Abstract
In the past few years, machine-learning techniques have garnered much attention across disciplines. Most of these techniques are capable of producing highly accurate results that compel a majority of scientists to implement the approach in cases of predictive analytics. Few works related to wine data have been undertaken using different classifiers, and thus far, no studies have compared the performance metrics of the different classifiers with different feature sets for the prediction of quality among types of wine. In this chapter, an intelligent approach is proposed by considering a recursive feature elimination (RFE) algorithm for feature selection, as well as nonlinear and probabilistic classifiers. Performance metrics including accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) are compared by implementing different classifiers with original feature sets (OFS) as well as reduced feature sets (RFS). The results show accuracy ranging from 97.61 to 99.69% among the different feature sets. This analysis will aid wine experts in differentiating various wines according to their features.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Janszky, I., M. Ericson, M. Blom, A. Georgiades, J.O. Magnusson, H. Alinagizadeh, and S. Ahnve. 2005. Wine drinking is associated with increased heart rate variability in women with coronary heart disease. Heart 91 (3): 314–318.
Preedy, V., M.L.R. Mendez. 2016. Wine applications with electronic noses. In Electronic noses and tongues in food science, 137–151. Cambridge, MA, USA: Academic Press.
Er, Y., and A. Atasoy. 2016. The classification of white wine and red wine according to their physicochemical qualities. International Journal of Intelligent Systems and Applications Engineering 4: 23–26.
Cortez, P., A. Cerdeira, F. Almeida, T. Matos, and J. Reis. 2009. Modeling wine preferences by data mining from physicochemical properties. Decision Support Systems 47 (4): 547–553.
Appalasamy, P., A. Mustapha, N.D. Rizal, F. Johari, and A.F. Mansor. 2012. Classification-based data mining approach for quality control in wine production. Journal of Applied Sciences 12 (6): 598–601.
Beltran, N.H., M.A. Duarte-MErmound, V.A.S. Vicencio, S.A. Salah, and M.A. Bustos. 2008. Chilean wine classification using volatile organic compounds data obtained with a fast GC analyzer. IEEE Transactions on Instrumentation and Measurement 57: 2421–2436.
Chen, B., C. Rhodes, A. Crawford, and L. Hambuchen. 2014. Wineinformatics: Applying data mining on wine sensory reviews processed by the computational wine wheel. In IEEE international conference on data mining workshop, 142–149, Dec. 2014.
Forina, M., R. Leardi, C. Armanino, and S. Lanteri. 1998. PARVUS an extendible package for data exploration, classification and correla.
Granitto, P.M., C. Furlanello, F. Biasioli, and F. Gasperi. 2006. Recursive feature elimination with random forest for PTR-MS analysis of agroindustrial products. Chemometrics and Intelligent Laboratory Systems 83 (2): 83–90.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recursive_partitioning, Retrieved 19 August 2017.
Vijayarani, S., and M. Divya. 2011. An efficient algorithm for generating classification rules. International Journal of Computer Science and Technology 2 (4).
http://machinelearningmastery.com/non-linear-classification-in-r-with-decision-trees/, Retrieved 19 August 2017.
Breiman, L. 1996. Bagging predictors. Machine Learning 26 (2): 123–140.
Sun, X. 2002. Pitch accent prediction using ensemble machine learning. In Seventh international conference on spoken language processing.
Breiman, L. 2001. Random forests. Machine Learning 45 (1): 5–32.
Ellis, K., J. Kerr, S. Godbole, G. Lanckriet, D. Wing, and S. Marshall. 2014. A random forest classifier for the prediction of energy expenditure and type of physical activity from wrist and hip accelerometers. Physiological Measurement 35 (11): 2191–2203.
Is See5/C5.0 Better Than C4.5?. 2009. (Online). http://www.rulequest.com/see5-comparison.html.
Nilashi, M., O. bin Ibrahim, H. Ahmadi, and L. Shahmoradi. 2017. An analytical method for diseases prediction using machine learning techniques. Computers & Chemical Engineering 10 (6): 212–223.
http://www.dtreg.com Software for Predictive Modelling and Forecasting.
Hsu, C.C., Y.P. Huang, and K.W. Chang. 2008. Extended naive Bayes classifier for mixed data. Expert Systems with Applications 35 (3): 1080–1083.
Wong, H.B., and G.H. Lim. 2011. Measures of diagnostic accuracy: sensitivity, specificity, PPV and NPV. Proceedings of Singapore Healthcare 20 (4): 316–318.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Aich, S., Sain, M., Yoon, JH. (2019). Prediction of Different Types of Wine Using Nonlinear and Probabilistic Classifiers. In: Krishna, A., Srikantaiah, K., Naveena, C. (eds) Integrated Intelligent Computing, Communication and Security. Studies in Computational Intelligence, vol 771. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-8797-4_2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-8797-4_2
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore
Print ISBN: 978-981-10-8796-7
Online ISBN: 978-981-10-8797-4
eBook Packages: Intelligent Technologies and RoboticsIntelligent Technologies and Robotics (R0)