Applied Artificial Intelligence

An International Journal

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/uaai20

Developing Classifiers through Machine Learning

Algorithms for Student Placement Prediction
Based on Academic Performance

Laxmi Shanker Maurya, Md Shadab Hussain & Sarita Singh

To cite this article: Laxmi Shanker Maurya, Md Shadab Hussain & Sarita Singh (2021)
Developing Classifiers through Machine Learning Algorithms for Student Placement
Prediction Based on Academic Performance, Applied Artificial Intelligence, 35:6, 403-420, DOI:
10.1080/08839514.2021.1901032

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/08839514.2021.1901032

Published online: 29 Mar 2021.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 2306

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=uaai20
APPLIED ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE
2021, VOL. 35, NO. 6, 403–420
https://doi.org/10.1080/08839514.2021.1901032

Developing Classifiers through Machine Learning

Algorithms for Student Placement Prediction Based on
Academic Performance
Laxmi Shanker Maurya , Md Shadab Hussain, and Sarita Singh
Department of Computer Science and Engineering, Shri Ram Murti Smarak College of Engineering and
Technology, Bareilly, India

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

In the era of globalization, student placement is very challen­ Received 1 August 2020
ging issue for all educational institutions. For engineering insti­ Revised 13 October 2020
tutions, placement is a key factor to maintain good ranking in Accepted 5 March 2021
the university as well as in other national and international
ranking agencies. In this paper, we have proposed a few super­
vised machine learning classifiers which may be used to predict
the placement of a student in the IT industry based on their
academic performance in class Tenth, Twelve, Graduation, and
Backlog till date in Graduation. We also compare the results of
different proposed classifiers. Various parameters used to com­
pare and analyze the results of different developed classifiers
are accuracy score, percentage accuracy score, confusion matrix,
heatmap, and classification report. Classification report gener­
ated by developed classifiers consists of parameters precision,
recall, f1-score, and support. The classification algorithms
Support Vector Machine, Gaussian Naive Bayes, K-Nearest
Neighbor, Random Forest, Decision Tree, Stochastic Gradient
Descent, Logistic Regression, and Neural Network are used to
develop the classifiers. All the developed classifiers are also
tested on new data which are excluded from the dataset used
in the experiment.

Introduction
Placement is a decisive factor of successful completion of any coursework at
the graduate or postgraduate level. It is a dream of every student to get placed
in top MNCs to achieve their set goals and objectives. Aiming to place the
maximum number of students, the universities and institutions are leveling up
their game by equipping and upgrading their students through training and
placement cells (Accessed May 04, 2020).
Machine learning is the science of getting computers to learn, without being
explicitly programmed. Each time you need your e-mail and a spam filter saves
you from having to wade through tons of spams, again, that’s because your

CONTACT Laxmi Shanker Maurya [email protected] Department of Computer Science and Engineering,
Shri Ram Murti Smarak College of Engineering and Technology, Bareilly 243001, Uttar Pradesh, India
© 2021 Taylor & Francis
404 L. S. MAURYA ET AL.

computer has learned to distinguish spam from non spam e-mail. So that’s
machine learning (Accessed June 27, 2020).
According to the Samuel “The field of study that gives computer the ability
to learn without being explicitly programmed”. This is an older definition of
machine learning. Other definition is given by Tom Mitchell “A computer
program is said to learn from experience E with respect to some class of tasks
T and performance measure P, if it’s performance at task in T, as measured by
P, improves with experience E” (Accessed June 27, 2020).

Classification Algorithms

It is a data analysis task, i.e. the process of finding a model that describes and
distinguishes data classes and concepts. Classification is the problem of iden­
tifying to which of a set of categories, a new observation belongs to, on the
basis of a training set of data containing observations and whose categories
membership is known.

Example: Before starting any Project, we need to check its feasibility. In this
case, a classifier is required to predict class labels such as ‘Safe’ and ‘Risky’ for
adopting the Project and to further approve it. It is a two-step process such as:

● Learning Step (Training Phase): Construction of Classification Model:

Different Algorithms are used to build a classifier by making the model
learn using the training set available. The model has to be trained for the
prediction of accurate results.
● Classification Step: Model used to predict class labels and testing the
constructed model on test data and hence estimate the accuracy of the
classification rules (Accessed June 25, 2020).

Majority of the research work conducted to address the classification problem

focus on the classifier accuracy to compare the algorithm. So, there is a strong
need to conduct study to address classification problem and compare the
performance of the algorithm also apart from accuracy and other related
metrics. From the literature review, we also observe that a lot of studies have
been conducted using binary and multi classification in different domains, but
there are very few studies conducted addressing the problem of placement
prediction of the students in higher educational institutions.
In a nutshell, our prime focus in this study is summarized as follows:

● We propose a mechanism to prioritize the academic performance para­

meters relevant for student placement.
● We compare the placement prediction accuracy of different supervised
machine learning classification algorithms by developing various binary
 APPLIED ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE 405

classifiers. The accuracy parameters used are percentage accuracy score,

confusion matrix, heatmap, precision, recall, f1-score and support.
● We also compare the placement prediction performance of different
supervised machine learning classification algorithms by developing var­
ious binary classifiers. The performance parameters used are AUC and
ROC curve.

The rest of the paper is summarized as follows:

Section 2 describes the related work available in literature. Section 3
represents materials and methods used in the research work. Section 4
elaborates the results and discussions of the study conducted. Section 5
depicts the conclusion of the entire study conducted and direction for the
future work.

Related Work
In this section, we review the literature on classification methods for binary
and multi-label classification, and provide an overview of the work done by
different researchers.
Give an introduction to classification algorithms and the metrics that are
used to quantify and visualize their performance. They first briefly explain
what we mean with a classification algorithm, and, as an example, they
describe in more detail the naive Bayesian classification algorithm. Using the
concept of a confusion matrix, they next define the various performance
metrics that can be derived from it (Korst et al. 2019).
Described a model based on data mining for student placement prediction
using machine learning algorithms. To extract the meaningful information of
datasets, this process was called as data mining by using machine learning
algorithms. Authors also used education data mining tool, which was to be
considered as more powerful tool in educational domain. It presents an
effective method for extracting the student’s performance based on various
parameters and predicts as well as analyses whether the students were
recruited or not during the campus placement. Predictions were performed
using machine learning algorithm J48, Naive Bayes, Random Forest, and
Random Tree in weka tool and multiple linear regression. Based on the result,
higher education organization can offer superior training to their students
(Rao et al.2018).
Different classifiers algorithms namely Naive Bayes, Multilayer perceptron,
Instance-based K-Nearest Neighbor (IBK), J48 Decision Tree, Simple Cart,
Zero R, CV Parameter, and Filtered Classifier performance was analyzed. The
diabetes datasets, nutrition datasets, E. coli protein datasets, mushrooms
datasets were used for calculating the performance by using the cross valida­
tions of parameter. Finally identified classification algorithms performance
406 L. S. MAURYA ET AL.

was evaluated and compared in terms of the classification accuracy and

execution time under different data sets (Swarupa and Jyothi 2016).
In this paper, the main aim was to describe the various ways in which the
machine learning is used in educational institutes and how institutes can get
prediction of students’ performance, and the important features that are
needed to be considered while making prediction for different things. In
addition to this, the study also compares the prediction given by different
machine learning algorithms. The paper concludes that the prediction of the
students’ performance can be made more precise and accurate by considering
the learning style of students, their motivation and interest, concentration
level, family background, personality type, information processing ability and
the way they attempt the exams (Halde 2016).
In their paper, author discusses the use of decision trees in educational data
mining. Decision tree algorithms were applied on engineering students' past
performance data to generate the model and this model can be used to predict
the student’s future performance. It will enable to identify the students in
advance who are likely to fail and allow the teacher to provide appropriate
inputs (Kabra and Bichkar 2011).
Higher learning Institutions are facing bigger challenges in performance
evaluation of students for placements. In this era, the competition is increasing
among the institutions. Therefore, there is a need of defining a new efficient
system that is used for assessment and for providing the better management
and take decision support system to assist new strategies. Authors present
a recommendation system that is used to predict the student’s placement
(Thangavel, DivyaBkaratki, and Abijitk 2017).
This study introduces the basic theory of support vector machine, the
basic idea of the classification, and currently used support vector machine
classification algorithm. Practical problems with which an algorithm, and
proves the effectiveness of the algorithm, the final outlook of the prospects
of support vector machines in classification applications. Finally, the pro­
spect of the support vector machines in classification applications (Zhang
2012).
This paper supports the real-time prediction of the age group of the
students toward four different ICT parameters, such as the development and
availability of modern ICT Resources (DAICT), Attitude of students toward
ICT and mobile technology in education (AICTM), use of ICT and mobile
technology in education (UICTM) and educational benefits of ICT and mobile
technology in education (EBICTM) in Hungarian and Indian University. The
authors solved a multiclassification problem using tested primary dataset with
5 popular supervised machine learning classifiers such as K-nearest neighbor
(KNN), Random forest (RF) and Support vector machine (SVM), Bayesian
network (BN) and decision tree (C5.1) in SPSS IBM Modeler version 18.1
(Verma et al. 2019).
 APPLIED ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE 407

This paper addresses the placement chance prediction problem and place­
ment and skill ranking predictors for programming classes using class attitude,
psychological scales, and code metrics of the student, respectively (Elayidom,
Idikkula, and Alexander 2011) (Ishizue et al. 2018). Their qualitative study
investigates the career placement concerns of international graduate students
returning to their home countries, heading to other countries, or remaining in
the United States after their education (Shen, Yih-Jiun, and Edwin L. Herr
2004).Their study analyzes student performance in engineering placement
using data mining (Agarwal et al. 2019).Predicted student’s campus placement
probability using binary logistic regression (Kumar et al. 2019).Uses psychol­
ogy-assisted prediction of academic performance using machine learning
(Halde, Deshpande, and Mahajan 2016).
Presented a perspective on the overall process of developing classifiers for
real-world classification problems (Brodley, C. and Smyth, P. 1997). In their
paper analyzes how to introduce machine learning algorithms into the process
of direct volume rendering. A conceptual framework for the optical property
function elicitation process is proposed and particularized for the use of
attribute-value classifiers (Cerquides et al. 2005).Performed a study on per­
formance analysis of classification algorithms for activity recognition using
Micro-Doppler Feature (Lin, Yier, and Julien Le Kernec 2017). In their study
performed news articles classification using Random Forests and Weighted
Multimodal Features (Liparas et al. 2014).
In this paper, authors analyzed and performed computation times of differ­
ent classification algorithms on many datasets using parallel profiling and
computing techniques. Performance analysis was based on many factors, such
as the unique nature of the dataset, the size, and type of the class, the diversity of
the data in the data set, and so on (Upadhyay, Navin Mani, and Ravi Shankar
Singh 2018).The authors illustrated the text classification process on different
dataset using some standard supervised machine learning techniques (Mishu,
SadiaZaman, and S. M. Rafiuddin, 2016).In their study aims to identify the key
trends among different types of supervised machine learning algorithms, and
their performance and usage for disease risk prediction (Uddin et al. 2019).
Performed a study based on multi-label classification with weighted classifier
selection and stacked ensemble (Xia, Yuelong, Ke Chen, and Yun Yang, 2020).

Materials and Methods

In this section, we have described various materials used to accomplish our
research work and the complete13steps of research methodology.
408 L. S. MAURYA ET AL.

Dataset

The dataset used in the study is collected from the students of the final year B.
Tech. CSE & IT branch of Shri Ram Murti Smarak College of Engineering and
Technology (SRMSCET), Bareilly, Uttar Pradesh (India). These students have
undergone through the various placement drives in the current academic
session of 2019–20. The three input features selected in the dataset are the
percentage marks achieved by the students in class Tenth, Twelve and B. Tech,
respectively. The fourth input feature is the number of Backlog pending till the
date of data collection in B.Tech. The output/target class is whether the
student is placed in any of the placement drives or not. A 1 in the output
column indicates that the student is placed and a 0 indicates that the student is
unplaced. All four input features and the target class are categorical in nature.
The entries in first three input features i.e. percentage marks acquired by the
students in class Tenth, Twelve and B.Tech are summarized as follows: 1 is less
than 60%, 2 is greater than or equal to 60% but less than 70%, 3 is greater than
or equal to 70% but less than 80%, 4 is greater than or equal to 80% but less
than 90% and 5 is greater than or equal to 90%. The total numbers of
respondents in the dataset are 170.A Google form with appropriate instruc­
tions was designed and sent to the students for data collection.

Tools Used
All the eight classification algorithms used to build classifiers are implemented
using following libraries of Python:
Seaborn – for heat map generation.
Scikit learn/sklearn – for algorithm implementation.
Pandas – for dataset-related operations.
Matplotlib – for plotting.
Google Colaboratory – a free cloud service of Google was used to write and
execute code in Python.

Steps of the Research Methodology

Different stages that we follow to complete our research work broadly consists
of 13 steps. All these 13 steps are summarized as follows in sequential order:
Step 1: Problem formulation
Step2: Feature selection
Step 3: Google form design for data collection
Step4: Data collection
Step 5: Data cleansing
Step 6: Classification algorithm identification and selection
Step 7: Identification of tools for implementation
 APPLIED ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE 409

Step 8: Implementation of algorithm and development of classification

models through training
Step 9: Testing the models
Step10: Evaluating the accuracy of the models
Step 11: Evaluating the performance of the models
Step12: Prioritizing the input feature through result analysis
Step 13: Comparing the accuracy and performance of the models

Results and Discussions

This section is the core of our research work. In this section, we have explained
the results obtained through the experiment conducted and appropriate dis­
cussions required elaborating the highlights of the results. This section is
summarized as follows:
Section 4.1 focuses on the experimental input required and selected for
the study. Section 4.2 describes the developed classifier hyper parameter and
its characteristics. Section 4.3 represents developed classifier confusion
matrix and its associated heat map. Section 4.4 elaborates developed classi­
fier classification report. Section 4.5 analyses decision tree generated by
decision tree classifier. Section 4.6 shows a two dimensional column chart
to compare the percentage accuracy score of different classifiers. Section 4.7
discusses the impact of MSE (Mean Squared Error) and Log Loss on
classifier accuracy. Section 4.8 deliberates AUC (Area under Curve) –
ROC (Receiver Operating Characteristic) Curve to compare the perfor­
mance of different classifiers.

Experimental Input

Table 1 represents various experimental input parameters required to accom­

plish the implementation in python to develop classifiers. We have selected
eight classification algorithms, four input features explained in section 3.1, one
target/output class explained in section 3.1. The distribution of training and
test dataset are 80and 20%, respectively.

Developed Classifier Hyper Parameter and Characteristic

Table 2 depicts developed classifiers, optimum value of random state, accu­
racy score, and percentage accuracy score generated by the developed classi­
fier and remark. Stochastic Gradient Descent shows maximum accuracy
score 0.9117, Gaussian Naive Bayes and K-Nearest Neighbor 0.8823,
Support Vector Machine, Random Forest, Logistic Regression, and Neural
Network 0.8529 and Decision Tree shows the minimum accuracy score
0.8235.
410 L. S. MAURYA ET AL.

Table 1. Representing selected algorithm, input features, target class, training and test data
percentage for developing the classifiers.
Input Features Target Class
Selected OR OR
Sr. No. Algorithm Feature Matrix(x) Response Vector(y) Training Data Test Data
1 Gaussian Naive Bayes Tenth Placed 80% 20%
Twelve
BTech
Backlog
2 K-Nearest Neighbor Tenth Placed 80% 20%
Twelve
BTech
Backlog
3 Support Vector Machine Tenth Placed 80% 20%
Twelve
BTech
Backlog
4 Stochastic Gradient Descent Tenth Placed 80% 20%
Twelve
BTech
Backlog
5 Random Forest Tenth Placed 80% 20%
Twelve
BTech
Backlog
6 Decision Tree Tenth Placed 80% 20%
Twelve
BTech
Backlog
7 Logistic Regression Tenth Placed 80% 20%
Twelve
BTech
Backlog
8 Neural Network Tenth Placed 80% 20%
Twelve
BTech
Backlog

Table 2. Representing developed classifier, optimum value of random state, accuracy score, and
percentage accuracy score generated by the developed classifier and remark (in any).
Developed Random Accuracy Percentage Accuracy
Sr. No. Classifier State Score Score Remark
1 Gaussian Naive Bayes 44 0.8823 88.23 default parameter
2 K-Nearest Neighbor 08 0.8823 88.23 n_neighbors = 13
3 Support Vector Machine 08 0.8529 85.29 kernel = ‘linear’
4 Stochastic Gradient 08 0.9117 91.17 default parameter
Descent
5 Random Forest 08 0.8529 85.29 n_estimators = 100
6 Decision Tree 03 0.8235 82.34 criterion = ‘entropy’
7 Logistic Regression 08 0.8529 85.29 default parameter
8 Neural Network 08 0.8529 85.29 default parameter

Developed Classifier Confusion Matrix and Heatmap

Table 3 describes confusion matrix and heatmap generated by developed
classifiers. The four quadrants of the confusion matrix are False Positive,
True Positive, False Negative, and True Negative, respectively. X axis of
heatmap represents true label and Y axis represents predicted label.
 APPLIED ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE 411

Table 3. Representing confusion matrix and heatmap generated by developed classifiers.

Developed Confusion
Sr. No. Classifier Matrix Heatmap
1 Gaussian Naive Bayes [[7 2]
[2 23]]

2 K-Nearest Neighbor [[4 1]

[3 26]]

3 Support Vector Machine [[3 2]

[3 26]]

4 Stochastic Gradient [[2 3]

Descent [0 29]]

(Continued)
412 L. S. MAURYA ET AL.

Table 3. (Continued).
Developed Confusion
Sr. No. Classifier Matrix Heatmap
5 Random Forest [[6 2]
[3 23]]

6 Decision Tree [[5 2]

[4 23]]

7 Logistic Regression [[3 2]

[3 26]]

8 Neural Network [[2 3]

[2 27]]
 APPLIED ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE 413

Table 4. Representing classification report generated by developed classifiers

with parameters precision, recall, f1-score and support.
Developed
Sr. No. Classifier Classification Report
1 Gaussian Naive Bayes precision recall f1-score support
0 0.78 0.78 0.78 9
1 0.92 0.92 0.92 25
accuracy 0.88 34
macro avg 0.85 0.85 0.85 34
weighted avg 0.88 0.88 0.88 34
2 K-Nearest Neighbor precision recall f1-score support
0 0.57 0.80 0.67 5
1 0.96 0.90 0.93 29
accuracy 0.88 34
macro avg 0.77 0.85 0.80 34
weighted avg 0.91 0.88 0.89 34
3 Support Vector Machine precision recall f1-score support
0 0.50 0.60 0.55 5
1 0.93 0.90 0.91 29
accuracy 0.85 34
macro avg 0.71 0.75 0.73 34
weighted avg 0.87 0.85 0.86 34
4 Stochastic Gradient Descent precision recall f1-score support
0 1.00 0.40 0.57 5
1 0.91 1.00 0.95 29
accuracy 0.91 34
macro avg 0.95 0.70 0.76 34
weighted avg 0.92 0.91 0.90 34
5 Random Forest precision recall f1-score support
0 0.67 0.75 0.71 8
1 0.92 0.88 0.90 26
accuracy 0.85 34
macro avg 0.79 0.82 0.80 34
weighted avg 0.86 0.85 0.86 34
6 Decision Tree precision recall f1-score support
0 0.56 0.71 0.63 7
1 0.92 0.85 0.88 27
accuracy 0.82 34
macro avg 0.74 0.78 0.75 34
weighted avg 0.84 0.82 0.83 34
7 Logistic Regression precision recall f1-score support
0 0.50 0.60 0.55 5
1 0.93 0.90 0.91 29
accuracy 0.85 34
macro avg 0.71 0.75 0.73 34
weighted avg 0.87 0.85 0.86 34
8 Neural Network precision recall f1-score support
0 0.50 0.40 0.44 5
1 0.90 0.93 0.92 29
accuracy 0.85 34
macro avg 0.70 0.67 0.68 34
weighted avg 0.84 0.85 0.85 34

Developed ClassifierClassification Report

Table 4 displays the classification report generated by developed classifiers
with parameters precision, recall, f1-score, and support. These values are
automatically calculated through their formulae implemented in python.
The values of confusion matrix are used in these calculations.
414 L. S. MAURYA ET AL.

Figure 1. Decision tree generated by decision tree classifier (Depth = 10).

Percentage Accuracy Score

92
90
88
86
84
82
80
78 Percentage Accuracy
76 Score

Figure 2. A 2 dimensional column chart to compare the percentage accuracy score.

Table 5. Mean squared error and log loss.

Sr. No. Developed Classifier Mean Squared Error Log Loss
1 Gaussian Naive Bayes 0.11764705882352941 4.06343249336774
2 K-Nearest Neighbor 0.11764705882352941 4.063408975796263
3 Support Vector Machine 0.14705882352941177 5.079278857923936
4 Stochastic Gradient Descent 0.08823529411764706 3.0476096463830196
5 Random Forest 0.14705882352941177 5.079278857923936
6 Decision Tree 0.17647058823529413 6.095125222480132
7 Logistic Regression 0.14705882352941177 5.079278857923936
8 Neural Network 0.14705882352941177 5.079302375495413
 APPLIED ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE 415

Table 6. AUC (area under curve) – ROC (receiver operating characteristic) curve.
Developed
Sr. No. Classifier AUC ROC Curve
1 Gaussian Naive Bayes 0.76

2 K-Nearest Neighbor 0.78

3 Support Vector Machine 0.86

4 Stochastic Gradient Descent 0.67

(Continued)
416 L. S. MAURYA ET AL.

Table 6. (Continued).
Developed
Sr. No. Classifier AUC ROC Curve
5 Random Forest 0.76

6 Decision Tree 0.77

7 Logistic Regression 0.86

8 Neural Network 0.79

 APPLIED ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE 417

Decision Tree Generated by Decision Tree Classifier

Figure 1 represents decision tree generated by decision tree classifier. The

depth of the decision tree is 10. Tenth is at the root of the decision tree and
hence it is on the top priority. Twelve and Backlog are at the next level of the
root and therefore they are on the second priority. The fourth input feature,
percentage marks in B Tech is at the last priority among all. The same result is
observed upon testing the classifiers on new data also.

A 2 Dimensional Column Chart to Compare the Percentage Accuracy Score

Figure 2 depicts a two dimensional column chart to compare the percentage
Accuracy Score generated by different classifiers. It is obvious from this figure
that stochastic gradient descent shows the highest accuracy score.

MSE (Mean Squared Error) and Log Loss

Table 5 represents MSE and Log Loss. MSE is an accuracy parameter and Log
Loss is a performance parameter. Although MSE and Log Loss are more
significant in case of regression problem and the value of Log Loss must be in
the range of 0 and 1. Our problem is classification and the value of Log Loss is
exceeding 1 which is not significant in our case. But, the calculated values of
MSE and Log Loss are minimum in case of Stochastic Gradient Descent which
is having highest accuracy score of 0.9117 as mentioned in section 4.2. Although
this table is not very significant yet it validates our results in section 4.2.

AUC (Area under Curve)–ROC (Receiver Operating Characteristic) Curve

AUC (Area under Curve)–ROC (Receiver Operating Characteristic) Curve

Table 6 represents AUC (Area under Curve) and ROC (Receiver Operating
Characteristic) curve. AUC–ROC curve is the model selection performance
metric for bi-–multi-class classification problem. ROC is a probability curve
for different classes. ROC tells us how good the model is for distinguishing the
given classes, in terms of the predicted probability. A typical ROC curve has
False Positive Rate (FPR) on the X-axis and True Positive Rate (TPR) on the
Y-axis. The area covered by the curve is the area between the orange line
(ROC) and the axis. This area covered is AUC. The bigger the area covered, the
better the machine learning models is at distinguishing the given classes. Ideal
value for AUC is 1. Support Vector Machine and Logistic Regression have the
highest value of AUC as 0.86 hence have highest performance.
418 L. S. MAURYA ET AL.

Conclusions and Future Work

This section summarizes the conclusions drawn from our research work and the
upcoming directions for future work.
We propose a mechanism to prioritize the academic performance para­
meters relevant for student placement through our developed classifiers. For
the academic performance parameters, we conclude that percentage in Tenth
is on the top priority followed by percentage in Twelve and Backlog in B Tech.
B Tech percentage is on the last priority out of the four input features. This
conclusion is validated by running the classifiers on the new data and decision
tree analysis in section 4.5.In section 4.2, 4.3 and 4.4 we compare the place­
ment prediction accuracy of different supervised machine learning classifica­
tion algorithms by developing various binary classifiers. The accuracy
parameters used are percentage accuracy score, confusion matrix, heatmap.
Stochastic Gradient Descent shows the highest accuracy score of 0.9117 which
is obvious from Figure 2 in section 4.6.We also compare the developed
classifiers by their classification report through the sub parameters precision,
recall, f1-score and support. In section 4.8 we compare the placement predic­
tion performance of different supervised machine learning classification algo­
rithms by developing various binary classifiers. The performance parameters
used are AUC and ROC curve. Support Vector Machine and Logistic
Regression shows the highest performance with AUC value 0.86. In future,
we will try to build classifiers to predict placement of the students by mixing
input features from the domain of academic performance and skills both.

Acknowledgments
This research is accomplished by a team of three faculty members from the Department of
Computer Science and Engineering at Shri Ram Murti Smarak College of Engineering and
Technology (SRMSCET), Bareilly, Uttar Pradesh (India). The authors are thankful to the
management of SRMSCET for motivating and providing all kinds of research infrastructure
and facilities such as print and online journals of repute in the college library and computing
and Internet facility in the department. The authors are also thankful to all final year students
of CSE & IT branch of SRMSCET for being prompt and supportive in the data collection
process. We are thankful to our family members and colleagues for their support and
cooperation. Finally, our special thanks to faculty members Hiresh Gupta and Durgesh
Tripathi for their valuable direction.

ORCID
Laxmi Shanker Maurya http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0631-7274
 APPLIED ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE 419

References
Agarwal, K., M. Ekansh, R. Chandrima, P. Manjusha, and S. Siddharth. “Analyzing student
performance in engineering placement using data mining.” In Proceedings of International
Conference on Computational Intelligence and Data Engineering, pp.171–81. Springer,
Singapore, 2019.
Brodley, C., and P. Smyth. 1997. Applying classification algorithms in practice. Statistics and
Computing 7.
Cerquides, J., M. López-Sánchez, S. Ontañón, E. Puertas, A. Puig, O. Pujol, and D. Tost.
“Classification algorithms for biomedical volume datasets.” In Conference of the Spanish
Association for Artificial Intelligence, pp.143–52. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2005.
Elayidom, S., S. M. Idikkula, and J. Alexander. 2011. A generalized data mining framework for
placement chance prediction problems. International Journal of Computer Applications 31
(no. 3):0975–8887.
Halde, R. R. “Application of machine learning algorithms for betterment in education system.”
In 2016 International Conference on Automatic Control and Dynamic Optimization
Techniques (ICACDOT), pp.1110–14. Bangalore, India: IEEE, 2016.
Halde, R. R., A. Deshpande, and A. Mahajan. “Psychology assisted prediction of academic
performance using machine learning.” In 2016 IEEE International Conference on Recent
Trends in Electronics, Information & Communication Technology (RTEICT), pp.431–35.
Bangalore, India: IEEE, 2016.
Ishizue, R., K. Sakamoto, H. Washizaki, and Y. Fukazawa. 2018. Student placement and skill
ranking predictors for programming classes using class attitude, psychological scales, and
code metrics. Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning 13 (no. 1):7.
doi:10.1186/s41039-018-0075-y.
Kabra, R. R., and R. S. Bichkar. 2011. Performance prediction of engineering students using
decision trees. International Journal of Computer Applications 36 (no. 11):8–12.
Korst, J., V. Pronk, M. Barbieri, and S. Consoli. 2019. Introduction to classification algorithms
and their performance analysis using medical examples. In Data science for healthcare,
39–73. Cham, Springer: Sergio ConsoliDiego Reforgiato RecuperoMilan Petković.
Kumar, D., Z. Satish, R. D. S., and A. S. 2019. Predicting student’s campus placement prob­
ability using binary logistic regression. International Journal of Innovative Technology and
Exploring Engineering 8 (no. 9):2633–35.
Lin, Y., and J. Le Kernec. “Performance analysis of classification algorithms for activity
recognition using micro-doppler feature.” In 2017 13th International Conference on
Computational Intelligence and Security (CIS), pp.480–83. Hongkong, China: IEEE, 2017.
Liparas, D., Y. HaCohen-Kerner, A. Moumtzidou, S. Vrochidis, and I. Kompatsiaris. “News
articles classification using random forests and weighted multimodal features.” In
Information Retrieval Facility Conference, pp.63–75. Springer, Cham, 2014.
Mishu, S., and S. M. Rafiuddin. “Performance analysis of supervised machine learning algo­
rithms for text classification.” In 2016 19th International Conference on Computer and
Information Technology (ICCIT), pp.409–13. Dhaka, Bangladesh: IEEE, 2016.
Shen, Y.-J., and E. L. Herr. 2004. Career placement concerns of international graduate students:
A qualitative study. Journal of Career Development 31 (no. 1):15–29. doi:10.1177/
089484530403100102.
Sreenivasa Rao, K., N. Swapna, and P. Praveen Kumar. 2018. Educational data mining for
student placement prediction using machine learning algorithms. International Journal of
Engineering and Technology (UAE) 2. 7 (no. 1.2):43–46. doi:10.14419/ijet.v7i1.2.8988.
420 L. S. MAURYA ET AL.

Swarupa, R. A., and S. Jyothi. “Performance analysis of classification algorithms under different
datasets.” In 2016 3rd International Conference on Computing for Sustainable Global
Development (INDIACom), pp.1584–1589. New Delhi, India: IEEE, 2016.
Thangavel, S. K., P. DivyaBkaratki, and S. Abijitk. “Student placement analyzer:
A recommendation system using machine learning.” In 2017 4th International Conference
on Advanced Computing and Communication Systems (ICACCS), pp.1–5. Coimbatore,
India: IEEE, 2017.
Uddin, S., A. Khan, M. Hossain, and M. Ali Moni. 2019. Comparing different supervised
machine learning algorithms for disease prediction. BMC Medical Informatics and Decision
Making 19 (no. 1):1–16. doi:10.1186/s12911-019-1004-8.
Upadhyay, N. M., and R. S. Singh. “Performance evaluation of classification algorithm in weka
using parallel performance profiling and computing technique.” In 2018 Fifth International
Conference on Parallel, Distributed and Grid Computing (PDGC), pp.522–27. Solan, India:
IEEE, 2018.
Verma, C., Zoltánillés, and S. Veronika “Age group predictive models for the real time
prediction of the university students using machine learning: Preliminary results.” In 2019
IEEE International Conference on Electrical, Computer and Communication Technologies
(ICECCT), pp.1–7. Coimbatore, India: IEEE, 2019.
Xia, Y., K. Chen, and Y. Yang. 2020. Multi-label classification with weighted classifier selection
and stacked ensemble. Information Sciences. doi:10.1016/j.ins.2020.06.017.
Zhang, Y. “Support vector machine classification algorithm and its application.” In
International Conference on Information Computing and Applications, pp.179–86.
Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2012.

Web References
Accessed May 04, 2020. https://www.poornima.edu.in/role-of-university-in-students-
placement/
Accessed June 25, 2020.https://www.geeksforgeeks.org/basic-concept-classification-data-
mining/
Accessed June 27, 2020. https://www.coursera.org/lecture/machine-learning/welcome-
RKFpn/