Skip to main content
. 2022 Jul;23(7):2459–2467. doi: 10.31557/APJCP.2022.23.7.2459

Table 1.

Shows Comparison of MLP and SVM Algorithm

Column1 MlP (two hidden layers) SVM
The percentage split 75% The percentage split 75%
Correlation coefficient 0.5669 0.6342
Mean absolute error 13.2958 11.6237
Root mean squared error 17.9234 17.1052
Relative absolute error 77.36% 67.63%
Root relative squared error 84.88% 81.00%
Total Number of Instances 359 359
Percentage split 85% Percentage split 85%
Correlation coefficient 0.6133 0.6402
Mean absolute error 14.372 11.2879
Root mean squared error 18.9334 17.0521
Relative absolute error 83.60% 65.66%
Root relative squared error 89.16% 80.30%
Total Number of Instances 216 216
Cross-validation (10 fold)
Correlation coefficient 0.5995 0.6419
Mean absolute error 12.7017 11.2861
Root mean squared error 17.1316 16.4005
Relative absolute error 75.31% 66.92%
Root relative squared error 83.20% 79.65%
Total Number of Instances 1438 1438
Cross-validation (15fold)
Correlation coefficient 0.61 0.6415
Mean absolute error 12.4953 11.2775
Root mean squared error 16.8053 16.4056
Relative absolute error 74.10% 66.88%
Root relative squared error 81.62% 79.68%
Total Number of Instances 1438 1438