## 3 Experimental Results
### Experimental Results
#### 3.3.1 Experiments with the Parameter \(N_{l}\)
Figure 11: Average execution time for the original method and the modified one. The time was measured for different values of the parameter \(N_{I}\). The execution times were recorded for the regression problems. Figure 10: Average execution time for the original method and the modified one. The time was recorded for different values of the parameter \(N_{I}\) and for the classification datasets. Figure 9: Statistical comparison of the experiment with the current work and a variety of values for parameter \(N_{I}\). The method was applied on the classification datasets. Once again, there are no significant differences in the performance of the proposed technique as the critical factor \(F\) varies. In the case of the classification data, however, there is a small increase in the classification error as this factor increases, which may be due to the fact that as we move away from the solution created by the method of creating neural networks, the performance of the method decreases. Also, the box plot for the classification datasets is depicted in Figure 12. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline
**DATASET** & \begin{tabular}{c} **INNC** \\ **(\(F=1.5\))** \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} **INNC** \\ **(\(F=2.0\))** \\ \end{tabular} & \
\begin{tabular}{c} **INNC** \\ **(\(F=4.0\))** \\ \end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}{c} **INNC** \\ **(\(F=8.0\))** \\ \end{tabular} \\ \hline APPENDICITS & 14.80\% & **14.20\%** & 14.70\% & 15.00\% \\ \hline AUSTRALIAN & 14.58\% & 14.56\% & 14.80\% & **14.54\%** \\ \hline BALANCE & **8.52\%** & 8.68\% & 8.66\% & 9.35\% \\ \hline CIRCULAR & 5.92\% & 5.46\% & **5.32\%** & 5.43\% \\ \hline CLEVELAND & 48.35\% & **47.38\%** & 47.93\% & 49.62\% \\ \hline DERMATOLOGY & **19.80\%** & 20.09\% & 20.89\% & 21.66\% \\ \hline ECOLI & **47.76\%** & 48.30\% & 48.21\% & 48.42\% \\ \hline FERT & 21.20\% & 21.20\% & **20.50\%** & 20.90\% \\ \hline HABERMAN & 26.43\% & **25.93\%** & 26.70\% & 26.70\% \\ \hline HAYES-ROTH & 32.15\% & **31.31\%** & 31.77\% & 35.69\% \\ \hline HEART & 14.81\% & 15.41\% & **14.74\%** & 15.41\% \\ \hline HEARTATTACK & 21.20\% & **19.90\%** & 20.43\% & 20.40\% \\ \hline HOUSEVOTES & 3.35\% & 3.65\% & **3.26\%** & 3.65\% \\ \hline IONOSPHERE & 11.31\% & **10.40\%** & 11.92\% & 11.23\% \\ \hline LIVERDISORDER & 32.09\% & **31.21\%** & 31.77\% & 33.18\% \\ \hline MAMMOGRAPHIC & 16.15\% & 16.05\% & **15.81\%** & 16.07\% \\ \hline PARKINSONS & 12.63\% & **12.47\%** & 12.53\% & 13.05\% \\ \hline PIMA & **23.58\%** & 23.80\% & 24.00\% & 23.79\% \\ \hline POPFAILURES & **5.85\%** & 6.29\% & 6.44\% & 6.04\% \\ \hline REGIONS2 & 24.08\% & 23.48\% & **23.18\%** & 25.25\% \\ \hline SAHEART & 28.41\% & 28.83\% & **28.09\%** & 28.30\% \\ \hline SEGMENT & 45.12\% & 43.37\% & **43.12\%** & 43.93\% \\ \hline SPIRAL & **43.40\%** & 43.72\% & 43.99\% & 44.61\% \\ \hline STUDENT & 4.25\% & **4.15\%** & 4.55\% & 4.52\% \\ \hline TRANSFUSION & 23.09\% & **22.93\%** & 23.43\% & 23.05\% \\ \hline WDBC & 5.27\% & 5.30\% & **4.41\%** & 4.84\% \\ \hline WINE & 10.53\% & 10.24\% & **9.77\%** & 11.59\% \\ \hline Z\_F\_S & 9.20\% & **7.57\%** & 8.53\% & 8.63\% \\ \hline Z\_O\_N\_F\_S & 40.60\% & 38.70\% & **38.58\%** & 39.78\% \\ \hline ZO\_NF\_S & 6.90\% & 7.68\% & 6.84\% & **6.56\%** \\ \hline ZONF\_S & 2.64\% & 2.72\% & **2.52\%** & 2.88\% \\ \hline ZOO & 8.60\% & 7.40\% & **7.20\%** & 8.90\% \\ \hline
**AVERAGE** & **19.77\%** & **19.45\%** & **19.52\%** & **20.09\%** \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 8: Experimental results with a variety of values for the parameter \(F\) with application on the classification datasets. The bold notation marks the method with the lowest test error. Figure 12: Box plot for the experiments using the current work and different values of the parameter \(F\). The experiments were conducted on the classification datasets.