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
A. K-Fold Cross Validation
From experimental results, we found that deep learning
techniques were the most efficient and optimized than
compare to ML techniques. To better explore the dataset
while training the models, we implied K-fold cross
validation [13]method. We can split the dataset into
different group based on the value of k. The proposed
techniques were further tested using Stratified K-fold
score method, which distributes the dataset so that every
label has even proportion of instances, we split the dataset
into 5 folds for this method of training.
Scoring Parameters
Furthermore, the models were evaluated using confusion
matrix as a scoring parameter. Classification accuracy is
calculated by finding the number of predictions that are
correct from the total number of predictions as shown in
equation 3
Accuracy = (TP+TN) / (TP+FP+TN+ FN)----- (3)
Recall computes how many positives and were correct out
of the total positives as shown in equation 4
Recall=TP / (TP + FN) --------------------------- (4)
Precision measures Within everything that has been
predicted as a positive, precision counts the percentage
that is correct, as shown in equation 5.
Precision =TP / (TP + FP) ----------------------- (5)
F1 score is calculated by using precision and recall
value as shown in equation 6.
F1-Score = 2 * Precision * Recall / (Precision + Recall)--
(6)

978-1-6654-8962-1/22/$31.00 ©2022 IEEE 144

Authorized licensed use limited to: REVA UNIVERSITY. Downloaded on February 16,2024 at 09:01:15 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 Proceedings of the International Conference on Augmented Intelligence and Sustainable Systems (ICAISS-2022)
IEEE Xplore Part Number: CFP22CB2-ART; ISBN: 978-1-6654-8962-1

Using These metrics, the machine learning models
were scored and the best to perform out of these was
Random Forest Classifier with an accuracy of 81% with an
F1 score of 83% and 79% for Mine and Rock labels
respectively. Logistic Regression score an accuracy of
72%, and F1 score of 78% and 62% for Mine and Rock
respectively.
B. Feature Importance
After scoring the models, Functions were implemented
to extract important features from the dataset based on
which the best model I.e., Random Forest Classifier
performed, only top 10 important features were presented
and ranked according to their importance as shown in the
figure 13. Though, on how the features were ranked still
remains black box to us, but these attributes were the
deciding features for the model to make predictions.
Furthermore, the importance features provided by the
model were correlated with the Class/Label(Figure 14), to
find out correlations of these important features with label
class.
suitable for classification. Overall, LSTM model
performed better than all other literature models with an
accuracy 99.0%. An overall comparision of all the models
performance is given in the Figure 17. After analysing and
comparing the best models we trained with other literatures
and works, we found that our custom LSTM model
performed better than any literature we compared with,
therefore being the best model among them with an
accuracy of 99.0% as shown in the Figure 17 and Table 3.
As with accuracy and loss vs epochs graph, it can be seen
that validation accuracy initiates with a lower but as the
epochs increases it settles down with similar score as
training accuracy, similar behaviour can be seen with
validation loss and training loss for all the models.

Fig 15.a LSTM Loss vs Epochs

Fig 13 Feature Importance with respect to Models

Fig 15.b LSTM Accuracy vs Epochs

Fig 14 Feature Importance with respect to Class
C. Model comparison
Following the successful implementation of CNN and
LSTM models, we trained each model for 500 and 200
epochs respectively to train them efficiently and in an
optimized way to bring out the best accuracy in the
models. We split the dataset into the same ratio as in
during machine learning models, I.e., 80:20. After training
the models for 100 epochs we found LSTM model(Figure
15.a and 15.b) to be the better performer if not the best
with an accuracy of 99.0%, whereas CNN (pre-trained
with DenseNet-v169) resulted with an accuracy of 80.77%
(Figure 16.a and 16.b). It was found that Deep learning
models performed the best while training because of the Fig 16.a Densenet169_CNN Loss vs Epochs
neural network back propagation methods and are best

978-1-6654-8962-1/22/$31.00 ©2022 IEEE 145

Authorized licensed use limited to: REVA UNIVERSITY. Downloaded on February 16,2024 at 09:01:15 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 Proceedings of the International Conference on Augmented Intelligence and Sustainable Systems (ICAISS-2022)
IEEE Xplore Part Number: CFP22CB2-ART; ISBN: 978-1-6654-8962-1

Fig 16.b DenseNet169_CNN Accuracy vs Epochs

Table 2. Performance Analysis of different proposed Fig 17. Performance analysis of different models
models
Table 2. shows the performance metric values for
F1 different proposed algorithms. From table 2. it is clear that
Models Accuracy Recall Precision
Score LSTM model yields better accuracy when compared to
Logistic other moels. Table 3. shows performance analysis of
72% 71% 72% 76% proposed work with other existing models.
Regression
VI. CONCLUSION
Random
81% 81% 81% 81% This proposed work is used to predict rocks and minerals
Forest
from SONAR waves using Artificial Intelligence
CNN- techniques. In this approach, PCA and t-SNE are
80% 80% 80% 80%
DenseNet169 employed to extract features. Several classification
LSTM 99% 99% 99% 99% approaches sucha as Logistic Regression, Random Forest,
LSTM, CNN were used in this work. Among them, LSTM
yielded the best accuracy of 99.0. From Table 3. it is clear
Table 3. Model Performance in comparison with other that our proposed work results with better accuracy when
literature models compared with other literature works.
Author & Reference Model Used Accuracy
No Obtained
Singh[1] Random 82% REFERENCES
Forest [1] Singh, Harvinder & Hooda, Nishtha. (2019). Prediction of
Underwater Surface Target through SONAR: A Case Study of
Baida'a[4] k-Nearest 89.42% Machine Learning.
Udaya[5] SVM 83.17% [2] Schock, S.G., LeBlanc, L.A., and Satchidanarda Parda.
Sarantsatsral[6] Random 89% "Sediment Classification Using the Chirp Sonar."
Forest Paper presented at theOffshore Technology Conference, Houston,
Texas, May 1992. doi:https://doi.org/10.4043/6851-MS.
Yaramasu[7] SVM 80%
[3] Baida'a Abdul-Qader. “Techniques for classification sonar
Proposed Method LSTM 99.0% rocks vs mines” - IJSER Journal Publication 2016.
[4] M. Udaya Kiran; Vaibhav Tiwari; D Venkatesh ; G Gowtham
Tej.“Machine Learning Algorithms to Prediction of Underwater
Surface Target through SONAR”. Science, Technology and
Development Volume IX Issue X OCTOBER 2020.
[5] Sarantsatsral, N.; Ganguli, R.; Pothina, R.; Tumen-Ayush, B. A
Case Study of Rock Type Prediction Using Random Forests:
Erdenet Copper Mine, Mongolia. Minerals 2021, 11, 1059.
https://doi.org/ 10.3390/min11101059
[6] Sri Ramya Yaramasu; Uppada Sai Gayatri ; Vadlamani Manjusha ;
Vaishna C Bhanu ; Koda Indu. “UNDERWATER MINE &
ROCK PREDICTION BY EVALUATION OF MACHINE
LEARNING ALGORITHMS”. International Research Journal of
Modernization in Engineering Technology and Science.
Volume:04/Issue:04/April-2022.
[7] Kumar, Boppana Narendra, and Pariyada Pradeep Kumar.
"Prediction on Flexural strength of High Strength Hybrid Fiber Self
Compacting Concrete by using Artificial Intelligence." Journal of
Artificial Intelligence 4, no. 1 (2022): 1-16.

978-1-6654-8962-1/22/$31.00 ©2022 IEEE 146

Authorized licensed use limited to: REVA UNIVERSITY. Downloaded on February 16,2024 at 09:01:15 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 Proceedings of the International Conference on Augmented Intelligence and Sustainable Systems (ICAISS-2022)
IEEE Xplore Part Number: CFP22CB2-ART; ISBN: 978-1-6654-8962-1

[8] Laurens van der Maaten, & Geoffrey Hinton (2008).

Visualizing Data using t-SNE. Journal of Machine Learning
Research, 9(86),2579–2605.
[9] Mishra, S., Sarkar, U., Taraphder, S., Datta, S., Swain, D.,
Saikhom, R., Panda, S., & Laishram, M. (2017). Principal
Component Analysis. International Journal of Livestock Research,
1.
[10] Hochreiter, S., & Schmidhuber, J. (1997). Long Short-term
Memory.Neural computation, 9, 1735-80
[11] Ho, Tin. (1995). Random decision forests. Document Analysis and
Recognition, International Conference on. 1. 278 - 282 vol.1.
10.1109/ICDAR.1995.598994.
[12] K. O’Shea and R. Nash, An Introduction to Convolutional Neural
Networks. arXiv, 2015. doi: 10.48550/ARXIV.1511.08458.
[13] Stone, M. “Cross-Validatory Choice and Assessment of Statistical
Predictions.” Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series B
(Methodological), vol. 36, no. 2, 1974, pp. 111–47. JSTOR,
http://www.jstor.org/stable/2984809. Accessed 10 Nov. 2022.
[14]https://blog.bioturing.com/wpcontent/uploads/2018/11/Blog_pca_6b.
png

978-1-6654-8962-1/22/$31.00 ©2022 IEEE 147

Authorized licensed use limited to: REVA UNIVERSITY. Downloaded on February 16,2024 at 09:01:15 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.