Impact of sample size on optimisation algorithms for the MLP used in the prediction of client subscription to a term deposit

Impact of sample size on optimisation algorithms... | F1000Research "use strict";function _typeof(t){return(_typeof="function"==typeof Symbol&&"symbol"==typeof Symbol.iterator?function(t){return typeof t}:function(t){return t&&"function"==typeof Symbol&&t.constructor===Symbol&&t!==Symbol.prototype?"symbol":typeof t})(t)}!function(){var t=function(){var t,e,o=[],n=window,r=n;for(;r;){try{if(r.frames.__tcfapiLocator){t=r;break}}catch(t){}if(r===n.top)break;r=r.parent}t||(!function t(){var e=n.document,o=!!n.frames.__tcfapiLocator;if(!o)if(e.body){var r=e.createElement("iframe");r.style.cssText="display:none",r.name="__tcfapiLocator",e.body.appendChild(r)}else setTimeout(t,5);return!o}(),n.__tcfapi=function(){for(var t=arguments.length,n=new Array(t),r=0;r 3&&2===parseInt(n[1],10)&&"boolean"==typeof n[3]&&(e=n[3],"function"==typeof n[2]&&n[2]("set",!0)):"ping"===n[0]?"function"==typeof n[2]&&n[2]({gdprApplies:e,cmpLoaded:!1,cmpStatus:"stub"}):o.push(n)},n.addEventListener("message",(function(t){var e="string"==typeof t.data,o={};if(e)try{o=JSON.parse(t.data)}catch(t){}else o=t.data;var n="object"===_typeof(o)&&null!==o?o.__tcfapiCall:null;n&&window.__tcfapi(n.command,n.version,(function(o,r){var a={__tcfapiReturn:{returnValue:o,success:r,callId:n.callId}};t&&t.source&&t.source.postMessage&&t.source.postMessage(e?JSON.stringify(a):a,"*")}),n.parameter)}),!1))};"undefined"!=typeof module?module.exports=t:t()}(); dataLayer = dataLayer || []; // Standard GTM initialization - Google Consent Mode handles consent automatically (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start': new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0], j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src= 'https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl+ '>m_auth=hzk0Vc3qFsQYhCrIoHz68A>m_preview=env-1>m_cookies_win=x';f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f); })(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-MWFK8L5J'); ;window.NREUM||(NREUM={});NREUM.init={distributed_tracing:{enabled:true},privacy:{cookies_enabled:true},ajax:{deny_list:["bam.nr-data.net"]}}; ;NREUM.loader_config={accountID:"438030",trustKey:"438030",agentID:"772317073",licenseKey:"97f8f67f26",applicationID:"772317073"} ;NREUM.info={beacon:"bam.nr-data.net",errorBeacon:"bam.nr-data.net",licenseKey:"97f8f67f26",applicationID:"772317073",sa:1} ;/*! For license information please see nr-loader-spa-1.236.0.min.js.LICENSE.txt */ (()=>{"use strict";var e,t,r={5763:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{P_:()=>l,Mt:()=>g,C5:()=>s,DL:()=>v,OP:()=>T,lF:()=>D,Yu:()=>y,Dg:()=>h,CX:()=>c,GE:()=>b,sU:()=>_});var n=r(8632),i=r(9567);const o={beacon:n.ce.beacon,errorBeacon:n.ce.errorBeacon,licenseKey:void 0,applicationID:void 0,sa:void 0,queueTime:void 0,applicationTime:void 0,ttGuid:void 0,user:void 0,account:void 0,product:void 0,extra:void 0,jsAttributes:{},userAttributes:void 0,atts:void 0,transactionName:void 0,tNamePlain:void 0},a={};function s(e){if(!e)throw new Error("All info objects require an agent identifier!");if(!a[e])throw new Error("Info for ".concat(e," was never set"));return a[e]}function c(e,t){if(!e)throw new Error("All info objects require an agent identifier!");a[e]=(0,i.D)(t,o),(0,n.Qy)(e,a[e],"info")}var u=r(7056);const d=()=>{const e={blockSelector:"[data-nr-block]",maskInputOptions:{password:!0}};return{allow_bfcache:!0,privacy:{cookies_enabled:!0},ajax:{deny_list:void 0,enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:10},distributed_tracing:{enabled:void 0,exclude_newrelic_header:void 0,cors_use_newrelic_header:void 0,cors_use_tracecontext_headers:void 0,allowed_origins:void 0},session:{domain:void 0,expiresMs:u.oD,inactiveMs:u.Hb},ssl:void 0,obfuscate:void 0,jserrors:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:10},metrics:{enabled:!0},page_action:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:30},page_view_event:{enabled:!0},page_view_timing:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:30,long_task:!1},session_trace:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:10},harvest:{tooManyRequestsDelay:60},session_replay:{enabled:!1,harvestTimeSeconds:60,sampleRate:.1,errorSampleRate:.1,maskTextSelector:"*",maskAllInputs:!0,get blockClass(){return"nr-block"},get ignoreClass(){return"nr-ignore"},get maskTextClass(){return"nr-mask"},get blockSelector(){return e.blockSelector},set blockSelector(t){e.blockSelector+=",".concat(t)},get maskInputOptions(){return e.maskInputOptions},set maskInputOptions(t){e.maskInputOptions={...t,password:!0}}},spa:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:10}}},f={};function l(e){if(!e)throw new Error("All configuration objects require an agent identifier!");if(!f[e])throw new Error("Configuration for ".concat(e," was never set"));return f[e]}function h(e,t){if(!e)throw new Error("All configuration objects require an agent identifier!");f[e]=(0,i.D)(t,d()),(0,n.Qy)(e,f[e],"config")}function g(e,t){if(!e)throw new Error("All configuration objects require an agent identifier!");var r=l(e);if(r){for(var n=t.split("."),i=0;i {r.d(t,{D:()=>i});var n=r(50);function i(e,t){try{if(!e||"object"!=typeof e)return(0,n.Z)("Setting a Configurable requires an object as input");if(!t||"object"!=typeof t)return(0,n.Z)("Setting a Configurable requires a model to set its initial properties");const r=Object.create(Object.getPrototypeOf(t),Object.getOwnPropertyDescriptors(t)),o=0===Object.keys(r).length?e:r;for(let a in o)if(void 0!==e[a])try{"object"==typeof e[a]&&"object"==typeof t[a]?r[a]=i(e[a],t[a]):r[a]=e[a]}catch(e){(0,n.Z)("An error occurred while setting a property of a Configurable",e)}return r}catch(e){(0,n.Z)("An error occured while setting a Configurable",e)}}},6818:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{Re:()=>i,gF:()=>o,q4:()=>n});const n="1.236.0",i="PROD",o="CDN"},385:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{FN:()=>a,IF:()=>u,Nk:()=>f,Tt:()=>s,_A:()=>o,il:()=>n,pL:()=>c,v6:()=>i,w1:()=>d});const n="undefined"!=typeof window&&!!window.document,i="undefined"!=typeof WorkerGlobalScope&&("undefined"!=typeof self&&self instanceof WorkerGlobalScope&&self.navigator instanceof WorkerNavigator||"undefined"!=typeof globalThis&&globalThis instanceof WorkerGlobalScope&&globalThis.navigator instanceof WorkerNavigator),o=n?window:"undefined"!=typeof WorkerGlobalScope&&("undefined"!=typeof self&&self instanceof WorkerGlobalScope&&self||"undefined"!=typeof globalThis&&globalThis instanceof WorkerGlobalScope&&globalThis),a=""+o?.location,s=/iPad|iPhone|iPod/.test(navigator.userAgent),c=s&&"undefined"==typeof SharedWorker,u=(()=>{const e=navigator.userAgent.match(/Firefox[/\s](\d+\.\d+)/);return Array.isArray(e)&&e.length>=2?+e[1]:0})(),d=Boolean(n&&window.document.documentMode),f=!!navigator.sendBeacon},1117:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{w:()=>o});var n=r(50);const i={agentIdentifier:"",ee:void 0};class o{constructor(e){try{if("object"!=typeof e)return(0,n.Z)("shared context requires an object as input");this.sharedContext={},Object.assign(this.sharedContext,i),Object.entries(e).forEach((e=>{let[t,r]=e;Object.keys(i).includes(t)&&(this.sharedContext[t]=r)}))}catch(e){(0,n.Z)("An error occured while setting SharedContext",e)}}}},8e3:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{L:()=>d,R:()=>c});var n=r(2177),i=r(1284),o=r(4322),a=r(3325);const s={};function c(e,t){const r={staged:!1,priority:a.p[t]||0};u(e),s[e].get(t)||s[e].set(t,r)}function u(e){e&&(s[e]||(s[e]=new Map))}function d(){let e=arguments.length>0&&void 0!==arguments[0]?arguments[0]:"",t=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]?arguments[1]:"feature";if(u(e),!e||!s[e].get(t))return a(t);s[e].get(t).staged=!0;const r=[...s[e]];function a(t){const r=e?n.ee.get(e):n.ee,a=o.X.handlers;if(r.backlog&&a){var s=r.backlog[t],c=a[t];if(c){for(var u=0;s&&u {let[t,r]=e;return r.staged}))&&(r.sort(((e,t)=>e[1].priority-t[1].priority)),r.forEach((e=>{let[t]=e;a(t)})))}function f(e,t){var r=e[1];(0,i.D)(t[r],(function(t,r){var n=e[0];if(r[0]===n){var i=r[1],o=e[3],a=e[2];i.apply(o,a)}}))}},2177:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{c:()=>f,ee:()=>u});var n=r(8632),i=r(2210),o=r(1284),a=r(5763),s="nr@context";let c=(0,n.fP)();var u;function d(){}function f(e){return(0,i.X)(e,s,l)}function l(){return new d}function h(){u.aborted=!0,u.backlog={}}c.ee?u=c.ee:(u=function e(t,r){var n={},c={},f={},g=!1;try{g=16===r.length&&(0,a.OP)(r).isolatedBacklog}catch(e){}var p={on:b,addEventListener:b,removeEventListener:y,emit:v,get:x,listeners:w,context:m,buffer:A,abort:h,aborted:!1,isBuffering:E,debugId:r,backlog:g?{}:t&&"object"==typeof t.backlog?t.backlog:{}};return p;function m(e){return e&&e instanceof d?e:e?(0,i.X)(e,s,l):l()}function v(e,r,n,i,o){if(!1!==o&&(o=!0),!u.aborted||i){t&&o&&t.emit(e,r,n);for(var a=m(n),s=w(e),d=s.length,f=0;fn,p:()=>i});var n=r(2177).ee.get("handle");function i(e,t,r,i,o){o?(o.buffer([e],i),o.emit(e,t,r)):(n.buffer([e],i),n.emit(e,t,r))}},4322:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{X:()=>o});var n=r(5546);o.on=a;var i=o.handlers={};function o(e,t,r,o){a(o||n.E,i,e,t,r)}function a(e,t,r,i,o){o||(o="feature"),e||(e=n.E);var a=t[o]=t[o]||{};(a[r]=a[r]||[]).push([e,i])}},3239:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{bP:()=>s,iz:()=>c,m$:()=>a});var n=r(385);let i=!1,o=!1;try{const e={get passive(){return i=!0,!1},get signal(){return o=!0,!1}};n._A.addEventListener("test",null,e),n._A.removeEventListener("test",null,e)}catch(e){}function a(e,t){return i||o?{capture:!!e,passive:i,signal:t}:!!e}function s(e,t){let r=arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2]&&arguments[2],n=arguments.length>3?arguments[3]:void 0;window.addEventListener(e,t,a(r,n))}function c(e,t){let r=arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2]&&arguments[2],n=arguments.length>3?arguments[3]:void 0;document.addEventListener(e,t,a(r,n))}},4402:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{Ht:()=>u,M:()=>c,Rl:()=>a,ky:()=>s});var n=r(385);const i="xxxxxxxx-xxxx-4xxx-yxxx-xxxxxxxxxxxx";function o(e,t){return e?15&e[t]:16*Math.random()|0}function a(){const e=n._A?.crypto||n._A?.msCrypto;let t,r=0;return e&&e.getRandomValues&&(t=e.getRandomValues(new Uint8Array(31))),i.split("").map((e=>"x"===e?o(t,++r).toString(16):"y"===e?(3&o()|8).toString(16):e)).join("")}function s(e){const t=n._A?.crypto||n._A?.msCrypto;let r,i=0;t&&t.getRandomValues&&(r=t.getRandomValues(new Uint8Array(31)));const a=[];for(var s=0;s {r.d(t,{Bq:()=>n,Hb:()=>o,oD:()=>i});const n="NRBA",i=144e5,o=18e5},7894:(e,t,r)=>{function n(){return Math.round(performance.now())}r.d(t,{z:()=>n})},7243:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{e:()=>o});var n=r(385),i={};function o(e){if(e in i)return i[e];if(0===(e||"").indexOf("data:"))return{protocol:"data"};let t;var r=n._A?.location,o={};if(n.il)t=document.createElement("a"),t.href=e;else try{t=new URL(e,r.href)}catch(e){return o}o.port=t.port;var a=t.href.split("://");!o.port&&a[1]&&(o.port=a[1].split("/")[0].split("@").pop().split(":")[1]),o.port&&"0"!==o.port||(o.port="https"===a[0]?"443":"80"),o.hostname=t.hostname||r.hostname,o.pathname=t.pathname,o.protocol=a[0],"/"!==o.pathname.charAt(0)&&(o.pathname="/"+o.pathname);var s=!t.protocol||":"===t.protocol||t.protocol===r.protocol,c=t.hostname===r.hostname&&t.port===r.port;return o.sameOrigin=s&&(!t.hostname||c),"/"===o.pathname&&(i[e]=o),o}},50:(e,t,r)=>{function n(e,t){"function"==typeof console.warn&&(console.warn("New Relic: ".concat(e)),t&&console.warn(t))}r.d(t,{Z:()=>n})},2587:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{N:()=>c,T:()=>u});var n=r(2177),i=r(5546),o=r(8e3),a=r(3325);const s={stn:[a.D.sessionTrace],err:[a.D.jserrors,a.D.metrics],ins:[a.D.pageAction],spa:[a.D.spa],sr:[a.D.sessionReplay,a.D.sessionTrace]};function c(e,t){const r=n.ee.get(t);e&&"object"==typeof e&&(Object.entries(e).forEach((e=>{let[t,n]=e;void 0===u[t]&&(s[t]?s[t].forEach((e=>{n?(0,i.p)("feat-"+t,[],void 0,e,r):(0,i.p)("block-"+t,[],void 0,e,r),(0,i.p)("rumresp-"+t,[Boolean(n)],void 0,e,r)})):n&&(0,i.p)("feat-"+t,[],void 0,void 0,r),u[t]=Boolean(n))})),Object.keys(s).forEach((e=>{void 0===u[e]&&(s[e]?.forEach((t=>(0,i.p)("rumresp-"+e,[!1],void 0,t,r))),u[e]=!1)})),(0,o.L)(t,a.D.pageViewEvent))}const u={}},2210:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{X:()=>i});var n=Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty;function i(e,t,r){if(n.call(e,t))return e[t];var i=r();if(Object.defineProperty&&Object.keys)try{return Object.defineProperty(e,t,{value:i,writable:!0,enumerable:!1}),i}catch(e){}return e[t]=i,i}},1284:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{D:()=>n});const n=(e,t)=>Object.entries(e||{}).map((e=>{let[r,n]=e;return t(r,n)}))},4351:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{P:()=>o});var n=r(2177);const i=()=>{const e=new WeakSet;return(t,r)=>{if("object"==typeof r&&null!==r){if(e.has(r))return;e.add(r)}return r}};function o(e){try{return JSON.stringify(e,i())}catch(e){try{n.ee.emit("internal-error",[e])}catch(e){}}}},3960:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{K:()=>a,b:()=>o});var n=r(3239);function i(){return"undefined"==typeof document||"complete"===document.readyState}function o(e,t){if(i())return e();(0,n.bP)("load",e,t)}function a(e){if(i())return e();(0,n.iz)("DOMContentLoaded",e)}},8632:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{EZ:()=>u,Qy:()=>c,ce:()=>o,fP:()=>a,gG:()=>d,mF:()=>s});var n=r(7894),i=r(385);const o={beacon:"bam.nr-data.net",errorBeacon:"bam.nr-data.net"};function a(){return i._A.NREUM||(i._A.NREUM={}),void 0===i._A.newrelic&&(i._A.newrelic=i._A.NREUM),i._A.NREUM}function s(){let e=a();return e.o||(e.o={ST:i._A.setTimeout,SI:i._A.setImmediate,CT:i._A.clearTimeout,XHR:i._A.XMLHttpRequest,REQ:i._A.Request,EV:i._A.Event,PR:i._A.Promise,MO:i._A.MutationObserver,FETCH:i._A.fetch}),e}function c(e,t,r){let i=a();const o=i.initializedAgents||{},s=o[e]||{};return Object.keys(s).length||(s.initializedAt={ms:(0,n.z)(),date:new Date}),i.initializedAgents={...o,[e]:{...s,[r]:t}},i}function u(e,t){a()[e]=t}function d(){return function(){let e=a();const t=e.info||{};e.info={beacon:o.beacon,errorBeacon:o.errorBeacon,...t}}(),function(){let e=a();const t=e.init||{};e.init={...t}}(),s(),function(){let e=a();const t=e.loader_config||{};e.loader_config={...t}}(),a()}},7956:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{N:()=>i});var n=r(3239);function i(e){let t=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]&&arguments[1],r=arguments.length>2?arguments[2]:void 0,i=arguments.length>3?arguments[3]:void 0;return void(0,n.iz)("visibilitychange",(function(){if(t)return void("hidden"==document.visibilityState&&e());e(document.visibilityState)}),r,i)}},1214:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{em:()=>v,u5:()=>N,QU:()=>S,_L:()=>I,Gm:()=>L,Lg:()=>M,gy:()=>U,BV:()=>Q,Kf:()=>ee});var n=r(2177);const i="nr@original";var o=Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty,a=!1;function s(e,t){return e||(e=n.ee),r.inPlace=function(e,t,n,i,o){n||(n="");var a,s,c,u="-"===n.charAt(0);for(c=0;c 2?n-2:0),o=2;o {r(A[T],e,w),r(E[T],e,w)})),r(l._A,"fetch",y),t.on(y+"end",(function(e,r){var n=this;if(r){var i=r.headers.get("content-length");null!==i&&(n.rxSize=i),t.emit(y+"done",[null,r],n)}else t.emit(y+"done",[e],n)})),t}const O={},j=["pushState","replaceState"];function S(e){const t=function(e){return(e||n.ee).get("history")}(e);return!l.il||O[t.debugId]++||(O[t.debugId]=1,s(t).inPlace(window.history,j,"-")),t}var P=r(3239);const C={},R=["appendChild","insertBefore","replaceChild"];function I(e){const t=function(e){return(e||n.ee).get("jsonp")}(e);if(!l.il||C[t.debugId])return t;C[t.debugId]=!0;var r=s(t),i=/[?&](?:callback|cb)=([^&#]+)/,o=/(.*)\.([^.]+)/,a=/^(\w+)(\.|$)(.*)$/;function c(e,t){var r=e.match(a),n=r[1],i=r[3];return i?c(i,t[n]):t[n]}return r.inPlace(Node.prototype,R,"dom-"),t.on("dom-start",(function(e){!function(e){if(!e||"string"!=typeof e.nodeName||"script"!==e.nodeName.toLowerCase())return;if("function"!=typeof e.addEventListener)return;var n=(a=e.src,s=a.match(i),s?s[1]:null);var a,s;if(!n)return;var u=function(e){var t=e.match(o);if(t&&t.length>=3)return{key:t[2],parent:c(t[1],window)};return{key:e,parent:window}}(n);if("function"!=typeof u.parent[u.key])return;var d={};function f(){t.emit("jsonp-end",[],d),e.removeEventListener("load",f,(0,P.m$)(!1)),e.removeEventListener("error",l,(0,P.m$)(!1))}function l(){t.emit("jsonp-error",[],d),t.emit("jsonp-end",[],d),e.removeEventListener("load",f,(0,P.m$)(!1)),e.removeEventListener("error",l,(0,P.m$)(!1))}r.inPlace(u.parent,[u.key],"cb-",d),e.addEventListener("load",f,(0,P.m$)(!1)),e.addEventListener("error",l,(0,P.m$)(!1)),t.emit("new-jsonp",[e.src],d)}(e[0])})),t}var k=r(5763);const H={};function L(e){const t=function(e){return(e||n.ee).get("mutation")}(e);if(!l.il||H[t.debugId])return t;H[t.debugId]=!0;var r=s(t),i=k.Yu.MO;return i&&(window.MutationObserver=function(e){return this instanceof i?new i(r(e,"fn-")):i.apply(this,arguments)},MutationObserver.prototype=i.prototype),t}const z={};function M(e){const t=function(e){return(e||n.ee).get("promise")}(e);if(z[t.debugId])return t;z[t.debugId]=!0;var r=n.c,o=s(t),a=k.Yu.PR;return a&&function(){function e(r){var n=t.context(),i=o(r,"executor-",n,null,!1);const s=Reflect.construct(a,[i],e);return t.context(s).getCtx=function(){return n},s}l._A.Promise=e,Object.defineProperty(e,"name",{value:"Promise"}),e.toString=function(){return a.toString()},Object.setPrototypeOf(e,a),["all","race"].forEach((function(r){const n=a[r];e[r]=function(e){let i=!1;[...e||[]].forEach((e=>{this.resolve(e).then(a("all"===r),a(!1))}));const o=n.apply(this,arguments);return o;function a(e){return function(){t.emit("propagate",[null,!i],o,!1,!1),i=i||!e}}}})),["resolve","reject"].forEach((function(r){const n=a[r];e[r]=function(e){const r=n.apply(this,arguments);return e!==r&&t.emit("propagate",[e,!0],r,!1,!1),r}})),e.prototype=a.prototype;const n=a.prototype.then;a.prototype.then=function(){var e=this,i=r(e);i.promise=e;for(var a=arguments.length,s=new Array(a),c=0;c e())),t};function m(e,t){i.inPlace(t,["onreadystatechange"],"fn-",E)}function b(){var e=this,t=r.context(e);e.readyState>3&&!t.resolved&&(t.resolved=!0,r.emit("xhr-resolved",[],e)),i.inPlace(e,f,"fn-",E)}if(function(e,t){for(var r in e)t[r]=e[r]}(o,p),p.prototype=o.prototype,i.inPlace(p.prototype,J,"-xhr-",E),r.on("send-xhr-start",(function(e,t){m(e,t),function(e){h.push(e),a&&(y?y.then(A):u?u(A):(w=-w,x.data=w))}(t)})),r.on("open-xhr-start",m),a){var y=c&&c.resolve();if(!u&&!c){var w=1,x=document.createTextNode(w);new a(A).observe(x,{characterData:!0})}}else t.on("fn-end",(function(e){e[0]&&e[0].type===d||A()}));function A(){for(var e=0;e {r.d(t,{t:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.ajax},6660:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{A:()=>i,t:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.jserrors,i="nr@seenError"},3081:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{gF:()=>o,mY:()=>i,t9:()=>n,vz:()=>s,xS:()=>a});const n=r(3325).D.metrics,i="sm",o="cm",a="storeSupportabilityMetrics",s="storeEventMetrics"},4649:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{t:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.pageAction},7633:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{Dz:()=>i,OJ:()=>a,qw:()=>o,t9:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.pageViewEvent,i="firstbyte",o="domcontent",a="windowload"},9251:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{t:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.pageViewTiming},3614:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{BST_RESOURCE:()=>i,END:()=>s,FEATURE_NAME:()=>n,FN_END:()=>u,FN_START:()=>c,PUSH_STATE:()=>d,RESOURCE:()=>o,START:()=>a});const n=r(3325).D.sessionTrace,i="bstResource",o="resource",a="-start",s="-end",c="fn"+a,u="fn"+s,d="pushState"},7836:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{BODY:()=>A,CB_END:()=>E,CB_START:()=>u,END:()=>x,FEATURE_NAME:()=>i,FETCH:()=>_,FETCH_BODY:()=>v,FETCH_DONE:()=>m,FETCH_START:()=>p,FN_END:()=>c,FN_START:()=>s,INTERACTION:()=>l,INTERACTION_API:()=>d,INTERACTION_EVENTS:()=>o,JSONP_END:()=>b,JSONP_NODE:()=>g,JS_TIME:()=>T,MAX_TIMER_BUDGET:()=>a,REMAINING:()=>f,SPA_NODE:()=>h,START:()=>w,originalSetTimeout:()=>y});var n=r(5763);const i=r(3325).D.spa,o=["click","submit","keypress","keydown","keyup","change"],a=999,s="fn-start",c="fn-end",u="cb-start",d="api-ixn-",f="remaining",l="interaction",h="spaNode",g="jsonpNode",p="fetch-start",m="fetch-done",v="fetch-body-",b="jsonp-end",y=n.Yu.ST,w="-start",x="-end",A="-body",E="cb"+x,T="jsTime",_="fetch"},5938:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{W:()=>o});var n=r(5763),i=r(2177);class o{constructor(e,t,r){this.agentIdentifier=e,this.aggregator=t,this.ee=i.ee.get(e,(0,n.OP)(this.agentIdentifier).isolatedBacklog),this.featureName=r,this.blocked=!1}}},9144:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{j:()=>m});var n=r(3325),i=r(5763),o=r(5546),a=r(2177),s=r(7894),c=r(8e3),u=r(3960),d=r(385),f=r(50),l=r(3081),h=r(8632);function g(){const e=(0,h.gG)();["setErrorHandler","finished","addToTrace","inlineHit","addRelease","addPageAction","setCurrentRouteName","setPageViewName","setCustomAttribute","interaction","noticeError","setUserId"].forEach((t=>{e[t]=function(){for(var r=arguments.length,n=new Array(r),i=0;i 1?r-1:0),i=1;i {e.exposed&&e.api[t]&&o.push(e.api[t](...n))})),o.length>1?o:o[0]}(t,...n)}}))}var p=r(2587);function m(e){let t=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]?arguments[1]:{},m=arguments.length>2?arguments[2]:void 0,v=arguments.length>3?arguments[3]:void 0,{init:b,info:y,loader_config:w,runtime:x={loaderType:m},exposed:A=!0}=t;const E=(0,h.gG)();y||(b=E.init,y=E.info,w=E.loader_config),(0,i.Dg)(e,b||{}),(0,i.GE)(e,w||{}),(0,i.sU)(e,x),y.jsAttributes??={},d.v6&&(y.jsAttributes.isWorker=!0),(0,i.CX)(e,y),g();const T=function(e,t){t||(0,c.R)(e,"api");const h={};var g=a.ee.get(e),p=g.get("tracer"),m="api-",v=m+"ixn-";function b(t,r,n,o){const a=(0,i.C5)(e);return null===r?delete a.jsAttributes[t]:(0,i.CX)(e,{...a,jsAttributes:{...a.jsAttributes,[t]:r}}),x(m,n,!0,o||null===r?"session":void 0)(t,r)}function y(){}["setErrorHandler","finished","addToTrace","inlineHit","addRelease"].forEach((e=>h[e]=x(m,e,!0,"api"))),h.addPageAction=x(m,"addPageAction",!0,n.D.pageAction),h.setCurrentRouteName=x(m,"routeName",!0,n.D.spa),h.setPageViewName=function(t,r){if("string"==typeof t)return"/"!==t.charAt(0)&&(t="/"+t),(0,i.OP)(e).customTransaction=(r||"http://custom.transaction")+t,x(m,"setPageViewName",!0)()},h.setCustomAttribute=function(e,t){let r=arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2]&&arguments[2];if("string"==typeof e){if(["string","number"].includes(typeof t)||null===t)return b(e,t,"setCustomAttribute",r);(0,f.Z)("Failed to execute setCustomAttribute.\nNon-null value must be a string or number type, but a type of was provided."))}else(0,f.Z)("Failed to execute setCustomAttribute.\nName must be a string type, but a type of was provided."))},h.setUserId=function(e){if("string"==typeof e||null===e)return b("enduser.id",e,"setUserId",!0);(0,f.Z)("Failed to execute setUserId.\nNon-null value must be a string type, but a type of was provided."))},h.interaction=function(){return(new y).get()};var w=y.prototype={createTracer:function(e,t){var r={},i=this,a="function"==typeof t;return(0,o.p)(v+"tracer",[(0,s.z)(),e,r],i,n.D.spa,g),function(){if(p.emit((a?"":"no-")+"fn-start",[(0,s.z)(),i,a],r),a)try{return t.apply(this,arguments)}catch(e){throw p.emit("fn-err",[arguments,this,"string"==typeof e?new Error(e):e],r),e}finally{p.emit("fn-end",[(0,s.z)()],r)}}}};function x(e,t,r,i){return function(){return(0,o.p)(l.xS,["API/"+t+"/called"],void 0,n.D.metrics,g),i&&(0,o.p)(e+t,[(0,s.z)(),...arguments],r?null:this,i,g),r?void 0:this}}function A(){r.e(439).then(r.bind(r,7438)).then((t=>{let{setAPI:r}=t;r(e),(0,c.L)(e,"api")})).catch((()=>(0,f.Z)("Downloading runtime APIs failed...")))}return["actionText","setName","setAttribute","save","ignore","onEnd","getContext","end","get"].forEach((e=>{w[e]=x(v,e,void 0,n.D.spa)})),h.noticeError=function(e,t){"string"==typeof e&&(e=new Error(e)),(0,o.p)(l.xS,["API/noticeError/called"],void 0,n.D.metrics,g),(0,o.p)("err",[e,(0,s.z)(),!1,t],void 0,n.D.jserrors,g)},d.il?(0,u.b)((()=>A()),!0):A(),h}(e,v);return(0,h.Qy)(e,T,"api"),(0,h.Qy)(e,A,"exposed"),(0,h.EZ)("activatedFeatures",p.T),T}},3325:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{D:()=>n,p:()=>i});const n={ajax:"ajax",jserrors:"jserrors",metrics:"metrics",pageAction:"page_action",pageViewEvent:"page_view_event",pageViewTiming:"page_view_timing",sessionReplay:"session_replay",sessionTrace:"session_trace",spa:"spa"},i={[n.pageViewEvent]:1,[n.pageViewTiming]:2,[n.metrics]:3,[n.jserrors]:4,[n.ajax]:5,[n.sessionTrace]:6,[n.pageAction]:7,[n.spa]:8,[n.sessionReplay]:9}}},n={};function i(e){var t=n[e];if(void 0!==t)return t.exports;var o=n[e]={exports:{}};return r[e](o,o.exports,i),o.exports}i.m=r,i.d=(e,t)=>{for(var r in t)i.o(t,r)&&!i.o(e,r)&&Object.defineProperty(e,r,{enumerable:!0,get:t[r]})},i.f={},i.e=e=>Promise.all(Object.keys(i.f).reduce(((t,r)=>(i.f[r](e,t),t)),[])),i.u=e=>(({78:"page_action-aggregate",147:"metrics-aggregate",242:"session-manager",317:"jserrors-aggregate",348:"page_view_timing-aggregate",412:"lazy-feature-loader",439:"async-api",538:"recorder",590:"session_replay-aggregate",675:"compressor",733:"session_trace-aggregate",786:"page_view_event-aggregate",873:"spa-aggregate",898:"ajax-aggregate"}[e]||e)+"."+{78:"ac76d497",147:"3dc53903",148:"1a20d5fe",242:"2a64278a",317:"49e41428",348:"bd6de33a",412:"2f55ce66",439:"30bd804e",538:"1b18459f",590:"cf0efb30",675:"ae9f91a8",733:"83105561",786:"06482edd",860:"03a8b7a5",873:"e6b09d52",898:"998ef92b"}[e]+"-1.236.0.min.js"),i.o=(e,t)=>Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty.call(e,t),e={},t="NRBA:",i.l=(r,n,o,a)=>{if(e[r])e[r].push(n);else{var s,c;if(void 0!==o)for(var u=document.getElementsByTagName("script"),d=0;d {s.onerror=s.onload=null,clearTimeout(h);var i=e[r];if(delete e[r],s.parentNode&&s.parentNode.removeChild(s),i&&i.forEach((e=>e(n))),t)return t(n)},h=setTimeout(l.bind(null,void 0,{type:"timeout",target:s}),12e4);s.onerror=l.bind(null,s.onerror),s.onload=l.bind(null,s.onload),c&&document.head.appendChild(s)}},i.r=e=>{"undefined"!=typeof Symbol&&Symbol.toStringTag&&Object.defineProperty(e,Symbol.toStringTag,{value:"Module"}),Object.defineProperty(e,"__esModule",{value:!0})},i.j=364,i.p="https://js-agent.newrelic.com/",(()=>{var e={364:0,953:0};i.f.j=(t,r)=>{var n=i.o(e,t)?e[t]:void 0;if(0!==n)if(n)r.push(n[2]);else{var o=new Promise(((r,i)=>n=e[t]=[r,i]));r.push(n[2]=o);var a=i.p+i.u(t),s=new Error;i.l(a,(r=>{if(i.o(e,t)&&(0!==(n=e[t])&&(e[t]=void 0),n)){var o=r&&("load"===r.type?"missing":r.type),a=r&&r.target&&r.target.src;s.message="Loading chunk "+t+" failed.\n("+o+": "+a+")",s.name="ChunkLoadError",s.type=o,s.request=a,n[1](s)}}),"chunk-"+t,t)}};var t=(t,r)=>{var n,o,[a,s,c]=r,u=0;if(a.some((t=>0!==e[t]))){for(n in s)i.o(s,n)&&(i.m[n]=s[n]);if(c)c(i)}for(t&&t(r);u {i.r(o);var e=i(3325),t=i(5763);const r=Object.values(e.D);function n(e){const n={};return r.forEach((r=>{n[r]=function(e,r){return!1!==(0,t.Mt)(r,"".concat(e,".enabled"))}(r,e)})),n}var a=i(9144);var s=i(5546),c=i(385),u=i(8e3),d=i(5938),f=i(3960),l=i(50);class h extends d.W{constructor(e,t,r){let n=!(arguments.length>3&&void 0!==arguments[3])||arguments[3];super(e,t,r),this.auto=n,this.abortHandler,this.featAggregate,this.onAggregateImported,n&&(0,u.R)(e,r)}importAggregator(){let e=arguments.length>0&&void 0!==arguments[0]?arguments[0]:{};if(this.featAggregate||!this.auto)return;const r=c.il&&!0===(0,t.Mt)(this.agentIdentifier,"privacy.cookies_enabled");let n;this.onAggregateImported=new Promise((e=>{n=e}));const o=async()=>{let t;try{if(r){const{setupAgentSession:e}=await Promise.all([i.e(860),i.e(242)]).then(i.bind(i,3228));t=e(this.agentIdentifier)}}catch(e){(0,l.Z)("A problem occurred when starting up session manager. This page will not start or extend any session.",e)}try{if(!this.shouldImportAgg(this.featureName,t))return void(0,u.L)(this.agentIdentifier,this.featureName);const{lazyFeatureLoader:r}=await i.e(412).then(i.bind(i,8582)),{Aggregate:o}=await r(this.featureName,"aggregate");this.featAggregate=new o(this.agentIdentifier,this.aggregator,e),n(!0)}catch(e){(0,l.Z)("Downloading and initializing ".concat(this.featureName," failed..."),e),this.abortHandler?.(),n(!1)}};c.il?(0,f.b)((()=>o()),!0):o()}shouldImportAgg(r,n){return r!==e.D.sessionReplay||!1!==(0,t.Mt)(this.agentIdentifier,"session_trace.enabled")&&(!!n?.isNew||!!n?.state.sessionReplay)}}var g=i(7633),p=i(7894);class m extends h{static featureName=g.t9;constructor(r,n){let i=!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];if(super(r,n,g.t9,i),("undefined"==typeof PerformanceNavigationTiming||c.Tt)&&"undefined"!=typeof PerformanceTiming){const n=(0,t.OP)(r);n[g.Dz]=Math.max(Date.now()-n.offset,0),(0,f.K)((()=>n[g.qw]=Math.max((0,p.z)()-n[g.Dz],0))),(0,f.b)((()=>{const t=(0,p.z)();n[g.OJ]=Math.max(t-n[g.Dz],0),(0,s.p)("timing",["load",t],void 0,e.D.pageViewTiming,this.ee)}))}this.importAggregator()}}var v=i(1117),b=i(1284);class y extends v.w{constructor(e){super(e),this.aggregatedData={}}store(e,t,r,n,i){var o=this.getBucket(e,t,r,i);return o.metrics=function(e,t){t||(t={count:0});return t.count+=1,(0,b.D)(e,(function(e,r){t[e]=w(r,t[e])})),t}(n,o.metrics),o}merge(e,t,r,n,i){var o=this.getBucket(e,t,n,i);if(o.metrics){var a=o.metrics;a.count+=r.count,(0,b.D)(r,(function(e,t){if("count"!==e){var n=a[e],i=r[e];i&&!i.c?a[e]=w(i.t,n):a[e]=function(e,t){if(!t)return e;t.c||(t=x(t.t));return t.min=Math.min(e.min,t.min),t.max=Math.max(e.max,t.max),t.t+=e.t,t.sos+=e.sos,t.c+=e.c,t}(i,a[e])}}))}else o.metrics=r}storeMetric(e,t,r,n){var i=this.getBucket(e,t,r);return i.stats=w(n,i.stats),i}getBucket(e,t,r,n){this.aggregatedData[e]||(this.aggregatedData[e]={});var i=this.aggregatedData[e][t];return i||(i=this.aggregatedData[e][t]={params:r||{}},n&&(i.custom=n)),i}get(e,t){return t?this.aggregatedData[e]&&this.aggregatedData[e][t]:this.aggregatedData[e]}take(e){for(var t={},r="",n=!1,i=0;i t.max&&(t.max=e),e 2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(e,r,j.t,n),c.il&&((0,t.OP)(e).initHidden=Boolean("hidden"===document.visibilityState),(0,N.N)((()=>(0,s.p)("docHidden",[(0,p.z)()],void 0,j.t,this.ee)),!0),(0,O.bP)("pagehide",(()=>(0,s.p)("winPagehide",[(0,p.z)()],void 0,j.t,this.ee))),this.importAggregator())}}var P=i(3081);class C extends h{static featureName=P.t9;constructor(e,t){let r=!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(e,t,P.t9,r),this.importAggregator()}}var R,I=i(2210),k=i(1214),H=i(2177),L={};try{R=localStorage.getItem("__nr_flags").split(","),console&&"function"==typeof console.log&&(L.console=!0,-1!==R.indexOf("dev")&&(L.dev=!0),-1!==R.indexOf("nr_dev")&&(L.nrDev=!0))}catch(e){}function z(e){try{L.console&&z(e)}catch(e){}}L.nrDev&&H.ee.on("internal-error",(function(e){z(e.stack)})),L.dev&&H.ee.on("fn-err",(function(e,t,r){z(r.stack)})),L.dev&&(z("NR AGENT IN DEVELOPMENT MODE"),z("flags: "+(0,b.D)(L,(function(e,t){return e})).join(", ")));var M=i(6660);class B extends h{static featureName=M.t;constructor(r,n){let i=!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(r,n,M.t,i),this.skipNext=0;try{this.removeOnAbort=new AbortController}catch(e){}const o=this;o.ee.on("fn-start",(function(e,t,r){o.abortHandler&&(o.skipNext+=1)})),o.ee.on("fn-err",(function(t,r,n){o.abortHandler&&!n[M.A]&&((0,I.X)(n,M.A,(function(){return!0})),this.thrown=!0,(0,s.p)("err",[n,(0,p.z)()],void 0,e.D.jserrors,o.ee))})),o.ee.on("fn-end",(function(){o.abortHandler&&!this.thrown&&o.skipNext>0&&(o.skipNext-=1)})),o.ee.on("internal-error",(function(t){(0,s.p)("ierr",[t,(0,p.z)(),!0],void 0,e.D.jserrors,o.ee)})),this.origOnerror=c._A.onerror,c._A.onerror=this.onerrorHandler.bind(this),c._A.addEventListener("unhandledrejection",(t=>{const r=function(e){let t="Unhandled Promise Rejection: ";if(e instanceof Error)try{return e.message=t+e.message,e}catch(t){return e}if(void 0===e)return new Error(t);try{return new Error(t+(0,D.P)(e))}catch(e){return new Error(t)}}(t.reason);(0,s.p)("err",[r,(0,p.z)(),!1,{unhandledPromiseRejection:1}],void 0,e.D.jserrors,this.ee)}),(0,O.m$)(!1,this.removeOnAbort?.signal)),(0,k.gy)(this.ee),(0,k.BV)(this.ee),(0,k.em)(this.ee),(0,t.OP)(r).xhrWrappable&&(0,k.Kf)(this.ee),this.abortHandler=this.#e,this.importAggregator()}#e(){this.removeOnAbort?.abort(),this.abortHandler=void 0}onerrorHandler(t,r,n,i,o){"function"==typeof this.origOnerror&&this.origOnerror(...arguments);try{this.skipNext?this.skipNext-=1:(0,s.p)("err",[o||new F(t,r,n),(0,p.z)()],void 0,e.D.jserrors,this.ee)}catch(t){try{(0,s.p)("ierr",[t,(0,p.z)(),!0],void 0,e.D.jserrors,this.ee)}catch(e){}}return!1}}function F(e,t,r){this.message=e||"Uncaught error with no additional information",this.sourceURL=t,this.line=r}let U=1;const q="nr@id";function G(e){const t=typeof e;return!e||"object"!==t&&"function"!==t?-1:e===c._A?0:(0,I.X)(e,q,(function(){return U++}))}function V(e){if("string"==typeof e&&e.length)return e.length;if("object"==typeof e){if("undefined"!=typeof ArrayBuffer&&e instanceof ArrayBuffer&&e.byteLength)return e.byteLength;if("undefined"!=typeof Blob&&e instanceof Blob&&e.size)return e.size;if(!("undefined"!=typeof FormData&&e instanceof FormData))try{return(0,D.P)(e).length}catch(e){return}}}var X=i(7243);class W{constructor(e){this.agentIdentifier=e,this.generateTracePayload=this.generateTracePayload.bind(this),this.shouldGenerateTrace=this.shouldGenerateTrace.bind(this)}generateTracePayload(e){if(!this.shouldGenerateTrace(e))return null;var r=(0,t.DL)(this.agentIdentifier);if(!r)return null;var n=(r.accountID||"").toString()||null,i=(r.agentID||"").toString()||null,o=(r.trustKey||"").toString()||null;if(!n||!i)return null;var a=(0,_.M)(),s=(0,_.Ht)(),c=Date.now(),u={spanId:a,traceId:s,timestamp:c};return(e.sameOrigin||this.isAllowedOrigin(e)&&this.useTraceContextHeadersForCors())&&(u.traceContextParentHeader=this.generateTraceContextParentHeader(a,s),u.traceContextStateHeader=this.generateTraceContextStateHeader(a,c,n,i,o)),(e.sameOrigin&&!this.excludeNewrelicHeader()||!e.sameOrigin&&this.isAllowedOrigin(e)&&this.useNewrelicHeaderForCors())&&(u.newrelicHeader=this.generateTraceHeader(a,s,c,n,i,o)),u}generateTraceContextParentHeader(e,t){return"00-"+t+"-"+e+"-01"}generateTraceContextStateHeader(e,t,r,n,i){return i+"@nr=0-1-"+r+"-"+n+"-"+e+"----"+t}generateTraceHeader(e,t,r,n,i,o){if(!("function"==typeof c._A?.btoa))return null;var a={v:[0,1],d:{ty:"Browser",ac:n,ap:i,id:e,tr:t,ti:r}};return o&&n!==o&&(a.d.tk=o),btoa((0,D.P)(a))}shouldGenerateTrace(e){return this.isDtEnabled()&&this.isAllowedOrigin(e)}isAllowedOrigin(e){var r=!1,n={};if((0,t.Mt)(this.agentIdentifier,"distributed_tracing")&&(n=(0,t.P_)(this.agentIdentifier).distributed_tracing),e.sameOrigin)r=!0;else if(n.allowed_origins instanceof Array)for(var i=0;i 2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(r,n,Z.t,i),(0,t.OP)(r).xhrWrappable&&(this.dt=new W(r),this.handler=(e,t,r,n)=>(0,s.p)(e,t,r,n,this.ee),(0,k.u5)(this.ee),(0,k.Kf)(this.ee),function(r,n,i,o){function a(e){var t=this;t.totalCbs=0,t.called=0,t.cbTime=0,t.end=E,t.ended=!1,t.xhrGuids={},t.lastSize=null,t.loadCaptureCalled=!1,t.params=this.params||{},t.metrics=this.metrics||{},e.addEventListener("load",(function(r){_(t,e)}),(0,O.m$)(!1)),c.IF||e.addEventListener("progress",(function(e){t.lastSize=e.loaded}),(0,O.m$)(!1))}function s(e){this.params={method:e[0]},T(this,e[1]),this.metrics={}}function u(e,n){var i=(0,t.DL)(r);i.xpid&&this.sameOrigin&&n.setRequestHeader("X-NewRelic-ID",i.xpid);var a=o.generateTracePayload(this.parsedOrigin);if(a){var s=!1;a.newrelicHeader&&(n.setRequestHeader("newrelic",a.newrelicHeader),s=!0),a.traceContextParentHeader&&(n.setRequestHeader("traceparent",a.traceContextParentHeader),a.traceContextStateHeader&&n.setRequestHeader("tracestate",a.traceContextStateHeader),s=!0),s&&(this.dt=a)}}function d(e,t){var r=this.metrics,i=e[0],o=this;if(r&&i){var a=V(i);a&&(r.txSize=a)}this.startTime=(0,p.z)(),this.listener=function(e){try{"abort"!==e.type||o.loadCaptureCalled||(o.params.aborted=!0),("load"!==e.type||o.called===o.totalCbs&&(o.onloadCalled||"function"!=typeof t.onload)&&"function"==typeof o.end)&&o.end(t)}catch(e){try{n.emit("internal-error",[e])}catch(e){}}};for(var s=0;s 1?e[1]=i:e.push(i)}else e[0]&&e[0].headers&&s(e[0].headers,n)&&(this.dt=n);function s(e,t){var r=!1;return t.newrelicHeader&&(e.set("newrelic",t.newrelicHeader),r=!0),t.traceContextParentHeader&&(e.set("traceparent",t.traceContextParentHeader),t.traceContextStateHeader&&e.set("tracestate",t.traceContextStateHeader),r=!0),r}}function x(e,t){this.params={},this.metrics={},this.startTime=(0,p.z)(),this.dt=t,e.length>=1&&(this.target=e[0]),e.length>=2&&(this.opts=e[1]);var r,n=this.opts||{},i=this.target;"string"==typeof i?r=i:"object"==typeof i&&i instanceof Y?r=i.url:c._A?.URL&&"object"==typeof i&&i instanceof URL&&(r=i.href),T(this,r);var o=(""+(i&&i instanceof Y&&i.method||n.method||"GET")).toUpperCase();this.params.method=o,this.txSize=V(n.body)||0}function A(t,r){var n;this.endTime=(0,p.z)(),this.params||(this.params={}),this.params.status=r?r.status:0,"string"==typeof this.rxSize&&this.rxSize.length>0&&(n=+this.rxSize);var o={txSize:this.txSize,rxSize:n,duration:(0,p.z)()-this.startTime};i("xhr",[this.params,o,this.startTime,this.endTime,"fetch"],this,e.D.ajax)}function E(t){var r=this.params,n=this.metrics;if(!this.ended){this.ended=!0;for(var o=0;o 2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(e,t,we.t,r),this.importAggregator()}}new class{constructor(e){let t=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]?arguments[1]:(0,_.ky)(16);c._A?(this.agentIdentifier=t,this.sharedAggregator=new y({agentIdentifier:this.agentIdentifier}),this.features={},this.desiredFeatures=new Set(e.features||[]),this.desiredFeatures.add(m),Object.assign(this,(0,a.j)(this.agentIdentifier,e,e.loaderType||"agent")),this.start()):(0,l.Z)("Failed to initial the agent. Could not determine the runtime environment.")}get config(){return{info:(0,t.C5)(this.agentIdentifier),init:(0,t.P_)(this.agentIdentifier),loader_config:(0,t.DL)(this.agentIdentifier),runtime:(0,t.OP)(this.agentIdentifier)}}start(){const t="features";try{const r=n(this.agentIdentifier),i=[...this.desiredFeatures];i.sort(((t,r)=>e.p[t.featureName]-e.p[r.featureName])),i.forEach((t=>{if(r[t.featureName]||t.featureName===e.D.pageViewEvent){const n=function(t){switch(t){case e.D.ajax:return[e.D.jserrors];case e.D.sessionTrace:return[e.D.ajax,e.D.pageViewEvent];case e.D.sessionReplay:return[e.D.sessionTrace];case e.D.pageViewTiming:return[e.D.pageViewEvent];default:return[]}}(t.featureName);n.every((e=>r[e]))||(0,l.Z)("".concat(t.featureName," is enabled but one or more dependent features has been disabled (").concat((0,D.P)(n),"). This may cause unintended consequences or missing data...")),this.features[t.featureName]=new t(this.agentIdentifier,this.sharedAggregator)}})),(0,T.Qy)(this.agentIdentifier,this.features,t)}catch(e){(0,l.Z)("Failed to initialize all enabled instrument classes (agent aborted) -",e);for(const e in this.features)this.features[e].abortHandler?.();const r=(0,T.fP)();return delete r.initializedAgents[this.agentIdentifier]?.api,delete r.initializedAgents[this.agentIdentifier]?.[t],delete this.sharedAggregator,r.ee?.abort(),delete r.ee?.get(this.agentIdentifier),!1}}}({features:[J,m,S,class extends h{static featureName=oe;constructor(t,r){if(super(t,r,oe,!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2]),!c.il)return;const n=this.ee;let i;(0,k.QU)(n),this.eventsEE=(0,k.em)(n),this.eventsEE.on(se,(function(e,t){this.bstStart=(0,p.z)()})),this.eventsEE.on(ae,(function(t,r){(0,s.p)("bst",[t[0],r,this.bstStart,(0,p.z)()],void 0,e.D.sessionTrace,n)})),n.on(ce+ne,(function(e){this.time=(0,p.z)(),this.startPath=location.pathname+location.hash})),n.on(ce+ie,(function(t){(0,s.p)("bstHist",[location.pathname+location.hash,this.startPath,this.time],void 0,e.D.sessionTrace,n)}));try{i=new PerformanceObserver((t=>{const r=t.getEntries();(0,s.p)(te,[r],void 0,e.D.sessionTrace,n)})),i.observe({type:re,buffered:!0})}catch(e){}this.importAggregator({resourceObserver:i})}},C,xe,B,class extends h{static featureName=de;constructor(e,r){if(super(e,r,de,!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2]),!c.il)return;if(!(0,t.OP)(e).xhrWrappable)return;try{this.removeOnAbort=new AbortController}catch(e){}let n,i=0;const o=this.ee.get("tracer"),a=(0,k._L)(this.ee),s=(0,k.Lg)(this.ee),u=(0,k.BV)(this.ee),d=(0,k.Kf)(this.ee),f=this.ee.get("events"),l=(0,k.u5)(this.ee),h=(0,k.QU)(this.ee),g=(0,k.Gm)(this.ee);function m(e,t){h.emit("newURL",[""+window.location,t])}function v(){i++,n=window.location.hash,this[ve]=(0,p.z)()}function b(){i--,window.location.hash!==n&&m(0,!0);var e=(0,p.z)();this[pe]=~~this[pe]+e-this[ve],this[ye]=e}function y(e,t){e.on(t,(function(){this[t]=(0,p.z)()}))}this.ee.on(ve,v),s.on(be,v),a.on(be,v),this.ee.on(ye,b),s.on(ge,b),a.on(ge,b),this.ee.buffer([ve,ye,"xhr-resolved"],this.featureName),f.buffer([ve],this.featureName),u.buffer(["setTimeout"+le,"clearTimeout"+fe,ve],this.featureName),d.buffer([ve,"new-xhr","send-xhr"+fe],this.featureName),l.buffer([me+fe,me+"-done",me+he+fe,me+he+le],this.featureName),h.buffer(["newURL"],this.featureName),g.buffer([ve],this.featureName),s.buffer(["propagate",be,ge,"executor-err","resolve"+fe],this.featureName),o.buffer([ve,"no-"+ve],this.featureName),a.buffer(["new-jsonp","cb-start","jsonp-error","jsonp-end"],this.featureName),y(l,me+fe),y(l,me+"-done"),y(a,"new-jsonp"),y(a,"jsonp-end"),y(a,"cb-start"),h.on("pushState-end",m),h.on("replaceState-end",m),window.addEventListener("hashchange",m,(0,O.m$)(!0,this.removeOnAbort?.signal)),window.addEventListener("load",m,(0,O.m$)(!0,this.removeOnAbort?.signal)),window.addEventListener("popstate",(function(){m(0,i>1)}),(0,O.m$)(!0,this.removeOnAbort?.signal)),this.abortHandler=this.#e,this.importAggregator()}#e(){this.removeOnAbort?.abort(),this.abortHandler=void 0}}],loaderType:"spa"})})(),window.NRBA=o})(); window.jQuery || document.write(' ') CKEDITOR_BASEPATH='https://f1000research.com/js/vendor/ckeditor/' window.reactTheme = 'research'; window.MathJax = { CommonHTML: { linebreaks: { automatic: true } }, 'HTML-CSS': { linebreaks: { automatic: true } }, SVG: { linebreaks: { automatic: true } }, AuthorInit: function() { MathJax.Hub.Register.MessageHook('End Process', function () { let timeout = false; // holder for timeout id const delay = 250; // delay after event is "complete" to run callback const reflowMath = function() { const dispFormulas = document.querySelectorAll('.disp-formula.panel'); if (!dispFormulas) { return; } for (const dispFormula of dispFormulas) { const child = dispFormula.querySelector('.MathJax_Preview').nextSibling.firstChild; const isMultiline = MathJax.Hub.getAllJax(dispFormula)[0].root.isMultiline; if (dispFormula.offsetWidth < child.offsetWidth || isMultiline) { MathJax.Hub.Queue(['Rerender', MathJax.Hub, dispFormula]); } } }; window.addEventListener('resize', function() { clearTimeout(timeout); // clear the timeout timeout = setTimeout(reflowMath, delay); // start timing for event "completion" }); }); }, }; if (window.location.hash == '#_=_'){ window.location = window.location.href.split('#')[0] } !function(f,b,e,v,n,t,s){if(f.fbq)return;n=f.fbq=function() {n.callMethod? n.callMethod.apply(n,arguments):n.queue.push(arguments)} ;if(!f._fbq)f._fbq=n; n.push=n;n.loaded=!0;n.version='2.0';n.queue=[];t=b.createElement(e);t.async=!0; t.src=v;s=b.getElementsByTagName(e)[0];s.parentNode.insertBefore(t,s)}(window, document,'script','https://connect.facebook.net/en_US/fbevents.js'); fbq('init', '1641728616063202'); fbq('track', "PixelInitialized", {}); (function(h,o,t,j,a,r){ h.hj=h.hj||function(){(h.hj.q=h.hj.q||[]).push(arguments)}; h._hjSettings={hjid:2318163,hjsv:6}; a=o.getElementsByTagName('head')[0]; r=o.createElement('script');r.async=1; r.src=t+h._hjSettings.hjid+j+h._hjSettings.hjsv; a.appendChild(r); })(window,document,'https://static.hotjar.com/c/hotjar-','.js?sv='); search file_upload Submit your research search menu close search Browse Gateways & Collections How to Publish Submit your Research My Submissions Article Guidelines Article Guidelines (New Versions) Open Data, Software and Code Guidelines Open Data and Accessible Source Materials Guidelines (HSS) Open Data, Software and Code Guidelines (PSE) Prepublication Checks Production Process Posters and Slides Guidelines Document Guidelines Article Processing Charges Peer Review Finding Article Reviewers About How it Works For Reviewers Our Advisors Policies Glossary FAQs For Developers Newsroom Contact My Research Submissions Content and Tracking Alerts My Details Sign In file_upload Submit your research { "@context": "https://schema.org", "@type": "ScholarlyArticle", "mainEntityOfPage": { "@type": "WebPage", "@id": "https://f1000research.com/articles/14-1426" }, "headline": "Impact of sample size on optimisation algorithms for the MLP used in the prediction of client subscription...", "datePublished": "2025-12-22T11:40:34", "dateModified": "2026-03-02T16:06:40", "author": [ { "@type": "Person", "name": "Tshegofatso Botlhoko" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Tlhalitshi Volition Montshiwa" } ], "publisher": { "@type": "Organization", "name": "F1000Research", "logo": { "@type": "ImageObject", "url": "https://f1000research.com/img/AMP/F1000Research_image.png", "height": 480, "width": 60 } }, "image": { "@type": "ImageObject", "url": "https://f1000research.com/img/AMP/F1000Research_image.png", "height": 1200, "width": 150 }, "description": " Background One of the disadvantages of the multilayer perception (MLP), which is a machine learning (ML) algorithm used in various fields, includes the uncontrollable growth of the number of total parameters, which may make MLP redundant in such high dimensions, and the uncontrollable growing stack of layers that ignores spatial information. Optimization algorithms were developed to determine the optimum number of parameters for MLP. Methods In this paper, the performances of the Genetic Algorithm (GA), Grasshopper Optimization Algorithm (GOA), and Covariance Matrix Adaptation Evolution Strategy (CMA-ES) are compared. The study also sought to determine the impact of sample size variations on these optimization algorithms. A dataset on the direct marketing campaigns of a Portuguese banking institution from the UCI Machine Learning Repository with a sample size of 4 521 was used. Synthetic Minority Oversampling Technique (SMOTE) was applied to balance the binary dependent variables for the training data across various sample sizes. Results Based on the classification accuracy, specificity, sensitivity, precision, F-score, and execution time, the MLP based on CMA-ES (CMA-ES-MLP) was identified as the best classifier overall, as it maintained high rates of these classification metrics and was the second fastest to train. CMA-ES-MLP with a training sample of 5 114 was our ideal classifier, and it competes well with the classifiers that have been built by previous studies that used the same dataset. Conclusions The study found no consistent increase or decrease in the classification performance of the algorithms as the sample size increased, and the metrics fluctuated rapidly across sample sizes. It is recommended that future studies be conducted to compare the best-performing classifiers identified in previous studies with the CMA-ES-MLP in this study under the same experimental conditions. " } { "@context": "http://schema.org", "@type": "BreadcrumbList", "itemListElement": [ { "@type": "ListItem", "position": "1", "item": { "@id": "https://f1000research.com/", "name": "Home" } }, { "@type": "ListItem", "position": "2", "item": { "@id": "https://f1000research.com/browse/articles", "name": "Browse" } }, { "@type": "ListItem", "position": "3", "item": { "@id": "https://f1000research.com/articles/14-1426/v1", "name": "Impact of sample size on optimisation algorithms for the MLP used..." } } ] } Home Browse Impact of sample size on optimisation algorithms for the MLP used... ALL Metrics - Views Downloads Get PDF Get XML Cite How to cite this article Botlhoko T and Volition Montshiwa T. Impact of sample size on optimisation algorithms for the MLP used in the prediction of client subscription to a term deposit [version 1; peer review: 1 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2025, 14 :1426 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.168092.1 ) NOTE: If applicable, it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. Close Copy Citation Details Export Export Citation Sciwheel EndNote Ref. Manager Bibtex ProCite Sente EXPORT Select a format first Track Share ▬ ✚ Research Article Impact of sample size on optimisation algorithms for the MLP used in the prediction of client subscription to a term deposit [version 1; peer review: 1 approved with reservations] Tshegofatso Botlhoko https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4939-7582 1 , Tlhalitshi Volition Montshiwa https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3168-3441 1 Tshegofatso Botlhoko https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4939-7582 1 , Tlhalitshi Volition Montshiwa https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3168-3441 1 PUBLISHED 22 Dec 2025 Author details Author details 1 Department of Business Statistics & Operations Research, North West University Faculty of Economic and Management Sciences, Potchefstroom, North West, 2735, South Africa Tshegofatso Botlhoko Roles: Conceptualization, Formal Analysis, Methodology, Writing – Original Draft Preparation Tlhalitshi Volition Montshiwa Roles: Conceptualization, Methodology, Supervision, Writing – Review & Editing OPEN PEER REVIEW DETAILS REVIEWER STATUS This article is included in the AIDR: Artificial Intelligence for Data Discovery and Reuse collection. Abstract Background One of the disadvantages of the multilayer perception (MLP), which is a machine learning (ML) algorithm used in various fields, includes the uncontrollable growth of the number of total parameters, which may make MLP redundant in such high dimensions, and the uncontrollable growing stack of layers that ignores spatial information. Optimization algorithms were developed to determine the optimum number of parameters for MLP. Methods In this paper, the performances of the Genetic Algorithm (GA), Grasshopper Optimization Algorithm (GOA), and Covariance Matrix Adaptation Evolution Strategy (CMA-ES) are compared. The study also sought to determine the impact of sample size variations on these optimization algorithms. A dataset on the direct marketing campaigns of a Portuguese banking institution from the UCI Machine Learning Repository with a sample size of 4 521 was used. Synthetic Minority Oversampling Technique (SMOTE) was applied to balance the binary dependent variables for the training data across various sample sizes. Results Based on the classification accuracy, specificity, sensitivity, precision, F-score, and execution time, the MLP based on CMA-ES (CMA-ES-MLP) was identified as the best classifier overall, as it maintained high rates of these classification metrics and was the second fastest to train. CMA-ES-MLP with a training sample of 5 114 was our ideal classifier, and it competes well with the classifiers that have been built by previous studies that used the same dataset. Conclusions The study found no consistent increase or decrease in the classification performance of the algorithms as the sample size increased, and the metrics fluctuated rapidly across sample sizes. It is recommended that future studies be conducted to compare the best-performing classifiers identified in previous studies with the CMA-ES-MLP in this study under the same experimental conditions. READ ALL READ LESS Keywords Multilayer Perceptron (MLP); Genetic Algorithm (GA); Grasshopper Optimization Algorithm (GOA); Covariance Matrix Adaptation Evolution Strategy (CMA-ES); Machine Learning; Term Deposit Subscription. Corresponding Author(s) Tlhalitshi Volition Montshiwa ( [email protected] ) Close Corresponding author: Tlhalitshi Volition Montshiwa Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Grant information: The author(s) declared that no grants were involved in supporting this work. Copyright: © 2025 Botlhoko T and Volition Montshiwa T. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. How to cite: Botlhoko T and Volition Montshiwa T. Impact of sample size on optimisation algorithms for the MLP used in the prediction of client subscription to a term deposit [version 1; peer review: 1 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2025, 14 :1426 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.168092.1 ) First published: 22 Dec 2025, 14 :1426 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.168092.1 ) Latest published: 02 Mar 2026, 14 :1426 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.168092.3 )  There is a newer version of this article available. Suppress this message for one day. 1.1 Introduction The multidisciplinary field of data mining includes Information Technology (IT), Artificial Intelligence (AI), Machine Learning (ML), statistics, pattern recognition, data retrieval, Neural Networks (NN), and information-based systems. 1 This study focused on ML classification algorithms and classifiers. A classifier is an algorithm that links input data to a specific category. 2 More specifically, this study focuses on the Multilayer Perceptron (MLP) classifier because it is one of the most-used algorithms in data science and in recent studies 3 – 7 because of its flexibility and ability to differentiate data that can be split linearly 8 defined the MLP as a feedforward artificial neural network (ANN) that comprises the input layer, at least one hidden layer, and the output layer, which are connected by nodes. MLP is also of interest in this study because it is applicable to various fields such as speech recognition, image recognition, text classification, and machine translation software. Although it is applicable across various disciplines, a disadvantage of MLP is that the number of total parameters in it can grow uncontrollably, whereby the number of perceptrons in layer one is multiplied by the number of parameters in layer two, which is then multiplied by the number of parameters in layer three and so on. This is inefficient because of redundancy in such high dimensions. In addition, ( 9 : 400) stated that when flattened vectors are used as inputs, this uncontrollably growing stack of layers ignores the spatial information. These multiplying parameters can be difficult to control; hence, optimization algorithms were established to determine the optimum number of parameters for the MLP. Reference [10] defined an algorithm as a process or equation that solves a problem by following a predetermined set of steps. Reference [11] described optimization techniques as analytical approaches that use differential calculus to find the best solution. Reference [12] further explained that the purpose of optimization techniques is mainly to handle problems that cannot be handled by classifiers. These problems consist of functions with a single variable, functions with multiple variables and no constraints, and functions with multiple variables with both equality and inequality constraints. A variety of optimization algorithms have been developed, and because of their adaptable and flexible searching processes, they have demonstrated a great degree of promise in solving optimization issues. In addition, 13 mentioned their capacity to use specific statistical tools to display satisfactory performance on MLP classification methods, as well as their efficiency in resolving linear and non-linear problems by avoiding local optima and balancing the exploration and exploitation trends. According to, 14 there are several optimization algorithms used in optimizing the MLP, including the Bayesian optimization algorithms (BOA), binary particle swarm optimization (BPSO), Covariance Matrix Adaptation Evolution Strategy (CMA-ES), Differential Evolution (DE), FireFly Algorithm (FFA), genetic algorithms (GA), grasshopper optimization algorithm (GOA), and particle swarm optimization (PSO). Other optimization algorithms include the hybrid meta-heuristic approach, which was used in the study by, 15 , 16 and it has been compared to other newly developed optimization algorithms that were used to form hybrid MLP models such as the Gloworm Swarm Optimization-MLP (GSO-MLP), Biogeographical-Based Optimization-MLP (BBO-MLP), and Genetic Algorithm-MLP (GA-MLP). The scope of this study is limited to the Genetic Algorithm (GA), grasshopper optimization algorithm (GOA), and Covariance Matrix Adaptation Evolution Strategy (CMA-ES). This is because the literature comparing these novel evolutionary optimization algorithms is scarce. Therefore, although they are known to be better performers than older algorithms, the best optimization algorithm for the MLP between GA, GOA, and CMA-ES remains unknown. It is imperative to determine the most efficient optimization algorithm for an optimal MLP because each optimization technique has various reliability, strength, efficiency, utilization, and limitations. According to, 17 one of the disadvantages of not knowing the most efficient optimization algorithm is that it cannot determine the best level of local optima. It can also waste time for end-users of MLPs (i.e., non-statisticians/non-data scientists) to compare the optimization algorithms before fitting their MLPs, as opposed to having a study such as the current study to refer to, which has already compared these algorithms and has recommended the most efficient one(s). This study also intended to explore the effect of changes in sample size on the efficiency of GA, GOA, and CMA-ES. This is because the increase in the sample size is known by some studies to be able to improve the accuracy and robustness of many statistical methods, as detailed by studies such as those conducted by 18 – 21 highlighted that when the focus is on individualised outcome risk prediction, it has been shown that extremely large datasets might be needed for ML techniques. The authors explained that for binary outcomes, ML techniques could require more than ten times as many events for each predictor to achieve a small amount of over-fitting compared with classic modelling techniques such as logistic regression and might show instability and high optimism 21 explained that when dealing with optimization algorithms and sample size, it is vital to ensure accurate predictions in key subgroups and to consider the accurate sample size when using an existing dataset to avoid overfitting. On the other hand, although some studies advocate for a large dataset for ML algorithms, 22 explained that a study with a sample size that is too small has a higher risk of missing a meaningful underlying difference, while one with a sample size that is too large may be more expensive than necessary. It is evident that sample size affects the efficiency of ML algorithms. However, the efficiency of GA, GOA, and CMA-ES when used in optimizing the MLP relative to the sample size remains unknown, and to the best of our knowledge, this has never been explored before in a single study. In this study, efficiency refers to a measure of the quality of the optimization algorithms depending on the sample size, which is evaluated using measures such as specificity, sensitivity/recall, and execution time. Therefore, this study intended to determine the impact of sample size on the efficiency of GA, GOA, and CMA-ES when used for optimizing the MLP, with a focus on these due to their wide application in various studies 23 – 27 and because of their known effectiveness and flexibility. A comparison of GA, GOA, and CMA-ES in optimizing MLP and the effect of sample size on the performance of these algorithms is the main objective of this study. However, as an area of application, these methods are applied to predict the likelihood of subscribing to a term deposit following telephone-based direct marketing by a banking institution. This has been the focus of application of ML classifiers in several previous studies, including. 28 – 30 Therefore, this study intends to extend the literature in this area, which has caught the attention of many researchers when comparing the performance of ML classifiers. More details on the ML classifiers applied and the conclusions reached from these previous studies are detailed in Table 2 in the dataset section of this paper. 1.2 Related works on evaluation of optimisation algorithms for the MLP Several previous studies that explored the efficiency of various optimization algorithms for MLP in different areas of application showed that the most efficient optimized MLP varies depending on the area of application, sample sizes, and evaluation metrics implemented in such studies. From the studies reviewed, the most common area of research is information technology 31 – 34 followed by the medical sector. 35 – 37 To extend the study by, 38 who focused on the financial sector, the current study uses a financial dataset, but it includes the CMA-ES-MLP and GOA-MLP, which are compared to the basic MLP and GA-MLP, which were also included in the study by, 38 but across different sample sizes rather than only one. From the studies reviewed, the sample sizes ranged from 400 to 8367, but only one sample was used per study. As such, the current study expands the scope of these studies by comparing the basic MLP and its optimized variates using different samples to determine the effect of sample size on the performance of these ML algorithms. The literature shows that in all the studies, the optimized versions of the MLPs were selected as the best performers, and not the basic MLP, which was not optimized. This is evident from the studies conducted by 38 in which the diversity-considered GA-MLP ensemble algorithm (DGAMLPE) outperformed the unoptimized basic MLP, 35 in which DGAMLPE outperformed the basic MLP, and, 31 in which the GOA-MLP outperformed the basic MLP. “This implies that indeed the optimised variates of the MLP can improve the basic MLP, and it is also seen that optimisation algorithms give the MLP a competitive advantage over other ML classifiers such as Random Forest (RF), Extreme Gradient Boost (X-GBoost), Weighted Count of Errors and Correct (WCEC), and Deep Belief Network-Support Vector Machine (DBN-SVM), Logistic Regression (LR), K-Nearest Neighbors (K-NN), Decision Tree Classifier (DTC), Support Vector Machine (SVM), Random Forest Classifier (RFC), and Ensemble” 35 :314). Considering these findings from the literature, the researchers were interested in optimization algorithms for the MLP in the current study. To extend the literature, the researchers included the CMA-ES-MLP in the competing models and explored the effect of sample size on these ML algorithms. The most used optimized variates of the MLP from previous studies are GA-MLP, 16 , 32 , 34 , 35 , 37 followed by PSO-MLP, 16 , 31 , 32 , 34 , 39 and GOA-MLP, 31 , 33 , 39 but none of these studies included CMA-ES-MLP, which implies that the performance of CMA-ES-MLP against GA-MLP and GOA-MLP remains an area that requires further research. This study bridges this gap. It also appears that the most frequently used accuracy metric from the reviewed studies is classification accuracy, 16 , 31 – 39 followed by the F-measure. 33 , 35 – 38 The negative and positive predictive values appear to be the least used accuracy metrics. 31 , 35 Other classification evaluation metrics used in previous studies included sensitivity/recall, specificity, and precision. Similarly, the current study also implemented the classification accuracy, precision, sensitivity/recall, specificity, F-measure, and execution time to compare optimized algorithms based on the popularity of these metrics in previous studies. Including a variety of comparison metrics in a single study assists in minimizing the model selection bias that may be experienced when very few similar metrics are used in the comparison and selection of the most efficient model. 1.3 Method 1.3.1 Dataset The data used in this study is a secondary dataset on the direct marketing campaigns of a Portuguese banking institution. The dataset was obtained from the UCI Machine Learning Repository of the Center for Machine Learning and Intelligent Systems. The primary contributor to the data is. 28 The dataset can be accessed at https://archive.ics.uci.edu/ml/datasets/Bank+Marketing . The dataset has a total of 4 521 observations, and 11 variables were selected for use as attributes (see Table 1 ) in this study to predict whether a client will subscribe to a term deposit following the marketing campaign. That is, the binary variable “has the client subscribed to a term deposit” from the dataset is used as a dependent variable (binary; 0 is no and 1 is yes). Table 1. Description of features. Name of variables Description of variable Variable type/category Age Client’s age Numeric Type of Job The type of job of client Admin, blue collar, entrepreneur, housemaid, management, retired, self-employed, services, student, technician, unemployed, and unknown Marital Status What is the marital status of the client? Divorced, married, single, unknown Educational level Highest qualification of client Basic 4y, basic 6y, basic 9y, high school, illiterate, professional course, university degree, and unknown Default Does the client have credit in default? No, yes, and unknown Housing Does the client have housing loan? No, yes, and unknown Loan Does the client have a personal loan? No, yes, and unknown Contact Contact communication type Cellular and telephone Day The last contact day of the week Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday Duration Last contact duration, in seconds (numeric) e.g., if duration = 0 then y = 'no' Outcome of Previous Marketing Campaign Failure, non-existent, and success To mimic different sample sizes which are needed to study the impact of sample size on the efficiency of the MLP optimisation algorithms, nine (9) random samples of different sizes (varying by 10%) were drawn with replacement from the 4521. Samples were randomly selected at 10% difference using stratified sampling, in which the dependent variable was used as the stratum to ensure that the samples maintained the distribution of the main dataset in the dependent variable. The following random sample sizes were created: 10% (n = 452), 20% (n = 904), 30% (n = 1356), 40% (n = 1808), 50% (n = 2261), 60% (n = 2713), 70% (n = 3165), 80% (n = 3617), 90% (n = 4069), and the entire dataset, which contained 100% of the observations (n = 4521). The variables described in Table 1 were used as independent variables or features. All categorical features with at least three (3) classes from Table 1 were converted to dummy variables using the one-hot encoding technique, which converts classes of the categorical variable to a vector that contains 1 and 0, denoting the presence and absence of the feature, respectively, which led to an increase in the number of features used in the paper to 42. Previous studies that have been conducted that focused on the application and/or comparison of ML classifiers (including MLP and its variates) on the dataset chosen for this study are summarized in Table 2 . Table 2. A summary of studies on the comparison and application of ML classifiers on using the dataset on direct marketing campaigns of a Portuguese banking institution from the UCI repository. Authors Classifiers compared or applied Best model Moro et al. (2014) LR, DT, NN, and SVM. NN with an Area under the area of the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) of 0.8 and area of the LIFT cumulative curve (ALIFT) of 0.7 Ghatasheh et al. (2020) Meta-Cost-MLP, Cost Sensitive Classifier-MLP, MLP (Baseline), DL-MLP, J48, LL, DT, Very Fast Decision Rules (VFDR) and RF. Meta-cost MLP with recall of 0.808, precision of 0.771, Geometric mean of 78.93%, and Classification accuracy of 77.48%. Moro et al. (2011) NB, DT and SVM. SVM with AUC of 0.938 and ALIFT=0.887. Asare-Frempong and Jayabalan (2017) MLP, DT (C4.5), LR and RF RF with classification accuracy of 86.08% and AUC of 92.7%. Moro et al. (2015) 42 Customer lifetime value (LTV) based NN (LTV-NN), baseline NN (with no historical data), LTV-NN increased the AUC of the baseline-NN from 0.8002 to 0.8609, while ALIFT improved from 0.6701 to 0.7044 where AUC was at least 0.84, and ALIFT was at least 0.69. Elsalamony (2014) MLP, NB, LR, and the Ross Quinlan new DT (C5.0). Based on the testing dataset, MLP produced the highest classification accuracy of 90.49%, LR the highest sensitivity of 65.53%, and C5.0 yielded specificity of 93.23%. Zaki et al. (2024) Stochastic Gradient Descent (SGD) Classifier, k-nearest neighbour Classifier, and Random Forest Classifier. DT with a classification accuracy of 87.5%, a negative predictive value (NPV) of 93%, and a positive predictive value (PPV) of 87.8%. Ładyżyński et al. (2019) 44 RF, classification and regression tree (CART) and deep belief learning implemented in H2O framework, and deep belief networks implemented in H2O framework with l1 regularization parameter added. CART with a precision of 9.01% and recall of 67.27%, and the authors commented it is the most efficient in terms of computing power. Pavlović et al. (2014) 45 DT DT yielded classification accuracy of 88.51%, sensitivity of 93.6%, specificity of 50.1%, AUC of 70.5%, and Brier of 20.5%. Karim and Rahman (2013) 46 NB and DT (4.5). DT (C4.5) with classification accuracy of 94%, precision for “yes” of 79.1%, precision for “no” of 95.5% and AUC of 93.3, but the DT (C4.5) was 5.78 seconds slower to train than the NB. Kim and Street (2004) Baseline ANN and Genetic Algorithm (GA) based ANN (GA-ANN). GA-ANN . Table 2 shows that 2004 to date, several ML classifiers have been evaluated to predict the likelihood of a client to subscribe to a term loan following a direct marketing campaign by the bank using data from a Portuguese banking institution. In general, the table shows that the results vary depending on the setting such as the number of attributes, the number of observations in the data, and the number of training times to mention a few. Most of these studies included neural networks 29 , 40 – 43 , 47 including the basic MLP and its variates such as Meta-Cost-MLP, Cost sensitive classifier-MLP, and the GA based ANN (GA-ANN). Although it appears in most previous studies, the basic neural networks classifier was only found to be the best performer when compared to LR and DT and SVM in the study by. 28 However, whenever its modified variates were included in the comparison, these variates were found to be best performers against the basic MLP such as in the study by 29 in which the Meta-Cost-MLP outperformed the basic MLP and other classifiers such as (J48, LL, DT, VFDR), and in the study by 47 in which the GA-ANN outperformed the baseline ANN. These results show that making improves to the basic MLP can improve its performance, hence this paper extend literature around the enhancement of the neural networks (specifically the MLP) as done by some authors in Table 2 , by comparing GA, GOA and CMA-ES optimisation algorithms for the MLP using the direct marketing data used in studies that are summarise in this table. It is evident from Table 2 that these optimisation algorithms have never been compared in a single study using the dataset that was used by the studies in Table 2 . 1.4 Data analysis methods 1.4.1 Data balancing The data in this study were split into 80% training data and 20% testing data, which is a commonly used train-to-testing data-splitting ratio. A Synthetic Minority Oversampling Technique (SMOTE) was used to balance the training samples 48 defined SMOTE as one of the most used oversampling techniques to solve imbalanced data problems, and it aims to balance class distributions by randomly increasing minority class examples by replicating them 48 explained that SMOTE uses linear interpolation to generate the virtual training records. These synthetic data were generated through a random selection of at least one k -nearest neighbor for each observation in the minority class. 48 In this study, SMOTE was chosen because of its advantage in reducing the risk of overfitting and its wide application in many previous studies, such as. 48 – 52 From Figure 1 , Y i is the point under consideration, Y i 1 to Y i 4 are the nearest neighbors, and w 1 to w 4 represent the synthetic data generated by the randomized interjection 53 explained that synthetic samples are generated by considering the difference between the nearest neighbor and the feature vector 53 further explained that the difference is multiplied by a random number between 1 and 0 and then added to the feature vector under consideration. Table 3 presents balanced training data from the original dataset. Figure 1. Example of how to generate synthetic data using SMOTE ( 53 :1414). In Figure 1 explains how SMOTE randomly generates synthetic data ( w 1 to w 4 ) to balance the imbalanced dataset by taking the difference between the nearest neighbours ( Y i 1 to Y i 4 ) of the data point under consideration ( Y i ) and multiplying Y i by a random number between 0 and 1, and then adding it to the feature vector under consideration. 53 Table 3. Frequencies of the dependent variable in the SMOTE balanced training sets across the sample sizes. Unbalanced data Balanced data Sample Size Client Subscription N % Sample Size Client Subscription N % n = 362 Unsubscribed 313 86 n = 626 Unsubscribed 313 50 Subscribed 49 14 Subscribed 313 50 n = 723 Unsubscribed 640 89 n = 1280 Unsubscribed 640 50 Subscribed 83 11 Subscribed 640 50 n = 1085 Unsubscribed 970 89 n = 1940 Unsubscribed 970 50 Subscribed 115 11 Subscribed 970 50 n = 1446 Unsubscribed 1296 90 n = 2592 Unsubscribed 1296 50 Subscribed 150 10 Subscribed 1296 50 n = 1809 Unsubscribed 1602 89 n = 3024 Unsubscribed 1602 50 Subscribed 207 11 Subscribed 1602 50 n = 2170 Unsubscribed 1916 88 n = 3832 Unsubscribed 1916 50 Subscribed 254 12 Subscribed 1916 50 n = 2026 Unsubscribed 1791 88 n = 3582 Unsubscribed 1791 50 Subscribed 235 12 Subscribed 1791 50 n = 2894 Unsubscribed 2557 88 n = 5114 Unsubscribed 2557 50 Subscribed 337 12 Subscribed 2557 50 n = 3255 Unsubscribed 2880 88 n = 5760 Unsubscribed 2880 50 Subscribed 375 12 Subscribed 2880 50 n = 3617 Unsubscribed 3199 88 n = 6398 Unsubscribed 3199 50 Subscribed 418 12 Subscribed 3199 50 Table 3 shows that the class of the dependent variable is balanced after using SMOTE specifically for the training data samples. In all the samples, equal numbers of unsubscribed participants and subscribed participants are observed. 1.4.2 Multilayer Perceptron (MLP) Explained that MLP was invented in 1958 at the Cornell Aeronautical Laboratory by Frank Rosenblatt, funded by the Office of Naval Research in the United States. 54 Further explained that although it was originally designed as a machine rather than a program, the perceptron was first implemented in IBM 704 as software before being implemented in specially designed hardware as the “Mark 1 perceptron.” In addition, 55 explained that the purpose of this machine is image recognition; it has 400 photocells arranged in an array and randomly connected to the “neurons.” According to the author, electric motors update the weights during learning, and the weights are encoded in the potentiometers. The flexibility of the MLP has enabled its function in various activities. 56 It has only been used for image recognition, 57 , 58 speech recognition, 59 and machine translation software. 60 Currently, it can be used for text data, 61 , 62 speech recognition, 58 and other types of data. MLP can be fitted using various software, such as Waikato Environment for Knowledge Analysis 3.9 (WEKA), Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS), and Python. With the use of optimization algorithms, such as those being compared in this study, MLPs have become very useful, convenient, and easy to use. The MLP consists of an input and an output layer with one or more hidden layers of non-linear activating nodes. 63 Each node in one layer connects with a certain weight to every node in the following layer. 63 In the input layer, the activations, which were defined by 64 as the source of the MLP’s power, were determined using the following equation: (1) b j = ∑ i = 0 D w ij ( 1 ) x i , The first layer involves M linear combinations of the d-dimensional input for i 1 , 2 , … , M and j = 1 , 2 , … , d , where w ij ( 1 ) are the weights for node j in layer 1 for incoming node I and (1) indicates that this is the first layer of the network. Each activation was then transformed by a non-linear activation function g. In this study, tanh was used as the activation function for the hidden layer 65 described the Tanh function as a smoother, zero-center function, with a range between -1 and 1. The Tanh function is defined by the following equation sourced from 65 : (2) f ( x ) = ( e x − e − x e x + e − x ) , where x is an input to the neuron and e is Euler’s number. A sigmoid function was used as the activation function for the output layer. 65 defined the sigmoid as a non-linear activation used mostly in feedforward neutral networks. “It is a bounded differentiable real function, defined for real input values, with positive derivatives everywhere and some degree of smoothness” ( 65 :5). The sigmoid activation function is given by the following relationship, sourced from 65 : (3) f ( x ) = 1 1 + exp ( − b j ) where f ( x ) corresponds to the outputs of the basis functions and is interpreted as the output of the hidden units. 1.4.3 Covariance Matrix Adaptation Evolution Strategy (CMA-ES) The Covariance Matrix Adaptation Evolution Strategy (CMA-ES) was developed by Hansen et al. in 2003. 66 According to, 67 the algorithm’s theoretical underpinnings include variable metrics, and the CMA-ES uses maximum-likelihood updates in conjunction with a stochastic variable-metric approach. In an algorithm that quickly converges to the global optimum across a wide class of functions, the covariance matrix maximizes likelihood while resembling an expectation-maximization algorithm 68 , 69 explained that the CMA-ES algorithm has certain drawbacks, such as its performance becoming slow if the number of model parameters that need to be estimated is large. The approximation of gradients without assuming or requiring their existence is another flaw of this algorithm. CMA-ES is a plausible candidate for an effective parameter estimation algorithm, 70 but it must be tested against other algorithms to ascertain its efficiency, particularly when the sample size is varied. The CMA-ES samples from the multivariate normal distribution search rank the sampled points according to their fitness function values. The multivariate normal distribution can be calculated using the following equation obtained by 71 : (4) x i ∼ N ( m k , σ k 2 C k ) , (5) ∼ m k + σ k × N ( 0 , C k ) , where m k is the distribution average and recent favorite solution to the optimization problem, σ k is the step size, and C k is the symmetric and positive definite The fitness function for the CMA-ES is defined as: (6) f ( x ) = g ( x T Hx ) , where Hx is the Hessian matrix of f ( x ) and x T is the transpose of x . The mean distribution is then updated to a weighted average using the following equation: (7) m new ← ∑ i = 1 μ w i x i : λ = m + ∑ i = 1 μ wi ( x i : λ − m ) , where m new is the new distribution mean, μ is the number of parameters, λ is the population size, m is the mean vector, and w i is the recombination weight. The isotropic evolution is then updated using the following equation: (8) p σ ← ( 1 − C σ ) p σ + 1 − ( 1 − C σ ) 2 μ w C k 1 2 m k + 1 − m k σ k , where p σ is the evolution path, ( 1 − C σ ) is the discount factor, 1 − ( 1 − C σ ) 2 is the complement for the discounted variance, and μ w C k 1 2 m k + 1 − m k σ k are distributed as N ( 0 , I ) under neutral selection. (9) σ k + 1 = σ k × exp ( C σ d σ ( | | p σ | | E | | N ( 0 , I ) | | − 1 ) ) , where C σ d σ ( | | p σ | | E | | N ( 0 , I ) | | − 1 ) is unbiased about 0 under unbiased selection. (10) E | | N ( 0 , I ) | | = 2 ( n + 1 2 ) ( n 2 ) , (11) ≈ n ( 1 − 1 4 n + 1 21 n 2 ) , Update of the covariance matrix adopted is described as follows: (12) p c ← ( 1 − C c ) p c + 1 ( 0 , α n ) ( | | p σ | | ) 1 − ( 1 − c c ) 2 μ w m k + 1 − m k σ k , The CME-ES is finally updated using: (13) C k + 1 = ( 1 − c 1 − c μ + c s ) C k + c 1 p c p c T + c μ ∑ i = 1 μ w i x i : λ − m k σ k ( x i : λ − m k σ k ) T where c s is the small variance loss, c 1 is the learning rate for updating the covariance matrix, and c μ is the learning rate for rank- μ for updating the covariance matrix. 1.4.4 Genetic Algorithm (GA) Reference [73] proposed a learning machine called the Genetic Algorithm (GA), which paralleled the principles of evolution. Barricelli (1954) pointed out that the first computer simulation of evolution was created in 1954 at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, New Jersey, thanks to the efforts of Barricelli 73 found that GA has some limitations, such as repeated evaluation of the fitness function and difficulties in working with dynamic datasets; it tends to converge to a local optimum or even arbitrary points, instead of the global optimum of the problem. “A better solution is only in comparison to other solutions, and the stop criterion is not clear in every problem” ( 73 :226). On the other hand, GA has been noticed to be a very efficient and effective technique for both optimisation and ML applications. 74 Another advantage of GA is that it requires less information about the problem 75 , 76 stated that GA can work very well on mixed (discrete and/or continuous) problems. “The GA can be applied in real world situations such as engineering design, to make the design cycle process fast and economical, and in robotics too, to create learning robots which will behave as humans and will do tasks like cooking and laundry” ( 77 : 347). The efficiency of GAs depends on mutation and crossover operators and their relationships. “To determine the most appropriate operators, different mutation and crossover operators are used and they are compared with each other since GA involves a process of complex interaction between its parameters” 78 suggested that for the algorithm to perform best, the population size must range between 50 and 100 observations. In this study, we verified this recommendation by studying the effectiveness of GA in different sample sizes 79 stated that the algorithm comprises four main steps: selection, reproduction, replacement, and termination. The steps are as follows: 1.4.4.1 Selection Reference [80] explained that by choosing the reproduction of offspring, the primary goal of this phase is to identify the area with the highest likelihood of producing a solution to the problem that is superior to that of the previous generation. The authors add that the selection of individuals will then be arranged in pairs of two to enhance reproduction 79 also explained that individuals will then pass on their genes to the next generation. “The GA uses the fitness proportionate selection technique to ensure that useful solutions are used for recombination” ( 79 : 3). Fitness proportion selection is defined by the author as the most popular method of parent selection, where every individual can become a parent with a probability that is proportional to its fitness. “Fitter individuals have a higher chance of mating and propagating their features to the next generation. Therefore, such a selection strategy applies a selection pressure to the more fit individuals in the population, evolving better individuals over time”( 80 : 16). The fitness proportionate selection can be calculated using the following equation adopted from 80 : (14) p i = f i ∑ j = 1 N f i where f i denotes the fitness of individual i in the population, N denotes the number of individuals in the population, and p i denotes the probability. 1.4.4.2 Reproduction Reference [80] explained that the algorithm applies variation operators to the parent population during the reproduction phase, creating a child population. This phase has four main operators, crossover, mutation, replacement, and termination, which are discussed below. 1.4.4.3 Crossover According to, 81 the crossover operator swaps the genetic information of two parents to produce offspring 81 also explained that this is performed on parent pairs that are selected randomly to generate a child population of equal size to the parent population. For this study, a single-point crossover was considered. “Single point crossover works in such a way that a parent organism string is selected. All data beyond this point in the organism string were swapped between the two parent organisms. Strings are characterized by positional bias” ( 81 : 13). 1.4.4.4 Mutation The mutation operator adds genetic information to the new child population. According to, 82 the operator achieves this by flipping some bits in the chromosome to solve the problem of local minima and enhance diversification. In the present study, a bit-flip mutation was considered. “Bit flip mutation works in such a way that it selects one or more random bits and flip them. This can only be done for binary encoded GA’s” ( 82 : 47). 1.4.4.5 Replacement Reference [80] elucidated that the replacement operator acts as the final generational step to replace the old population with the new child population. In this study, a generational replacement operator is used, where the previous generation is replaced with a newly generated child population. 1.4.4.6 Termination Reference [80] explains that termination is only possible in specific situations, such as having reached an absolute number of generations but not having improved the population for X iterations or the objective function value reaching a pre-defined threshold 79 cited a genetic algorithm example in which a counter was maintained to record generations for which the population did not improve. “Initially, we set the counter to zero. Each time we do not generate an offspring, which is better than the individuals in the population, we increase the counter. However, if the fitness of any offspring is better, then we reset the counter to zero” ( 79 : 2). The author also stated that the algorithm terminates when the counter reaches a predetermined value. 1.4.5 Grasshopper Optimisation Algorithm (GOA) The Grasshopper Optimisation Algorithm (GOA) is a new swarm intelligence algorithm and population-based method developed by Seyedali Mirjalili in 2017. 83 According to the authors, the GOA mainly observes the behavior of grasshopper swarms and their social interactions. Every grasshopper in the population represents a solution, and its location within the swarm is determined by three forces: wind advection, the force of gravity applied to it, and social interactions with other grasshoppers. 84 The process of optimizing the grasshopper algorithm involves several steps, including initialization, creation, and evaluation of the first population, identification of the best overall solution, updating the decreasing coefficient parameter, mapping the grasshopper’s distance, and updating the solution. 85 Reference [87] explained that the GOA can improve the average fitness of all grasshoppers, which helps the GOA effectively increase the first randomly generated solutions. The algorithm can be computed using software such as Matrix Laboratory (MATLAB) and Python. No information relating to the GOA in comparison with other algorithms has emerged, as this is a newly developed algorithm. Therefore, little is known about the efficiency of this algorithm compared to its predecessors; hence, the proposed study seeks to expand the scope of this algorithm. Grasshopper position ( X i ) calculations depend on three types of forces: social interactions and other grasshoppers, wind advection, and gravitational force. 87 All equations used in the description of the GOA in this study were sourced from 87 the grasshopper’s position is defined as: (15) X i = S i + G i + A i , where X i defines the position of the i -th grasshopper, S i is the social interaction, G i is the gravitational force on the i -th grasshopper, and A i is wind advection. From Equation 15 , social interaction is defined as: (16) S i = ∑ J = 1 N s ( d ij ) d ij , ̂ where d ij is the distance between grasshopper i and grasshopper j in the d th dimension. From Equation 15 , the gravitational force ( G i ) on the grasshopper is computed as follows: (17) G i = − g e g ̂ , where − g denotes the gravitational constant and e ̂ g is the unit vector towards the center of the earth. From Equation 15 , the wind advection is computed as follows: (18) A i = ue ̂ w , where u is a constant drift and e ̂ g represents a unity vector towards the direction of the wind. When substituting Equations 16 – 18 into Equation 15 , the position of the current grasshopper becomes. (19) X i = ∑ j = 1 j ≠ 1 N s ( | x j − x i | ) x j − x i d ij − ge ̂ g + ue ̂ w where N is the total number of grasshoppers. Reference [84] explained how the pseudocode of the GOA algorithm works. The GOA starts optimization by creating a set of random solutions; the search agents then update their positions, followed by the determination of the position of the best target obtained thus far, and this position is updated in each iteration. 83 Additionally, the distances between grasshoppers were normalized in each iteration 83 stated that position updating is performed iteratively until the end criterion is satisfied. Finally, the position and fitness of the best target are returned as the best approximation of the global optimum. 1.4.6 Model comparison criteria Precision, sensitivity/recall, F-score, classification accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, and execution time were used to evaluate and compare the optimization algorithms for the MLP, as described in this section. The classifier with the highest precision, recall, F-score, accuracy rate, sensitivity, specificity, and lowest execution time is preferred. Classification accuracy (also referred to as overall accuracy) was described by 88 as the number of correct forecasts divided by the total number of forecasts. It is the most straightforward clustering quality measure proposed by 89 to assess the clustering results related to the ground truth. 88 Classification accuracy was calculated by 88 as follows: (20) Accuracy = True Positives + True Negatives ( Positives + Negative ) Reference [91] characterized specificity as a proportion of the extent of real negatives that are effectively distinguished, and they described the specificity equation as follows: (21) specificity = True Negatives True Negatives + False Positives Precision was defined by 91 as a measure of how close a series of measurements are to one another. The author explained that precise measurements are highly reproducible, even if the measurements are not near the correct value. Precision was calculated as follows 91 : (22) Precision = True Positives True Positives + False Positives Reference [91] characterize the sensitivity/recall rate as a measure of the proportion of real positives that are accurately identified. The following equation for recall/sensitivity was adopted from 90 : (23) Sensitivity / recall = True Positives True Positives + False Negatives Reference [93] defined the F-measure as a weighted harmonic mean of recall and precision. There are several motivations for this choice 92 explains that the harmonic mean is commonly appropriate when averaging rates or frequencies, but there are also a set of theoretical reasons. The author further explains that the mean allows differential weighting of recall and precision, but they are commonly given equal weights. The F-measure was computed as follows: (24) F = 2 ∗ Precision ∗ Recall Precision + Recall Execution time is defined by 93 as the amount of time spent by the system executing a given task, including the amount of time it spends executing runtime or system services. 1.5 Results To ease the presentation and interpretation of the results, the results are presented by plotting each classification metric of all the ML classifiers under comparison across the sample sizes in Figures 2 to 8 . Figure 2. Classification accuracy for the basic MLP, GA-MLP, GOA-MLP and CMA-ES-MLP by sample size. The line graphs represent the overall classification accuracy of the basic MLP and each optimised MLP to determine the impact of various sample sizes on their classification accuracy. The classification accuracy is rate at which the model correctly classifies all the observations (both non-subscriptions and subscriptions). Figure 3. Precision rate for the basic MLP, GA-MLP, GOA-MLP and CMA-ES-MLP by sample size. The line graphs represent the overall precision rate of the basic MLP and each optimised MLP across the various sample sizes. This was to determine the impact of various sample sizes on the percentage of the term deposit subscriptions that are correctly classified by the models under comparison out of all the cases that were predicted as term deposit subscriptions by these models. Figure 4. Sensitivity/recall for the basic MLP, GA-MLP, GOA-MLP and CMA-ES-MLP by sample size. The line graphs represent the sensitivity rate of the basic MLP and each optimised MLP across the various sample sizes. This was to determine the impact of various sample sizes on the percentage of the term deposit subscriptions that are correctly classified by the models under comparison out of all the term deposit subscriptions from the testing datasets. Figure 5. Specificity rates for the basic MLP, GA-MLP, GOA-MLP and CMA-ES-MLP by sample size. The line graphs represent the specificity rate of the basic MLP and each optimised MLP across the various sample sizes. This was to determine the impact of various sample sizes on the percentage of the term deposit non-subscriptions that are correctly classified by the models under comparison out of all the term deposit non-subscriptions from the testing datasets. Figure 6. F-measure rates for the basic MLP, GA-MLP, GOA-MLP and CMA-ES-MLP by sample size. The line graphs represent the F-measure rate of the basic MLP and each optimised MLP across the various sample sizes. This was to determine the impact of various sample sizes on the harmonic mean of precision and recall. That is, how the sample size impacts the ability of the models under comparison to balance precision and recall. Figure 7. Execution times for the basic MLP, GA-MLP, GOA-MLP and CMA-ES-MLP by sample size. The line graphs represent the execution time of the basic MLP and each optimised MLP across the various sample sizes. This was to determine the impact of various sample sizes on the time it takes to complete the processes of deriving each model. Figure 8. Mean of classification metrics for the basic MLP, GA-MLP, GOA-MLP and CMA-ES-MLP across the samples. The line graphs represent the performance of the basic MLP and each optimised MLP across the various sample sizes on average. This was to determine the impact of various sample sizes on the average performance of the models. The mean classification performance was computed by taking the average of overall classification accuracy, precision, sensitivity and specificity. Figure 2 shows that, for the basic MLP classifier, the classification accuracy values fluctuate and do not follow a clear increasing or decreasing trend with different sample sizes. The GA-MLP shows that the classification accuracy values also fluctuate and do not exhibit a consistent pattern with the change in the sample size. For GOA-MLP, the classification accuracy values show fluctuations but are more stable than those of its competitors. For CMA-ES-MLP, the classification accuracy values appear to fluctuate with a significant drop for the 60% sample (n = 3832), but in most of the sample sizes (10% (n = 626), 20% (n = 1280), 40% (n = 2592), 70% (n = 3582), 80% (n = 5114), 90% (n = 5114), and 100% (n = 6398)), this classifier has the highest overall classification accuracy rates; that is, the ability to classify both subscribers and non-subscribers from the datasets. The precision rates for all classifiers across sample sizes are shown in Figure 3 . Figure 3 shows that the precision values for all the models fluctuated as the sample sizes increased and did not show a consistent upward or downward pattern as the sample size increased. Generally, relatively high rates of precision are shown for the CMA-ES-MLP in most of the sample sizes (10% (n = 626), 20% (n = 1280), 30% (n = 1940), 40% (n = 2592), 50% (n = 3204), 60% (n = 3832), 70% (n = 3582), 80% (n = 5114), and 100% (n = 6398)). This implies that CMA-ES-MLP has the highest ability to correctly classify positive cases (subscribers) out of all predicted positives compared to GA-MLP, GOA-MLP, and the basic MLP in most instances. The sensitivity/recall rates for all classifiers across sample sizes are presented in Figure 4 . Figure 4 shows a sharp increase from the smallest sample size (10% (n = 626)) to the second-smallest sample size (20% (n = 1280)) in the sensitivity/recall rate for the basic MLP. Thereafter, a steady increase was observed until n = 2592, followed by fluctuating values of sensitivity in the remaining sample sizes. Generally, the basic MLP with no optimization yielded the lowest sensitivity rates across all sample sizes compared to its competitors (except for the full dataset (n = 6398)). The second lowest sensitivity/recall rates were observed for GA-MLP across all samples, except for the 70% sample (n = 3582) and the 80% sample (n = 5114), so generally GA-MLP is the second worst performer among all four models. Figure 4 shows that the sensitivity/recall values for GOA-MLP and CMA-ES-MLP also show fluctuations but are generally relatively higher than those of the basic MLP and GA-MLP for most samples. The sensitivity/recall rates for CMA-ES-MLP decreased slowly as the sample size increased (except when n = 5760). In general, the sensitivity rates for GA-MLP, GOA-MLP, and CMA-ES-MLP are more stable across the sample sizes relative to those derived from the basic MLP without optimization because they do not fluctuate rapidly, as in the case of the basic MLP. In most instances, GA-MLP and CMA-ES-MLP correctly classified the negatives (non-subscribers) better than GOA-MLP and basic MLP. The specificity rates for all classifiers across sample sizes are shown in Figure 5 . Figure 5 shows that for the basic MLP, the specificity values are relatively low and fluctuate with different sample sizes. The specificity for GA-MLP was highest for the smallest sample size (10% (n = 626)), followed by an upward trend between the second-smallest sample (20% (n = 1280)) and the fifth-lowest or sixth highest (50% (n = 3204)). Thereafter, it fluctuates, but for most sample sizes, its values are greater than those of the basic MLP and lower than those of the GOA-MLP. The specificity values for CMA-ES-MLP generally increased from the sixth highest sample (50% (3204)) to the full dataset (n = 6398) as the sample size increased. Generally, the CMA-ES-MLP classifies the positives (subscribers) correctly more accurately than the basic MLP, GA-MLP, and GOA-MLP. The F-measure rates for all classifiers across sample sizes are shown in Figure 6 . Figure 6 shows that for the basic MLP, the F-measure appears to fluctuate with different sample sizes without forming a clear upward or downward trend, and the basic MLP yielded the lowest F-measure across all sample sizes. For GA-MLP, generally, there seems to be an increase in the F-measure as the sample size increases from 20% (n=1280) to 50% (n=3240) and from 60% (3832) to 90% (5760); however, GA-MLP is the second worst performer in terms of the F-measure. Figure 6 also shows that the F-measure for the GOA-MLP fluctuates, and there is a significant drop in its performance for the whole dataset (n=1940); however, this classifier is generally the second-best performer in terms of the F-measure, after the CMA-ES-MLP. The execution times for all classifiers across sample sizes are shown in Figure 7 . Figure 7 shows that the basic MLP was the fastest to train, followed by CMA-ES-MLP. For the GA-MLP and GOA-MLP algorithms, there was an increasing trend whereby, as the sample sizes increased, the execution time also increased for these classifiers, but GA-MLP was the most expensive model when the sample size was at least 5114. The means of the classification metrics for all classifiers across the sample sizes are shown in Figure 8 . Figure 8 shows that the CMA-ES-MLP algorithm consistently achieved the highest mean accuracy across different sample sizes (except for the 50% sample size (n=3204)), indicating that it is the most accurate model overall. The GA-MLP and GOA-MLP algorithms showed varied performance, but for most sample sizes (10% (n=626), 20% (n=1280), 30% (n=1940), 40% (n=2592), 70% (n=3582), 80% (n=5114), and 100% (n=6398)), GA-GOA-MLP provided more accurate classifications than GA-MLP. The basic MLP algorithm consistently achieved the lowest mean classification accuracy, indicating its poor performance compared to its optimized variates. In general, the classifiers can be ranked in descending order of mean classification accuracy: CMA-ES-MLP, GOA-MLP, GA-MLP, and basic MLP. 1.6 Conclusion This study was conducted to determine the impact of sample size on the classification ability and efficiency of GA, GOA, and CMA-CS, which are optimization algorithms for the MLP. The comparison was performed using line graphs of precision, F-measure, accuracy, sensitivity/recall, specificity, and execution time for basic MLP, GA-MLP, GOA-MLP, and CMA-ES-MLP across the ten samples. The line charts did not reveal a defined relationship between the performance of the classifiers across the sample sizes because the plots varied rapidly as the sample size increased. However, the execution time showed a clearer pattern as the sample size increased. The results revealed that GOA-MLP had more stable classification accuracy values than its competitors. Generally, the sensitivity rates for GA-MLP, GOA-MLP, and CMA-ES-MLP were more stable across the sample sizes relative to those derived from the basic MLP without optimization, since they did not fluctuate rapidly like those of the basic MLP. The researchers concluded that the CMA-ES-MLP is the best model for this study in general because it maintains high rates of classification accuracy, F-measure, precision, and specificity for most sample sizes, and was the second-best performing classifier execution time. Furthermore, the mean classification metric results revealed that the CMA-ES-MLP algorithm consistently achieved the highest mean accuracy across nine different sample sizes, indicating that it is the most accurate model overall. The CMA-ES-MLP optimizer was identified as the most efficient optimization algorithm for an optimum MLP, as it was generally the most accurate optimizer, and it provided a lower execution time than GA-MLP and GOA-MLP, which did not increase noticeably as the sample size increased, implying that the CMA-ES optimizer is the most efficient optimizer for an optimum MLP compared with GA and GOA across all samples. Generally, the sample size affects the performance of the MLP because the values of the classification metrics do not remain constant as the sample size changes. However, the results revealed that the values of the accuracy metrics for all the models fluctuated as the sample size increased, and there was no consistent increase or decrease in the classification performance of the algorithms as the sample size increased. On the other hand, the execution times for the GA and GOA optimizers increased as the sample size increased, but the execution time of the basic MLP remained the lowest and was almost constant as the sample size increased. Although CMA-ES had the lowest execution time compared to GOA and GA, it increased slightly when the sample size was at least 5114. Contribution This study compared the performance of the basic MLP to MLPs optimized using GA, GOA, and CMA-ES, which has not been done in other studies; therefore, this is a contribution to the literature on MLP and optimization algorithms. Through this study, it is now known that the performance of MLP, GA-MLP, CMA-ES-MLP, GO-MLP, and GOA-MLP varies rapidly across the sample sizes, so we cannot generalize that the larger the sample size, the better the model, or vice versa. This novel knowledge extends the literature on ML classifiers, especially MLP. From the execution time results, the change in sample sizes revealed that the basic MLP was the fastest, followed by the CMA-ES-MLP, whereas in the other models, as the sample size increased, the execution time also increased. This implies that the CMA-ES-MLP is not just the most accurate, but also less expensive and has proven to be more stable in terms of training time as the sample size increases. This implies that the training time for the CMA-ES-MLP is least affected by the change in the datasets and using it with large datasets is likely not to affect its training time significantly as opposed to the GA and GOA. These results contribute novel knowledge about the efficiency of CMA-ES in optimizing the MLP. The findings of this study also showed that training the MLP and its optimized variates on different samples that are randomly drawn from a larger dataset may aid in identifying the sample that can yield the most accurate classifier, as opposed to training the classifiers using one training dataset. More specifically, the selected model CMA-ES-MLP yielded the highest accuracy (overall classification accuracy, precision, and specificity) when the sample size was 5114, which is less than that of the mother dataset of 6398 observations. The best CMA-ES-MLP identified in this study competes well with classifiers that were the best performers from previous studies using the same dataset. For example, the best CMA-ES-MLP that was identified as the performer in this study has a classification accuracy of 90.18%, which is higher than that of the Meta-cost MLP (77.48%), 29 RF (86.08%), 41 and DT (87.5%). 30 This comparison does not ignore the fact that in some previous studies, the setting was different from that used in our study. It is recommended that a future study using the classifiers that were identified as the best from previous studies in Table 2 and the CMA-ES-MLP from this study be conducted to compare these classifiers under the same setting. The recommendations drawn from this study contribute new possible areas of research around ML classifiers, and the implications of the findings from this study contribute to a novel, accurate, and efficient approach to predicting the likelihood of a potential client subscribing to a term deposit using CMA-ES-MLP. Ethical considerations This paper was written using parts of a PhD study whose proposal was presented at the school colloquium, where it received approval. It was subsequently submitted to the School Scientific Committee for approval as well. Then the proposal approved by the North-West University’s Faculty of Economic and Management Sciences Research Scientific Committee (FEMS-REC) on 30 June 2023, with the study classified as minimal risk. The ethics approval number is NWU-00684-22-A4. Data availability The data used in this study is a secondary dataset on direct marketing campaigns of a Portuguese banking institution named “Bank Marketing.” The dataset was obtained from the UCI Machine Learning Repository by the Center for Machine Learning and Intelligent Systems. The primary contributor for the data is. 28 The dataset can be accessed through https://archive.ics.uci.edu/ml/datasets/Bank+Marketing . DOI: 10.24432/C5K306. The researchers took some random samples to mimic different sample sizes so that they can successfully achieve the objective of study which is to determine the impact of sample size on the performance of optimisation algorithms for the MLP used in the prediction of client subscription to a term deposit. The dataset is licensed under CC BY 4.0 license which allows for its sharing and adaptation for any purpose (which imply that research purposes is included) provided that the appropriate credit is given (which is done in this paper in section 1.3.1). Acknowledgements The authors of this research acknowledge North-West University (NWU) for availing resources to support this research. References 1. Mythili M, Shanavas AM: An Analysis of students’ performance using classification algorithms. IOSR Journal of Computer Engineering. 2014; 16 (1): 63–69. Publisher Full Text 2. Tomar GS, Chaudhari NS, Barbosa JLV, et al. : International conference on intelligent computing and smart communication 2019: Proceedings of ICSC 2019. Springer Nature; 2020. 3. Khan MA, Khan MA, Jan Z, et al. : Performance of machine learning techniques in protein fold recognition problem. 2010 International Conference on Information Science and Applications. IEEE; 2010; pp. 1–6. 4. Stottinger J, Hanbury A, Sebe N, et al. : Sparse color interest points for image retrieval and object categorization. IEEE Trans. Image Process. 2012; 21 (5): 2681–2692. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 5. Gulia A, Vohra R, Rani P: Liver patient classification using intelligent techniques. International Journal of Computer Science and Information Technologies. 2014; 5 (4): 5110–5115. 6. Di H, Shafiq M, AlRegib G: Patch-level MLP classification for improved fault detection. SEG Technical Program Expanded Abstracts 2018. Society of Exploration Geophysicists; 2018; pp. 2211–2215. 7. Çığşar B, Ünal D: Comparison of data mining classification algorithms determining the default risk. Sci. Program. 2019; 2019 : 1–8. Publisher Full Text 8. Jamuna K, Karpagavalli S, Vijaya M, et al. : Classification of seed cotton yield based on the growth stages of cotton crop using machine learning techniques. 2010 International Conference on Advances in Computer Engineering. IEEE; 2010; pp. 312–315. 9. Harikrishnan A, Sethi S, Pandey R: Handwritten digit recognition with feed-forward multi-layer perceptron and convolutional neural network architectures. 2020 2nd International Conference on Innovative Mechanisms for Industry Applications (ICIMIA). IEEE; 2020; pp. 398–402. 10. Rouse M: Internet of Things (IOT),[ONLINE] Internet-of-Things [Acedido em 23 Junho 2015]. 2014. Reference Source 11. Hull DG: Optimal control theory for applications. Springer Science & Business Media; 2013. 12. Fernández A, López V, Galar M, et al. : Analysing the classification of imbalanced data-sets with multiple classes: Binarization techniques and ad-hoc approaches. Knowl.-Based Syst. 2013; 42 : 97–110. Publisher Full Text 13. HARIT A: Optimizing Weights And Biases in MLP Using Whale Optimization Algorithm. Durham University; 2022. 14. Abdel-Basset M, El-Shahat D, El-Henawy I, et al. : A new fusion of grey wolf optimizer algorithm with a two-phase mutation for feature selection. Expert Syst. Appl. 2020; 139 : 112824. Publisher Full Text 15. Bhesdadiya R, Jangir P, Jangir N, et al. : Training multi-layer perceptron in neural network using whale optimization algorithm. Indian J. Sci. Technol. 2016; 9 (19): 28–36. 16. Alboaneen DA, Tianfield H, Zhang Y: Sentiment analysis via multi-layer perceptron trained by meta-heuristic optimisation. 2017 IEEE International Conference on Big Data (Big Data). IEEE; 2017; pp. 4630–4635. 17. Aljarah I, Faris H, Mirjalili S: Optimizing connection weights in neural networks using the whale optimization algorithm. Soft. Comput. 2018; 22 : 1–15. Publisher Full Text 18. Anderson SF, Kelley K, Maxwell SE: Sample-size planning for more accurate statistical power: A method adjusting sample effect sizes for publication bias and uncertainty. Psychol. Sci. 2017; 28 (11): 1547–1562. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 19. Kyriazos TA: Applied psychometrics: sample size and sample power considerations in factor analysis (EFA, CFA) and SEM in general. Psychology. 2018; 09 (08): 2207–2230. Publisher Full Text 20. Uttley J: Power analysis, sample size, and assessment of statistical assumptions—Improving the evidential value of lighting research. Leukos; 2019. 21. Riley RD, et al. : Calculating the sample size required for developing a clinical prediction model. BMJ. 2020; 368 . Publisher Full Text 22. Gibson E, Hu Y, Huisman HJ, et al. : Designing image segmentation studies: statistical power, sample size and reference standard quality. Med. Image Anal. 2017; 42 : 44–59. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 23. Taud H, Mas J-F: Multilayer perceptron (MLP). Geomatic approaches for modeling land change scenarios. 2018; 451–455. Publisher Full Text 24. Bisong E, Bisong E: The multilayer perceptron (MLP). Building Machine Learning and Deep Learning Models on Google Cloud Platform: A Comprehensive Guide for Beginners. 2019; 401–405. Publisher Full Text 25. Zare M, Pourghasemi HR, Vafakhah M, et al. : Landslide susceptibility mapping at Vaz Watershed (Iran) using an artificial neural network model: a comparison between multilayer perceptron (MLP) and radial basic function (RBF) algorithms. Arab. J. Geosci. 2013; 6 : 2873–2888. Publisher Full Text 26. Fath AH, Madanifar F, Abbasi M: Implementation of multilayer perceptron (MLP) and radial basis function (RBF) neural networks to predict solution gas-oil ratio of crude oil systems. Petroleum. 2020; 6 (1): 80–91. Publisher Full Text 27. Mohammadi J, Ataei M, Kakaei RK, et al. : Prediction of the production rate of chain saw machine using the multilayer perceptron (MLP) neural network. Civil Engineering Journal. 2018; 4 (7): 1575–1583. Publisher Full Text 28. Moro S, Cortez P, Rita P: A data-driven approach to predict the success of bank telemarketing. Decis. Support. Syst. 2014; 62 : 22–31. Publisher Full Text 29. Ghatasheh N, Faris H, AlTaharwa I, et al. : Business analytics in telemarketing: Cost-sensitive analysis of bank campaigns using artificial neural networks. Appl. Sci. 2020; 10 (7): 2581. Publisher Full Text 30. Zaki AM, Khodadadi N, Lim WH, et al. : Predictive Analytics and Machine Learning in Direct Marketing for Anticipating Bank Term Deposit Subscriptions. American Journal of Business and Operations Research. 2024; 11 (1): 79–88. Publisher Full Text 31. Ghaleb SA, Mohamad M, Fadzli SA, et al. : E-mail spam classification using grasshopper optimization algorithm and neural networks. Comput., Mater. Continua. 2022; 71 (3): 4749–4766. Publisher Full Text 32. Das H, Jena AK, Nayak J, et al. : A novel PSO based back propagation learning-MLP (PSO-BP-MLP) for classification. Computational Intelligence in Data Mining-Volume 2: Proceedings of the International Conference on CIDM, 20-21 December 2014. Springer; 2015; pp. 461–471. 33. Michira MK, Rimiru RM, Mwangi WR: Improved multilayer perceptron neural networks weights and biases based on the grasshopper optimization algorithm to predict student performance on ambient learning. Proceedings of the 2023 7th international conference on machine learning and soft computing. 2023; pp. 61–68. 34. Yuan C, Moayedi H: The performance of six neural-evolutionary classification techniques combined with multi-layer perception in two-layered cohesive slope stability analysis and failure recognition. Eng. Comput. 2020; 36 : 1705–1714. Publisher Full Text 35. Abdollahi J, Keshandehghan A, Gardaneh M, et al. : Accurate detection of breast cancer metastasis using a hybrid model of artificial intelligence algorithm. Archives of Breast Cancer. 2020; 18–24. Publisher Full Text 36. Mishra S, Tripathy HK, Mallick PK, et al. : EAGA-MLP—an enhanced and adaptive hybrid classification model for diabetes diagnosis. Sensors. 2020; 20 (14): 4036. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 37. Dweekat OY, Lam SS: Cervical cancer diagnosis using an integrated system of principal component analysis, genetic algorithm, and multilayer perceptron. Healthcare. MDPI; 2022; vol. 10 (10): p. 2002. 38. Zhang R, Zhang Z, Wang D, et al. : Financial distress prediction with a novel diversity-considered GA-MLP ensemble algorithm. Neural. Process. Lett. 2022; 54 (2): 1175–1194. Publisher Full Text 39. Ghaleb SA, Mohamad M, Abdullah EFHS, et al. : Spam classification based on supervised learning using grasshopper optimization algorithm and artificial neural network. Advances in Cyber Security: Second International Conference, ACeS 2020, Penang, Malaysia, December 8-9, 2020, Revised Selected Papers 2. Springer; 2021; pp. 420–434. 40. Moro S, Laureano R, Cortez P: Using data mining for bank direct marketing: An application of the crisp-dm methodology.2011. 41. Asare-Frempong J, Jayabalan M: Predicting customer response to bank direct telemarketing campaign. 2017 International Conference on Engineering Technology and Technopreneurship (ICE2T). IEEE; 2017; pp. 1–4. 42. Moro S, Cortez P, Rita P: Using customer lifetime value and neural networks to improve the prediction of bank deposit subscription in telemarketing campaigns. Neural Comput. & Applic. 2015; 26 : 131–139. Publisher Full Text 43. Elsalamony HA: Bank direct marketing analysis of data mining techniques. Int. J. Comput. Appl. 2014; 85 (7): 12–22. Publisher Full Text 44. Ładyżyński P, Żbikowski K, Gawrysiak P: Direct marketing campaigns in retail banking with the use of deep learning and random forests. Expert Syst. Appl. 2019; 134 : 28–35. Publisher Full Text 45. Pavlović D, Reljić MM, Jaćimović S: Application of Data Mining in direct marketing. Industrija. 2014; 42 (1): 189–201. Publisher Full Text 46. Karim M, Rahman RM: Decision tree and naive bayes algorithm for classification and generation of actionable knowledge for direct marketing.2013. 47. Kim Y, Street WN: An intelligent system for customer targeting: a data mining approach. Decis. Support. Syst. 2004; 37 (2): 215–228. Publisher Full Text 48. Fernández A, Garcia S, Herrera F, et al. : SMOTE for learning from imbalanced data: progress and challenges, marking the 15-year anniversary. J. Artif. Intell. Res. 2018; 61 : 863–905. Publisher Full Text 49. Karabulut EM, Ibrikci T: Effective automated prediction of vertebral column pathologies based on logistic model tree with SMOTE preprocessing. J. Med. Syst. 2014; 38 : 1–9. Publisher Full Text 50. Bahaweres RB, Agustian F, Hermadi I, et al. : Software defect prediction using neural network based smote. 2020 7th International Conference on Electrical Engineering, Computer Sciences and Informatics (EECSI). IEEE; 2020; pp. 71–76. 51. Zhang J, Li X: Phishing detection method based on borderline-smote deep belief network. Security, Privacy, and Anonymity in Computation, Communication, and Storage: SpaCCS 2017 International Workshops, Guangzhou, China, December 12-15, 2017, Proceedings 10. Springer; 2017; pp. 45–53. 52. Su P, Liu Y, Song X: Research on intrusion detection method based on improved smote and XGBoost. Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Communication and Network Security. 2018; pp. 37–41. 53. Hussein AS, Li T, Yohannese CW, et al. : A-SMOTE: A new preprocessing approach for highly imbalanced datasets by improving SMOTE. Int. J. Comput. Intell. Syst. 2019; 12 (2): 1412–1422. Publisher Full Text 54. Olazaran M: A sociological study of the official history of the perceptrons controversy. Soc. Stud. Sci. 1996; 26 (3): 611–659. Publisher Full Text 55. Bishop CM, Nasrabadi NM: Pattern recognition and machine learning. Springer; 2006; (no. 4). 56. Gaikwad NB, Tiwari V, Keskar A, et al. : Efficient FPGA implementation of multilayer perceptron for real-time human activity classification. IEEE Access. 2019; 7 : 26696–26706. Publisher Full Text 57. Wu R, Yan S, Shan Y, et al. : Deep image: Scaling up image recognition. arXiv preprint arXiv:1501.02876. 2015; vol. 7 (8): p. 4. 58. Kanan C, Cottrell GW: Color-to-grayscale: does the method matter in image recognition?. PloS one. 2012; 7 (1): e29740. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 59. Yu D, Deng L: Automatic speech recognition. Springer; 2016. 60. Parloff R: Why deep learning is suddenly changing your life. Fortune. New York: Time Inc; 2016. 61. Aggarwal CC, Zhai C: A survey of text classification algorithms. Mining text data. Springer; 2012; pp. 163–222. 62. Miner G: Practical text mining and statistical analysis for non-structured text data applications. Academic Press; 2012. 63. Ahishakiye E, Taremwa D, Omulo EO, et al. : Crime prediction using decision tree (J48) classification algorithm. International Journal of Computer and Information Technology. 2017; 6 (3): 188–195. 64. Colak M, Yesilbudak M, Bayindir R: Daily photovoltaic power prediction enhanced by hybrid GWO-MLP, ALO-MLP and WOA-MLP models using meteorological information. Energies. 2020; 13 (4): 901. Publisher Full Text 65. Nwankpa C, Ijomah W, Gachagan A, et al. : Activation functions: Comparison of trends in practice and research for deep learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:1811.03378. 2018. 66. Hansen N, Müller SD, Koumoutsakos P: Reducing the time complexity of the derandomized evolution strategy with covariance matrix adaptation (CMA-ES). Evol. Comput. 2003; 11 (1): 1–18. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 67. Hansen N: The CMA evolution strategy: A tutorial. arXiv preprint arXiv:1604.00772. 2016. 68. Balakrishnan S, Wainwright MJ, Yu B: Statistical guarantees for the EM algorithm: From population to sample-based analysis.2017. 69. Arsenault R, Poulin A, Côté P, et al. : Comparison of stochastic optimization algorithms in hydrological model calibration. J. Hydrol. Eng. 2014; 19 (7): 1374–1384. Publisher Full Text 70. Suominen P, Brink A, Salmi T: Parameter estimation of complex chemical kinetics with covariance matrix adaptation evolution strategy. Match-Communications in Mathematical and Computer Chemistry. 2012; 68 (2): 469. 71. Lin W, Nielsen F, Emtiyaz KM, et al. : Tractable structured natural-gradient descent using local parameterizations. International Conference on Machine Learning. PMLR; 2021; pp. 6680–6691. 72. Burgin M, Eberbach E: Evolutionary Turing in the Context of Evolutionary Machines. arXiv preprint arXiv:1304.3762. 2013. 73. Chernukhin O, Zingg DW: Multimodality and global optimization in aerodynamic design. AIAA J. 2013; 51 (6): 1342–1354. Publisher Full Text 74. Bottou L, Curtis FE, Nocedal J: Optimization methods for large-scale machine learning. SIAM Rev. 2018; 60 (2): 223–311. Publisher Full Text 75. Gálvez A, Iglesias A: A new iterative mutually coupled hybrid GA–PSO approach for curve fitting in manufacturing. Appl. Soft Comput. 2013; 13 (3): 1491–1504. Publisher Full Text 76. Miller TG, Xu S, De Lamare RC, et al. : Distributed spectrum estimation based on alternating mixed discrete-continuous adaptation. IEEE Signal Processing Letters. 2016; 23 (4): 551–555. Publisher Full Text 77. Hook K: Designing with the body: Somaesthetic interaction design. MIt Press; 2018. 78. Hassanat A, Almohammadi K, Alkafaween EA, et al. : Choosing mutation and crossover ratios for genetic algorithms—a review with a new dynamic approach. Information. 2019; 10 (12): 390. Publisher Full Text 79. Hermawanto D: Genetic algorithm for solving simple mathematical equality problem. arXiv preprint arXiv:1308.4675. 2013. 80. Drezner Z, Drezner TD: Biologically inspired parent selection in genetic algorithms. Ann. Oper. Res. 2020; 287 (1): 161–183. Publisher Full Text 81. Mazidi A, Fakhrahmad M, Sadreddini MH: A meta-heuristic approach to CVRP problem: local search optimization based on GA and ant colony.2016. 82. Mirjalili S, Mirjalili S: Genetic algorithm. Evolutionary algorithms and neural networks: Theory and applications. 2019; 43–55. Publisher Full Text 83. Saremi S, Mirjalili S, Lewis A: Grasshopper optimisation algorithm: theory and application. Adv. Eng. Softw. 2017; 105 : 30–47. Publisher Full Text 84. Zakeri A, Hokmabadi A: Efficient feature selection method using real-valued grasshopper optimization algorithm. Expert Syst. Appl. 2019; 119 : 61–72. Publisher Full Text 85. Lv Z, Peng R: A novel meta-matching approach for ontology alignment using grasshopper optimization. Knowl.-Based Syst. 2020; 201 : 106050. 86. Heidari AA, Faris H, Aljarah I, et al. : An efficient hybrid multilayer perceptron neural network with grasshopper optimization. Soft. Comput. 2019; 23 : 7941–7958. Publisher Full Text 87. Mirjalili SZ, Mirjalili S, Saremi S, et al. : Grasshopper optimization algorithm for multi-objective optimization problems. Appl. Intell. 2018; 48 : 805–820. Publisher Full Text 88. Yang Y, Chen K: Temporal data clustering via weighted clustering ensemble with different representations. IEEE Trans. Knowl. Data Eng. 2010; 23 (2): 307–320. Publisher Full Text 89. Gavrilov M, Anguelov D, Indyk P, et al. : Mining the stock market (extended abstract) which measure is best?. Proceedings of the sixth ACM SIGKDD international conference on Knowledge discovery and data mining. 2000; pp. 487–496. 90. Lalkhen AG, McCluskey A: Clinical tests: sensitivity and specificity. Contin. Educ. Anaesth. Crit. Care Pain. 2008; 8 (6): 221–223. Publisher Full Text 91. Shepherd M, Wheeler D, Selbie D, et al. : Overseer ® : accuracy, precision, error and uncertainty. Accurate and efficient use of nutrients on farms. 2013; 1–8. 92. Powers DM: What the F-measure doesn’t measure: Features, Flaws, Fallacies and Fixes. arXiv preprint arXiv:1503.06410. 2015. 93. Casas I, Taheri J, Ranjan R, et al. : A balanced scheduler with data reuse and replication for scientific workflows in cloud computing systems. Futur. Gener. Comput. Syst. 2017; 74 : 168–178. Publisher Full Text Comments on this article Comments (0) Version 3 VERSION 3 PUBLISHED 22 Dec 2025 ADD YOUR COMMENT Comment Author details Author details 1 Department of Business Statistics & Operations Research, North West University Faculty of Economic and Management Sciences, Potchefstroom, North West, 2735, South Africa Tshegofatso Botlhoko Roles: Conceptualization, Formal Analysis, Methodology, Writing – Original Draft Preparation Tlhalitshi Volition Montshiwa Roles: Conceptualization, Methodology, Supervision, Writing – Review & Editing Competing interests No competing interests were disclosed. Grant information The author(s) declared that no grants were involved in supporting this work. Article Versions (3) version 3 Revised Published: 02 Mar 2026, 14:1426 https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.168092.3 version 2 Revised Published: 30 Jan 2026, 14:1426 https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.168092.2 version 1 Published: 22 Dec 2025, 14:1426 https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.168092.1 Copyright © 2025 Botlhoko T and Volition Montshiwa T. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. Download Export To Sciwheel Bibtex EndNote ProCite Ref. Manager (RIS) Sente metrics Views Downloads F1000Research - - PubMed Central info_outline Data from PMC are received and updated monthly. - - Citations open_in_new 0 open_in_new 0 open_in_new SEE MORE DETAILS CITE how to cite this article Botlhoko T and Volition Montshiwa T. Impact of sample size on optimisation algorithms for the MLP used in the prediction of client subscription to a term deposit [version 1; peer review: 1 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2025, 14 :1426 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.168092.1 ) NOTE: If applicable, it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS track receive updates on this article Track an article to receive email alerts on any updates to this article. TRACK THIS ARTICLE Share Open Peer Review Current Reviewer Status: ? Key to Reviewer Statuses VIEW HIDE Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Version 1 VERSION 1 PUBLISHED 22 Dec 2025 Views 0 Cite How to cite this report: Mohammadagha M. Reviewer Report For: Impact of sample size on optimisation algorithms for the MLP used in the prediction of client subscription to a term deposit [version 1; peer review: 1 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2025, 14 :1426 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.185252.r446950 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/14-1426/v1#referee-response-446950 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. Close Copy Citation Details Reviewer Report 10 Jan 2026 Mohsen Mohammadagha , University of Texas at Arlington, Arlington, Texas, USA Approved with Reservations VIEWS 0 https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.185252.r446950 This study compares the performance of three optimization algorithms—Genetic Algorithm (GA), Grasshopper Optimization Algorithm (GOA), and Covariance Matrix Adaptation Evolution Strategy (CMA-ES)—for optimizing Multilayer Perceptron (MLP) neural networks across varying sample sizes. Using a Portuguese banking dataset (4,521 observations) from ... Continue reading READ ALL This study compares the performance of three optimization algorithms—Genetic Algorithm (GA), Grasshopper Optimization Algorithm (GOA), and Covariance Matrix Adaptation Evolution Strategy (CMA-ES)—for optimizing Multilayer Perceptron (MLP) neural networks across varying sample sizes. Using a Portuguese banking dataset (4,521 observations) from the UCI repository, the researchers evaluated how sample size affects classification performance when predicting client subscription to term deposits. The study employed SMOTE for data balancing and tested ten different sample sizes (10%-100%). Results identified CMA-ES-MLP as the best overall performer with high accuracy, precision, and specificity, while maintaining competitive execution time. 1. Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite current literature? Recommendations: Update literature review with 2023-2025 papers. 2. Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? Yes 3. Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Recommended : Code availability​, Random seeds​, Incomplete hyperparameter specifications​, Software versions​, MLP architecture. 4. If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? It can be suggested to conduct runs with statistical tests (e.g., Friedman or any other methods) and report confidence intervals. 5. Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? Yes 6. Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? It is recommended to add confidence intervals, statistical tests (e.g., McNemar's test, Friedman test with post-hoc analysis) Citation Format Issues: The manuscript contains improper in-text citation formatting that creates grammatically incomplete sentences. Specifically: "According to,14 there are several..." is missing the author name(s) before the superscript citation "in the study by,15,16 and it has been..." similarly omits the required author name(s) Corrections needed entire manuscript: Use narrative citations, for example: “According to Abdel-Basset et al. [14], there are several optimization algorithms. I provide a reference demonstrating an example for statistical evaluation in machine learning research. (Reference 1) Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Partly Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? Yes Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? No If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Partly Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? Yes Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? Partly References 1. Mohammadagha M, Asadi S, Kazemi Naeini H: Evaluating machine learning performance using python for neural network models in urban transportation in New York city case study. Journal of Economy and Technology . 2026; 4 : 266-283 Publisher Full Text Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise: Civil Engineering and Computer Science I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above. Close READ LESS CITE CITE HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT Mohammadagha M. Reviewer Report For: Impact of sample size on optimisation algorithms for the MLP used in the prediction of client subscription to a term deposit [version 1; peer review: 1 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2025, 14 :1426 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.185252.r446950 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/14-1426/v1#referee-response-446950 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS Report a concern Author Response 30 Jan 2026 Tlhalitshi Montshiwa , Department of Business Statistics & Operations Research, North West University Faculty of Economic and Management Sciences, Potchefstroom, 2735, South Africa 30 Jan 2026 Author Response Comment 1: Update literature review with 2023-2025 papers. Response 1: Thank you for the comment. Kindly note that this article is derived from a PhD study conducted in 2020, which ... Continue reading Comment 1: Update literature review with 2023-2025 papers. Response 1: Thank you for the comment. Kindly note that this article is derived from a PhD study conducted in 2020, which informed the initial scope and selection of the literature. Removal of references below 2023 may lead to misalignment with the theoretical framework and objectives of the study. Comment 2: Code availability​, Random seeds​, Incomplete hyperparameter specifications​, Software versions​, MLP architecture. Response 2: Thank you for this comment. The codes utilised for the analysis are available upon request. These codes include detailed information on the random seed settings, hyperparameter specifications, software versions, and the MLP architecture used in the study. This statement is included in the manuscript in data availability section. Comment 3: It can be suggested to conduct runs with statistical tests (e.g., Friedman or any other methods) and report confidence intervals. Response 3: This is a valuable suggestion, and the inclusion of confidence intervals as well as statistical comparison tests such as the Friedman and McNemar tests would enhance the robustness of the analysis. Due to the limited scope and objectives of the current study, these analyses were not implemented at this stage. However, they will be incorporated in future work to provide a more comprehensive statistical comparison of the models. Comment 4: It is recommended to add confidence intervals, statistical tests (e.g., McNemar's test, Friedman test with post-hoc analysis) Response 4: This is a valuable suggestion, and the inclusion of confidence intervals and formal statistical comparison tests such as McNemar’s and Friedman tests would indeed strengthen the robustness of the analysis. However, given the limited scope and objectives of the current study, the focus was placed on comparative predictive performance using standard evaluation metrics. Incorporating additional inferential statistical tests is therefore left as a potential extension for future work. Comment 1: Update literature review with 2023-2025 papers. Response 1: Thank you for the comment. Kindly note that this article is derived from a PhD study conducted in 2020, which informed the initial scope and selection of the literature. Removal of references below 2023 may lead to misalignment with the theoretical framework and objectives of the study. Comment 2: Code availability​, Random seeds​, Incomplete hyperparameter specifications​, Software versions​, MLP architecture. Response 2: Thank you for this comment. The codes utilised for the analysis are available upon request. These codes include detailed information on the random seed settings, hyperparameter specifications, software versions, and the MLP architecture used in the study. This statement is included in the manuscript in data availability section. Comment 3: It can be suggested to conduct runs with statistical tests (e.g., Friedman or any other methods) and report confidence intervals. Response 3: This is a valuable suggestion, and the inclusion of confidence intervals as well as statistical comparison tests such as the Friedman and McNemar tests would enhance the robustness of the analysis. Due to the limited scope and objectives of the current study, these analyses were not implemented at this stage. However, they will be incorporated in future work to provide a more comprehensive statistical comparison of the models. Comment 4: It is recommended to add confidence intervals, statistical tests (e.g., McNemar's test, Friedman test with post-hoc analysis) Response 4: This is a valuable suggestion, and the inclusion of confidence intervals and formal statistical comparison tests such as McNemar’s and Friedman tests would indeed strengthen the robustness of the analysis. However, given the limited scope and objectives of the current study, the focus was placed on comparative predictive performance using standard evaluation metrics. Incorporating additional inferential statistical tests is therefore left as a potential extension for future work. Competing Interests: None Close Report a concern Respond or Comment COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT Author Response 30 Jan 2026 Tlhalitshi Montshiwa , Department of Business Statistics & Operations Research, North West University Faculty of Economic and Management Sciences, Potchefstroom, 2735, South Africa 30 Jan 2026 Author Response Comment 1: Update literature review with 2023-2025 papers. Response 1: Thank you for the comment. Kindly note that this article is derived from a PhD study conducted in 2020, which ... Continue reading Comment 1: Update literature review with 2023-2025 papers. Response 1: Thank you for the comment. Kindly note that this article is derived from a PhD study conducted in 2020, which informed the initial scope and selection of the literature. Removal of references below 2023 may lead to misalignment with the theoretical framework and objectives of the study. Comment 2: Code availability​, Random seeds​, Incomplete hyperparameter specifications​, Software versions​, MLP architecture. Response 2: Thank you for this comment. The codes utilised for the analysis are available upon request. These codes include detailed information on the random seed settings, hyperparameter specifications, software versions, and the MLP architecture used in the study. This statement is included in the manuscript in data availability section. Comment 3: It can be suggested to conduct runs with statistical tests (e.g., Friedman or any other methods) and report confidence intervals. Response 3: This is a valuable suggestion, and the inclusion of confidence intervals as well as statistical comparison tests such as the Friedman and McNemar tests would enhance the robustness of the analysis. Due to the limited scope and objectives of the current study, these analyses were not implemented at this stage. However, they will be incorporated in future work to provide a more comprehensive statistical comparison of the models. Comment 4: It is recommended to add confidence intervals, statistical tests (e.g., McNemar's test, Friedman test with post-hoc analysis) Response 4: This is a valuable suggestion, and the inclusion of confidence intervals and formal statistical comparison tests such as McNemar’s and Friedman tests would indeed strengthen the robustness of the analysis. However, given the limited scope and objectives of the current study, the focus was placed on comparative predictive performance using standard evaluation metrics. Incorporating additional inferential statistical tests is therefore left as a potential extension for future work. Comment 1: Update literature review with 2023-2025 papers. Response 1: Thank you for the comment. Kindly note that this article is derived from a PhD study conducted in 2020, which informed the initial scope and selection of the literature. Removal of references below 2023 may lead to misalignment with the theoretical framework and objectives of the study. Comment 2: Code availability​, Random seeds​, Incomplete hyperparameter specifications​, Software versions​, MLP architecture. Response 2: Thank you for this comment. The codes utilised for the analysis are available upon request. These codes include detailed information on the random seed settings, hyperparameter specifications, software versions, and the MLP architecture used in the study. This statement is included in the manuscript in data availability section. Comment 3: It can be suggested to conduct runs with statistical tests (e.g., Friedman or any other methods) and report confidence intervals. Response 3: This is a valuable suggestion, and the inclusion of confidence intervals as well as statistical comparison tests such as the Friedman and McNemar tests would enhance the robustness of the analysis. Due to the limited scope and objectives of the current study, these analyses were not implemented at this stage. However, they will be incorporated in future work to provide a more comprehensive statistical comparison of the models. Comment 4: It is recommended to add confidence intervals, statistical tests (e.g., McNemar's test, Friedman test with post-hoc analysis) Response 4: This is a valuable suggestion, and the inclusion of confidence intervals and formal statistical comparison tests such as McNemar’s and Friedman tests would indeed strengthen the robustness of the analysis. However, given the limited scope and objectives of the current study, the focus was placed on comparative predictive performance using standard evaluation metrics. Incorporating additional inferential statistical tests is therefore left as a potential extension for future work. Competing Interests: None Close Report a concern COMMENT ON THIS REPORT Comments on this article Comments (0) Version 3 VERSION 3 PUBLISHED 22 Dec 2025 ADD YOUR COMMENT Comment keyboard_arrow_left keyboard_arrow_right Open Peer Review Reviewer Status info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Reviewer Reports Invited Reviewers 1 2 3 4 Version 3 (revision) 02 Mar 26 read read Version 2 (revision) 30 Jan 26 read read read read Version 1 22 Dec 25 read Mohsen Mohammadagha , University of Texas at Arlington, Arlington, USA Joseph Chukwunweike , Gist Limited, Bristol, UK Kamal Shah , Prince Sultan University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia Venkata Mohit Tamanampudi , JP Morgan Chase, New York City, USA Comments on this article All Comments (0) Add a comment Sign up for content alerts Sign Up You are now signed up to receive this alert Browse by related subjects keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2026 Mohammadagha M. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 17 Mar 2026 | for Version 3 Mohsen Mohammadagha , University of Texas at Arlington, Arlington, Texas, USA 0 Views copyright © 2026 Mohammadagha M. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses (0) Approved With Reservations info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Overall assessment The paper has improved compared with earlier versions because it now includes a Kruskal–Wallis analysis and a short future-research section, but important consistency, reproducibility, and writing issues still remain. In its current form, I would lean toward “Approved with Reservations” rather than “Approved.” 1- In Section 1.3.1, the authors say the raw sample sizes are 452, 904, 1356, 1808, 2261, 2713, 3165, 3617, 4069, and 4521, but in later tables and figures the “n” values become 626, 1280, 1940, 2592, 3204, 3832, 3582, 5114, 5760, and 6398, which are clearly SMOTE-balanced training sizes. This distinction must be made explicit every time sample size is mentioned. 2- The abstract says “CMA-ES-MLP with a training sample of 5 114 was our ideal classifier”, but a casual reader may assume 5,114 is the original study sample, even though the original dataset size is only 4,521 and 5,114 appears to be a post-SMOTE balanced training size. The wording is misleading and should be corrected. 3- The contribution section says the best model occurred at “the mother dataset of 6398 observations”, but the paper earlier states the original dataset has 4,521 observations. The 6,398 value appears to be the balanced training size, not the mother dataset size. This is a consistency error. 4- Counting of samples is inconsistent: The methods say “nine (9) random samples” were drawn, but the listed sizes are 10%, 20%, 30%, 40%, 50%, 60%, 70%, 80%, 90%, and 100%, which is ten sample sizes, not nine. 5- Statistical comparison is still not fully sufficient for the strength of the claims: The authors added the Kruskal–Wallis test, which is a welcome improvement, but the manuscript still makes strong claims such as “CMA-ES-MLP is the best model” without reporting repeated-run uncertainty, confidence intervals, or appropriate post-hoc pairwise comparisons. The result remains partly descriptive rather than fully inferential. If the purpose is to compare multiple ML methods across multiple conditions, a Friedman test with post-hoc comparisons (or another repeated-measures comparison framework) would usually align more closely with the comparative nature of the experiment than a simple Kruskal–Wallis presentation of mean ranks alone. At minimum, the authors should tone down the definitiveness of the conclusion. The manuscript does not clearly state whether results for each sample size come from one random draw / one split or from multiple repeated runs with different seeds. Without repeated runs, performance fluctuations may simply reflect sampling randomness rather than systematic sample-size effects. 6- Reproducibility is still incomplete: The paper says the code is available on request, but the manuscript itself still lacks a clear, fully reproducible protocol: random seeds, exact optimizer settings, stopping criteria, hardware, timing protocol, and detailed hyperparameter-search settings should be reported in the paper or supplement, not only in code that may be requested later. The train/test procedure is described as 80/20, and SMOTE is said to be applied to the training data, which is good, but the details remain incomplete. The authors should specify: whether the test set was always held out before SMOTE, whether the same test set structure was used across all sample sizes, which SMOTE parameters were used, and whether features were scaled/normalized before training the MLP and optimizers. 7- Comparison to prior studies is overstated: The manuscript compares its best classifier to results from prior studies on the same dataset and notes higher accuracy values, but the authors also acknowledge that settings differed. Because preprocessing, train/test split, balancing strategy, features, and evaluation protocols may vary widely, these cross-study comparisons should be presented more cautiously as informal context, not as direct benchmarking, as in Benchmark papers (e.g., original Moro et al., 2014) report modest accuracies (~88-90% on large versions with simple models like logistic regression; ML models vary but rarely exceed 92-93% without heavy tuning due to imbalance and noise). 8- Sample-size and results inconsistencies: In the Figure 2 discussion, the paper says “90% (n = 5114)”, but 5,114 corresponds to the 80% sample’s balanced training size, not the 90% sample. The 90% balanced training size is 5,760 according to Table 4. 9- In the Figure 6 discussion, the text says “50% (n=3240)”, but Table 4 shows the 50% balanced training size as 3,204, not 3,240. 10- In the same Figure 6 discussion, the text says there is a drop for the “whole dataset (n=1940)”, but 1,940 corresponds to the 30% balanced training size, not the whole dataset. This is an error. The whole-dataset balanced training size is listed as 6,398. 11- Table 3 contains a row with “n = 2026” on the unbalanced side, which does not fit the stated 10%-increment sampling scheme and appears inconsistent with the progression of training sample sizes. This row needs to be checked and corrected. 12- The paragraph interpreting Table 7 lists only a subset of sample sizes (n = 1446, 1809, 2170, 2026, 2894, 3255 and 3617) and omits others, while also mixing different notions of sample size. The authors should either list all sample sizes consistently or avoid listing them at all in that sentence. 13- The conclusion says the study was conducted on “GA, GOA, and CMA-CS”; “CMA-CS” is a typo and should be “CMA-ES.” 14- The manuscript says the model is best for predicting “credit card subscription”, but the entire paper is about term deposit subscription. This is a substantive wording error, not merely stylistic. 15- Some statements about stability are still too qualitative, such as saying one model is “more stable” without defining stability quantitatively. If stability is important, the authors should report something like standard deviation across repeated runs or explicitly state that “stability” is being judged only visually from line plots. 16- In the abstract, “multilayer perception (MLP)” should be “multilayer perceptron (MLP).” 17- Citation Format Issues: The manuscript contains improper in-text citation formatting that creates grammatically incomplete sentences. For example: "According to,14 there are several..." is missing the author name(s) before the superscript citation "in the study by,15,16 and it has been..." similarly omits the required author name(s). Corrections needed entire manuscript: Use narrative citations, for example: “According to Abdel-Basset et al. [14], there are several optimization algorithms. I provide a reference demonstrating an example for narrative citations and statistical evaluation in machine learning research. (Reference 1) “Mohammad Agha, M., Asadi, S., & Naeini, H. K. (2025). Evaluating machine learning performance using Python for neural network models in urban transportation in New York City case study. Journal of Economy and Technology.” 18- Grammar and sentence-level edits: “This imply” → “This implies” 19- “which imply” → “which implies” (when the subject is singular) 20- “Tables 7 presents” → “Table 7 presents” or “Tables 5–7 present,” depending on intent 21- “The sample size do not” → “The sample sizes do not” or “Sample size does not” 22- The recommendations section has several grammatical issues, for example: “Only simple random sampling with replacement was performed” conflicts with the earlier use of "stratified sampling" wording. 23- “ca compare” should be “can compare.” 24- “ADYSN” should likely be “ADASYN.” 25- “results form this study” should be “results from this study.” 26- One sentence says “Table shows the hyperparameter estimates…” but should specify “Table 4 shows…” for clarity. Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise Civil Engineering and Computer Science I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above. reply Respond to this report Responses (0) Mohammadagha M. Peer Review Report For: Impact of sample size on optimisation algorithms for the MLP used in the prediction of client subscription to a term deposit [version 1; peer review: 1 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2025, 14 :1426 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.197119.r463888) NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/14-1426/v3#referee-response-463888 keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2026 Shah K. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 17 Mar 2026 | for Version 3 Kamal Shah , Prince Sultan University, Riyadh, Riyadh Province, Saudi Arabia 0 Views copyright © 2026 Shah K. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses (0) Approved info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Accepted Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise Applied mathematics I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard. reply Respond to this report Responses (0) Shah K. Peer Review Report For: Impact of sample size on optimisation algorithms for the MLP used in the prediction of client subscription to a term deposit [version 1; peer review: 1 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2025, 14 :1426 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.197119.r463885) NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/14-1426/v3#referee-response-463885 keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2026 Tamanampudi V. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 19 Feb 2026 | for Version 2 Venkata Mohit Tamanampudi , JP Morgan Chase, New York City, USA 0 Views copyright © 2026 Tamanampudi V. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses (1) Approved info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions This is a well-structured and carefully conducted study that provides a clear comparison of GA, GOA, and CMA-ES optimization algorithms for improving MLP performance under varying sample sizes. The methodology is detailed, the evaluation metrics are comprehensive, and the graphical analysis helps illustrate how classification performance fluctuates as the dataset size changes. The conclusions are generally well supported by the reported results, particularly the identification of CMA-ES-MLP as a strong and computationally efficient performer. If the authors want to further improve the paper, they could consider: Expanding the discussion on why classification metrics fluctuate across sample sizes, providing deeper analytical insights rather than primarily descriptive observations. Including statistical significance testing to strengthen the validity of the performance comparisons between models. Evaluating the models on additional datasets to improve generalizability beyond the single Bank Marketing dataset. Providing more detailed information on hyperparameter tuning and computational settings to enhance reproducibility. Discussing the potential impact of SMOTE and oversampling on model bias and real-world deployment scenarios. Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Yes Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? Yes Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Yes If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Yes Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? Yes Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? Yes Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise Artificial Intelligence, deep learning, LLM's, Machine learning, NLP, Devops, AI Agents I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard. reply Respond to this report Responses (1) Author Response 26 Feb 2026 Tlhalitshi Montshiwa, Department of Business Statistics & Operations Research, North West University Faculty of Economic and Management Sciences, Potchefstroom, 2735, South Africa Thank you for your constructive feedback. We will use it to improve this work and our future works in general. View more View less Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. reply Respond Report a concern Tamanampudi VM. Peer Review Report For: Impact of sample size on optimisation algorithms for the MLP used in the prediction of client subscription to a term deposit [version 1; peer review: 1 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2025, 14 :1426 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.195714.r458634) NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/14-1426/v2#referee-response-458634 keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2026 Shah K. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 16 Feb 2026 | for Version 2 Kamal Shah , Prince Sultan University, Riyadh, Riyadh Province, Saudi Arabia 0 Views copyright © 2026 Shah K. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses (1) Approved With Reservations info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Authors have presented Impact of sample size on optimisation algorithms for the MLP used in the prediction of client subscription to a term deposit. Results seems good applicable. I recommend after revision like: The presented work is good applicable. I recommend after revision like: Improve abstract Improve and update your paper literature with more sophisticated results on mentioned diseases recently published. Include the importance of fractional derivatives now a days a popular tool of research. Check that all figures/tables have been cited. References must be double check as now a days some works have retracted so that to avoid retracted article citations. Revise conclusion. Run spell check . Include recent references of 2025/2024 like: Reference 1 Heliyon 10.3 (2024). Reference 2 Heliyon 10.13 (2024). Reference 3 Results in Applied Mathematics 21 (2024): 100420. Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Yes Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? Yes Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Yes If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Yes Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? Yes Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? Yes References 1. Abdulwasaa M, Kawale S, Abdo M, Albalwi M, et al.: Statistical and computational analysis for corruption and poverty model using Caputo-type fractional differential equations. Heliyon . 2024; 10 (3). Publisher Full Text 2. Ghafoor A, Fiaz M, Shah K, Abdeljawad T: Analysis of nonlinear Burgers equation with time fractional Atangana-Baleanu-Caputo derivative. Heliyon . 2024; 10 (13). Publisher Full Text 3. Shah F, Kamran, Shah K, Abdeljawad T: Numerical modelling of advection diffusion equation using Chebyshev spectral collocation method and Laplace transform. Results in Applied Mathematics . 2024; 21 . Publisher Full Text Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise Applied mathematics I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above. reply Respond to this report Responses (1) Author Response 26 Feb 2026 Tlhalitshi Montshiwa, Department of Business Statistics & Operations Research, North West University Faculty of Economic and Management Sciences, Potchefstroom, 2735, South Africa Thank you for your feedback. We will consider it when we modify the paper. View more View less Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. reply Respond Report a concern Shah K. Peer Review Report For: Impact of sample size on optimisation algorithms for the MLP used in the prediction of client subscription to a term deposit [version 1; peer review: 1 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2025, 14 :1426 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.195714.r458631) NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/14-1426/v2#referee-response-458631 keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2026 Chukwunweike J. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 16 Feb 2026 | for Version 2 Joseph Chukwunweike , Gist Limited, Bristol, UK 0 Views copyright © 2026 Chukwunweike J. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses (0) Approved info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions 1. Background & framing The opening motivation about MLP “parameter growth” is relevant, but tighten the claim by specifying what “parameters” means (weights, biases) and why this matters for generalization and training cost. Define “spatial information” or remove it, because the task is tabular bank marketing and not image-like inputs. When stating MLP is “most-used,” add one or two concrete citations and avoid vague superlatives. Several sentences break grammar due to citation placement (e.g., “According to,14 …”); rewrite using narrative form with author names. The scope paragraph should explicitly justify why GA/GOA/CMA-ES were selected over PSO/DE besides “scarce literature,” and state the hypothesis: sample size changes may differentially affect optimizer stability and runtime. Clarify “efficiency” early as a multi-criteria notion (accuracy metrics + execution time), and note potential trade-offs. End the section with contributions bullet list to guide the reader. Keep terminology consistent throughout the paper overall. 2. Related work Table 2 is useful, but the narrative around it should separate (i) prior work on the UCI Bank Marketing dataset and (ii) prior work on metaheuristic optimization of MLPs. Where you say “results vary depending on setting,” add specific examples (different feature sets, resampling, train/test splits). Several references are cited without a subject (“including.28–30”); add author names and verbs. Consider adding a short paragraph summarizing 2023–2025 developments in MLP optimization and evaluation, even if the core study is historical, to address recency concerns. Clarify what is novel: not merely comparing optimizers, but evaluating sensitivity to sample size under consistent conditions. Also, avoid implying that “optimized MLPs are always best”; phrase it as an observed trend in surveyed studies. Finally, define acronyms at first use (BOA, BPSO) and ensure the reader can map each to a cited source. Briefly note reporting norms for compute and runtime. 3. Methods & dataset The dataset description is clear (UCI Bank Marketing, 4,521 rows), but the sampling paragraph contains inconsistencies: you report n=452 at 10%, yet later figures mention n=626 and other totals exceeding 4,521. Reconcile all sample sizes and explain whether SMOTE changes the effective training n. “Nine samples” is stated, but ten sizes (10%–100%) are listed; correct the count. Stratified sampling with replacement should specify the seed and how many replications were run per sample size. One-hot encoding to 42 features is plausible; list which variables were expanded and confirm handling of “unknown” levels. If SMOTE is applied, state whether it is applied only to training folds to prevent leakage, and specify the SMOTE parameters. Provide MLP architecture (layers, activations), optimizer settings, and hyperparameter search bounds for GA/GOA/CMA-ES so the work is reproducible. Also describe missing-value handling and any scaling/normalization steps. 4. Evaluation metrics & experimental protocol The metric definitions (accuracy, specificity, precision, recall, F-measure, execution time) are standard, but the presentation would improve by stating the primary metric(s) used for model selection and why. Because the outcome is imbalanced (term deposit subscription), consider adding balanced accuracy or PR-AUC as a supplementary metric, or justify why not. The protocol should state the train/test split ratio for each sample size, and whether cross-validation is used. If you generate one test set per sample size, confirm it is held out before SMOTE. Execution time should be measured on fixed hardware; report CPU, RAM, and software versions. The paper makes comparative claims (“best model”) without uncertainty; add confidence intervals via repeated runs, and apply a nonparametric test (e.g., Friedman across methods with post-hoc) as suggested in the open review. Also clarify whether timing includes optimizer search plus MLP training, or final fit. 5. Results & figures Figures 2–8 communicate trends well, but ensure captions include the exact sample sizes (currently some captions and text disagree). When describing fluctuations, quantify them (min/max accuracy per model) and add a table of mean±std across repeated runs. The “significant drop” at the 60% sample for CMA-ES-MLP needs explanation check random sampling variance, class balance, or convergence settings. The narrative sometimes switches between classifying positives vs negatives; keep terminology consistent with the metric being discussed (precision vs specificity). For Figure 7, clarify units (seconds) and whether timing was averaged. The text says GOA-MLP is “more stable” but does not define stability; consider a simple stability score (standard deviation across replications). Figure 8 averages multiple metrics; explain the aggregation choice and whether metrics were normalized before averaging to avoid scale bias. Finally, add one summary table of best-at-each-sample-size results to improve readability at a glance. 6. Conclusion, contribution & reproducibility The conclusion summarizes findings clearly, but correct the typo “CMA-CS” to “CMA-ES.” Avoid stating “CMA-ES-MLP is the best” as a definitive fact without statistical testing; phrase it as “performed best under the reported protocol” and add uncertainty. The contribution section is promising; strengthen it by explicitly stating what practitioners can take away (e.g., CMA-ES’s runtime scalability vs GA/GOA). The data availability statement says code is available “upon request”; for reproducibility, provide a public repository or, at minimum, include pseudo-code and full hyperparameter settings in an appendix. Add details on random seeds, number of optimizer iterations, stopping criteria, and evaluation repeats, as highlighted by the reviewer report. Finally, add a short limitations paragraph: single dataset, single task, discrete sampling with replacement, and dependence on SMOTE choices. These are minor additions that materially improve clarity and defensibility. For readers and future replicators alike. Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Partly Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? Yes Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Yes If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Yes Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? Yes Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? Yes Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise Automation, Process Control, Image processing, pattern Recognition I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard. reply Respond to this report Responses (0) Chukwunweike J. Peer Review Report For: Impact of sample size on optimisation algorithms for the MLP used in the prediction of client subscription to a term deposit [version 1; peer review: 1 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2025, 14 :1426 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.195714.r458632) NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/14-1426/v2#referee-response-458632 keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2026 Mohammadagha M. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 02 Feb 2026 | for Version 2 Mohsen Mohammadagha , University of Texas at Arlington, Arlington, Texas, USA 0 Views copyright © 2026 Mohammadagha M. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses (0) Approved With Reservations info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Literature update : While I understand the historical context, adding a brief section on 2023-2025 developments would strengthen rather than compromise the framework. Citation Format Issues: The manuscript contains improper in-text citation formatting that creates grammatically incomplete sentences. For example: "According to,14 there are several..." is missing the author name(s) before the superscript citation "in the study by,15,16 and it has been..." similarly omits the required author name(s). Corrections needed entire manuscript: Use narrative citations, For example: “According to Abdel-Basset et al. [14], there are several optimization algorithms. I provide a reference demonstrating an example for narrative citations and statistical evaluation in machine learning research. (Reference 1) Statistical rigor is insufficient: I appreciate your acknowledgment of this issue. However, statistical comparison is not an optional enhancement—it is a fundamental requirement for comparing ML algorithms. The experiments have already been conducted; calculating confidence intervals and applying appropriate statistical tests (e.g., Friedman with post‑hoc analyses) would require limited additional effort and is essential for scientific validity. Without such analyses, claims about which algorithm is “best” remain descriptive rather than statistically substantiated. Since statistical tests were not included, the conclusion that "CMA-ES-MLP is the best model" is technically a subjective opinion, not a scientific fact. Without p-values or confidence intervals, the differences seen in Figures 2–8 could easily be due to random chance. Technical Typos in Core Definitions: In the Conclusion (Section 1.6), they refer to the algorithm as "CMA-CS" rather than "CMA-ES" . This revision is largely unchanged: Version 2 appears almost identical to Version 1, with a minor addition (“code available upon request”). In my view, addressing this point would substantially improve the quality and credibility of the work. References 1. Mohammadagha M, Asadi S, Kazemi Naeini H: Evaluating machine learning performance using python for neural network models in urban transportation in New York city case study. Journal of Economy and Technology . 2026; 4 : 266-283 Publisher Full Text Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise Civil Engineering and Computer Science I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above. reply Respond to this report Responses (0) Mohammadagha M. Peer Review Report For: Impact of sample size on optimisation algorithms for the MLP used in the prediction of client subscription to a term deposit [version 1; peer review: 1 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2025, 14 :1426 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.195714.r453926) NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/14-1426/v2#referee-response-453926 keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2026 Mohammadagha M. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 10 Jan 2026 | for Version 1 Mohsen Mohammadagha , University of Texas at Arlington, Arlington, Texas, USA 0 Views copyright © 2026 Mohammadagha M. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses (1) Approved With Reservations info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions This study compares the performance of three optimization algorithms—Genetic Algorithm (GA), Grasshopper Optimization Algorithm (GOA), and Covariance Matrix Adaptation Evolution Strategy (CMA-ES)—for optimizing Multilayer Perceptron (MLP) neural networks across varying sample sizes. Using a Portuguese banking dataset (4,521 observations) from the UCI repository, the researchers evaluated how sample size affects classification performance when predicting client subscription to term deposits. The study employed SMOTE for data balancing and tested ten different sample sizes (10%-100%). Results identified CMA-ES-MLP as the best overall performer with high accuracy, precision, and specificity, while maintaining competitive execution time. 1. Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite current literature? Recommendations: Update literature review with 2023-2025 papers. 2. Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? Yes 3. Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Recommended : Code availability​, Random seeds​, Incomplete hyperparameter specifications​, Software versions​, MLP architecture. 4. If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? It can be suggested to conduct runs with statistical tests (e.g., Friedman or any other methods) and report confidence intervals. 5. Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? Yes 6. Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? It is recommended to add confidence intervals, statistical tests (e.g., McNemar's test, Friedman test with post-hoc analysis) Citation Format Issues: The manuscript contains improper in-text citation formatting that creates grammatically incomplete sentences. Specifically: "According to,14 there are several..." is missing the author name(s) before the superscript citation "in the study by,15,16 and it has been..." similarly omits the required author name(s) Corrections needed entire manuscript: Use narrative citations, for example: “According to Abdel-Basset et al. [14], there are several optimization algorithms. I provide a reference demonstrating an example for statistical evaluation in machine learning research. (Reference 1) Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Partly Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? Yes Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? No If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Partly Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? Yes Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? Partly References 1. Mohammadagha M, Asadi S, Kazemi Naeini H: Evaluating machine learning performance using python for neural network models in urban transportation in New York city case study. Journal of Economy and Technology . 2026; 4 : 266-283 Publisher Full Text Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise Civil Engineering and Computer Science I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above. reply Respond to this report Responses (1) Author Response 30 Jan 2026 Tlhalitshi Montshiwa, Department of Business Statistics & Operations Research, North West University Faculty of Economic and Management Sciences, Potchefstroom, 2735, South Africa Comment 1: Update literature review with 2023-2025 papers. Response 1: Thank you for the comment. Kindly note that this article is derived from a PhD study conducted in 2020, which informed the initial scope and selection of the literature. Removal of references below 2023 may lead to misalignment with the theoretical framework and objectives of the study. Comment 2: Code availability​, Random seeds​, Incomplete hyperparameter specifications​, Software versions​, MLP architecture. Response 2: Thank you for this comment. The codes utilised for the analysis are available upon request. These codes include detailed information on the random seed settings, hyperparameter specifications, software versions, and the MLP architecture used in the study. This statement is included in the manuscript in data availability section. Comment 3: It can be suggested to conduct runs with statistical tests (e.g., Friedman or any other methods) and report confidence intervals. Response 3: This is a valuable suggestion, and the inclusion of confidence intervals as well as statistical comparison tests such as the Friedman and McNemar tests would enhance the robustness of the analysis. Due to the limited scope and objectives of the current study, these analyses were not implemented at this stage. However, they will be incorporated in future work to provide a more comprehensive statistical comparison of the models. Comment 4: It is recommended to add confidence intervals, statistical tests (e.g., McNemar's test, Friedman test with post-hoc analysis) Response 4: This is a valuable suggestion, and the inclusion of confidence intervals and formal statistical comparison tests such as McNemar’s and Friedman tests would indeed strengthen the robustness of the analysis. However, given the limited scope and objectives of the current study, the focus was placed on comparative predictive performance using standard evaluation metrics. Incorporating additional inferential statistical tests is therefore left as a potential extension for future work. View more View less Competing Interests None reply Respond Report a concern Mohammadagha M. Peer Review Report For: Impact of sample size on optimisation algorithms for the MLP used in the prediction of client subscription to a term deposit [version 1; peer review: 1 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2025, 14 :1426 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.185252.r446950) NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/14-1426/v1#referee-response-446950 Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved - the paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations - A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved - fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Adjust parameters to alter display View on desktop for interactive features Includes Interactive Elements View on desktop for interactive features Competing Interests Policy Provide sufficient details of any financial or non-financial competing interests to enable users to assess whether your comments might lead a reasonable person to question your impartiality. Consider the following examples, but note that this is not an exhaustive list: Examples of 'Non-Financial Competing Interests' Within the past 4 years, you have held joint grants, published or collaborated with any of the authors of the selected paper. You have a close personal relationship (e.g. parent, spouse, sibling, or domestic partner) with any of the authors. You are a close professional associate of any of the authors (e.g. scientific mentor, recent student). You work at the same institute as any of the authors. You hope/expect to benefit (e.g. favour or employment) as a result of your submission. You are an Editor for the journal in which the article is published. Examples of 'Financial Competing Interests' You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, any of the following from any commercial organisation that may gain financially from your submission: a salary, fees, funding, reimbursements. You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, shared grant support or other funding with any of the authors. You hold, or are currently applying for, any patents or significant stocks/shares relating to the subject matter of the paper you are commenting on. Stay Updated Sign up for content alerts and receive a weekly or monthly email with all newly published articles Register with F1000Research Already registered? Sign in Not now, thanks close PLEASE NOTE If you are an AUTHOR of this article, please check that you signed in with the account associated with this article otherwise we cannot automatically identify your role as an author and your comment will be labelled as a “User Comment”. If you are a REVIEWER of this article, please check that you have signed in with the account associated with this article and then go to your account to submit your report, please do not post your review here. If you do not have access to your original account, please contact us . All commenters must hold a formal affiliation as per our Policies . The information that you give us will be displayed next to your comment. User comments must be in English, comprehensible and relevant to the article under discussion. We reserve the right to remove any comments that we consider to be inappropriate, offensive or otherwise in breach of the User Comment Terms and Conditions . Commenters must not use a comment for personal attacks. When criticisms of the article are based on unpublished data, the data should be made available. I accept the User Comment Terms and Conditions Please confirm that you accept the User Comment Terms and Conditions. Affiliation ✕ refresh Please enter your institution. Note: To add your institution or organisation, start typing the name and then select the correct name from the list. Where applicable, the name will appear in both the original language and in English. Do not paste in the name. If the name does not appear in the drop-down list, we will display the information you have entered. ✕ refresh Country/Region * USA UK Canada China France Germany Afghanistan Aland Islands Albania Algeria American Samoa Andorra Angola Anguilla Antarctica Antigua and Barbuda Argentina Armenia Aruba Australia Austria Azerbaijan Bahamas Bahrain Bangladesh Barbados Belarus Belgium Belize Benin Bermuda Bhutan Bolivia Bosnia and Herzegovina Botswana Bouvet Island Brazil British Indian Ocean Territory British Virgin Islands Brunei Bulgaria Burkina Faso Burundi Cambodia Cameroon Canada Cape Verde Cayman Islands Central African Republic Chad Chile China Christmas Island Cocos (Keeling) Islands Colombia Comoros Congo Cook Islands Costa Rica Cote d'Ivoire Croatia Cuba Cyprus Czech Republic Democratic Republic of the Congo Denmark Djibouti Dominica Dominican Republic Ecuador Egypt El Salvador Equatorial Guinea Eritrea Estonia Ethiopia Falkland Islands Faroe Islands Federated States of Micronesia Fiji Finland France French Guiana French Polynesia French Southern Territories Gabon Georgia Germany Ghana Gibraltar Greece Greenland Grenada Guadeloupe Guam Guatemala Guernsey Guinea Guinea-Bissau Guyana Haiti Heard Island and Mcdonald Islands Holy See (Vatican City State) Honduras Hong Kong Hungary Iceland India Indonesia Iran Iraq Ireland Israel Italy Jamaica Japan Jersey Jordan Kazakhstan Kenya Kiribati Kosovo (Serbia and Montenegro) Kuwait Kyrgyzstan Lao People's Democratic Republic Latvia Lebanon Lesotho Liberia Libya Liechtenstein Lithuania Luxembourg Macao Madagascar Malawi Malaysia Maldives Mali Malta Marshall Islands Martinique Mauritania Mauritius Mayotte Mexico Minor Outlying Islands of the United States Moldova Monaco Mongolia Montenegro Montserrat Morocco Mozambique Myanmar Namibia Nauru Nepal Netherlands Antilles New Caledonia New Zealand Nicaragua Niger Nigeria Niue Norfolk Island North Korea North Macedonia Northern Mariana Islands Norway Oman Pakistan Palau Palestinian Territory Panama Papua New Guinea Paraguay Peru Philippines Pitcairn Poland Portugal Puerto Rico Qatar Reunion Romania Russian Federation Rwanda Saint Helena Saint Kitts and Nevis Saint Lucia Saint Pierre and Miquelon Saint Vincent and the Grenadines Samoa San Marino Sao Tome and Principe Saudi Arabia Senegal Serbia Seychelles Sierra Leone Singapore Slovakia Slovenia Solomon Islands Somalia South Africa South Georgia and the South Sandwich Is South Korea South Sudan Spain Sri Lanka Sudan Suriname Svalbard and Jan Mayen Swaziland Sweden Switzerland Syria Taiwan Tajikistan Tanzania Thailand The Gambia The Netherlands Timor-Leste Togo Tokelau Tonga Trinidad and Tobago Tunisia Turkey Turkmenistan Turks and Caicos Islands Tuvalu UK USA Uganda Ukraine United Arab Emirates United States Virgin Islands Uruguay Uzbekistan Vanuatu Venezuela Vietnam Wallis and Futuna West Bank and Gaza Strip Western Sahara Yemen Zambia Zimbabwe Please select your country/region. You must enter a comment. Competing Interests Please disclose any competing interests that might be construed to influence your judgment of the article's or peer review report's validity or importance. Competing Interests Policy Provide sufficient details of any financial or non-financial competing interests to enable users to assess whether your comments might lead a reasonable person to question your impartiality. Consider the following examples, but note that this is not an exhaustive list: Examples of 'Non-Financial Competing Interests' Within the past 4 years, you have held joint grants, published or collaborated with any of the authors of the selected paper. You have a close personal relationship (e.g. parent, spouse, sibling, or domestic partner) with any of the authors. You are a close professional associate of any of the authors (e.g. scientific mentor, recent student). You work at the same institute as any of the authors. You hope/expect to benefit (e.g. favour or employment) as a result of your submission. You are an Editor for the journal in which the article is published. Examples of 'Financial Competing Interests' You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, any of the following from any commercial organisation that may gain financially from your submission: a salary, fees, funding, reimbursements. You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, shared grant support or other funding with any of the authors. You hold, or are currently applying for, any patents or significant stocks/shares relating to the subject matter of the paper you are commenting on. Please state your competing interests The comment has been saved. An error has occurred. Please try again. Cancel Post var lTitle = "Impact of sample size on optimisation algorithms...".replace("'", ''); var linkedInUrl = "http://www.linkedin.com/shareArticle?url=https://f1000research.com/articles/14-1426/v1" + "&title=" + encodeURIComponent(lTitle) + "&summary=" + encodeURIComponent('Read the article by '); var deliciousUrl = "https://del.icio.us/post?url=https://f1000research.com/articles/14-1426/v1&title=" + encodeURIComponent(lTitle); var redditUrl = "http://reddit.com/submit?url=https://f1000research.com/articles/14-1426/v1" + "&title=" + encodeURIComponent(lTitle); linkedInUrl += encodeURIComponent('Botlhoko T and Volition Montshiwa T'); var offsetTop = /chrome/i.test( navigator.userAgent ) ? 4 : -10; var addthis_config = { ui_offset_top: offsetTop, services_compact : "facebook,twitter,www.linkedin.com,www.mendeley.com,reddit.com", services_expanded : "facebook,twitter,www.linkedin.com,www.mendeley.com,reddit.com", services_custom : [ { name: "LinkedIn", url: linkedInUrl, icon:"/img/icon/at_linkedin.svg" }, { name: "Mendeley", url: "http://www.mendeley.com/import/?url=https://f1000research.com/articles/14-1426/v1/mendeley", icon:"/img/icon/at_mendeley.svg" }, { name: "Reddit", url: redditUrl, icon:"/img/icon/at_reddit.svg" }, ] }; var addthis_share = { url: "https://f1000research.com/articles/14-1426", templates : { twitter : "Impact of sample size on optimisation algorithms for the MLP.... Botlhoko T and Volition Montshiwa T, published by " + "@F1000Research" + ", https://f1000research.com/articles/14-1426/v1" } }; if (typeof(addthis) != "undefined"){ addthis.addEventListener('addthis.ready', checkCount); addthis.addEventListener('addthis.menu.share', checkCount); } $(".f1r-shares-twitter").attr("href", "https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=" + addthis_share.templates.twitter); $(".f1r-shares-facebook").attr("href", "https://www.facebook.com/sharer/sharer.php?u=" + addthis_share.url); $(".f1r-shares-linkedin").attr("href", addthis_config.services_custom[0].url); $(".f1r-shares-reddit").attr("href", addthis_config.services_custom[2].url); $(".f1r-shares-mendelay").attr("href", addthis_config.services_custom[1].url); function checkCount(){ setTimeout(function(){ $(".addthis_button_expanded").each(function(){ var count = $(this).text(); if (count !== "" && count != "0") $(this).removeClass("is-hidden"); else $(this).addClass("is-hidden"); }); }, 1000); } close How to cite this report {{reportCitation}} Cancel Copy Citation Details $(function(){R.ui.buttonDropdowns('.dropdown-for-downloads');}); $(function(){R.ui.toolbarDropdowns('.toolbar-dropdown-for-downloads');}); $.get("/articles/acj/168092/185252") new F1000.Clipboard(); new F1000.ThesaurusTermsDisplay("articles", "article", "185252"); $(document).ready(function() { $( "#frame1" ).on('load', function() { var mydiv = $(this).contents().find("div"); var h = mydiv.height(); console.log(h) }); var tooltipLivingFigure = jQuery(".interactive-living-figure-label .icon-more-info"), titleLivingFigure = tooltipLivingFigure.attr("title"); tooltipLivingFigure.simpletip({ fixed: true, position: ["-115", "30"], baseClass: 'small-tooltip', content:titleLivingFigure + " " }); tooltipLivingFigure.removeAttr("title"); $("body").on("click", ".cite-living-figure", function(e) { e.preventDefault(); var ref = $(this).attr("data-ref"); $(this).closest(".living-figure-list-container").find("#" + ref).fadeIn(200); }); $("body").on("click", ".close-cite-living-figure", function(e) { e.preventDefault(); $(this).closest(".popup-window-wrapper").fadeOut(200); }); $(document).on("mouseup", function(e) { var metricsContainer = $(".article-metrics-popover-wrapper"); if (!metricsContainer.is(e.target) && metricsContainer.has(e.target).length === 0) { $(".article-metrics-close-button").click(); } }); var articleId = $('#articleId').val(); if($("#main-article-count-box").attachArticleMetrics) { $("#main-article-count-box").attachArticleMetrics(articleId, { articleMetricsView: true }); } }); var figshareWidget = $(".new_figshare_widget"); if (figshareWidget.length > 0) { window.figshare.load("f1000", function(Widget) { // Select a tag/tags defined in your page. In this tag we will place the widget. _.map(figshareWidget, function(el){ var widget = new Widget({ articleId: $(el).attr("figshare_articleId") //height:300 // this is the height of the viewer part. [Default: 550] }); widget.initialize(); // initialize the widget widget.mount(el); // mount it in a tag that's on your page // this will save the widget on the global scope for later use from // your JS scripts. This line is optional. //window.widget = widget; }); }); } close Error Close Add Reset F1000.MICROSERVICES.AFFILIATION = ''; $(document).ready(function () { $('.js-affiliations-form').each((index, form) => { new AffiliationForm({ formId: form.id, institutionErrorSelector: '.comment-enter-institution', departmentErrorSelector: '.comment-enter-department', placeSelector: '.js-add-comment-place', stateSelector: '.js-add-comment-state', zipCodeSelector: '.js-add-comment-zipcode', countrySelector: '.js-add-comment-country', countryErrorSelector: '.comment-enter-country', }); }); }); $(document).ready(function () { var reportIds = { "458631": 6, "463887": 0, "458638": 0, "463886": 0, "458639": 0, "463885": 2, "458636": 0, "458637": 0, "458634": 5, "458635": 0, "458632": 3, "458633": 0, "458640": 0, "463888": 5, "453926": 10, "454466": 0, "444366": 0, "456526": 0, "444367": 0, "456527": 0, "456524": 0, "444365": 0, "456525": 0, "456522": 0, "456523": 0, "456521": 0, "444374": 0, "444372": 0, "444373": 0, "444370": 0, "456530": 0, "444371": 0, "444368": 0, "456528": 0, "444369": 0, "456529": 0, "446950": 21, "446951": 0, "446948": 0, "446949": 0, "446946": 0, "446947": 0, "446944": 0, "446945": 0, "446952": 0, "446953": 0, "454262": 0, "454263": 0, "454260": 0, "454261": 0, "454258": 0, "454259": 0, "454256": 0, "454257": 0, "454264": 0, "454265": 0, }; $(".referee-response-container,.js-referee-report").each(function(index, el) { var reportId = $(el).attr("data-reportid"), reportCount = reportIds[reportId] || 0; $(el).find(".comments-count-container,.js-referee-report-views").html(reportCount); }); var uuidInput = $("#article_uuid"), oldUUId = uuidInput.val(), newUUId = "b3da8e66-6eea-4298-be2d-e6248ec6bb31"; uuidInput.val(newUUId); $("a[href*='article_uuid=']").each(function(index, el) { var newHref = $(el).attr("href").replace(oldUUId, newUUId); $(el).attr("href", newHref); }); }); An innovative open access publishing platform offering rapid publication and open peer review, whilst supporting data deposition and sharing. Browse Gateways Collections How it Works Contact For Developers Cookie Notice Privacy Notice RSS Submit Your Research Follow us © 2012-2026 F1000 Research Ltd. ISSN 2046-1402 | Legal | Partner of Research4Life • CrossRef • ORCID • FAIRSharing R.templateTests.simpleTemplate = R.template(' $text $text $text $text $text '); R.templateTests.runTests(); var F1000platform = new F1000.Platform({ name: "f1000research", displayName: "F1000Research", hostName: "f1000research.com", id: "1", editorialEmail: "[email protected]", infoEmail: "[email protected]", usePmcStats: true }); $(function(){R.ui.dropdowns('.dropdown-for-authors, .dropdown-for-about, .dropdown-for-myresearch');}); // $(function(){R.ui.dropdowns('.dropdown-for-referees');}); $(document).ready(function () { if ($(".cookie-warning").is(":visible")) { $(".sticky").css("margin-bottom", "35px"); $(".devices").addClass("devices-and-cookie-warning"); } $(".cookie-warning .close-button").click(function (e) { $(".devices").removeClass("devices-and-cookie-warning"); $(".sticky").css("margin-bottom", "0"); }); $("#tweeter-feed .tweet-message").each(function (i, message) { var self = $(message); self.html(linkify(self.html())); }); $(".partner").on("mouseenter mouseleave", function() { $(this).find(".gray-scale, .colour").toggleClass("is-hidden"); }); }); Sign In Remember me Forgotten your password? Sign In Cancel Email or password not correct. Please try again Please wait... $(function(){ // Note: All the setup needs to run against a name attribute and *not* the id due the clonish // nature of facebox... $("a[id=googleSignInButton]").click(function(event){ event.preventDefault(); $("input[id=oAuthSystem]").val("GOOGLE"); $("form[id=oAuthForm]").submit(); }); $("a[id=facebookSignInButton]").click(function(event){ event.preventDefault(); $("input[id=oAuthSystem]").val("FACEBOOK"); $("form[id=oAuthForm]").submit(); }); $("a[id=orcidSignInButton]").click(function(event){ event.preventDefault(); $("input[id=oAuthSystem]").val("ORCID"); $("form[id=oAuthForm]").submit(); }); }); If you've forgotten your password, please enter your email address below and we'll send you instructions on how to reset your password. The email address should be the one you originally registered with F1000. Email address not valid, please try again You registered with F1000 via Google, so we cannot reset your password. To sign in, please click here . If you still need help with your Google account password, please click here . You registered with F1000 via Facebook, so we cannot reset your password. To sign in, please click here . If you still need help with your Facebook account password, please click here . Code not correct, please try again Reset password Cancel Email us for further assistance. Server error, please try again. If your email address is registered with us, we will email you instructions to reset your password. If you think you should have received this email but it has not arrived, please check your spam filters and/or contact for further assistance. Please wait... Register $(document).ready(function () { signIn.createSignInAsRow($("#sign-in-form-gfb-popup")); $(".target-field").each(function () { var uris = $(this).val().split("/"); if (uris.pop() === "login") { $(this).val(uris.toString().replace(",","/")); } }); });