Evaluasi Algoritma Klasifikasi Machine Learning Kategori Nilai Akhir Tunjangan Kinerja Pegawai

  • Ira Dwita Syafitri Tarigan Universitas Logistik dan Bisnis Internasional
  • Roni Habibi
  • Rd. Nuraini Siti Fatonah
Keywords: C4.5 Algorithm, Naive Bayes, Classification, Performance Allowance, Confusion Matrix, K-FOLD Cross Validation, Evaluation

Abstract

Allowance is a gift of appreciation for services in the form of an imbalance in work performance or performance dipsplayes. AT the moment the agency has not used the final value category for employee salary allowances, the program needed to determine the final category of employee benefits with a Machine Learning approach using the C4.5 and Naive Bayes Gaussian algorithms and evaluation of prediction results using Confusion Matrix and K-FOLD Cross Validation. The purpose of this research is to results of classification predictions in the category of using the final salary of employees of Confusion Matrix and K-FOLD Cross Validation. After mining the data, the performance of each algorithm is evaluated determine mining success rate process on the C4.5 and Naive Bayes Gaussian algorithms. Then the result is obtained and the C4.5 algorithms is a better algorithm in determining the category of employee salary allowance values.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

N. Lawrance, G. Petrides, and M. A. Guerry, “Predicting employee absenteeism for cost effective interventions,” Decis. Support Syst., vol. 147, p. 113539, Aug. 2021, doi: 10.1016/J.DSS.2021.113539.

R. A. Karthika and M. Maheswari, “Detection analysis of malicious cyber attacks using machine learning algorithms,” Mater. Today Proc., no. xxxx, 2022, doi: 10.1016/j.matpr.2022.05.510.

D. J. Pedregal, “New algorithms for automatic modelling and forecasting of decision support systems,” Decis. Support Syst., vol. 148, p. 113585, Sep. 2021, doi: 10.1016/J.DSS.2021.113585.

H. J. Kim, T. S. Kim, and S. Y. Sohn, “Recommendation of startups as technology cooperation candidates from the perspectives of similarity and potential: A deep learning approach,” Decis. Support Syst., vol. 130, p. 113229, Mar. 2020, doi: 10.1016/J.DSS.2019.113229.

M. Gupta and R. Mishra, “Network projection-based edge classification framework for signed networks,” Decis. Support Syst., vol. 135, p. 113321, Aug. 2020, doi: 10.1016/J.DSS.2020.113321.

A. Khalemsky and R. Gelbard, “A dynamic classification unit for online segmentation of big data via small data buffers,” Decis. Support Syst., vol. 128, p. 113157, Jan. 2020, doi: 10.1016/J.DSS.2019.113157.

A. R. Panhalkar and D. D. Doye, “Optimization of decision trees using modified African buffalo algorithm,” J. King Saud Univ. - Comput. Inf. Sci., Feb. 2021, doi: 10.1016/J.JKSUCI.2021.01.011.

H. Zhang and L. Jiang, “Fine tuning attribute weighted naive Bayes,” Neurocomputing, vol. 488, pp. 402–411, 2022, doi: 10.1016/j.neucom.2022.03.020.

J. Xu, Y. Zhang, and D. Miao, “Three-way confusion matrix for classification: A measure driven view,” Inf. Sci. (Ny)., vol. 507, pp. 772–794, 2020, doi: 10.1016/j.ins.2019.06.064.

X. Zhang and C. A. Liu, “Model averaging prediction by K-fold cross-validation,” J. Econom., no. xxxx, 2022, doi: 10.1016/j.jeconom.2022.04.007.

C. Jin, F. Li, S. Ma, and Y. Wang, “Sampling scheme-based classification rule mining method using decision tree in big data environment,” Knowledge-Based Syst., vol. 244, p. 108522, 2022, doi: 10.1016/j.knosys.2022.108522.

J. Shanthi, D. G. N. Rani, and S. Rajaram, “A C4.5 decision tree classifier based floorplanning algorithm for System-on-Chip design,” Microelectronics J., vol. 121, no. July 2021, p. 105361, 2022, doi: 10.1016/j.mejo.2022.105361.

B. F. Tanyu, A. Abbaspour, Y. Alimohammadlou, and G. Tecuci, “Landslide susceptibility analyses using Random Forest, C4.5, and C5.0 with balanced and unbalanced datasets,” Catena, vol. 203, no. April, p. 105355, 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.catena.2021.105355.

K. Koc and A. P. Gurgun, “Scenario-based automated data preprocessing to predict severity of construction accidents,” Autom. Constr., vol. 140, p. 104351, Aug. 2022, doi: 10.1016/J.AUTCON.2022.104351.

C. J. Mantas and J. Abellán, “Credal-C4.5: Decision tree based on imprecise probabilities to classify noisy data,” Expert Syst. Appl., vol. 41, no. 10, pp. 4625–4637, Aug. 2014, doi: 10.1016/J.ESWA.2014.01.017.

F. A. Pratama, R. Narasati, and D. R. Amalia, “Pengaruh Kata Cashback Terhadap Peningkatan Penjualan Menggunakan Data Mining,” vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 1–5, 2019.

I. P. Ninditama, I. P. Ninditama, W. Cholil, M. Akbar, and D. Antoni, “Klasifikasi Keluarga Sejahtera Study Kasus : Kecamatan Kota Palembang,” J. TEKNO KOMPAK, vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 37–49, 2020, [Online]. Available: https://ejurnal.teknokrat.ac.id/index.php/teknokompak/article/view/1156

S. O. A. T. S. I. Narulita, “Pengujian Akurasi Model PrediksiMenggunakan Metode Data MiningClassification Decision Tree Algoritma C4.5Untuk Penentuan Peminatan Peserta Didik,” J. Media Apl., vol. 13, pp. 68–82, 2021.

W. He, Y. Wang, M. Zhou, and B. Wang, “A novel parameters correction and multivariable decision tree method for edge computing enabled HGR system,” Neurocomputing, vol. 487, pp. 203–213, 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.neucom.2021.08.147.

F. N. Hasan, N. Hikmah, and D. Y. Utami, “Perbandingan Algoritma C4.5, KNN, dan Naive Bayes untuk Penentuan Model Klasifikasi Penanggung jawab BSI Entrepreneur Center,” J. Pilar Nusa Mandiri, vol. 14, no. 2, p. 169, 2018, doi: 10.33480/pilar.v14i2.908.

Published
2023-12-07
How to Cite
Tarigan, I. D. S., Roni Habibi, & Rd. Nuraini Siti Fatonah. (2023). Evaluasi Algoritma Klasifikasi Machine Learning Kategori Nilai Akhir Tunjangan Kinerja Pegawai. Jurnal Sistem Cerdas, 6(3), 251 - 261. https://doi.org/10.37396/jsc.v6i3.246
Section
Articles