Numerical example for determining the optimal number of clusters in Algorithm 2. by Yi Wei Tye (22208735)

Python-Based Algorithm for Estimating NRTL Model Parameters with UNIFAC Model Simulation Results by Se-Hee Jo (20554623)

Subjects:

Convergence curve of feature selection algorithms across 11 datasets with KNN classifier. by Yi Wei Tye (22208735)

Testing algorithm for modified 2-tiered approaches to Lyme disease diagnosis. by Richard Porwancher (11413931)

<i>hi</i>PRS algorithm process flow. by Michela C. Massi (14599915)

Design and implementation of the Multiple Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) algorithm for predicting the severity of COVID-19. by Jiaqing Luo (10975030)

Triplet Matching for Estimating Causal Effects With Three Treatment Arms: A Comparative Study of Mortality by Trauma Center Level by Giovanni Nattino (561797)

“…Our algorithm outperforms the nearest neighbor algorithm and is shown to produce matched samples with total distance no larger than twice the optimal distance. …”

Flowchart scheme of the ML-based model. by Noshaba Qasmi (20405009)

Sample image for illustration. by Indhumathi S. (19173013)

“…Furthermore, the matching score for the test image is 0.975. The computation time for CBFD is 2.8 ms, which is at least 6.7% lower than that of other algorithms. …”

Comparison analysis of computation time. by Indhumathi S. (19173013)

“…Furthermore, the matching score for the test image is 0.975. The computation time for CBFD is 2.8 ms, which is at least 6.7% lower than that of other algorithms. …”

Process flow diagram of CBFD. by Indhumathi S. (19173013)

“…Furthermore, the matching score for the test image is 0.975. The computation time for CBFD is 2.8 ms, which is at least 6.7% lower than that of other algorithms. …”

Precision recall curve. by Indhumathi S. (19173013)

“…Furthermore, the matching score for the test image is 0.975. The computation time for CBFD is 2.8 ms, which is at least 6.7% lower than that of other algorithms. …”

Quadratic polynomial in 2D image plane. by Indhumathi S. (19173013)

“…Furthermore, the matching score for the test image is 0.975. The computation time for CBFD is 2.8 ms, which is at least 6.7% lower than that of other algorithms. …”

Algoritmo de clasificación de expresiones de odio por tipos en español (Algorithm for classifying hate expressions by type in Spanish) by Daniel Pérez Palau (11097348)

“…</p><h2>Model Architecture</h2><p dir="ltr">The model is based on <code>pysentimiento/robertuito-base-uncased</code> with the following modifications:</p><ul><li>A dense classification layer was added over the base model</li><li>Uses input IDs and attention masks as inputs</li><li>Generates a multi-class classification with 5 hate categories</li></ul><h2>Dataset</h2><p dir="ltr"><b>HATEMEDIA Dataset</b>: Custom hate speech dataset with categorization by type:</p><ul><li><b>Labels</b>: 5 hate type categories (0-4)</li><li><b>Preprocessing</b>:</li><li>Null values ​​removed from text and labels</li><li>Reindexing and relabeling (original labels are adjusted by subtracting 1)</li><li>Exclusion of category 2 during training</li><li>Conversion of category 5 to category 2</li></ul><h2>Training Process</h2><h3>Configuration</h3><ul><li><b>Batch size</b>: 128</li><li><b>Epoches</b>: 5</li><li><b>Learning rate</b>: 2e-5 with 10% warmup steps</li><li><b>Early stopping</b> with patience=2</li><li><b>Class weights</b>: Balanced to handle class imbalance</li></ul><h3>Custom Metrics</h3><ul><li>Recall for specific classes (focus on class 2)</li><li>Precision for specific classes (focus on class 3)</li><li>F1-score (weighted)</li><li>AUC-PR</li><li>Recall at precision=0.6 (class 3)</li><li>Precision at recall=0.6 (class 2)</li></ul><h2>Evaluation Metrics</h2><p dir="ltr">The model is evaluated using:</p><ul><li>Macro recall, precision, and F1-score</li><li>One-vs-Rest AUC</li><li>Accuracy</li><li>Per-class metrics</li><li>Confusion matrix</li><li>Full classification report</li></ul><h2>Technical Features</h2><h3>Data Preprocessing</h3><ul><li><b>Tokenization</b>: Maximum length of 128 tokens (truncation and padding)</li><li><b>Encoding of labels</b>: One-hot encoding for multi-class classification</li><li><b>Data split</b>: 80% training, 10% validation, 10% testing</li></ul><h3>Optimization</h3><ul><li><b>Optimizer</b>: Adam with linear warmup scheduling</li><li><b>Loss function</b>: Categorical Crossentropy (from_logits=True)</li><li><b>Imbalance handling</b>: Class weights computed automatically</li></ul><h2>Requirements</h2><p dir="ltr">The following Python packages are required:</p><ul><li>TensorFlow</li><li>Transformers</li><li>scikit-learn</li><li>pandas</li><li>datasets</li><li>matplotlib</li><li>seaborn</li><li>numpy</li></ul><h2>Usage</h2><ol><li><b>Data format</b>:</li></ol><ul><li>CSV file or Pandas DataFrame</li><li>Required column name: <code>text</code> (string type)</li><li>Required column name: Data type label (integer type, 0-4) - optional for evaluation</li></ul><ol><li><b>Text preprocessing</b>:</li></ol><ul><li>Automatic tokenization with a maximum length of 128 tokens</li><li>Long texts will be automatically truncated</li><li>Handling of special characters, URLs, and emojis included</li></ul><ol><li><b>Label encoding</b>:</li></ol><ul><li>The model classifies hate speech into 5 categories (0-4)</li><li><code>0</code>: Political hatred: Expressions directed against individuals or groups based on political orientation.…”

tUbenet Foundation Model Weights by Natalie Holroyd (7099391)

Processed dataset to train and test the WGAN-GP_IMOA_DA_Ensemble model by Ramya Chinnasamy (21633527)

Natural language processing for automated quantification of bone metastases reported in free-text bone scintigraphy reports by Olivier Q. Groot (9370461)

“…At the same threshold, the NLP algorithm had a positive predictive value of 0.97 and F1-score of 0.96.…”

Predictive Analysis of Mushroom Toxicity Based Exclusively on Their Natural Habitat. by Enrico Bertozzi (22461709)

“…</p><p dir="ltr">Additionally, an exhaustive hyperparameter search was performed using GridSearchCV to optimize the C, gamma, and kernel parameters (testing 'linear,' 'rbf,' 'poly,' and 'sigmoid'), aiming to find the highest-performing configuration. …”

Psoas muscle CT radiomics-based machine learning models to predict response to infliximab in patients with Crohn’s disease by Zhuoyan Chen (12193358)

“…Regions of interest were delineated using 3D Slicer software, and radiomics features were extracted with the Pyradiomics package in Python. <i>Z</i> score standardization and independent sample <i>t</i> test were applied to identify optimal predictive features, which were then utilized in seven ML algorithms for training and validation. …”

DataSheet_1_Multi-Parametric MRI-Based Radiomics Models for Predicting Molecular Subtype and Androgen Receptor Expression in Breast Cancer.docx by Yuhong Huang (115702)

“…We applied several feature selection strategies including the least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO), and recursive feature elimination (RFE), the maximum relevance minimum redundancy (mRMR), Boruta and Pearson correlation analysis, to select the most optimal features. We then built 120 diagnostic models using distinct classification algorithms and feature sets divided by MRI sequences and selection strategies to predict molecular subtype and AR expression of breast cancer in the testing dataset of leave-one-out cross-validation (LOOCV). …”