Demonstrates performance of supervised ML classifiers for impulsive alpha-stable noise, indicating clear trade-offs in AI applications.
Impulsive alpha (α)-stable noise, characterized by heavy tails and intense outliers, is a key ingredient in simulating financial, medical, seismic, and digital communication technologies. It poses versatile challenges to conventional machine learning (ML) algorithms in predicting noise parameters for multidisciplinary artificial intelligence (AI)-embedded devices. In this study, we adopted a two-phase methodology to investigate the complexity and performance of supervised ML algorithms while classifying impulsive noise parameters. We generated synthetic datasets of α-stable noise distributions for experimentation in a controlled environment. It was followed by experimental evaluation to derive the complexity and performance of ML classifiers—k-nearest neighbors (KNN), Support Vector Machine (SVM), Naïve Bayes (NB), Decision Tree (DT), and Random Forest (RF). Moreover, we employed a very high channel noise level of −15 dB in the test datasets to ensure that the derived analysis applies to real-world devices. The results demonstrate the high performance of DT and RF in structured binary classification of the α regime and the sign of skewness, while incurring satisfactory computational costs. However, SVM and kNN are comparatively more robust for multi-class classification, albeit with higher memory and training costs. On the contrary, NB fails to address the skewed and impulsive behavior of α-stable noise. We observed that even the most effective classifiers struggle to achieve perfect accuracy in multi-class classification. Overall, the experimental results reveal significant trade-off relationships between the complexity and performance of ML classifiers. Conclusively, simple models are well-suited for coarse-grained tasks, such as α-approximation and sign-of-skewness classification. In contrast, sophisticated models can be deployed to predict noise parameters to some extent. Our study provides a clear set of trade-offs for future applied AI devices that address adversarial and impulsive noise.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ahmed et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: