Performance Comparison of Supervised Learning Using Non-Neural Network and Neural Network

Djarot Hindarto; Handri Santoso

doi:10.23887/janapati.v11i1.40768

Authors

Djarot Hindarto Pradita University http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7501-2610
Handri Santoso Universitas Pradita

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.23887/janapati.v11i1.40768

Keywords:

Multi-Layer Perceptron Classifier, Non Neural Network, Support Vector Machine, Decision Tree, Artificial Neural Network

Abstract

Currently, the development of mobile phones and mobile applications based on the Android operating system is increasing rapidly. Many new companies and startups are digitally transforming by using mobile apps to provide disruptive digital services to replace existing old-fashioned services. This transformation prompted attackers to create malicious software (malware) using sophisticated methods to target victims of Android phone users. The purpose of this study is to identify Android APK files by classifying them using Artificial Neural Network (ANN) and Non-Neural Network (NNN). ANN is a Multi-Layer Perceptron Classifier (MLPC), while NNN is a method of KNN, SVM, Decision Tree. This study aims to make a comparison between the performance of the Non-Neural Network and the Neural Network. Problems that occur when classifying using the Non-Neural Network algorithm have problems with decreasing performance, where performance is often decreased if done with a larger dataset. Answering the problem of decreasing model performance, the solution is used with the Artificial Neural Network algorithm. The Artificial Neural Network Algorithm selected is Multi_layer Perceptron Classifier (MLPC). Using the Non-Neural Network algorithm, K-Nearest Neighbor conducts training with the 600 APK dataset achieving 91.2% accuracy and training using the 14170 APK dataset decreases its accuracy to 88%. The use of the Support Vector Machine algorithm with the 600 APK dataset has 99.1% accuracy and the 14170 APK dataset has decreased accuracy to 90.5%. The use of the Decision Tree algorithm to conduct training with a dataset of 600 APKs has an accuracy of 99.2% and training with a dataset of 14170 APKs has decreased accuracy to 90.8%. Experiments using the Multi-Layer Perceptron Classifier have increased accuracy performance with the 600 APK dataset achieving 99% accuracy and training using the 14170 APK dataset increasing the accuracy reaching 100%.

References

A. Ghasempour, N. Fazlida, M. Sani, and O. J. Abari, “Permission Extraction Framework for Android Malware Detection,” vol. 11, no. 11, pp. 463–475, 2020.

G. Shrivastava and P. Kumar, “Android application behavioural analysis for data leakage,” Expert Syst., vol. 38, no. 1, pp. 1–12, 2021, doi: 10.1111/exsy.12468.

S. R. T. Mat, M. F. A. Razak, M. N. M. Kahar, J. M. Arif, and A. Firdaus, “A Bayesian probability model for Android malware detection,” ICT Express, no. xxxx, 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.icte.2021.09.003.

A. Feizollah, N. B. Anuar, R. Salleh, G. Suarez-Tangil, and S. Furnell, “AndroDialysis: Analysis of Android Intent Effectiveness in Malware Detection,” Comput. Secur., vol. 65, pp. 121–134, 2017, doi: 10.1016/j.cose.2016.11.007.

S. Arshad, R. Chaudhary, M. Ali, N. Hafeez, and M. Kamran, “InstDroid: A Light Weight Instant Malware Detector for Android Operating Systems,” Int. J. Adv. Comput. Sci. Appl., vol. 8, no. 8, pp. 168–175, 2017, doi: 10.14569/ijacsa.2017.080822.

S. I. Imtiaz, S. ur Rehman, A. R. Javed, Z. Jalil, X. Liu, and W. S. Alnumay, “DeepAMD: Detection and identification of Android malware using high-efficient Deep Artificial Neural Network,” Futur. Gener. Comput. Syst., vol. 115, pp. 844–856, 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.future.2020.10.008.

B. Turkoglu and E. Kaya, “Training multi-layer perceptron with artificial algae algorithm,” Eng. Sci. Technol. an Int. J., vol. 23, no. 6, pp. 1342–1350, 2020, doi: 10.1016/j.jestch.2020.07.001.

G. Valente, A. L. Castellanos, L. Hausfeld, F. De Martino, and E. Formisano, “Cross-validation and permutations in MVPA: Validity of permutation strategies and power of cross-validation schemes,” Neuroimage, vol. 238, no. March, p. 118145, 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2021.118145.

A. Abusitta, M. Q. Li, and B. C. M. Fung, “Malware classification and composition analysis: A survey of recent developments,” J. Inf. Secur. Appl., vol. 59, no. April, p. 102828, 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.jisa.2021.102828.

V. Syrris and D. Geneiatakis, “On machine learning effectiveness for malware detection in Android OS using static analysis data,” J. Inf. Secur. Appl., vol. 59, no. May, p. 102794, 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.jisa.2021.102794.

P. Opěla, I. Schindler, P. Kawulok, R. Kawulok, S. Rusz, and H. Navrátil, “On various multi-layer perceptron and radial basis function based artificial neural networks in the process of a hot flow curve description,” J. Mater. Res. Technol., vol. 14, pp. 1837–1847, 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.jmrt.2021.07.100.

M. Amin, T. A. Tanveer, M. Tehseen, M. . Khan, F. A. Khan, and S. Anwar, “Static malware detection and attribution in android byte-code through an end-to-end deep system,” Futur. Gener. Comput. Syst., vol. 102, pp. 112–126, 2020, doi: 10.1016/j.future.2019.07.070.

R. M. Arias Velásquez, “Support vector machine and tree models for oil and Kraft degradation in power transformers,” Eng. Fail. Anal., vol. 127, no. May, 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.engfailanal.2021.105488.

X. Ju, Y. Tian, D. Liu, and Z. Qi, “Nonparallel hyperplanes support vector machine for multi-class classification,” Procedia Comput. Sci., vol. 51, no. 1, pp. 1574–1582, 2015, doi: 10.1016/j.procs.2015.05.287.

Q. Zhang, H. Wang, and S. W. Yoon, “A 1-norm regularized linear programming nonparallel hyperplane support vector machine for binary classification problems,” Neurocomputing, vol. 376, no. xxxx, pp. 141–152, 2020, doi: 10.1016/j.neucom.2019.09.068.

Z. Zhao, P. Zhong, and Y. Zhao, “Learning SVM with weighted maximum margin criterion for classification of imbalanced data,” Math. Comput. Model., vol. 54, no. 3–4, pp. 1093–1099, 2011, doi: 10.1016/j.mcm.2010.11.040.

J. Mariéthoz and S. Bengio, “A kernel trick for sequences applied to text-independent speaker verification systems,” Pattern Recognit., vol. 40, no. 8, pp. 2315–2324, 2007, doi: 10.1016/j.patcog.2007.01.011.

X. Huang, A. Maier, J. Hornegger, and J. A. K. Suykens, “Indefinite kernels in least squares support vector machines and principal component analysis,” Appl. Comput. Harmon. Anal., vol. 43, no. 1, pp. 162–172, 2017, doi: 10.1016/j.acha.2016.09.001.

V. Gumuskaya, W. van Jaarsveld, R. Dijkman, P. Grefen, and A. Veenstra, “Integrating stochastic programs and decision trees in capacitated barge planning with uncertain container arrivals,” Transp. Res. Part C Emerg. Technol., vol. 132, no. December 2020, p. 103383, 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.trc.2021.103383.

A. Strzelecka and D. Zawadzka, “Application of classification and regression tree (CRT) analysis to identify the agricultural households at risk of financial exclusion,” Procedia Comput. Sci., vol. 192, pp. 4532–4541, 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.procs.2021.09.231.

D. H. Lee, S. H. Kim, and K. J. Kim, “Multistage MR-CART: Multiresponse optimization in a multistage process using a classification and regression tree method,” Comput. Ind. Eng., vol. 159, no. May, p. 107513, 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.cie.2021.107513.

M. Li, P. Vanberkel, and X. Zhong, “Predicting ambulance offload delay using a hybrid decision tree model,” Socioecon. Plann. Sci., no. July, p. 101146, 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.seps.2021.101146.

W. Gao, Z. Bai, F. Zhu, C. C. Chou, and B. Jiang, “A study on the cyclist head kinematic responses in electric-bicycle-to-car accidents using decision-tree model,” Accid. Anal. Prev., vol. 160, no. May 2020, p. 106305, 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.aap.2021.106305.

D. Prieto-González, I. Castilla-Rodríguez, E. González, and M. L. Couce, “Automated generation of decision-tree models for the economic assessment of interventions for rare diseases using the RaDiOS ontology,” J. Biomed. Inform., vol. 110, no. May, p. 103563, 2020, doi: 10.1016/j.jbi.2020.103563.

N. Tathawadekar, N. A. K. Doan, C. F. Silva, and N. Thuerey, “Modeling of the nonlinear flame response of a Bunsen-type flame via multi-layer perceptron,” Proc. Combust. Inst., vol. 38, no. 4, pp. 6513–6520, 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.proci.2020.07.115.

I. Lorencin, N. Anđelić, J. Španjol, and Z. Car, “Using multi-layer perceptron with Laplacian edge detector for bladder cancer diagnosis,” Artif. Intell. Med., vol. 102, no. May 2019, 2020, doi: 10.1016/j.artmed.2019.101746.

R. R. Sanni and H. S. Guruprasad, “Analysis of Performance Metrics of Heart Failured Patients using Python and Machine Learning Algorithms,” Glob. Transitions Proc., pp. 0–8, 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.gltp.2021.08.028.

G. Parmigiani, “Receiver operating characteristic curves with an indeterminacy zone,” Pattern Recognit. Lett., vol. 136, pp. 94–100, 2020, doi: 10.1016/j.patrec.2020.04.035.

V. Giglioni, E. García-Macías, I. Venanzi, L. Ierimonti, and F. Ubertini, “The use of receiver operating characteristic curves and precision-versus-recall curves as performance metrics in unsupervised structural damage classification under changing environment,” Eng. Struct., vol. 246, no. July, 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.engstruct.2021.113029.