artificial intelligence research papers download

The Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research (JAIR) is dedicated to the rapid dissemination of important research results to the global artificial intelligence (AI) community. The journal’s scope encompasses all areas of AI, including agents and multi-agent systems, automated reasoning, constraint processing and search, knowledge representation, machine learning, natural language, planning and scheduling, robotics and vision, and uncertainty in AI.

Current Issue

Vol. 79 (2024)

Published: 2024-01-10

Cultural Bias in Explainable AI Research: A Systematic Analysis

Learning to resolve social dilemmas: a survey, a principled distributional approach to trajectory similarity measurement and its application to anomaly detection, multi-modal attentive prompt learning for few-shot emotion recognition in conversations, condense: conditional density estimation for time series anomaly detection, performative ethics from within the ivory tower: how cs practitioners uphold systems of oppression, learning logic specifications for policy guidance in pomdps: an inductive logic programming approach, multi-objective reinforcement learning based on decomposition: a taxonomy and framework, can fairness be automated guidelines and opportunities for fairness-aware automl, practical and parallelizable algorithms for non-monotone submodular maximization with size constraint, exploring the tradeoff between system profit and income equality among ride-hailing drivers, on mitigating the utility-loss in differentially private learning: a new perspective by a geometrically inspired kernel approach, an algorithm with improved complexity for pebble motion/multi-agent path finding on trees, weighted, circular and semi-algebraic proofs, reinforcement learning for generative ai: state of the art, opportunities and open research challenges, human-in-the-loop reinforcement learning: a survey and position on requirements, challenges, and opportunities, boolean observation games, detecting change intervals with isolation distributional kernel, query-driven qualitative constraint acquisition, visually grounded language learning: a review of language games, datasets, tasks, and models, right place, right time: proactive multi-robot task allocation under spatiotemporal uncertainty, principles and their computational consequences for argumentation frameworks with collective attacks, the ai race: why current neural network-based architectures are a poor basis for artificial general intelligence, undesirable biases in nlp: addressing challenges of measurement.

IEEE Account

• Change Username/Password
• Update Address

Purchase Details

• Payment Options
• Order History
• View Purchased Documents

Profile Information

• Communications Preferences
• Profession and Education
• Technical Interests
• US & Canada: +1 800 678 4333
• Worldwide: +1 732 981 0060
• Contact & Support
• About IEEE Xplore
• Accessibility
• Terms of Use
• Nondiscrimination Policy
• Privacy & Opting Out of Cookies

A not-for-profit organization, IEEE is the world's largest technical professional organization dedicated to advancing technology for the benefit of humanity. © Copyright 2024 IEEE - All rights reserved. Use of this web site signifies your agreement to the terms and conditions.

Advertisement

Machine Learning: Algorithms, Real-World Applications and Research Directions

• Review Article
• Published: 22 March 2021
• Volume 2 , article number  160 , ( 2021 )

Cite this article

• Iqbal H. Sarker   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-1740-5517 1 , 2  

460k Accesses

1309 Citations

21 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

In the current age of the Fourth Industrial Revolution (4 IR or Industry 4.0), the digital world has a wealth of data, such as Internet of Things (IoT) data, cybersecurity data, mobile data, business data, social media data, health data, etc. To intelligently analyze these data and develop the corresponding smart and automated  applications, the knowledge of artificial intelligence (AI), particularly, machine learning (ML) is the key. Various types of machine learning algorithms such as supervised, unsupervised, semi-supervised, and reinforcement learning exist in the area. Besides, the deep learning , which is part of a broader family of machine learning methods, can intelligently analyze the data on a large scale. In this paper, we present a comprehensive view on these machine learning algorithms that can be applied to enhance the intelligence and the capabilities of an application. Thus, this study’s key contribution is explaining the principles of different machine learning techniques and their applicability in various real-world application domains, such as cybersecurity systems, smart cities, healthcare, e-commerce, agriculture, and many more. We also highlight the challenges and potential research directions based on our study. Overall, this paper aims to serve as a reference point for both academia and industry professionals as well as for decision-makers in various real-world situations and application areas, particularly from the technical point of view.

Similar content being viewed by others

Deep Learning: A Comprehensive Overview on Techniques, Taxonomy, Applications and Research Directions

Iqbal H. Sarker

Machine learning and deep learning

Christian Janiesch, Patrick Zschech & Kai Heinrich

What Is Machine Learning?

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Introduction

We live in the age of data, where everything around us is connected to a data source, and everything in our lives is digitally recorded [ 21 , 103 ]. For instance, the current electronic world has a wealth of various kinds of data, such as the Internet of Things (IoT) data, cybersecurity data, smart city data, business data, smartphone data, social media data, health data, COVID-19 data, and many more. The data can be structured, semi-structured, or unstructured, discussed briefly in Sect. “ Types of Real-World Data and Machine Learning Techniques ”, which is increasing day-by-day. Extracting insights from these data can be used to build various intelligent applications in the relevant domains. For instance, to build a data-driven automated and intelligent cybersecurity system, the relevant cybersecurity data can be used [ 105 ]; to build personalized context-aware smart mobile applications, the relevant mobile data can be used [ 103 ], and so on. Thus, the data management tools and techniques having the capability of extracting insights or useful knowledge from the data in a timely and intelligent way is urgently needed, on which the real-world applications are based.

The worldwide popularity score of various types of ML algorithms (supervised, unsupervised, semi-supervised, and reinforcement) in a range of 0 (min) to 100 (max) over time where x-axis represents the timestamp information and y-axis represents the corresponding score

Artificial intelligence (AI), particularly, machine learning (ML) have grown rapidly in recent years in the context of data analysis and computing that typically allows the applications to function in an intelligent manner [ 95 ]. ML usually provides systems with the ability to learn and enhance from experience automatically without being specifically programmed and is generally referred to as the most popular latest technologies in the fourth industrial revolution (4 IR or Industry 4.0) [ 103 , 105 ]. “Industry 4.0” [ 114 ] is typically the ongoing automation of conventional manufacturing and industrial practices, including exploratory data processing, using new smart technologies such as machine learning automation. Thus, to intelligently analyze these data and to develop the corresponding real-world applications, machine learning algorithms is the key. The learning algorithms can be categorized into four major types, such as supervised, unsupervised, semi-supervised, and reinforcement learning in the area [ 75 ], discussed briefly in Sect. “ Types of Real-World Data and Machine Learning Techniques ”. The popularity of these approaches to learning is increasing day-by-day, which is shown in Fig. 1 , based on data collected from Google Trends [ 4 ] over the last five years. The x - axis of the figure indicates the specific dates and the corresponding popularity score within the range of \(0 \; (minimum)\) to \(100 \; (maximum)\) has been shown in y - axis . According to Fig. 1 , the popularity indication values for these learning types are low in 2015 and are increasing day by day. These statistics motivate us to study on machine learning in this paper, which can play an important role in the real-world through Industry 4.0 automation.

In general, the effectiveness and the efficiency of a machine learning solution depend on the nature and characteristics of data and the performance of the learning algorithms . In the area of machine learning algorithms, classification analysis, regression, data clustering, feature engineering and dimensionality reduction, association rule learning, or reinforcement learning techniques exist to effectively build data-driven systems [ 41 , 125 ]. Besides, deep learning originated from the artificial neural network that can be used to intelligently analyze data, which is known as part of a wider family of machine learning approaches [ 96 ]. Thus, selecting a proper learning algorithm that is suitable for the target application in a particular domain is challenging. The reason is that the purpose of different learning algorithms is different, even the outcome of different learning algorithms in a similar category may vary depending on the data characteristics [ 106 ]. Thus, it is important to understand the principles of various machine learning algorithms and their applicability to apply in various real-world application areas, such as IoT systems, cybersecurity services, business and recommendation systems, smart cities, healthcare and COVID-19, context-aware systems, sustainable agriculture, and many more that are explained briefly in Sect. “ Applications of Machine Learning ”.

Based on the importance and potentiality of “Machine Learning” to analyze the data mentioned above, in this paper, we provide a comprehensive view on various types of machine learning algorithms that can be applied to enhance the intelligence and the capabilities of an application. Thus, the key contribution of this study is explaining the principles and potentiality of different machine learning techniques, and their applicability in various real-world application areas mentioned earlier. The purpose of this paper is, therefore, to provide a basic guide for those academia and industry people who want to study, research, and develop data-driven automated and intelligent systems in the relevant areas based on machine learning techniques.

The key contributions of this paper are listed as follows:

To define the scope of our study by taking into account the nature and characteristics of various types of real-world data and the capabilities of various learning techniques.

To provide a comprehensive view on machine learning algorithms that can be applied to enhance the intelligence and capabilities of a data-driven application.

To discuss the applicability of machine learning-based solutions in various real-world application domains.

To highlight and summarize the potential research directions within the scope of our study for intelligent data analysis and services.

The rest of the paper is organized as follows. The next section presents the types of data and machine learning algorithms in a broader sense and defines the scope of our study. We briefly discuss and explain different machine learning algorithms in the subsequent section followed by which various real-world application areas based on machine learning algorithms are discussed and summarized. In the penultimate section, we highlight several research issues and potential future directions, and the final section concludes this paper.

Types of Real-World Data and Machine Learning Techniques

Machine learning algorithms typically consume and process data to learn the related patterns about individuals, business processes, transactions, events, and so on. In the following, we discuss various types of real-world data as well as categories of machine learning algorithms.

Types of Real-World Data

Usually, the availability of data is considered as the key to construct a machine learning model or data-driven real-world systems [ 103 , 105 ]. Data can be of various forms, such as structured, semi-structured, or unstructured [ 41 , 72 ]. Besides, the “metadata” is another type that typically represents data about the data. In the following, we briefly discuss these types of data.

Structured: It has a well-defined structure, conforms to a data model following a standard order, which is highly organized and easily accessed, and used by an entity or a computer program. In well-defined schemes, such as relational databases, structured data are typically stored, i.e., in a tabular format. For instance, names, dates, addresses, credit card numbers, stock information, geolocation, etc. are examples of structured data.

Unstructured: On the other hand, there is no pre-defined format or organization for unstructured data, making it much more difficult to capture, process, and analyze, mostly containing text and multimedia material. For example, sensor data, emails, blog entries, wikis, and word processing documents, PDF files, audio files, videos, images, presentations, web pages, and many other types of business documents can be considered as unstructured data.

Semi-structured: Semi-structured data are not stored in a relational database like the structured data mentioned above, but it does have certain organizational properties that make it easier to analyze. HTML, XML, JSON documents, NoSQL databases, etc., are some examples of semi-structured data.

Metadata: It is not the normal form of data, but “data about data”. The primary difference between “data” and “metadata” is that data are simply the material that can classify, measure, or even document something relative to an organization’s data properties. On the other hand, metadata describes the relevant data information, giving it more significance for data users. A basic example of a document’s metadata might be the author, file size, date generated by the document, keywords to define the document, etc.

In the area of machine learning and data science, researchers use various widely used datasets for different purposes. These are, for example, cybersecurity datasets such as NSL-KDD [ 119 ], UNSW-NB15 [ 76 ], ISCX’12 [ 1 ], CIC-DDoS2019 [ 2 ], Bot-IoT [ 59 ], etc., smartphone datasets such as phone call logs [ 84 , 101 ], SMS Log [ 29 ], mobile application usages logs [ 137 ] [ 117 ], mobile phone notification logs [ 73 ] etc., IoT data [ 16 , 57 , 62 ], agriculture and e-commerce data [ 120 , 138 ], health data such as heart disease [ 92 ], diabetes mellitus [ 83 , 134 ], COVID-19 [ 43 , 74 ], etc., and many more in various application domains. The data can be in different types discussed above, which may vary from application to application in the real world. To analyze such data in a particular problem domain, and to extract the insights or useful knowledge from the data for building the real-world intelligent applications, different types of machine learning techniques can be used according to their learning capabilities, which is discussed in the following.

Types of Machine Learning Techniques

Machine Learning algorithms are mainly divided into four categories: Supervised learning, Unsupervised learning, Semi-supervised learning, and Reinforcement learning [ 75 ], as shown in Fig. 2 . In the following, we briefly discuss each type of learning technique with the scope of their applicability to solve real-world problems.

Various types of machine learning techniques

Supervised: Supervised learning is typically the task of machine learning to learn a function that maps an input to an output based on sample input-output pairs [ 41 ]. It uses labeled training data and a collection of training examples to infer a function. Supervised learning is carried out when certain goals are identified to be accomplished from a certain set of inputs [ 105 ], i.e., a task-driven approach . The most common supervised tasks are “classification” that separates the data, and “regression” that fits the data. For instance, predicting the class label or sentiment of a piece of text, like a tweet or a product review, i.e., text classification, is an example of supervised learning.

Unsupervised: Unsupervised learning analyzes unlabeled datasets without the need for human interference, i.e., a data-driven process [ 41 ]. This is widely used for extracting generative features, identifying meaningful trends and structures, groupings in results, and exploratory purposes. The most common unsupervised learning tasks are clustering, density estimation, feature learning, dimensionality reduction, finding association rules, anomaly detection, etc.

Semi-supervised: Semi-supervised learning can be defined as a hybridization of the above-mentioned supervised and unsupervised methods, as it operates on both labeled and unlabeled data [ 41 , 105 ]. Thus, it falls between learning “without supervision” and learning “with supervision”. In the real world, labeled data could be rare in several contexts, and unlabeled data are numerous, where semi-supervised learning is useful [ 75 ]. The ultimate goal of a semi-supervised learning model is to provide a better outcome for prediction than that produced using the labeled data alone from the model. Some application areas where semi-supervised learning is used include machine translation, fraud detection, labeling data and text classification.

Reinforcement: Reinforcement learning is a type of machine learning algorithm that enables software agents and machines to automatically evaluate the optimal behavior in a particular context or environment to improve its efficiency [ 52 ], i.e., an environment-driven approach . This type of learning is based on reward or penalty, and its ultimate goal is to use insights obtained from environmental activists to take action to increase the reward or minimize the risk [ 75 ]. It is a powerful tool for training AI models that can help increase automation or optimize the operational efficiency of sophisticated systems such as robotics, autonomous driving tasks, manufacturing and supply chain logistics, however, not preferable to use it for solving the basic or straightforward problems.

Thus, to build effective models in various application areas different types of machine learning techniques can play a significant role according to their learning capabilities, depending on the nature of the data discussed earlier, and the target outcome. In Table 1 , we summarize various types of machine learning techniques with examples. In the following, we provide a comprehensive view of machine learning algorithms that can be applied to enhance the intelligence and capabilities of a data-driven application.

Machine Learning Tasks and Algorithms

In this section, we discuss various machine learning algorithms that include classification analysis, regression analysis, data clustering, association rule learning, feature engineering for dimensionality reduction, as well as deep learning methods. A general structure of a machine learning-based predictive model has been shown in Fig. 3 , where the model is trained from historical data in phase 1 and the outcome is generated in phase 2 for the new test data.

A general structure of a machine learning based predictive model considering both the training and testing phase

Classification Analysis

Classification is regarded as a supervised learning method in machine learning, referring to a problem of predictive modeling as well, where a class label is predicted for a given example [ 41 ]. Mathematically, it maps a function ( f ) from input variables ( X ) to output variables ( Y ) as target, label or categories. To predict the class of given data points, it can be carried out on structured or unstructured data. For example, spam detection such as “spam” and “not spam” in email service providers can be a classification problem. In the following, we summarize the common classification problems.

Binary classification: It refers to the classification tasks having two class labels such as “true and false” or “yes and no” [ 41 ]. In such binary classification tasks, one class could be the normal state, while the abnormal state could be another class. For instance, “cancer not detected” is the normal state of a task that involves a medical test, and “cancer detected” could be considered as the abnormal state. Similarly, “spam” and “not spam” in the above example of email service providers are considered as binary classification.

Multiclass classification: Traditionally, this refers to those classification tasks having more than two class labels [ 41 ]. The multiclass classification does not have the principle of normal and abnormal outcomes, unlike binary classification tasks. Instead, within a range of specified classes, examples are classified as belonging to one. For example, it can be a multiclass classification task to classify various types of network attacks in the NSL-KDD [ 119 ] dataset, where the attack categories are classified into four class labels, such as DoS (Denial of Service Attack), U2R (User to Root Attack), R2L (Root to Local Attack), and Probing Attack.

Multi-label classification: In machine learning, multi-label classification is an important consideration where an example is associated with several classes or labels. Thus, it is a generalization of multiclass classification, where the classes involved in the problem are hierarchically structured, and each example may simultaneously belong to more than one class in each hierarchical level, e.g., multi-level text classification. For instance, Google news can be presented under the categories of a “city name”, “technology”, or “latest news”, etc. Multi-label classification includes advanced machine learning algorithms that support predicting various mutually non-exclusive classes or labels, unlike traditional classification tasks where class labels are mutually exclusive [ 82 ].

Many classification algorithms have been proposed in the machine learning and data science literature [ 41 , 125 ]. In the following, we summarize the most common and popular methods that are used widely in various application areas.

Naive Bayes (NB): The naive Bayes algorithm is based on the Bayes’ theorem with the assumption of independence between each pair of features [ 51 ]. It works well and can be used for both binary and multi-class categories in many real-world situations, such as document or text classification, spam filtering, etc. To effectively classify the noisy instances in the data and to construct a robust prediction model, the NB classifier can be used [ 94 ]. The key benefit is that, compared to more sophisticated approaches, it needs a small amount of training data to estimate the necessary parameters and quickly [ 82 ]. However, its performance may affect due to its strong assumptions on features independence. Gaussian, Multinomial, Complement, Bernoulli, and Categorical are the common variants of NB classifier [ 82 ].

Linear Discriminant Analysis (LDA): Linear Discriminant Analysis (LDA) is a linear decision boundary classifier created by fitting class conditional densities to data and applying Bayes’ rule [ 51 , 82 ]. This method is also known as a generalization of Fisher’s linear discriminant, which projects a given dataset into a lower-dimensional space, i.e., a reduction of dimensionality that minimizes the complexity of the model or reduces the resulting model’s computational costs. The standard LDA model usually suits each class with a Gaussian density, assuming that all classes share the same covariance matrix [ 82 ]. LDA is closely related to ANOVA (analysis of variance) and regression analysis, which seek to express one dependent variable as a linear combination of other features or measurements.

Logistic regression (LR): Another common probabilistic based statistical model used to solve classification issues in machine learning is Logistic Regression (LR) [ 64 ]. Logistic regression typically uses a logistic function to estimate the probabilities, which is also referred to as the mathematically defined sigmoid function in Eq. 1 . It can overfit high-dimensional datasets and works well when the dataset can be separated linearly. The regularization (L1 and L2) techniques [ 82 ] can be used to avoid over-fitting in such scenarios. The assumption of linearity between the dependent and independent variables is considered as a major drawback of Logistic Regression. It can be used for both classification and regression problems, but it is more commonly used for classification.

K-nearest neighbors (KNN): K-Nearest Neighbors (KNN) [ 9 ] is an “instance-based learning” or non-generalizing learning, also known as a “lazy learning” algorithm. It does not focus on constructing a general internal model; instead, it stores all instances corresponding to training data in n -dimensional space. KNN uses data and classifies new data points based on similarity measures (e.g., Euclidean distance function) [ 82 ]. Classification is computed from a simple majority vote of the k nearest neighbors of each point. It is quite robust to noisy training data, and accuracy depends on the data quality. The biggest issue with KNN is to choose the optimal number of neighbors to be considered. KNN can be used both for classification as well as regression.

Support vector machine (SVM): In machine learning, another common technique that can be used for classification, regression, or other tasks is a support vector machine (SVM) [ 56 ]. In high- or infinite-dimensional space, a support vector machine constructs a hyper-plane or set of hyper-planes. Intuitively, the hyper-plane, which has the greatest distance from the nearest training data points in any class, achieves a strong separation since, in general, the greater the margin, the lower the classifier’s generalization error. It is effective in high-dimensional spaces and can behave differently based on different mathematical functions known as the kernel. Linear, polynomial, radial basis function (RBF), sigmoid, etc., are the popular kernel functions used in SVM classifier [ 82 ]. However, when the data set contains more noise, such as overlapping target classes, SVM does not perform well.

Decision tree (DT): Decision tree (DT) [ 88 ] is a well-known non-parametric supervised learning method. DT learning methods are used for both the classification and regression tasks [ 82 ]. ID3 [ 87 ], C4.5 [ 88 ], and CART [ 20 ] are well known for DT algorithms. Moreover, recently proposed BehavDT [ 100 ], and IntrudTree [ 97 ] by Sarker et al. are effective in the relevant application domains, such as user behavior analytics and cybersecurity analytics, respectively. By sorting down the tree from the root to some leaf nodes, as shown in Fig. 4 , DT classifies the instances. Instances are classified by checking the attribute defined by that node, starting at the root node of the tree, and then moving down the tree branch corresponding to the attribute value. For splitting, the most popular criteria are “gini” for the Gini impurity and “entropy” for the information gain that can be expressed mathematically as [ 82 ].

An example of a decision tree structure

An example of a random forest structure considering multiple decision trees

Random forest (RF): A random forest classifier [ 19 ] is well known as an ensemble classification technique that is used in the field of machine learning and data science in various application areas. This method uses “parallel ensembling” which fits several decision tree classifiers in parallel, as shown in Fig. 5 , on different data set sub-samples and uses majority voting or averages for the outcome or final result. It thus minimizes the over-fitting problem and increases the prediction accuracy and control [ 82 ]. Therefore, the RF learning model with multiple decision trees is typically more accurate than a single decision tree based model [ 106 ]. To build a series of decision trees with controlled variation, it combines bootstrap aggregation (bagging) [ 18 ] and random feature selection [ 11 ]. It is adaptable to both classification and regression problems and fits well for both categorical and continuous values.

Adaptive Boosting (AdaBoost): Adaptive Boosting (AdaBoost) is an ensemble learning process that employs an iterative approach to improve poor classifiers by learning from their errors. This is developed by Yoav Freund et al. [ 35 ] and also known as “meta-learning”. Unlike the random forest that uses parallel ensembling, Adaboost uses “sequential ensembling”. It creates a powerful classifier by combining many poorly performing classifiers to obtain a good classifier of high accuracy. In that sense, AdaBoost is called an adaptive classifier by significantly improving the efficiency of the classifier, but in some instances, it can trigger overfits. AdaBoost is best used to boost the performance of decision trees, base estimator [ 82 ], on binary classification problems, however, is sensitive to noisy data and outliers.

Extreme gradient boosting (XGBoost): Gradient Boosting, like Random Forests [ 19 ] above, is an ensemble learning algorithm that generates a final model based on a series of individual models, typically decision trees. The gradient is used to minimize the loss function, similar to how neural networks [ 41 ] use gradient descent to optimize weights. Extreme Gradient Boosting (XGBoost) is a form of gradient boosting that takes more detailed approximations into account when determining the best model [ 82 ]. It computes second-order gradients of the loss function to minimize loss and advanced regularization (L1 and L2) [ 82 ], which reduces over-fitting, and improves model generalization and performance. XGBoost is fast to interpret and can handle large-sized datasets well.

Stochastic gradient descent (SGD): Stochastic gradient descent (SGD) [ 41 ] is an iterative method for optimizing an objective function with appropriate smoothness properties, where the word ‘stochastic’ refers to random probability. This reduces the computational burden, particularly in high-dimensional optimization problems, allowing for faster iterations in exchange for a lower convergence rate. A gradient is the slope of a function that calculates a variable’s degree of change in response to another variable’s changes. Mathematically, the Gradient Descent is a convex function whose output is a partial derivative of a set of its input parameters. Let, \(\alpha\) is the learning rate, and \(J_i\) is the training example cost of \(i \mathrm{th}\) , then Eq. ( 4 ) represents the stochastic gradient descent weight update method at the \(j^\mathrm{th}\) iteration. In large-scale and sparse machine learning, SGD has been successfully applied to problems often encountered in text classification and natural language processing [ 82 ]. However, SGD is sensitive to feature scaling and needs a range of hyperparameters, such as the regularization parameter and the number of iterations.

Rule-based classification : The term rule-based classification can be used to refer to any classification scheme that makes use of IF-THEN rules for class prediction. Several classification algorithms such as Zero-R [ 125 ], One-R [ 47 ], decision trees [ 87 , 88 ], DTNB [ 110 ], Ripple Down Rule learner (RIDOR) [ 125 ], Repeated Incremental Pruning to Produce Error Reduction (RIPPER) [ 126 ] exist with the ability of rule generation. The decision tree is one of the most common rule-based classification algorithms among these techniques because it has several advantages, such as being easier to interpret; the ability to handle high-dimensional data; simplicity and speed; good accuracy; and the capability to produce rules for human clear and understandable classification [ 127 ] [ 128 ]. The decision tree-based rules also provide significant accuracy in a prediction model for unseen test cases [ 106 ]. Since the rules are easily interpretable, these rule-based classifiers are often used to produce descriptive models that can describe a system including the entities and their relationships.

Classification vs. regression. In classification the dotted line represents a linear boundary that separates the two classes; in regression, the dotted line models the linear relationship between the two variables

Regression Analysis

Regression analysis includes several methods of machine learning that allow to predict a continuous ( y ) result variable based on the value of one or more ( x ) predictor variables [ 41 ]. The most significant distinction between classification and regression is that classification predicts distinct class labels, while regression facilitates the prediction of a continuous quantity. Figure 6 shows an example of how classification is different with regression models. Some overlaps are often found between the two types of machine learning algorithms. Regression models are now widely used in a variety of fields, including financial forecasting or prediction, cost estimation, trend analysis, marketing, time series estimation, drug response modeling, and many more. Some of the familiar types of regression algorithms are linear, polynomial, lasso and ridge regression, etc., which are explained briefly in the following.

Simple and multiple linear regression: This is one of the most popular ML modeling techniques as well as a well-known regression technique. In this technique, the dependent variable is continuous, the independent variable(s) can be continuous or discrete, and the form of the regression line is linear. Linear regression creates a relationship between the dependent variable ( Y ) and one or more independent variables ( X ) (also known as regression line) using the best fit straight line [ 41 ]. It is defined by the following equations:

where a is the intercept, b is the slope of the line, and e is the error term. This equation can be used to predict the value of the target variable based on the given predictor variable(s). Multiple linear regression is an extension of simple linear regression that allows two or more predictor variables to model a response variable, y, as a linear function [ 41 ] defined in Eq. 6 , whereas simple linear regression has only 1 independent variable, defined in Eq. 5 .

Polynomial regression: Polynomial regression is a form of regression analysis in which the relationship between the independent variable x and the dependent variable y is not linear, but is the polynomial degree of \(n^\mathrm{th}\) in x [ 82 ]. The equation for polynomial regression is also derived from linear regression (polynomial regression of degree 1) equation, which is defined as below:

Here, y is the predicted/target output, \(b_0, b_1,... b_n\) are the regression coefficients, x is an independent/ input variable. In simple words, we can say that if data are not distributed linearly, instead it is \(n^\mathrm{th}\) degree of polynomial then we use polynomial regression to get desired output.

LASSO and ridge regression: LASSO and Ridge regression are well known as powerful techniques which are typically used for building learning models in presence of a large number of features, due to their capability to preventing over-fitting and reducing the complexity of the model. The LASSO (least absolute shrinkage and selection operator) regression model uses L 1 regularization technique [ 82 ] that uses shrinkage, which penalizes “absolute value of magnitude of coefficients” ( L 1 penalty). As a result, LASSO appears to render coefficients to absolute zero. Thus, LASSO regression aims to find the subset of predictors that minimizes the prediction error for a quantitative response variable. On the other hand, ridge regression uses L 2 regularization [ 82 ], which is the “squared magnitude of coefficients” ( L 2 penalty). Thus, ridge regression forces the weights to be small but never sets the coefficient value to zero, and does a non-sparse solution. Overall, LASSO regression is useful to obtain a subset of predictors by eliminating less important features, and ridge regression is useful when a data set has “multicollinearity” which refers to the predictors that are correlated with other predictors.

Cluster Analysis

Cluster analysis, also known as clustering, is an unsupervised machine learning technique for identifying and grouping related data points in large datasets without concern for the specific outcome. It does grouping a collection of objects in such a way that objects in the same category, called a cluster, are in some sense more similar to each other than objects in other groups [ 41 ]. It is often used as a data analysis technique to discover interesting trends or patterns in data, e.g., groups of consumers based on their behavior. In a broad range of application areas, such as cybersecurity, e-commerce, mobile data processing, health analytics, user modeling and behavioral analytics, clustering can be used. In the following, we briefly discuss and summarize various types of clustering methods.

Partitioning methods: Based on the features and similarities in the data, this clustering approach categorizes the data into multiple groups or clusters. The data scientists or analysts typically determine the number of clusters either dynamically or statically depending on the nature of the target applications, to produce for the methods of clustering. The most common clustering algorithms based on partitioning methods are K-means [ 69 ], K-Mediods [ 80 ], CLARA [ 55 ] etc.

Density-based methods: To identify distinct groups or clusters, it uses the concept that a cluster in the data space is a contiguous region of high point density isolated from other such clusters by contiguous regions of low point density. Points that are not part of a cluster are considered as noise. The typical clustering algorithms based on density are DBSCAN [ 32 ], OPTICS [ 12 ] etc. The density-based methods typically struggle with clusters of similar density and high dimensionality data.

Hierarchical-based methods: Hierarchical clustering typically seeks to construct a hierarchy of clusters, i.e., the tree structure. Strategies for hierarchical clustering generally fall into two types: (i) Agglomerative—a “bottom-up” approach in which each observation begins in its cluster and pairs of clusters are combined as one, moves up the hierarchy, and (ii) Divisive—a “top-down” approach in which all observations begin in one cluster and splits are performed recursively, moves down the hierarchy, as shown in Fig 7 . Our earlier proposed BOTS technique, Sarker et al. [ 102 ] is an example of a hierarchical, particularly, bottom-up clustering algorithm.

Grid-based methods: To deal with massive datasets, grid-based clustering is especially suitable. To obtain clusters, the principle is first to summarize the dataset with a grid representation and then to combine grid cells. STING [ 122 ], CLIQUE [ 6 ], etc. are the standard algorithms of grid-based clustering.

Model-based methods: There are mainly two types of model-based clustering algorithms: one that uses statistical learning, and the other based on a method of neural network learning [ 130 ]. For instance, GMM [ 89 ] is an example of a statistical learning method, and SOM [ 22 ] [ 96 ] is an example of a neural network learning method.

Constraint-based methods: Constrained-based clustering is a semi-supervised approach to data clustering that uses constraints to incorporate domain knowledge. Application or user-oriented constraints are incorporated to perform the clustering. The typical algorithms of this kind of clustering are COP K-means [ 121 ], CMWK-Means [ 27 ], etc.

A graphical interpretation of the widely-used hierarchical clustering (Bottom-up and top-down) technique

Many clustering algorithms have been proposed with the ability to grouping data in machine learning and data science literature [ 41 , 125 ]. In the following, we summarize the popular methods that are used widely in various application areas.

K-means clustering: K-means clustering [ 69 ] is a fast, robust, and simple algorithm that provides reliable results when data sets are well-separated from each other. The data points are allocated to a cluster in this algorithm in such a way that the amount of the squared distance between the data points and the centroid is as small as possible. In other words, the K-means algorithm identifies the k number of centroids and then assigns each data point to the nearest cluster while keeping the centroids as small as possible. Since it begins with a random selection of cluster centers, the results can be inconsistent. Since extreme values can easily affect a mean, the K-means clustering algorithm is sensitive to outliers. K-medoids clustering [ 91 ] is a variant of K-means that is more robust to noises and outliers.

Mean-shift clustering: Mean-shift clustering [ 37 ] is a nonparametric clustering technique that does not require prior knowledge of the number of clusters or constraints on cluster shape. Mean-shift clustering aims to discover “blobs” in a smooth distribution or density of samples [ 82 ]. It is a centroid-based algorithm that works by updating centroid candidates to be the mean of the points in a given region. To form the final set of centroids, these candidates are filtered in a post-processing stage to remove near-duplicates. Cluster analysis in computer vision and image processing are examples of application domains. Mean Shift has the disadvantage of being computationally expensive. Moreover, in cases of high dimension, where the number of clusters shifts abruptly, the mean-shift algorithm does not work well.

DBSCAN: Density-based spatial clustering of applications with noise (DBSCAN) [ 32 ] is a base algorithm for density-based clustering which is widely used in data mining and machine learning. This is known as a non-parametric density-based clustering technique for separating high-density clusters from low-density clusters that are used in model building. DBSCAN’s main idea is that a point belongs to a cluster if it is close to many points from that cluster. It can find clusters of various shapes and sizes in a vast volume of data that is noisy and contains outliers. DBSCAN, unlike k-means, does not require a priori specification of the number of clusters in the data and can find arbitrarily shaped clusters. Although k-means is much faster than DBSCAN, it is efficient at finding high-density regions and outliers, i.e., is robust to outliers.

GMM clustering: Gaussian mixture models (GMMs) are often used for data clustering, which is a distribution-based clustering algorithm. A Gaussian mixture model is a probabilistic model in which all the data points are produced by a mixture of a finite number of Gaussian distributions with unknown parameters [ 82 ]. To find the Gaussian parameters for each cluster, an optimization algorithm called expectation-maximization (EM) [ 82 ] can be used. EM is an iterative method that uses a statistical model to estimate the parameters. In contrast to k-means, Gaussian mixture models account for uncertainty and return the likelihood that a data point belongs to one of the k clusters. GMM clustering is more robust than k-means and works well even with non-linear data distributions.

Agglomerative hierarchical clustering: The most common method of hierarchical clustering used to group objects in clusters based on their similarity is agglomerative clustering. This technique uses a bottom-up approach, where each object is first treated as a singleton cluster by the algorithm. Following that, pairs of clusters are merged one by one until all clusters have been merged into a single large cluster containing all objects. The result is a dendrogram, which is a tree-based representation of the elements. Single linkage [ 115 ], Complete linkage [ 116 ], BOTS [ 102 ] etc. are some examples of such techniques. The main advantage of agglomerative hierarchical clustering over k-means is that the tree-structure hierarchy generated by agglomerative clustering is more informative than the unstructured collection of flat clusters returned by k-means, which can help to make better decisions in the relevant application areas.

Dimensionality Reduction and Feature Learning

In machine learning and data science, high-dimensional data processing is a challenging task for both researchers and application developers. Thus, dimensionality reduction which is an unsupervised learning technique, is important because it leads to better human interpretations, lower computational costs, and avoids overfitting and redundancy by simplifying models. Both the process of feature selection and feature extraction can be used for dimensionality reduction. The primary distinction between the selection and extraction of features is that the “feature selection” keeps a subset of the original features [ 97 ], while “feature extraction” creates brand new ones [ 98 ]. In the following, we briefly discuss these techniques.

Feature selection: The selection of features, also known as the selection of variables or attributes in the data, is the process of choosing a subset of unique features (variables, predictors) to use in building machine learning and data science model. It decreases a model’s complexity by eliminating the irrelevant or less important features and allows for faster training of machine learning algorithms. A right and optimal subset of the selected features in a problem domain is capable to minimize the overfitting problem through simplifying and generalizing the model as well as increases the model’s accuracy [ 97 ]. Thus, “feature selection” [ 66 , 99 ] is considered as one of the primary concepts in machine learning that greatly affects the effectiveness and efficiency of the target machine learning model. Chi-squared test, Analysis of variance (ANOVA) test, Pearson’s correlation coefficient, recursive feature elimination, are some popular techniques that can be used for feature selection.

Feature extraction: In a machine learning-based model or system, feature extraction techniques usually provide a better understanding of the data, a way to improve prediction accuracy, and to reduce computational cost or training time. The aim of “feature extraction” [ 66 , 99 ] is to reduce the number of features in a dataset by generating new ones from the existing ones and then discarding the original features. The majority of the information found in the original set of features can then be summarized using this new reduced set of features. For instance, principal components analysis (PCA) is often used as a dimensionality-reduction technique to extract a lower-dimensional space creating new brand components from the existing features in a dataset [ 98 ].

Many algorithms have been proposed to reduce data dimensions in the machine learning and data science literature [ 41 , 125 ]. In the following, we summarize the popular methods that are used widely in various application areas.

Variance threshold: A simple basic approach to feature selection is the variance threshold [ 82 ]. This excludes all features of low variance, i.e., all features whose variance does not exceed the threshold. It eliminates all zero-variance characteristics by default, i.e., characteristics that have the same value in all samples. This feature selection algorithm looks only at the ( X ) features, not the ( y ) outputs needed, and can, therefore, be used for unsupervised learning.

Pearson correlation: Pearson’s correlation is another method to understand a feature’s relation to the response variable and can be used for feature selection [ 99 ]. This method is also used for finding the association between the features in a dataset. The resulting value is \([-1, 1]\) , where \(-1\) means perfect negative correlation, \(+1\) means perfect positive correlation, and 0 means that the two variables do not have a linear correlation. If two random variables represent X and Y , then the correlation coefficient between X and Y is defined as [ 41 ]

ANOVA: Analysis of variance (ANOVA) is a statistical tool used to verify the mean values of two or more groups that differ significantly from each other. ANOVA assumes a linear relationship between the variables and the target and the variables’ normal distribution. To statistically test the equality of means, the ANOVA method utilizes F tests. For feature selection, the results ‘ANOVA F value’ [ 82 ] of this test can be used where certain features independent of the goal variable can be omitted.

Chi square: The chi-square \({\chi }^2\) [ 82 ] statistic is an estimate of the difference between the effects of a series of events or variables observed and expected frequencies. The magnitude of the difference between the real and observed values, the degrees of freedom, and the sample size depends on \({\chi }^2\) . The chi-square \({\chi }^2\) is commonly used for testing relationships between categorical variables. If \(O_i\) represents observed value and \(E_i\) represents expected value, then

Recursive feature elimination (RFE): Recursive Feature Elimination (RFE) is a brute force approach to feature selection. RFE [ 82 ] fits the model and removes the weakest feature before it meets the specified number of features. Features are ranked by the coefficients or feature significance of the model. RFE aims to remove dependencies and collinearity in the model by recursively removing a small number of features per iteration.

Model-based selection: To reduce the dimensionality of the data, linear models penalized with the L 1 regularization can be used. Least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (Lasso) regression is a type of linear regression that has the property of shrinking some of the coefficients to zero [ 82 ]. Therefore, that feature can be removed from the model. Thus, the penalized lasso regression method, often used in machine learning to select the subset of variables. Extra Trees Classifier [ 82 ] is an example of a tree-based estimator that can be used to compute impurity-based function importance, which can then be used to discard irrelevant features.

Principal component analysis (PCA): Principal component analysis (PCA) is a well-known unsupervised learning approach in the field of machine learning and data science. PCA is a mathematical technique that transforms a set of correlated variables into a set of uncorrelated variables known as principal components [ 48 , 81 ]. Figure 8 shows an example of the effect of PCA on various dimensions space, where Fig. 8 a shows the original features in 3D space, and Fig. 8 b shows the created principal components PC1 and PC2 onto a 2D plane, and 1D line with the principal component PC1 respectively. Thus, PCA can be used as a feature extraction technique that reduces the dimensionality of the datasets, and to build an effective machine learning model [ 98 ]. Technically, PCA identifies the completely transformed with the highest eigenvalues of a covariance matrix and then uses those to project the data into a new subspace of equal or fewer dimensions [ 82 ].

An example of a principal component analysis (PCA) and created principal components PC1 and PC2 in different dimension space

Association Rule Learning

Association rule learning is a rule-based machine learning approach to discover interesting relationships, “IF-THEN” statements, in large datasets between variables [ 7 ]. One example is that “if a customer buys a computer or laptop (an item), s/he is likely to also buy anti-virus software (another item) at the same time”. Association rules are employed today in many application areas, including IoT services, medical diagnosis, usage behavior analytics, web usage mining, smartphone applications, cybersecurity applications, and bioinformatics. In comparison to sequence mining, association rule learning does not usually take into account the order of things within or across transactions. A common way of measuring the usefulness of association rules is to use its parameter, the ‘support’ and ‘confidence’, which is introduced in [ 7 ].

In the data mining literature, many association rule learning methods have been proposed, such as logic dependent [ 34 ], frequent pattern based [ 8 , 49 , 68 ], and tree-based [ 42 ]. The most popular association rule learning algorithms are summarized below.

AIS and SETM: AIS is the first algorithm proposed by Agrawal et al. [ 7 ] for association rule mining. The AIS algorithm’s main downside is that too many candidate itemsets are generated, requiring more space and wasting a lot of effort. This algorithm calls for too many passes over the entire dataset to produce the rules. Another approach SETM [ 49 ] exhibits good performance and stable behavior with execution time; however, it suffers from the same flaw as the AIS algorithm.

Apriori: For generating association rules for a given dataset, Agrawal et al. [ 8 ] proposed the Apriori, Apriori-TID, and Apriori-Hybrid algorithms. These later algorithms outperform the AIS and SETM mentioned above due to the Apriori property of frequent itemset [ 8 ]. The term ‘Apriori’ usually refers to having prior knowledge of frequent itemset properties. Apriori uses a “bottom-up” approach, where it generates the candidate itemsets. To reduce the search space, Apriori uses the property “all subsets of a frequent itemset must be frequent; and if an itemset is infrequent, then all its supersets must also be infrequent”. Another approach predictive Apriori [ 108 ] can also generate rules; however, it receives unexpected results as it combines both the support and confidence. The Apriori [ 8 ] is the widely applicable techniques in mining association rules.

ECLAT: This technique was proposed by Zaki et al. [ 131 ] and stands for Equivalence Class Clustering and bottom-up Lattice Traversal. ECLAT uses a depth-first search to find frequent itemsets. In contrast to the Apriori [ 8 ] algorithm, which represents data in a horizontal pattern, it represents data vertically. Hence, the ECLAT algorithm is more efficient and scalable in the area of association rule learning. This algorithm is better suited for small and medium datasets whereas the Apriori algorithm is used for large datasets.

FP-Growth: Another common association rule learning technique based on the frequent-pattern tree (FP-tree) proposed by Han et al. [ 42 ] is Frequent Pattern Growth, known as FP-Growth. The key difference with Apriori is that while generating rules, the Apriori algorithm [ 8 ] generates frequent candidate itemsets; on the other hand, the FP-growth algorithm [ 42 ] prevents candidate generation and thus produces a tree by the successful strategy of ‘divide and conquer’ approach. Due to its sophistication, however, FP-Tree is challenging to use in an interactive mining environment [ 133 ]. Thus, the FP-Tree would not fit into memory for massive data sets, making it challenging to process big data as well. Another solution is RARM (Rapid Association Rule Mining) proposed by Das et al. [ 26 ] but faces a related FP-tree issue [ 133 ].

ABC-RuleMiner: A rule-based machine learning method, recently proposed in our earlier paper, by Sarker et al. [ 104 ], to discover the interesting non-redundant rules to provide real-world intelligent services. This algorithm effectively identifies the redundancy in associations by taking into account the impact or precedence of the related contextual features and discovers a set of non-redundant association rules. This algorithm first constructs an association generation tree (AGT), a top-down approach, and then extracts the association rules through traversing the tree. Thus, ABC-RuleMiner is more potent than traditional rule-based methods in terms of both non-redundant rule generation and intelligent decision-making, particularly in a context-aware smart computing environment, where human or user preferences are involved.

Among the association rule learning techniques discussed above, Apriori [ 8 ] is the most widely used algorithm for discovering association rules from a given dataset [ 133 ]. The main strength of the association learning technique is its comprehensiveness, as it generates all associations that satisfy the user-specified constraints, such as minimum support and confidence value. The ABC-RuleMiner approach [ 104 ] discussed earlier could give significant results in terms of non-redundant rule generation and intelligent decision-making for the relevant application areas in the real world.

Reinforcement Learning

Reinforcement learning (RL) is a machine learning technique that allows an agent to learn by trial and error in an interactive environment using input from its actions and experiences. Unlike supervised learning, which is based on given sample data or examples, the RL method is based on interacting with the environment. The problem to be solved in reinforcement learning (RL) is defined as a Markov Decision Process (MDP) [ 86 ], i.e., all about sequentially making decisions. An RL problem typically includes four elements such as Agent, Environment, Rewards, and Policy.

RL can be split roughly into Model-based and Model-free techniques. Model-based RL is the process of inferring optimal behavior from a model of the environment by performing actions and observing the results, which include the next state and the immediate reward [ 85 ]. AlphaZero, AlphaGo [ 113 ] are examples of the model-based approaches. On the other hand, a model-free approach does not use the distribution of the transition probability and the reward function associated with MDP. Q-learning, Deep Q Network, Monte Carlo Control, SARSA (State–Action–Reward–State–Action), etc. are some examples of model-free algorithms [ 52 ]. The policy network, which is required for model-based RL but not for model-free, is the key difference between model-free and model-based learning. In the following, we discuss the popular RL algorithms.

Monte Carlo methods: Monte Carlo techniques, or Monte Carlo experiments, are a wide category of computational algorithms that rely on repeated random sampling to obtain numerical results [ 52 ]. The underlying concept is to use randomness to solve problems that are deterministic in principle. Optimization, numerical integration, and making drawings from the probability distribution are the three problem classes where Monte Carlo techniques are most commonly used.

Q-learning: Q-learning is a model-free reinforcement learning algorithm for learning the quality of behaviors that tell an agent what action to take under what conditions [ 52 ]. It does not need a model of the environment (hence the term “model-free”), and it can deal with stochastic transitions and rewards without the need for adaptations. The ‘Q’ in Q-learning usually stands for quality, as the algorithm calculates the maximum expected rewards for a given behavior in a given state.

Deep Q-learning: The basic working step in Deep Q-Learning [ 52 ] is that the initial state is fed into the neural network, which returns the Q-value of all possible actions as an output. Still, when we have a reasonably simple setting to overcome, Q-learning works well. However, when the number of states and actions becomes more complicated, deep learning can be used as a function approximator.

Reinforcement learning, along with supervised and unsupervised learning, is one of the basic machine learning paradigms. RL can be used to solve numerous real-world problems in various fields, such as game theory, control theory, operations analysis, information theory, simulation-based optimization, manufacturing, supply chain logistics, multi-agent systems, swarm intelligence, aircraft control, robot motion control, and many more.

Artificial Neural Network and Deep Learning

Deep learning is part of a wider family of artificial neural networks (ANN)-based machine learning approaches with representation learning. Deep learning provides a computational architecture by combining several processing layers, such as input, hidden, and output layers, to learn from data [ 41 ]. The main advantage of deep learning over traditional machine learning methods is its better performance in several cases, particularly learning from large datasets [ 105 , 129 ]. Figure 9 shows a general performance of deep learning over machine learning considering the increasing amount of data. However, it may vary depending on the data characteristics and experimental set up.

Machine learning and deep learning performance in general with the amount of data

The most common deep learning algorithms are: Multi-layer Perceptron (MLP), Convolutional Neural Network (CNN, or ConvNet), Long Short-Term Memory Recurrent Neural Network (LSTM-RNN) [ 96 ]. In the following, we discuss various types of deep learning methods that can be used to build effective data-driven models for various purposes.

A structure of an artificial neural network modeling with multiple processing layers

MLP: The base architecture of deep learning, which is also known as the feed-forward artificial neural network, is called a multilayer perceptron (MLP) [ 82 ]. A typical MLP is a fully connected network consisting of an input layer, one or more hidden layers, and an output layer, as shown in Fig. 10 . Each node in one layer connects to each node in the following layer at a certain weight. MLP utilizes the “Backpropagation” technique [ 41 ], the most “fundamental building block” in a neural network, to adjust the weight values internally while building the model. MLP is sensitive to scaling features and allows a variety of hyperparameters to be tuned, such as the number of hidden layers, neurons, and iterations, which can result in a computationally costly model.

CNN or ConvNet: The convolution neural network (CNN) [ 65 ] enhances the design of the standard ANN, consisting of convolutional layers, pooling layers, as well as fully connected layers, as shown in Fig. 11 . As it takes the advantage of the two-dimensional (2D) structure of the input data, it is typically broadly used in several areas such as image and video recognition, image processing and classification, medical image analysis, natural language processing, etc. While CNN has a greater computational burden, without any manual intervention, it has the advantage of automatically detecting the important features, and hence CNN is considered to be more powerful than conventional ANN. A number of advanced deep learning models based on CNN can be used in the field, such as AlexNet [ 60 ], Xception [ 24 ], Inception [ 118 ], Visual Geometry Group (VGG) [ 44 ], ResNet [ 45 ], etc.

LSTM-RNN: Long short-term memory (LSTM) is an artificial recurrent neural network (RNN) architecture used in the area of deep learning [ 38 ]. LSTM has feedback links, unlike normal feed-forward neural networks. LSTM networks are well-suited for analyzing and learning sequential data, such as classifying, processing, and predicting data based on time series data, which differentiates it from other conventional networks. Thus, LSTM can be used when the data are in a sequential format, such as time, sentence, etc., and commonly applied in the area of time-series analysis, natural language processing, speech recognition, etc.

An example of a convolutional neural network (CNN or ConvNet) including multiple convolution and pooling layers

In addition to these most common deep learning methods discussed above, several other deep learning approaches [ 96 ] exist in the area for various purposes. For instance, the self-organizing map (SOM) [ 58 ] uses unsupervised learning to represent the high-dimensional data by a 2D grid map, thus achieving dimensionality reduction. The autoencoder (AE) [ 15 ] is another learning technique that is widely used for dimensionality reduction as well and feature extraction in unsupervised learning tasks. Restricted Boltzmann machines (RBM) [ 46 ] can be used for dimensionality reduction, classification, regression, collaborative filtering, feature learning, and topic modeling. A deep belief network (DBN) is typically composed of simple, unsupervised networks such as restricted Boltzmann machines (RBMs) or autoencoders, and a backpropagation neural network (BPNN) [ 123 ]. A generative adversarial network (GAN) [ 39 ] is a form of the network for deep learning that can generate data with characteristics close to the actual data input. Transfer learning is currently very common because it can train deep neural networks with comparatively low data, which is typically the re-use of a new problem with a pre-trained model [ 124 ]. A brief discussion of these artificial neural networks (ANN) and deep learning (DL) models are summarized in our earlier paper Sarker et al. [ 96 ].

Overall, based on the learning techniques discussed above, we can conclude that various types of machine learning techniques, such as classification analysis, regression, data clustering, feature selection and extraction, and dimensionality reduction, association rule learning, reinforcement learning, or deep learning techniques, can play a significant role for various purposes according to their capabilities. In the following section, we discuss several application areas based on machine learning algorithms.

Applications of Machine Learning

In the current age of the Fourth Industrial Revolution (4IR), machine learning becomes popular in various application areas, because of its learning capabilities from the past and making intelligent decisions. In the following, we summarize and discuss ten popular application areas of machine learning technology.

Predictive analytics and intelligent decision-making: A major application field of machine learning is intelligent decision-making by data-driven predictive analytics [ 21 , 70 ]. The basis of predictive analytics is capturing and exploiting relationships between explanatory variables and predicted variables from previous events to predict the unknown outcome [ 41 ]. For instance, identifying suspects or criminals after a crime has been committed, or detecting credit card fraud as it happens. Another application, where machine learning algorithms can assist retailers in better understanding consumer preferences and behavior, better manage inventory, avoiding out-of-stock situations, and optimizing logistics and warehousing in e-commerce. Various machine learning algorithms such as decision trees, support vector machines, artificial neural networks, etc. [ 106 , 125 ] are commonly used in the area. Since accurate predictions provide insight into the unknown, they can improve the decisions of industries, businesses, and almost any organization, including government agencies, e-commerce, telecommunications, banking and financial services, healthcare, sales and marketing, transportation, social networking, and many others.

Cybersecurity and threat intelligence: Cybersecurity is one of the most essential areas of Industry 4.0. [ 114 ], which is typically the practice of protecting networks, systems, hardware, and data from digital attacks [ 114 ]. Machine learning has become a crucial cybersecurity technology that constantly learns by analyzing data to identify patterns, better detect malware in encrypted traffic, find insider threats, predict where bad neighborhoods are online, keep people safe while browsing, or secure data in the cloud by uncovering suspicious activity. For instance, clustering techniques can be used to identify cyber-anomalies, policy violations, etc. To detect various types of cyber-attacks or intrusions machine learning classification models by taking into account the impact of security features are useful [ 97 ]. Various deep learning-based security models can also be used on the large scale of security datasets [ 96 , 129 ]. Moreover, security policy rules generated by association rule learning techniques can play a significant role to build a rule-based security system [ 105 ]. Thus, we can say that various learning techniques discussed in Sect. Machine Learning Tasks and Algorithms , can enable cybersecurity professionals to be more proactive inefficiently preventing threats and cyber-attacks.

Internet of things (IoT) and smart cities: Internet of Things (IoT) is another essential area of Industry 4.0. [ 114 ], which turns everyday objects into smart objects by allowing them to transmit data and automate tasks without the need for human interaction. IoT is, therefore, considered to be the big frontier that can enhance almost all activities in our lives, such as smart governance, smart home, education, communication, transportation, retail, agriculture, health care, business, and many more [ 70 ]. Smart city is one of IoT’s core fields of application, using technologies to enhance city services and residents’ living experiences [ 132 , 135 ]. As machine learning utilizes experience to recognize trends and create models that help predict future behavior and events, it has become a crucial technology for IoT applications [ 103 ]. For example, to predict traffic in smart cities, parking availability prediction, estimate the total usage of energy of the citizens for a particular period, make context-aware and timely decisions for the people, etc. are some tasks that can be solved using machine learning techniques according to the current needs of the people.

Traffic prediction and transportation: Transportation systems have become a crucial component of every country’s economic development. Nonetheless, several cities around the world are experiencing an excessive rise in traffic volume, resulting in serious issues such as delays, traffic congestion, higher fuel prices, increased CO \(_2\) pollution, accidents, emergencies, and a decline in modern society’s quality of life [ 40 ]. Thus, an intelligent transportation system through predicting future traffic is important, which is an indispensable part of a smart city. Accurate traffic prediction based on machine and deep learning modeling can help to minimize the issues [ 17 , 30 , 31 ]. For example, based on the travel history and trend of traveling through various routes, machine learning can assist transportation companies in predicting possible issues that may occur on specific routes and recommending their customers to take a different path. Ultimately, these learning-based data-driven models help improve traffic flow, increase the usage and efficiency of sustainable modes of transportation, and limit real-world disruption by modeling and visualizing future changes.

Healthcare and COVID-19 pandemic: Machine learning can help to solve diagnostic and prognostic problems in a variety of medical domains, such as disease prediction, medical knowledge extraction, detecting regularities in data, patient management, etc. [ 33 , 77 , 112 ]. Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) is an infectious disease caused by a newly discovered coronavirus, according to the World Health Organization (WHO) [ 3 ]. Recently, the learning techniques have become popular in the battle against COVID-19 [ 61 , 63 ]. For the COVID-19 pandemic, the learning techniques are used to classify patients at high risk, their mortality rate, and other anomalies [ 61 ]. It can also be used to better understand the virus’s origin, COVID-19 outbreak prediction, as well as for disease diagnosis and treatment [ 14 , 50 ]. With the help of machine learning, researchers can forecast where and when, the COVID-19 is likely to spread, and notify those regions to match the required arrangements. Deep learning also provides exciting solutions to the problems of medical image processing and is seen as a crucial technique for potential applications, particularly for COVID-19 pandemic [ 10 , 78 , 111 ]. Overall, machine and deep learning techniques can help to fight the COVID-19 virus and the pandemic as well as intelligent clinical decisions making in the domain of healthcare.

E-commerce and product recommendations: Product recommendation is one of the most well known and widely used applications of machine learning, and it is one of the most prominent features of almost any e-commerce website today. Machine learning technology can assist businesses in analyzing their consumers’ purchasing histories and making customized product suggestions for their next purchase based on their behavior and preferences. E-commerce companies, for example, can easily position product suggestions and offers by analyzing browsing trends and click-through rates of specific items. Using predictive modeling based on machine learning techniques, many online retailers, such as Amazon [ 71 ], can better manage inventory, prevent out-of-stock situations, and optimize logistics and warehousing. The future of sales and marketing is the ability to capture, evaluate, and use consumer data to provide a customized shopping experience. Furthermore, machine learning techniques enable companies to create packages and content that are tailored to the needs of their customers, allowing them to maintain existing customers while attracting new ones.

NLP and sentiment analysis: Natural language processing (NLP) involves the reading and understanding of spoken or written language through the medium of a computer [ 79 , 103 ]. Thus, NLP helps computers, for instance, to read a text, hear speech, interpret it, analyze sentiment, and decide which aspects are significant, where machine learning techniques can be used. Virtual personal assistant, chatbot, speech recognition, document description, language or machine translation, etc. are some examples of NLP-related tasks. Sentiment Analysis [ 90 ] (also referred to as opinion mining or emotion AI) is an NLP sub-field that seeks to identify and extract public mood and views within a given text through blogs, reviews, social media, forums, news, etc. For instance, businesses and brands use sentiment analysis to understand the social sentiment of their brand, product, or service through social media platforms or the web as a whole. Overall, sentiment analysis is considered as a machine learning task that analyzes texts for polarity, such as “positive”, “negative”, or “neutral” along with more intense emotions like very happy, happy, sad, very sad, angry, have interest, or not interested etc.

Image, speech and pattern recognition: Image recognition [ 36 ] is a well-known and widespread example of machine learning in the real world, which can identify an object as a digital image. For instance, to label an x-ray as cancerous or not, character recognition, or face detection in an image, tagging suggestions on social media, e.g., Facebook, are common examples of image recognition. Speech recognition [ 23 ] is also very popular that typically uses sound and linguistic models, e.g., Google Assistant, Cortana, Siri, Alexa, etc. [ 67 ], where machine learning methods are used. Pattern recognition [ 13 ] is defined as the automated recognition of patterns and regularities in data, e.g., image analysis. Several machine learning techniques such as classification, feature selection, clustering, or sequence labeling methods are used in the area.

Sustainable agriculture: Agriculture is essential to the survival of all human activities [ 109 ]. Sustainable agriculture practices help to improve agricultural productivity while also reducing negative impacts on the environment [ 5 , 25 , 109 ]. The sustainable agriculture supply chains are knowledge-intensive and based on information, skills, technologies, etc., where knowledge transfer encourages farmers to enhance their decisions to adopt sustainable agriculture practices utilizing the increasing amount of data captured by emerging technologies, e.g., the Internet of Things (IoT), mobile technologies and devices, etc. [ 5 , 53 , 54 ]. Machine learning can be applied in various phases of sustainable agriculture, such as in the pre-production phase - for the prediction of crop yield, soil properties, irrigation requirements, etc.; in the production phase—for weather prediction, disease detection, weed detection, soil nutrient management, livestock management, etc.; in processing phase—for demand estimation, production planning, etc. and in the distribution phase - the inventory management, consumer analysis, etc.

User behavior analytics and context-aware smartphone applications: Context-awareness is a system’s ability to capture knowledge about its surroundings at any moment and modify behaviors accordingly [ 28 , 93 ]. Context-aware computing uses software and hardware to automatically collect and interpret data for direct responses. The mobile app development environment has been changed greatly with the power of AI, particularly, machine learning techniques through their learning capabilities from contextual data [ 103 , 136 ]. Thus, the developers of mobile apps can rely on machine learning to create smart apps that can understand human behavior, support, and entertain users [ 107 , 137 , 140 ]. To build various personalized data-driven context-aware systems, such as smart interruption management, smart mobile recommendation, context-aware smart searching, decision-making that intelligently assist end mobile phone users in a pervasive computing environment, machine learning techniques are applicable. For example, context-aware association rules can be used to build an intelligent phone call application [ 104 ]. Clustering approaches are useful in capturing users’ diverse behavioral activities by taking into account data in time series [ 102 ]. To predict the future events in various contexts, the classification methods can be used [ 106 , 139 ]. Thus, various learning techniques discussed in Sect. “ Machine Learning Tasks and Algorithms ” can help to build context-aware adaptive and smart applications according to the preferences of the mobile phone users.

In addition to these application areas, machine learning-based models can also apply to several other domains such as bioinformatics, cheminformatics, computer networks, DNA sequence classification, economics and banking, robotics, advanced engineering, and many more.

Challenges and Research Directions

Our study on machine learning algorithms for intelligent data analysis and applications opens several research issues in the area. Thus, in this section, we summarize and discuss the challenges faced and the potential research opportunities and future directions.

In general, the effectiveness and the efficiency of a machine learning-based solution depend on the nature and characteristics of the data, and the performance of the learning algorithms. To collect the data in the relevant domain, such as cybersecurity, IoT, healthcare and agriculture discussed in Sect. “ Applications of Machine Learning ” is not straightforward, although the current cyberspace enables the production of a huge amount of data with very high frequency. Thus, collecting useful data for the target machine learning-based applications, e.g., smart city applications, and their management is important to further analysis. Therefore, a more in-depth investigation of data collection methods is needed while working on the real-world data. Moreover, the historical data may contain many ambiguous values, missing values, outliers, and meaningless data. The machine learning algorithms, discussed in Sect “ Machine Learning Tasks and Algorithms ” highly impact on data quality, and availability for training, and consequently on the resultant model. Thus, to accurately clean and pre-process the diverse data collected from diverse sources is a challenging task. Therefore, effectively modifying or enhance existing pre-processing methods, or proposing new data preparation techniques are required to effectively use the learning algorithms in the associated application domain.

To analyze the data and extract insights, there exist many machine learning algorithms, summarized in Sect. “ Machine Learning Tasks and Algorithms ”. Thus, selecting a proper learning algorithm that is suitable for the target application is challenging. The reason is that the outcome of different learning algorithms may vary depending on the data characteristics [ 106 ]. Selecting a wrong learning algorithm would result in producing unexpected outcomes that may lead to loss of effort, as well as the model’s effectiveness and accuracy. In terms of model building, the techniques discussed in Sect. “ Machine Learning Tasks and Algorithms ” can directly be used to solve many real-world issues in diverse domains, such as cybersecurity, smart cities and healthcare summarized in Sect. “ Applications of Machine Learning ”. However, the hybrid learning model, e.g., the ensemble of methods, modifying or enhancement of the existing learning techniques, or designing new learning methods, could be a potential future work in the area.

Thus, the ultimate success of a machine learning-based solution and corresponding applications mainly depends on both the data and the learning algorithms. If the data are bad to learn, such as non-representative, poor-quality, irrelevant features, or insufficient quantity for training, then the machine learning models may become useless or will produce lower accuracy. Therefore, effectively processing the data and handling the diverse learning algorithms are important, for a machine learning-based solution and eventually building intelligent applications.

In this paper, we have conducted a comprehensive overview of machine learning algorithms for intelligent data analysis and applications. According to our goal, we have briefly discussed how various types of machine learning methods can be used for making solutions to various real-world issues. A successful machine learning model depends on both the data and the performance of the learning algorithms. The sophisticated learning algorithms then need to be trained through the collected real-world data and knowledge related to the target application before the system can assist with intelligent decision-making. We also discussed several popular application areas based on machine learning techniques to highlight their applicability in various real-world issues. Finally, we have summarized and discussed the challenges faced and the potential research opportunities and future directions in the area. Therefore, the challenges that are identified create promising research opportunities in the field which must be addressed with effective solutions in various application areas. Overall, we believe that our study on machine learning-based solutions opens up a promising direction and can be used as a reference guide for potential research and applications for both academia and industry professionals as well as for decision-makers, from a technical point of view.

Canadian institute of cybersecurity, university of new brunswick, iscx dataset, http://www.unb.ca/cic/datasets/index.html/ (Accessed on 20 October 2019).

Cic-ddos2019 [online]. available: https://www.unb.ca/cic/datasets/ddos-2019.html/ (Accessed on 28 March 2020).

World health organization: WHO. http://www.who.int/ .

Google trends. In https://trends.google.com/trends/ , 2019.

Adnan N, Nordin Shahrina Md, Rahman I, Noor A. The effects of knowledge transfer on farmers decision making toward sustainable agriculture practices. World J Sci Technol Sustain Dev. 2018.

Agrawal R, Gehrke J, Gunopulos D, Raghavan P. Automatic subspace clustering of high dimensional data for data mining applications. In: Proceedings of the 1998 ACM SIGMOD international conference on Management of data. 1998; 94–105

Agrawal R, Imieliński T, Swami A. Mining association rules between sets of items in large databases. In: ACM SIGMOD Record. ACM. 1993;22: 207–216

Agrawal R, Gehrke J, Gunopulos D, Raghavan P. Fast algorithms for mining association rules. In: Proceedings of the International Joint Conference on Very Large Data Bases, Santiago Chile. 1994; 1215: 487–499.

Aha DW, Kibler D, Albert M. Instance-based learning algorithms. Mach Learn. 1991;6(1):37–66.

Article   Google Scholar  

Alakus TB, Turkoglu I. Comparison of deep learning approaches to predict covid-19 infection. Chaos Solit Fract. 2020;140:

Amit Y, Geman D. Shape quantization and recognition with randomized trees. Neural Comput. 1997;9(7):1545–88.

Ankerst M, Breunig MM, Kriegel H-P, Sander J. Optics: ordering points to identify the clustering structure. ACM Sigmod Record. 1999;28(2):49–60.

Anzai Y. Pattern recognition and machine learning. Elsevier; 2012.

MATH   Google Scholar  

Ardabili SF, Mosavi A, Ghamisi P, Ferdinand F, Varkonyi-Koczy AR, Reuter U, Rabczuk T, Atkinson PM. Covid-19 outbreak prediction with machine learning. Algorithms. 2020;13(10):249.

Article   MathSciNet   Google Scholar  

Baldi P. Autoencoders, unsupervised learning, and deep architectures. In: Proceedings of ICML workshop on unsupervised and transfer learning, 2012; 37–49 .

Balducci F, Impedovo D, Pirlo G. Machine learning applications on agricultural datasets for smart farm enhancement. Machines. 2018;6(3):38.

Boukerche A, Wang J. Machine learning-based traffic prediction models for intelligent transportation systems. Comput Netw. 2020;181

Breiman L. Bagging predictors. Mach Learn. 1996;24(2):123–40.

Article   MATH   Google Scholar  

Breiman L. Random forests. Mach Learn. 2001;45(1):5–32.

Breiman L, Friedman J, Stone CJ, Olshen RA. Classification and regression trees. CRC Press; 1984.

Cao L. Data science: a comprehensive overview. ACM Comput Surv (CSUR). 2017;50(3):43.

Google Scholar  

Carpenter GA, Grossberg S. A massively parallel architecture for a self-organizing neural pattern recognition machine. Comput Vis Graph Image Process. 1987;37(1):54–115.

Chiu C-C, Sainath TN, Wu Y, Prabhavalkar R, Nguyen P, Chen Z, Kannan A, Weiss RJ, Rao K, Gonina E, et al. State-of-the-art speech recognition with sequence-to-sequence models. In: 2018 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP), 2018 pages 4774–4778. IEEE .

Chollet F. Xception: deep learning with depthwise separable convolutions. In: Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 1251–1258, 2017.

Cobuloglu H, Büyüktahtakın IE. A stochastic multi-criteria decision analysis for sustainable biomass crop selection. Expert Syst Appl. 2015;42(15–16):6065–74.

Das A, Ng W-K, Woon Y-K. Rapid association rule mining. In: Proceedings of the tenth international conference on Information and knowledge management, pages 474–481. ACM, 2001.

de Amorim RC. Constrained clustering with minkowski weighted k-means. In: 2012 IEEE 13th International Symposium on Computational Intelligence and Informatics (CINTI), pages 13–17. IEEE, 2012.

Dey AK. Understanding and using context. Person Ubiquit Comput. 2001;5(1):4–7.

Eagle N, Pentland AS. Reality mining: sensing complex social systems. Person Ubiquit Comput. 2006;10(4):255–68.

Essien A, Petrounias I, Sampaio P, Sampaio S. Improving urban traffic speed prediction using data source fusion and deep learning. In: 2019 IEEE International Conference on Big Data and Smart Computing (BigComp). IEEE. 2019: 1–8. .

Essien A, Petrounias I, Sampaio P, Sampaio S. A deep-learning model for urban traffic flow prediction with traffic events mined from twitter. In: World Wide Web, 2020: 1–24 .

Ester M, Kriegel H-P, Sander J, Xiaowei X, et al. A density-based algorithm for discovering clusters in large spatial databases with noise. Kdd. 1996;96:226–31.

Fatima M, Pasha M, et al. Survey of machine learning algorithms for disease diagnostic. J Intell Learn Syst Appl. 2017;9(01):1.

Flach PA, Lachiche N. Confirmation-guided discovery of first-order rules with tertius. Mach Learn. 2001;42(1–2):61–95.

Freund Y, Schapire RE, et al. Experiments with a new boosting algorithm. In: Icml, Citeseer. 1996; 96: 148–156

Fujiyoshi H, Hirakawa T, Yamashita T. Deep learning-based image recognition for autonomous driving. IATSS Res. 2019;43(4):244–52.

Fukunaga K, Hostetler L. The estimation of the gradient of a density function, with applications in pattern recognition. IEEE Trans Inform Theory. 1975;21(1):32–40.

Article   MathSciNet   MATH   Google Scholar  

Goodfellow I, Bengio Y, Courville A, Bengio Y. Deep learning. Cambridge: MIT Press; 2016.

Goodfellow I, Pouget-Abadie J, Mirza M, Xu B, Warde-Farley D, Ozair S, Courville A, Bengio Y. Generative adversarial nets. In: Advances in neural information processing systems. 2014: 2672–2680.

Guerrero-Ibáñez J, Zeadally S, Contreras-Castillo J. Sensor technologies for intelligent transportation systems. Sensors. 2018;18(4):1212.

Han J, Pei J, Kamber M. Data mining: concepts and techniques. Amsterdam: Elsevier; 2011.

Han J, Pei J, Yin Y. Mining frequent patterns without candidate generation. In: ACM Sigmod Record, ACM. 2000;29: 1–12.

Harmon SA, Sanford TH, Sheng X, Turkbey EB, Roth H, Ziyue X, Yang D, Myronenko A, Anderson V, Amalou A, et al. Artificial intelligence for the detection of covid-19 pneumonia on chest ct using multinational datasets. Nat Commun. 2020;11(1):1–7.

He K, Zhang X, Ren S, Sun J. Spatial pyramid pooling in deep convolutional networks for visual recognition. IEEE Trans Pattern Anal Mach Intell. 2015;37(9):1904–16.

He K, Zhang X, Ren S, Sun J. Deep residual learning for image recognition. In: Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 2016: 770–778.

Hinton GE. A practical guide to training restricted boltzmann machines. In: Neural networks: Tricks of the trade. Springer. 2012; 599-619

Holte RC. Very simple classification rules perform well on most commonly used datasets. Mach Learn. 1993;11(1):63–90.

Hotelling H. Analysis of a complex of statistical variables into principal components. J Edu Psychol. 1933;24(6):417.

Houtsma M, Swami A. Set-oriented mining for association rules in relational databases. In: Data Engineering, 1995. Proceedings of the Eleventh International Conference on, IEEE.1995:25–33.

Jamshidi M, Lalbakhsh A, Talla J, Peroutka Z, Hadjilooei F, Lalbakhsh P, Jamshidi M, La Spada L, Mirmozafari M, Dehghani M, et al. Artificial intelligence and covid-19: deep learning approaches for diagnosis and treatment. IEEE Access. 2020;8:109581–95.

John GH, Langley P. Estimating continuous distributions in bayesian classifiers. In: Proceedings of the Eleventh conference on Uncertainty in artificial intelligence, Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc. 1995; 338–345

Kaelbling LP, Littman ML, Moore AW. Reinforcement learning: a survey. J Artif Intell Res. 1996;4:237–85.

Kamble SS, Gunasekaran A, Gawankar SA. Sustainable industry 4.0 framework: a systematic literature review identifying the current trends and future perspectives. Process Saf Environ Protect. 2018;117:408–25.

Kamble SS, Gunasekaran A, Gawankar SA. Achieving sustainable performance in a data-driven agriculture supply chain: a review for research and applications. Int J Prod Econ. 2020;219:179–94.

Kaufman L, Rousseeuw PJ. Finding groups in data: an introduction to cluster analysis, vol. 344. John Wiley & Sons; 2009.

Keerthi SS, Shevade SK, Bhattacharyya C, Radha Krishna MK. Improvements to platt’s smo algorithm for svm classifier design. Neural Comput. 2001;13(3):637–49.

Khadse V, Mahalle PN, Biraris SV. An empirical comparison of supervised machine learning algorithms for internet of things data. In: 2018 Fourth International Conference on Computing Communication Control and Automation (ICCUBEA), IEEE. 2018; 1–6

Kohonen T. The self-organizing map. Proc IEEE. 1990;78(9):1464–80.

Koroniotis N, Moustafa N, Sitnikova E, Turnbull B. Towards the development of realistic botnet dataset in the internet of things for network forensic analytics: bot-iot dataset. Fut Gen Comput Syst. 2019;100:779–96.

Krizhevsky A, Sutskever I, Hinton GE. Imagenet classification with deep convolutional neural networks. In: Advances in neural information processing systems, 2012: 1097–1105

Kushwaha S, Bahl S, Bagha AK, Parmar KS, Javaid M, Haleem A, Singh RP. Significant applications of machine learning for covid-19 pandemic. J Ind Integr Manag. 2020;5(4).

Lade P, Ghosh R, Srinivasan S. Manufacturing analytics and industrial internet of things. IEEE Intell Syst. 2017;32(3):74–9.

Lalmuanawma S, Hussain J, Chhakchhuak L. Applications of machine learning and artificial intelligence for covid-19 (sars-cov-2) pandemic: a review. Chaos Sol Fract. 2020:110059 .

LeCessie S, Van Houwelingen JC. Ridge estimators in logistic regression. J R Stat Soc Ser C (Appl Stat). 1992;41(1):191–201.

LeCun Y, Bottou L, Bengio Y, Haffner P. Gradient-based learning applied to document recognition. Proc IEEE. 1998;86(11):2278–324.

Liu H, Motoda H. Feature extraction, construction and selection: A data mining perspective, vol. 453. Springer Science & Business Media; 1998.

López G, Quesada L, Guerrero LA. Alexa vs. siri vs. cortana vs. google assistant: a comparison of speech-based natural user interfaces. In: International Conference on Applied Human Factors and Ergonomics, Springer. 2017; 241–250.

Liu B, HsuW, Ma Y. Integrating classification and association rule mining. In: Proceedings of the fourth international conference on knowledge discovery and data mining, 1998.

MacQueen J, et al. Some methods for classification and analysis of multivariate observations. In: Proceedings of the fifth Berkeley symposium on mathematical statistics and probability, 1967;volume 1, pages 281–297. Oakland, CA, USA.

Mahdavinejad MS, Rezvan M, Barekatain M, Adibi P, Barnaghi P, Sheth AP. Machine learning for internet of things data analysis: a survey. Digit Commun Netw. 2018;4(3):161–75.

Marchand A, Marx P. Automated product recommendations with preference-based explanations. J Retail. 2020;96(3):328–43.

McCallum A. Information extraction: distilling structured data from unstructured text. Queue. 2005;3(9):48–57.

Mehrotra A, Hendley R, Musolesi M. Prefminer: mining user’s preferences for intelligent mobile notification management. In: Proceedings of the International Joint Conference on Pervasive and Ubiquitous Computing, Heidelberg, Germany, 12–16 September, 2016; pp. 1223–1234. ACM, New York, USA. .

Mohamadou Y, Halidou A, Kapen PT. A review of mathematical modeling, artificial intelligence and datasets used in the study, prediction and management of covid-19. Appl Intell. 2020;50(11):3913–25.

Mohammed M, Khan MB, Bashier Mohammed BE. Machine learning: algorithms and applications. CRC Press; 2016.

Book   Google Scholar  

Moustafa N, Slay J. Unsw-nb15: a comprehensive data set for network intrusion detection systems (unsw-nb15 network data set). In: 2015 military communications and information systems conference (MilCIS), 2015;pages 1–6. IEEE .

Nilashi M, Ibrahim OB, Ahmadi H, Shahmoradi L. An analytical method for diseases prediction using machine learning techniques. Comput Chem Eng. 2017;106:212–23.

Yujin O, Park S, Ye JC. Deep learning covid-19 features on cxr using limited training data sets. IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 2020;39(8):2688–700.

Otter DW, Medina JR , Kalita JK. A survey of the usages of deep learning for natural language processing. IEEE Trans Neural Netw Learn Syst. 2020.

Park H-S, Jun C-H. A simple and fast algorithm for k-medoids clustering. Expert Syst Appl. 2009;36(2):3336–41.

Liii Pearson K. on lines and planes of closest fit to systems of points in space. Lond Edinb Dublin Philos Mag J Sci. 1901;2(11):559–72.

Pedregosa F, Varoquaux G, Gramfort A, Michel V, Thirion B, Grisel O, Blondel M, Prettenhofer P, Weiss R, Dubourg V, et al. Scikit-learn: machine learning in python. J Mach Learn Res. 2011;12:2825–30.

MathSciNet   MATH   Google Scholar  

Perveen S, Shahbaz M, Keshavjee K, Guergachi A. Metabolic syndrome and development of diabetes mellitus: predictive modeling based on machine learning techniques. IEEE Access. 2018;7:1365–75.

Santi P, Ram D, Rob C, Nathan E. Behavior-based adaptive call predictor. ACM Trans Auton Adapt Syst. 2011;6(3):21:1–21:28.

Polydoros AS, Nalpantidis L. Survey of model-based reinforcement learning: applications on robotics. J Intell Robot Syst. 2017;86(2):153–73.

Puterman ML. Markov decision processes: discrete stochastic dynamic programming. John Wiley & Sons; 2014.

Quinlan JR. Induction of decision trees. Mach Learn. 1986;1:81–106.

Quinlan JR. C4.5: programs for machine learning. Mach Learn. 1993.

Rasmussen C. The infinite gaussian mixture model. Adv Neural Inform Process Syst. 1999;12:554–60.

Ravi K, Ravi V. A survey on opinion mining and sentiment analysis: tasks, approaches and applications. Knowl Syst. 2015;89:14–46.

Rokach L. A survey of clustering algorithms. In: Data mining and knowledge discovery handbook, pages 269–298. Springer, 2010.

Safdar S, Zafar S, Zafar N, Khan NF. Machine learning based decision support systems (dss) for heart disease diagnosis: a review. Artif Intell Rev. 2018;50(4):597–623.

Sarker IH. Context-aware rule learning from smartphone data: survey, challenges and future directions. J Big Data. 2019;6(1):1–25.

Sarker IH. A machine learning based robust prediction model for real-life mobile phone data. Internet Things. 2019;5:180–93.

Sarker IH. Ai-driven cybersecurity: an overview, security intelligence modeling and research directions. SN Comput Sci. 2021.

Sarker IH. Deep cybersecurity: a comprehensive overview from neural network and deep learning perspective. SN Comput Sci. 2021.

Sarker IH, Abushark YB, Alsolami F, Khan A. Intrudtree: a machine learning based cyber security intrusion detection model. Symmetry. 2020;12(5):754.

Sarker IH, Abushark YB, Khan A. Contextpca: predicting context-aware smartphone apps usage based on machine learning techniques. Symmetry. 2020;12(4):499.

Sarker IH, Alqahtani H, Alsolami F, Khan A, Abushark YB, Siddiqui MK. Context pre-modeling: an empirical analysis for classification based user-centric context-aware predictive modeling. J Big Data. 2020;7(1):1–23.

Sarker IH, Alan C, Jun H, Khan AI, Abushark YB, Khaled S. Behavdt: a behavioral decision tree learning to build user-centric context-aware predictive model. Mob Netw Appl. 2019; 1–11.

Sarker IH, Colman A, Kabir MA, Han J. Phone call log as a context source to modeling individual user behavior. In: Proceedings of the 2016 ACM International Joint Conference on Pervasive and Ubiquitous Computing (Ubicomp): Adjunct, Germany, pages 630–634. ACM, 2016.

Sarker IH, Colman A, Kabir MA, Han J. Individualized time-series segmentation for mining mobile phone user behavior. Comput J Oxf Univ UK. 2018;61(3):349–68.

Sarker IH, Hoque MM, MdK Uddin, Tawfeeq A. Mobile data science and intelligent apps: concepts, ai-based modeling and research directions. Mob Netw Appl, pages 1–19, 2020.

Sarker IH, Kayes ASM. Abc-ruleminer: user behavioral rule-based machine learning method for context-aware intelligent services. J Netw Comput Appl. 2020; page 102762

Sarker IH, Kayes ASM, Badsha S, Alqahtani H, Watters P, Ng A. Cybersecurity data science: an overview from machine learning perspective. J Big Data. 2020;7(1):1–29.

Sarker IH, Watters P, Kayes ASM. Effectiveness analysis of machine learning classification models for predicting personalized context-aware smartphone usage. J Big Data. 2019;6(1):1–28.

Sarker IH, Salah K. Appspred: predicting context-aware smartphone apps using random forest learning. Internet Things. 2019;8:

Scheffer T. Finding association rules that trade support optimally against confidence. Intell Data Anal. 2005;9(4):381–95.

Sharma R, Kamble SS, Gunasekaran A, Kumar V, Kumar A. A systematic literature review on machine learning applications for sustainable agriculture supply chain performance. Comput Oper Res. 2020;119:

Shengli S, Ling CX. Hybrid cost-sensitive decision tree, knowledge discovery in databases. In: PKDD 2005, Proceedings of 9th European Conference on Principles and Practice of Knowledge Discovery in Databases. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, volume 3721, 2005.

Shorten C, Khoshgoftaar TM, Furht B. Deep learning applications for covid-19. J Big Data. 2021;8(1):1–54.

Gökhan S, Nevin Y. Data analysis in health and big data: a machine learning medical diagnosis model based on patients’ complaints. Commun Stat Theory Methods. 2019;1–10

Silver D, Huang A, Maddison CJ, Guez A, Sifre L, Van Den Driessche G, Schrittwieser J, Antonoglou I, Panneershelvam V, Lanctot M, et al. Mastering the game of go with deep neural networks and tree search. nature. 2016;529(7587):484–9.

Ślusarczyk B. Industry 4.0: Are we ready? Polish J Manag Stud. 17, 2018.

Sneath Peter HA. The application of computers to taxonomy. J Gen Microbiol. 1957;17(1).

Sorensen T. Method of establishing groups of equal amplitude in plant sociology based on similarity of species. Biol Skr. 1948; 5.

Srinivasan V, Moghaddam S, Mukherji A. Mobileminer: mining your frequent patterns on your phone. In: Proceedings of the International Joint Conference on Pervasive and Ubiquitous Computing, Seattle, WA, USA, 13-17 September, pp. 389–400. ACM, New York, USA. 2014.

Szegedy C, Liu W, Jia Y, Sermanet P, Reed S, Anguelov D, Erhan D, Vanhoucke V, Rabinovich A. Going deeper with convolutions. In: Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition. 2015; pages 1–9.

Tavallaee M, Bagheri E, Lu W, Ghorbani AA. A detailed analysis of the kdd cup 99 data set. In. IEEE symposium on computational intelligence for security and defense applications. IEEE. 2009;2009:1–6.

Tsagkias M. Tracy HK, Surya K, Vanessa M, de Rijke M. Challenges and research opportunities in ecommerce search and recommendations. In: ACM SIGIR Forum. volume 54. NY, USA: ACM New York; 2021. p. 1–23.

Wagstaff K, Cardie C, Rogers S, Schrödl S, et al. Constrained k-means clustering with background knowledge. Icml. 2001;1:577–84.

Wang W, Yang J, Muntz R, et al. Sting: a statistical information grid approach to spatial data mining. VLDB. 1997;97:186–95.

Wei P, Li Y, Zhang Z, Tao H, Li Z, Liu D. An optimization method for intrusion detection classification model based on deep belief network. IEEE Access. 2019;7:87593–605.

Weiss K, Khoshgoftaar TM, Wang DD. A survey of transfer learning. J Big data. 2016;3(1):9.

Witten IH, Frank E. Data Mining: Practical machine learning tools and techniques. Morgan Kaufmann; 2005.

Witten IH, Frank E, Trigg LE, Hall MA, Holmes G, Cunningham SJ. Weka: practical machine learning tools and techniques with java implementations. 1999.

Wu C-C, Yen-Liang C, Yi-Hung L, Xiang-Yu Y. Decision tree induction with a constrained number of leaf nodes. Appl Intell. 2016;45(3):673–85.

Wu X, Kumar V, Quinlan JR, Ghosh J, Yang Q, Motoda H, McLachlan GJ, Ng A, Liu B, Philip SY, et al. Top 10 algorithms in data mining. Knowl Inform Syst. 2008;14(1):1–37.

Xin Y, Kong L, Liu Z, Chen Y, Li Y, Zhu H, Gao M, Hou H, Wang C. Machine learning and deep learning methods for cybersecurity. IEEE Access. 2018;6:35365–81.

Xu D, Yingjie T. A comprehensive survey of clustering algorithms. Ann Data Sci. 2015;2(2):165–93.

Zaki MJ. Scalable algorithms for association mining. IEEE Trans Knowl Data Eng. 2000;12(3):372–90.

Zanella A, Bui N, Castellani A, Vangelista L, Zorzi M. Internet of things for smart cities. IEEE Internet Things J. 2014;1(1):22–32.

Zhao Q, Bhowmick SS. Association rule mining: a survey. Singapore: Nanyang Technological University; 2003.

Zheng T, Xie W, Xu L, He X, Zhang Y, You M, Yang G, Chen Y. A machine learning-based framework to identify type 2 diabetes through electronic health records. Int J Med Inform. 2017;97:120–7.

Zheng Y, Rajasegarar S, Leckie C. Parking availability prediction for sensor-enabled car parks in smart cities. In: Intelligent Sensors, Sensor Networks and Information Processing (ISSNIP), 2015 IEEE Tenth International Conference on. IEEE, 2015; pages 1–6.

Zhu H, Cao H, Chen E, Xiong H, Tian J. Exploiting enriched contextual information for mobile app classification. In: Proceedings of the 21st ACM international conference on Information and knowledge management. ACM, 2012; pages 1617–1621

Zhu H, Chen E, Xiong H, Kuifei Y, Cao H, Tian J. Mining mobile user preferences for personalized context-aware recommendation. ACM Trans Intell Syst Technol (TIST). 2014;5(4):58.

Zikang H, Yong Y, Guofeng Y, Xinyu Z. Sentiment analysis of agricultural product ecommerce review data based on deep learning. In: 2020 International Conference on Internet of Things and Intelligent Applications (ITIA), IEEE, 2020; pages 1–7

Zulkernain S, Madiraju P, Ahamed SI. A context aware interruption management system for mobile devices. In: Mobile Wireless Middleware, Operating Systems, and Applications. Springer. 2010; pages 221–234

Zulkernain S, Madiraju P, Ahamed S, Stamm K. A mobile intelligent interruption management system. J UCS. 2010;16(15):2060–80.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Swinburne University of Technology, Melbourne, VIC, 3122, Australia

Department of Computer Science and Engineering, Chittagong University of Engineering & Technology, 4349, Chattogram, Bangladesh

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Iqbal H. Sarker .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest.

The author declares no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

This article is part of the topical collection “Advances in Computational Approaches for Artificial Intelligence, Image Processing, IoT and Cloud Applications” guest edited by Bhanu Prakash K N and M. Shivakumar.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Sarker, I.H. Machine Learning: Algorithms, Real-World Applications and Research Directions. SN COMPUT. SCI. 2 , 160 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s42979-021-00592-x

Download citation

Received : 27 January 2021

Accepted : 12 March 2021

Published : 22 March 2021

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s42979-021-00592-x

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Machine learning
• Deep learning
• Artificial intelligence
• Data science
• Data-driven decision-making
• Predictive analytics
• Intelligent applications
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

Mobile Navigation

Research index, filter and sort, filter selections, sort options, research papers.

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Tzu Chi Med J
• v.32(4); Oct-Dec 2020

The impact of artificial intelligence on human society and bioethics

Michael cheng-tek tai.

Department of Medical Sociology and Social Work, College of Medicine, Chung Shan Medical University, Taichung, Taiwan

Artificial intelligence (AI), known by some as the industrial revolution (IR) 4.0, is going to change not only the way we do things, how we relate to others, but also what we know about ourselves. This article will first examine what AI is, discuss its impact on industrial, social, and economic changes on humankind in the 21 st century, and then propose a set of principles for AI bioethics. The IR1.0, the IR of the 18 th century, impelled a huge social change without directly complicating human relationships. Modern AI, however, has a tremendous impact on how we do things and also the ways we relate to one another. Facing this challenge, new principles of AI bioethics must be considered and developed to provide guidelines for the AI technology to observe so that the world will be benefited by the progress of this new intelligence.

W HAT IS ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE ?

Artificial intelligence (AI) has many different definitions; some see it as the created technology that allows computers and machines to function intelligently. Some see it as the machine that replaces human labor to work for men a more effective and speedier result. Others see it as “a system” with the ability to correctly interpret external data, to learn from such data, and to use those learnings to achieve specific goals and tasks through flexible adaptation [ 1 ].

Despite the different definitions, the common understanding of AI is that it is associated with machines and computers to help humankind solve problems and facilitate working processes. In short, it is an intelligence designed by humans and demonstrated by machines. The term AI is used to describe these functions of human-made tool that emulates the “cognitive” abilities of the natural intelligence of human minds [ 2 ].

Along with the rapid development of cybernetic technology in recent years, AI has been seen almost in all our life circles, and some of that may no longer be regarded as AI because it is so common in daily life that we are much used to it such as optical character recognition or the Siri (speech interpretation and recognition interface) of information searching equipment on computer [ 3 ].

D IFFERENT TYPES OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE

From the functions and abilities provided by AI, we can distinguish two different types. The first is weak AI, also known as narrow AI that is designed to perform a narrow task, such as facial recognition or Internet Siri search or self-driving car. Many currently existing systems that claim to use “AI” are likely operating as a weak AI focusing on a narrowly defined specific function. Although this weak AI seems to be helpful to human living, there are still some think weak AI could be dangerous because weak AI could cause disruptions in the electric grid or may damage nuclear power plants when malfunctioned.

The new development of the long-term goal of many researchers is to create strong AI or artificial general intelligence (AGI) which is the speculative intelligence of a machine that has the capacity to understand or learn any intelligent task human being can, thus assisting human to unravel the confronted problem. While narrow AI may outperform humans such as playing chess or solving equations, but its effect is still weak. AGI, however, could outperform humans at nearly every cognitive task.

Strong AI is a different perception of AI that it can be programmed to actually be a human mind, to be intelligent in whatever it is commanded to attempt, even to have perception, beliefs and other cognitive capacities that are normally only ascribed to humans [ 4 ].

In summary, we can see these different functions of AI [ 5 , 6 ]:

• Automation: What makes a system or process to function automatically
• Machine learning and vision: The science of getting a computer to act through deep learning to predict and analyze, and to see through a camera, analog-to-digital conversion and digital signal processing
• Natural language processing: The processing of human language by a computer program, such as spam detection and converting instantly a language to another to help humans communicate
• Robotics: A field of engineering focusing on the design and manufacturing of cyborgs, the so-called machine man. They are used to perform tasks for human's convenience or something too difficult or dangerous for human to perform and can operate without stopping such as in assembly lines
• Self-driving car: Use a combination of computer vision, image recognition amid deep learning to build automated control in a vehicle.

D O HUMAN-BEINGS REALLY NEED ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE ?

Is AI really needed in human society? It depends. If human opts for a faster and effective way to complete their work and to work constantly without taking a break, yes, it is. However if humankind is satisfied with a natural way of living without excessive desires to conquer the order of nature, it is not. History tells us that human is always looking for something faster, easier, more effective, and convenient to finish the task they work on; therefore, the pressure for further development motivates humankind to look for a new and better way of doing things. Humankind as the homo-sapiens discovered that tools could facilitate many hardships for daily livings and through tools they invented, human could complete the work better, faster, smarter and more effectively. The invention to create new things becomes the incentive of human progress. We enjoy a much easier and more leisurely life today all because of the contribution of technology. The human society has been using the tools since the beginning of civilization, and human progress depends on it. The human kind living in the 21 st century did not have to work as hard as their forefathers in previous times because they have new machines to work for them. It is all good and should be all right for these AI but a warning came in early 20 th century as the human-technology kept developing that Aldous Huxley warned in his book Brave New World that human might step into a world in which we are creating a monster or a super human with the development of genetic technology.

Besides, up-to-dated AI is breaking into healthcare industry too by assisting doctors to diagnose, finding the sources of diseases, suggesting various ways of treatment performing surgery and also predicting if the illness is life-threatening [ 7 ]. A recent study by surgeons at the Children's National Medical Center in Washington successfully demonstrated surgery with an autonomous robot. The team supervised the robot to perform soft-tissue surgery, stitch together a pig's bowel, and the robot finished the job better than a human surgeon, the team claimed [ 8 , 9 ]. It demonstrates robotically-assisted surgery can overcome the limitations of pre-existing minimally-invasive surgical procedures and to enhance the capacities of surgeons performing open surgery.

Above all, we see the high-profile examples of AI including autonomous vehicles (such as drones and self-driving cars), medical diagnosis, creating art, playing games (such as Chess or Go), search engines (such as Google search), online assistants (such as Siri), image recognition in photographs, spam filtering, predicting flight delays…etc. All these have made human life much easier and convenient that we are so used to them and take them for granted. AI has become indispensable, although it is not absolutely needed without it our world will be in chaos in many ways today.

T HE IMPACT OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE ON HUMAN SOCIETY

Negative impact.

Questions have been asked: With the progressive development of AI, human labor will no longer be needed as everything can be done mechanically. Will humans become lazier and eventually degrade to the stage that we return to our primitive form of being? The process of evolution takes eons to develop, so we will not notice the backsliding of humankind. However how about if the AI becomes so powerful that it can program itself to be in charge and disobey the order given by its master, the humankind?

Let us see the negative impact the AI will have on human society [ 10 , 11 ]:

• A huge social change that disrupts the way we live in the human community will occur. Humankind has to be industrious to make their living, but with the service of AI, we can just program the machine to do a thing for us without even lifting a tool. Human closeness will be gradually diminishing as AI will replace the need for people to meet face to face for idea exchange. AI will stand in between people as the personal gathering will no longer be needed for communication
• Unemployment is the next because many works will be replaced by machinery. Today, many automobile assembly lines have been filled with machineries and robots, forcing traditional workers to lose their jobs. Even in supermarket, the store clerks will not be needed anymore as the digital device can take over human labor
• Wealth inequality will be created as the investors of AI will take up the major share of the earnings. The gap between the rich and the poor will be widened. The so-called “M” shape wealth distribution will be more obvious
• New issues surface not only in a social sense but also in AI itself as the AI being trained and learned how to operate the given task can eventually take off to the stage that human has no control, thus creating un-anticipated problems and consequences. It refers to AI's capacity after being loaded with all needed algorithm may automatically function on its own course ignoring the command given by the human controller
• The human masters who create AI may invent something that is racial bias or egocentrically oriented to harm certain people or things. For instance, the United Nations has voted to limit the spread of nucleus power in fear of its indiscriminative use to destroying humankind or targeting on certain races or region to achieve the goal of domination. AI is possible to target certain race or some programmed objects to accomplish the command of destruction by the programmers, thus creating world disaster.

P OSITIVE IMPACT

There are, however, many positive impacts on humans as well, especially in the field of healthcare. AI gives computers the capacity to learn, reason, and apply logic. Scientists, medical researchers, clinicians, mathematicians, and engineers, when working together, can design an AI that is aimed at medical diagnosis and treatments, thus offering reliable and safe systems of health-care delivery. As health professors and medical researchers endeavor to find new and efficient ways of treating diseases, not only the digital computer can assist in analyzing, robotic systems can also be created to do some delicate medical procedures with precision. Here, we see the contribution of AI to health care [ 7 , 11 ]:

Fast and accurate diagnostics

IBM's Watson computer has been used to diagnose with the fascinating result. Loading the data to the computer will instantly get AI's diagnosis. AI can also provide various ways of treatment for physicians to consider. The procedure is something like this: To load the digital results of physical examination to the computer that will consider all possibilities and automatically diagnose whether or not the patient suffers from some deficiencies and illness and even suggest various kinds of available treatment.

Socially therapeutic robots

Pets are recommended to senior citizens to ease their tension and reduce blood pressure, anxiety, loneliness, and increase social interaction. Now cyborgs have been suggested to accompany those lonely old folks, even to help do some house chores. Therapeutic robots and the socially assistive robot technology help improve the quality of life for seniors and physically challenged [ 12 ].

Reduce errors related to human fatigue

Human error at workforce is inevitable and often costly, the greater the level of fatigue, the higher the risk of errors occurring. Al technology, however, does not suffer from fatigue or emotional distraction. It saves errors and can accomplish the duty faster and more accurately.

Artificial intelligence-based surgical contribution

AI-based surgical procedures have been available for people to choose. Although this AI still needs to be operated by the health professionals, it can complete the work with less damage to the body. The da Vinci surgical system, a robotic technology allowing surgeons to perform minimally invasive procedures, is available in most of the hospitals now. These systems enable a degree of precision and accuracy far greater than the procedures done manually. The less invasive the surgery, the less trauma it will occur and less blood loss, less anxiety of the patients.

Improved radiology

The first computed tomography scanners were introduced in 1971. The first magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan of the human body took place in 1977. By the early 2000s, cardiac MRI, body MRI, and fetal imaging, became routine. The search continues for new algorithms to detect specific diseases as well as to analyze the results of scans [ 9 ]. All those are the contribution of the technology of AI.

Virtual presence

The virtual presence technology can enable a distant diagnosis of the diseases. The patient does not have to leave his/her bed but using a remote presence robot, doctors can check the patients without actually being there. Health professionals can move around and interact almost as effectively as if they were present. This allows specialists to assist patients who are unable to travel.

S OME CAUTIONS TO BE REMINDED

Despite all the positive promises that AI provides, human experts, however, are still essential and necessary to design, program, and operate the AI from any unpredictable error from occurring. Beth Kindig, a San Francisco-based technology analyst with more than a decade of experience in analyzing private and public technology companies, published a free newsletter indicating that although AI has a potential promise for better medical diagnosis, human experts are still needed to avoid the misclassification of unknown diseases because AI is not omnipotent to solve all problems for human kinds. There are times when AI meets an impasse, and to carry on its mission, it may just proceed indiscriminately, ending in creating more problems. Thus vigilant watch of AI's function cannot be neglected. This reminder is known as physician-in-the-loop [ 13 ].

The question of an ethical AI consequently was brought up by Elizabeth Gibney in her article published in Nature to caution any bias and possible societal harm [ 14 ]. The Neural Information processing Systems (NeurIPS) conference in Vancouver Canada in 2020 brought up the ethical controversies of the application of AI technology, such as in predictive policing or facial recognition, that due to bias algorithms can result in hurting the vulnerable population [ 14 ]. For instance, the NeurIPS can be programmed to target certain race or decree as the probable suspect of crime or trouble makers.

T HE CHALLENGE OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE TO BIOETHICS

Artificial intelligence ethics must be developed.

Bioethics is a discipline that focuses on the relationship among living beings. Bioethics accentuates the good and the right in biospheres and can be categorized into at least three areas, the bioethics in health settings that is the relationship between physicians and patients, the bioethics in social settings that is the relationship among humankind and the bioethics in environmental settings that is the relationship between man and nature including animal ethics, land ethics, ecological ethics…etc. All these are concerned about relationships within and among natural existences.

As AI arises, human has a new challenge in terms of establishing a relationship toward something that is not natural in its own right. Bioethics normally discusses the relationship within natural existences, either humankind or his environment, that are parts of natural phenomena. But now men have to deal with something that is human-made, artificial and unnatural, namely AI. Human has created many things yet never has human had to think of how to ethically relate to his own creation. AI by itself is without feeling or personality. AI engineers have realized the importance of giving the AI ability to discern so that it will avoid any deviated activities causing unintended harm. From this perspective, we understand that AI can have a negative impact on humans and society; thus, a bioethics of AI becomes important to make sure that AI will not take off on its own by deviating from its originally designated purpose.

Stephen Hawking warned early in 2014 that the development of full AI could spell the end of the human race. He said that once humans develop AI, it may take off on its own and redesign itself at an ever-increasing rate [ 15 ]. Humans, who are limited by slow biological evolution, could not compete and would be superseded. In his book Superintelligence, Nick Bostrom gives an argument that AI will pose a threat to humankind. He argues that sufficiently intelligent AI can exhibit convergent behavior such as acquiring resources or protecting itself from being shut down, and it might harm humanity [ 16 ].

The question is–do we have to think of bioethics for the human's own created product that bears no bio-vitality? Can a machine have a mind, consciousness, and mental state in exactly the same sense that human beings do? Can a machine be sentient and thus deserve certain rights? Can a machine intentionally cause harm? Regulations must be contemplated as a bioethical mandate for AI production.

Studies have shown that AI can reflect the very prejudices humans have tried to overcome. As AI becomes “truly ubiquitous,” it has a tremendous potential to positively impact all manner of life, from industry to employment to health care and even security. Addressing the risks associated with the technology, Janosch Delcker, Politico Europe's AI correspondent, said: “I don't think AI will ever be free of bias, at least not as long as we stick to machine learning as we know it today,”…. “What's crucially important, I believe, is to recognize that those biases exist and that policymakers try to mitigate them” [ 17 ]. The High-Level Expert Group on AI of the European Union presented Ethics Guidelines for Trustworthy AI in 2019 that suggested AI systems must be accountable, explainable, and unbiased. Three emphases are given:

• Lawful-respecting all applicable laws and regulations
• Ethical-respecting ethical principles and values
• Robust-being adaptive, reliable, fair, and trustworthy from a technical perspective while taking into account its social environment [ 18 ].

Seven requirements are recommended [ 18 ]:

• AI should not trample on human autonomy. People should not be manipulated or coerced by AI systems, and humans should be able to intervene or oversee every decision that the software makes
• AI should be secure and accurate. It should not be easily compromised by external attacks, and it should be reasonably reliable
• Personal data collected by AI systems should be secure and private. It should not be accessible to just anyone, and it should not be easily stolen
• Data and algorithms used to create an AI system should be accessible, and the decisions made by the software should be “understood and traced by human beings.” In other words, operators should be able to explain the decisions their AI systems make
• Services provided by AI should be available to all, regardless of age, gender, race, or other characteristics. Similarly, systems should not be biased along these lines
• AI systems should be sustainable (i.e., they should be ecologically responsible) and “enhance positive social change”
• AI systems should be auditable and covered by existing protections for corporate whistleblowers. The negative impacts of systems should be acknowledged and reported in advance.

From these guidelines, we can suggest that future AI must be equipped with human sensibility or “AI humanities.” To accomplish this, AI researchers, manufacturers, and all industries must bear in mind that technology is to serve not to manipulate humans and his society. Bostrom and Judkowsky listed responsibility, transparency, auditability, incorruptibility, and predictability [ 19 ] as criteria for the computerized society to think about.

S UGGESTED PRINCIPLES FOR ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE BIOETHICS

Nathan Strout, a reporter at Space and Intelligence System at Easter University, USA, reported just recently that the intelligence community is developing its own AI ethics. The Pentagon made announced in February 2020 that it is in the process of adopting principles for using AI as the guidelines for the department to follow while developing new AI tools and AI-enabled technologies. Ben Huebner, chief of the Office of Director of National Intelligence's Civil Liberties, Privacy, and Transparency Office, said that “We're going to need to ensure that we have transparency and accountability in these structures as we use them. They have to be secure and resilient” [ 20 ]. Two themes have been suggested for the AI community to think more about: Explainability and interpretability. Explainability is the concept of understanding how the analytic works, while interpretability is being able to understand a particular result produced by an analytic [ 20 ].

All the principles suggested by scholars for AI bioethics are well-brought-up. I gather from different bioethical principles in all the related fields of bioethics to suggest four principles here for consideration to guide the future development of the AI technology. We however must bear in mind that the main attention should still be placed on human because AI after all has been designed and manufactured by human. AI proceeds to its work according to its algorithm. AI itself cannot empathize nor have the ability to discern good from evil and may commit mistakes in processes. All the ethical quality of AI depends on the human designers; therefore, it is an AI bioethics and at the same time, a trans-bioethics that abridge human and material worlds. Here are the principles:

• Beneficence: Beneficence means doing good, and here it refers to the purpose and functions of AI should benefit the whole human life, society and universe. Any AI that will perform any destructive work on bio-universe, including all life forms, must be avoided and forbidden. The AI scientists must understand that reason of developing this technology has no other purpose but to benefit human society as a whole not for any individual personal gain. It should be altruistic, not egocentric in nature
• Value-upholding: This refers to AI's congruence to social values, in other words, universal values that govern the order of the natural world must be observed. AI cannot elevate to the height above social and moral norms and must be bias-free. The scientific and technological developments must be for the enhancement of human well-being that is the chief value AI must hold dearly as it progresses further
• Lucidity: AI must be transparent without hiding any secret agenda. It has to be easily comprehensible, detectable, incorruptible, and perceivable. AI technology should be made available for public auditing, testing and review, and subject to accountability standards … In high-stakes settings like diagnosing cancer from radiologic images, an algorithm that can't “explain its work” may pose an unacceptable risk. Thus, explainability and interpretability are absolutely required
• Accountability: AI designers and developers must bear in mind they carry a heavy responsibility on their shoulders of the outcome and impact of AI on whole human society and the universe. They must be accountable for whatever they manufacture and create.

C ONCLUSION

AI is here to stay in our world and we must try to enforce the AI bioethics of beneficence, value upholding, lucidity and accountability. Since AI is without a soul as it is, its bioethics must be transcendental to bridge the shortcoming of AI's inability to empathize. AI is a reality of the world. We must take note of what Joseph Weizenbaum, a pioneer of AI, said that we must not let computers make important decisions for us because AI as a machine will never possess human qualities such as compassion and wisdom to morally discern and judge [ 10 ]. Bioethics is not a matter of calculation but a process of conscientization. Although AI designers can up-load all information, data, and programmed to AI to function as a human being, it is still a machine and a tool. AI will always remain as AI without having authentic human feelings and the capacity to commiserate. Therefore, AI technology must be progressed with extreme caution. As Von der Leyen said in White Paper on AI – A European approach to excellence and trust : “AI must serve people, and therefore, AI must always comply with people's rights…. High-risk AI. That potentially interferes with people's rights has to be tested and certified before it reaches our single market” [ 21 ].

Financial support and sponsorship

Conflicts of interest.

There are no conflicts of interest.

R EFERENCES

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• My Account Login
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Open access
• Published: 26 March 2024

Predicting and improving complex beer flavor through machine learning

• Michiel Schreurs   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-9449-5619 1 , 2 , 3   na1 ,
• Supinya Piampongsant 1 , 2 , 3   na1 ,
• Miguel Roncoroni   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-7461-1427 1 , 2 , 3   na1 ,
• Lloyd Cool   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-9936-3124 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 ,
• Beatriz Herrera-Malaver   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-5096-9974 1 , 2 , 3 ,
• Christophe Vanderaa   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-7443-5427 4 ,
• Florian A. Theßeling 1 , 2 , 3 ,
• Łukasz Kreft   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-7620-4657 5 ,
• Alexander Botzki   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-6691-4233 5 ,
• Philippe Malcorps 6 ,
• Luk Daenen 6 ,
• Tom Wenseleers   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-1434-861X 4 &
• Kevin J. Verstrepen   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-3077-6219 1 , 2 , 3  

Nature Communications volume  15 , Article number:  2368 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

39k Accesses

749 Altmetric

Metrics details

• Chemical engineering
• Gas chromatography
• Machine learning
• Metabolomics
• Taste receptors

The perception and appreciation of food flavor depends on many interacting chemical compounds and external factors, and therefore proves challenging to understand and predict. Here, we combine extensive chemical and sensory analyses of 250 different beers to train machine learning models that allow predicting flavor and consumer appreciation. For each beer, we measure over 200 chemical properties, perform quantitative descriptive sensory analysis with a trained tasting panel and map data from over 180,000 consumer reviews to train 10 different machine learning models. The best-performing algorithm, Gradient Boosting, yields models that significantly outperform predictions based on conventional statistics and accurately predict complex food features and consumer appreciation from chemical profiles. Model dissection allows identifying specific and unexpected compounds as drivers of beer flavor and appreciation. Adding these compounds results in variants of commercial alcoholic and non-alcoholic beers with improved consumer appreciation. Together, our study reveals how big data and machine learning uncover complex links between food chemistry, flavor and consumer perception, and lays the foundation to develop novel, tailored foods with superior flavors.

Similar content being viewed by others

BitterSweet: Building machine learning models for predicting the bitter and sweet taste of small molecules

Rudraksh Tuwani, Somin Wadhwa & Ganesh Bagler

Sensory lexicon and aroma volatiles analysis of brewing malt

Xiaoxia Su, Miao Yu, … Tianyi Du

Predicting odor from molecular structure: a multi-label classification approach

Kushagra Saini & Venkatnarayan Ramanathan

Introduction

Predicting and understanding food perception and appreciation is one of the major challenges in food science. Accurate modeling of food flavor and appreciation could yield important opportunities for both producers and consumers, including quality control, product fingerprinting, counterfeit detection, spoilage detection, and the development of new products and product combinations (food pairing) 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 . Accurate models for flavor and consumer appreciation would contribute greatly to our scientific understanding of how humans perceive and appreciate flavor. Moreover, accurate predictive models would also facilitate and standardize existing food assessment methods and could supplement or replace assessments by trained and consumer tasting panels, which are variable, expensive and time-consuming 7 , 8 , 9 . Lastly, apart from providing objective, quantitative, accurate and contextual information that can help producers, models can also guide consumers in understanding their personal preferences 10 .

Despite the myriad of applications, predicting food flavor and appreciation from its chemical properties remains a largely elusive goal in sensory science, especially for complex food and beverages 11 , 12 . A key obstacle is the immense number of flavor-active chemicals underlying food flavor. Flavor compounds can vary widely in chemical structure and concentration, making them technically challenging and labor-intensive to quantify, even in the face of innovations in metabolomics, such as non-targeted metabolic fingerprinting 13 , 14 . Moreover, sensory analysis is perhaps even more complicated. Flavor perception is highly complex, resulting from hundreds of different molecules interacting at the physiochemical and sensorial level. Sensory perception is often non-linear, characterized by complex and concentration-dependent synergistic and antagonistic effects 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 that are further convoluted by the genetics, environment, culture and psychology of consumers 22 , 23 , 24 . Perceived flavor is therefore difficult to measure, with problems of sensitivity, accuracy, and reproducibility that can only be resolved by gathering sufficiently large datasets 25 . Trained tasting panels are considered the prime source of quality sensory data, but require meticulous training, are low throughput and high cost. Public databases containing consumer reviews of food products could provide a valuable alternative, especially for studying appreciation scores, which do not require formal training 25 . Public databases offer the advantage of amassing large amounts of data, increasing the statistical power to identify potential drivers of appreciation. However, public datasets suffer from biases, including a bias in the volunteers that contribute to the database, as well as confounding factors such as price, cult status and psychological conformity towards previous ratings of the product.

Classical multivariate statistics and machine learning methods have been used to predict flavor of specific compounds by, for example, linking structural properties of a compound to its potential biological activities or linking concentrations of specific compounds to sensory profiles 1 , 26 . Importantly, most previous studies focused on predicting organoleptic properties of single compounds (often based on their chemical structure) 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , thus ignoring the fact that these compounds are present in a complex matrix in food or beverages and excluding complex interactions between compounds. Moreover, the classical statistics commonly used in sensory science 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 require a large sample size and sufficient variance amongst predictors to create accurate models. They are not fit for studying an extensive set of hundreds of interacting flavor compounds, since they are sensitive to outliers, have a high tendency to overfit and are less suited for non-linear and discontinuous relationships 40 .

In this study, we combine extensive chemical analyses and sensory data of a set of different commercial beers with machine learning approaches to develop models that predict taste, smell, mouthfeel and appreciation from compound concentrations. Beer is particularly suited to model the relationship between chemistry, flavor and appreciation. First, beer is a complex product, consisting of thousands of flavor compounds that partake in complex sensory interactions 41 , 42 , 43 . This chemical diversity arises from the raw materials (malt, yeast, hops, water and spices) and biochemical conversions during the brewing process (kilning, mashing, boiling, fermentation, maturation and aging) 44 , 45 . Second, the advent of the internet saw beer consumers embrace online review platforms, such as RateBeer (ZX Ventures, Anheuser-Busch InBev SA/NV) and BeerAdvocate (Next Glass, inc.). In this way, the beer community provides massive data sets of beer flavor and appreciation scores, creating extraordinarily large sensory databases to complement the analyses of our professional sensory panel. Specifically, we characterize over 200 chemical properties of 250 commercial beers, spread across 22 beer styles, and link these to the descriptive sensory profiling data of a 16-person in-house trained tasting panel and data acquired from over 180,000 public consumer reviews. These unique and extensive datasets enable us to train a suite of machine learning models to predict flavor and appreciation from a beer’s chemical profile. Dissection of the best-performing models allows us to pinpoint specific compounds as potential drivers of beer flavor and appreciation. Follow-up experiments confirm the importance of these compounds and ultimately allow us to significantly improve the flavor and appreciation of selected commercial beers. Together, our study represents a significant step towards understanding complex flavors and reinforces the value of machine learning to develop and refine complex foods. In this way, it represents a stepping stone for further computer-aided food engineering applications 46 .

To generate a comprehensive dataset on beer flavor, we selected 250 commercial Belgian beers across 22 different beer styles (Supplementary Fig.  S1 ). Beers with ≤ 4.2% alcohol by volume (ABV) were classified as non-alcoholic and low-alcoholic. Blonds and Tripels constitute a significant portion of the dataset (12.4% and 11.2%, respectively) reflecting their presence on the Belgian beer market and the heterogeneity of beers within these styles. By contrast, lager beers are less diverse and dominated by a handful of brands. Rare styles such as Brut or Faro make up only a small fraction of the dataset (2% and 1%, respectively) because fewer of these beers are produced and because they are dominated by distinct characteristics in terms of flavor and chemical composition.

Extensive analysis identifies relationships between chemical compounds in beer

For each beer, we measured 226 different chemical properties, including common brewing parameters such as alcohol content, iso-alpha acids, pH, sugar concentration 47 , and over 200 flavor compounds (Methods, Supplementary Table  S1 ). A large portion (37.2%) are terpenoids arising from hopping, responsible for herbal and fruity flavors 16 , 48 . A second major category are yeast metabolites, such as esters and alcohols, that result in fruity and solvent notes 48 , 49 , 50 . Other measured compounds are primarily derived from malt, or other microbes such as non- Saccharomyces yeasts and bacteria (‘wild flora’). Compounds that arise from spices or staling are labeled under ‘Others’. Five attributes (caloric value, total acids and total ester, hop aroma and sulfur compounds) are calculated from multiple individually measured compounds.

As a first step in identifying relationships between chemical properties, we determined correlations between the concentrations of the compounds (Fig.  1 , upper panel, Supplementary Data  1 and 2 , and Supplementary Fig.  S2 . For the sake of clarity, only a subset of the measured compounds is shown in Fig.  1 ). Compounds of the same origin typically show a positive correlation, while absence of correlation hints at parameters varying independently. For example, the hop aroma compounds citronellol, and alpha-terpineol show moderate correlations with each other (Spearman’s rho=0.39 and 0.57), but not with the bittering hop component iso-alpha acids (Spearman’s rho=0.16 and −0.07). This illustrates how brewers can independently modify hop aroma and bitterness by selecting hop varieties and dosage time. If hops are added early in the boiling phase, chemical conversions increase bitterness while aromas evaporate, conversely, late addition of hops preserves aroma but limits bitterness 51 . Similarly, hop-derived iso-alpha acids show a strong anti-correlation with lactic acid and acetic acid, likely reflecting growth inhibition of lactic acid and acetic acid bacteria, or the consequent use of fewer hops in sour beer styles, such as West Flanders ales and Fruit beers, that rely on these bacteria for their distinct flavors 52 . Finally, yeast-derived esters (ethyl acetate, ethyl decanoate, ethyl hexanoate, ethyl octanoate) and alcohols (ethanol, isoamyl alcohol, isobutanol, and glycerol), correlate with Spearman coefficients above 0.5, suggesting that these secondary metabolites are correlated with the yeast genetic background and/or fermentation parameters and may be difficult to influence individually, although the choice of yeast strain may offer some control 53 .

Spearman rank correlations are shown. Descriptors are grouped according to their origin (malt (blue), hops (green), yeast (red), wild flora (yellow), Others (black)), and sensory aspect (aroma, taste, palate, and overall appreciation). Please note that for the chemical compounds, for the sake of clarity, only a subset of the total number of measured compounds is shown, with an emphasis on the key compounds for each source. For more details, see the main text and Methods section. Chemical data can be found in Supplementary Data  1 , correlations between all chemical compounds are depicted in Supplementary Fig.  S2 and correlation values can be found in Supplementary Data  2 . See Supplementary Data  4 for sensory panel assessments and Supplementary Data  5 for correlation values between all sensory descriptors.

Interestingly, different beer styles show distinct patterns for some flavor compounds (Supplementary Fig.  S3 ). These observations agree with expectations for key beer styles, and serve as a control for our measurements. For instance, Stouts generally show high values for color (darker), while hoppy beers contain elevated levels of iso-alpha acids, compounds associated with bitter hop taste. Acetic and lactic acid are not prevalent in most beers, with notable exceptions such as Kriek, Lambic, Faro, West Flanders ales and Flanders Old Brown, which use acid-producing bacteria ( Lactobacillus and Pediococcus ) or unconventional yeast ( Brettanomyces ) 54 , 55 . Glycerol, ethanol and esters show similar distributions across all beer styles, reflecting their common origin as products of yeast metabolism during fermentation 45 , 53 . Finally, low/no-alcohol beers contain low concentrations of glycerol and esters. This is in line with the production process for most of the low/no-alcohol beers in our dataset, which are produced through limiting fermentation or by stripping away alcohol via evaporation or dialysis, with both methods having the unintended side-effect of reducing the amount of flavor compounds in the final beer 56 , 57 .

Besides expected associations, our data also reveals less trivial associations between beer styles and specific parameters. For example, geraniol and citronellol, two monoterpenoids responsible for citrus, floral and rose flavors and characteristic of Citra hops, are found in relatively high amounts in Christmas, Saison, and Brett/co-fermented beers, where they may originate from terpenoid-rich spices such as coriander seeds instead of hops 58 .

Tasting panel assessments reveal sensorial relationships in beer

To assess the sensory profile of each beer, a trained tasting panel evaluated each of the 250 beers for 50 sensory attributes, including different hop, malt and yeast flavors, off-flavors and spices. Panelists used a tasting sheet (Supplementary Data  3 ) to score the different attributes. Panel consistency was evaluated by repeating 12 samples across different sessions and performing ANOVA. In 95% of cases no significant difference was found across sessions ( p  > 0.05), indicating good panel consistency (Supplementary Table  S2 ).

Aroma and taste perception reported by the trained panel are often linked (Fig.  1 , bottom left panel and Supplementary Data  4 and 5 ), with high correlations between hops aroma and taste (Spearman’s rho=0.83). Bitter taste was found to correlate with hop aroma and taste in general (Spearman’s rho=0.80 and 0.69), and particularly with “grassy” noble hops (Spearman’s rho=0.75). Barnyard flavor, most often associated with sour beers, is identified together with stale hops (Spearman’s rho=0.97) that are used in these beers. Lactic and acetic acid, which often co-occur, are correlated (Spearman’s rho=0.66). Interestingly, sweetness and bitterness are anti-correlated (Spearman’s rho = −0.48), confirming the hypothesis that they mask each other 59 , 60 . Beer body is highly correlated with alcohol (Spearman’s rho = 0.79), and overall appreciation is found to correlate with multiple aspects that describe beer mouthfeel (alcohol, carbonation; Spearman’s rho= 0.32, 0.39), as well as with hop and ester aroma intensity (Spearman’s rho=0.39 and 0.35).

Similar to the chemical analyses, sensorial analyses confirmed typical features of specific beer styles (Supplementary Fig.  S4 ). For example, sour beers (Faro, Flanders Old Brown, Fruit beer, Kriek, Lambic, West Flanders ale) were rated acidic, with flavors of both acetic and lactic acid. Hoppy beers were found to be bitter and showed hop-associated aromas like citrus and tropical fruit. Malt taste is most detected among scotch, stout/porters, and strong ales, while low/no-alcohol beers, which often have a reputation for being ‘worty’ (reminiscent of unfermented, sweet malt extract) appear in the middle. Unsurprisingly, hop aromas are most strongly detected among hoppy beers. Like its chemical counterpart (Supplementary Fig.  S3 ), acidity shows a right-skewed distribution, with the most acidic beers being Krieks, Lambics, and West Flanders ales.

Tasting panel assessments of specific flavors correlate with chemical composition

We find that the concentrations of several chemical compounds strongly correlate with specific aroma or taste, as evaluated by the tasting panel (Fig.  2 , Supplementary Fig.  S5 , Supplementary Data  6 ). In some cases, these correlations confirm expectations and serve as a useful control for data quality. For example, iso-alpha acids, the bittering compounds in hops, strongly correlate with bitterness (Spearman’s rho=0.68), while ethanol and glycerol correlate with tasters’ perceptions of alcohol and body, the mouthfeel sensation of fullness (Spearman’s rho=0.82/0.62 and 0.72/0.57 respectively) and darker color from roasted malts is a good indication of malt perception (Spearman’s rho=0.54).

Heatmap colors indicate Spearman’s Rho. Axes are organized according to sensory categories (aroma, taste, mouthfeel, overall), chemical categories and chemical sources in beer (malt (blue), hops (green), yeast (red), wild flora (yellow), Others (black)). See Supplementary Data  6 for all correlation values.

Interestingly, for some relationships between chemical compounds and perceived flavor, correlations are weaker than expected. For example, the rose-smelling phenethyl acetate only weakly correlates with floral aroma. This hints at more complex relationships and interactions between compounds and suggests a need for a more complex model than simple correlations. Lastly, we uncovered unexpected correlations. For instance, the esters ethyl decanoate and ethyl octanoate appear to correlate slightly with hop perception and bitterness, possibly due to their fruity flavor. Iron is anti-correlated with hop aromas and bitterness, most likely because it is also anti-correlated with iso-alpha acids. This could be a sign of metal chelation of hop acids 61 , given that our analyses measure unbound hop acids and total iron content, or could result from the higher iron content in dark and Fruit beers, which typically have less hoppy and bitter flavors 62 .

Public consumer reviews complement expert panel data

To complement and expand the sensory data of our trained tasting panel, we collected 180,000 reviews of our 250 beers from the online consumer review platform RateBeer. This provided numerical scores for beer appearance, aroma, taste, palate, overall quality as well as the average overall score.

Public datasets are known to suffer from biases, such as price, cult status and psychological conformity towards previous ratings of a product. For example, prices correlate with appreciation scores for these online consumer reviews (rho=0.49, Supplementary Fig.  S6 ), but not for our trained tasting panel (rho=0.19). This suggests that prices affect consumer appreciation, which has been reported in wine 63 , while blind tastings are unaffected. Moreover, we observe that some beer styles, like lagers and non-alcoholic beers, generally receive lower scores, reflecting that online reviewers are mostly beer aficionados with a preference for specialty beers over lager beers. In general, we find a modest correlation between our trained panel’s overall appreciation score and the online consumer appreciation scores (Fig.  3 , rho=0.29). Apart from the aforementioned biases in the online datasets, serving temperature, sample freshness and surroundings, which are all tightly controlled during the tasting panel sessions, can vary tremendously across online consumers and can further contribute to (among others, appreciation) differences between the two categories of tasters. Importantly, in contrast to the overall appreciation scores, for many sensory aspects the results from the professional panel correlated well with results obtained from RateBeer reviews. Correlations were highest for features that are relatively easy to recognize even for untrained tasters, like bitterness, sweetness, alcohol and malt aroma (Fig.  3 and below).

RateBeer text mining results can be found in Supplementary Data  7 . Rho values shown are Spearman correlation values, with asterisks indicating significant correlations ( p  < 0.05, two-sided). All p values were smaller than 0.001, except for Esters aroma (0.0553), Esters taste (0.3275), Esters aroma—banana (0.0019), Coriander (0.0508) and Diacetyl (0.0134).

Besides collecting consumer appreciation from these online reviews, we developed automated text analysis tools to gather additional data from review texts (Supplementary Data  7 ). Processing review texts on the RateBeer database yielded comparable results to the scores given by the trained panel for many common sensory aspects, including acidity, bitterness, sweetness, alcohol, malt, and hop tastes (Fig.  3 ). This is in line with what would be expected, since these attributes require less training for accurate assessment and are less influenced by environmental factors such as temperature, serving glass and odors in the environment. Consumer reviews also correlate well with our trained panel for 4-vinyl guaiacol, a compound associated with a very characteristic aroma. By contrast, correlations for more specific aromas like ester, coriander or diacetyl are underrepresented in the online reviews, underscoring the importance of using a trained tasting panel and standardized tasting sheets with explicit factors to be scored for evaluating specific aspects of a beer. Taken together, our results suggest that public reviews are trustworthy for some, but not all, flavor features and can complement or substitute taste panel data for these sensory aspects.

Models can predict beer sensory profiles from chemical data

The rich datasets of chemical analyses, tasting panel assessments and public reviews gathered in the first part of this study provided us with a unique opportunity to develop predictive models that link chemical data to sensorial features. Given the complexity of beer flavor, basic statistical tools such as correlations or linear regression may not always be the most suitable for making accurate predictions. Instead, we applied different machine learning models that can model both simple linear and complex interactive relationships. Specifically, we constructed a set of regression models to predict (a) trained panel scores for beer flavor and quality and (b) public reviews’ appreciation scores from beer chemical profiles. We trained and tested 10 different models (Methods), 3 linear regression-based models (simple linear regression with first-order interactions (LR), lasso regression with first-order interactions (Lasso), partial least squares regressor (PLSR)), 5 decision tree models (AdaBoost regressor (ABR), extra trees (ET), gradient boosting regressor (GBR), random forest (RF) and XGBoost regressor (XGBR)), 1 support vector regression (SVR), and 1 artificial neural network (ANN) model.

To compare the performance of our machine learning models, the dataset was randomly split into a training and test set, stratified by beer style. After a model was trained on data in the training set, its performance was evaluated on its ability to predict the test dataset obtained from multi-output models (based on the coefficient of determination, see Methods). Additionally, individual-attribute models were ranked per descriptor and the average rank was calculated, as proposed by Korneva et al. 64 . Importantly, both ways of evaluating the models’ performance agreed in general. Performance of the different models varied (Table  1 ). It should be noted that all models perform better at predicting RateBeer results than results from our trained tasting panel. One reason could be that sensory data is inherently variable, and this variability is averaged out with the large number of public reviews from RateBeer. Additionally, all tree-based models perform better at predicting taste than aroma. Linear models (LR) performed particularly poorly, with negative R 2 values, due to severe overfitting (training set R 2  = 1). Overfitting is a common issue in linear models with many parameters and limited samples, especially with interaction terms further amplifying the number of parameters. L1 regularization (Lasso) successfully overcomes this overfitting, out-competing multiple tree-based models on the RateBeer dataset. Similarly, the dimensionality reduction of PLSR avoids overfitting and improves performance, to some extent. Still, tree-based models (ABR, ET, GBR, RF and XGBR) show the best performance, out-competing the linear models (LR, Lasso, PLSR) commonly used in sensory science 65 .

GBR models showed the best overall performance in predicting sensory responses from chemical information, with R 2 values up to 0.75 depending on the predicted sensory feature (Supplementary Table  S4 ). The GBR models predict consumer appreciation (RateBeer) better than our trained panel’s appreciation (R 2 value of 0.67 compared to R 2 value of 0.09) (Supplementary Table  S3 and Supplementary Table  S4 ). ANN models showed intermediate performance, likely because neural networks typically perform best with larger datasets 66 . The SVR shows intermediate performance, mostly due to the weak predictions of specific attributes that lower the overall performance (Supplementary Table  S4 ).

Model dissection identifies specific, unexpected compounds as drivers of consumer appreciation

Next, we leveraged our models to infer important contributors to sensory perception and consumer appreciation. Consumer preference is a crucial sensory aspects, because a product that shows low consumer appreciation scores often does not succeed commercially 25 . Additionally, the requirement for a large number of representative evaluators makes consumer trials one of the more costly and time-consuming aspects of product development. Hence, a model for predicting chemical drivers of overall appreciation would be a welcome addition to the available toolbox for food development and optimization.

Since GBR models on our RateBeer dataset showed the best overall performance, we focused on these models. Specifically, we used two approaches to identify important contributors. First, rankings of the most important predictors for each sensorial trait in the GBR models were obtained based on impurity-based feature importance (mean decrease in impurity). High-ranked parameters were hypothesized to be either the true causal chemical properties underlying the trait, to correlate with the actual causal properties, or to take part in sensory interactions affecting the trait 67 (Fig.  4A ). In a second approach, we used SHAP 68 to determine which parameters contributed most to the model for making predictions of consumer appreciation (Fig.  4B ). SHAP calculates parameter contributions to model predictions on a per-sample basis, which can be aggregated into an importance score.

A The impurity-based feature importance (mean deviance in impurity, MDI) calculated from the Gradient Boosting Regression (GBR) model predicting RateBeer appreciation scores. The top 15 highest ranked chemical properties are shown. B SHAP summary plot for the top 15 parameters contributing to our GBR model. Each point on the graph represents a sample from our dataset. The color represents the concentration of that parameter, with bluer colors representing low values and redder colors representing higher values. Greater absolute values on the horizontal axis indicate a higher impact of the parameter on the prediction of the model. C Spearman correlations between the 15 most important chemical properties and consumer overall appreciation. Numbers indicate the Spearman Rho correlation coefficient, and the rank of this correlation compared to all other correlations. The top 15 important compounds were determined using SHAP (panel B).

Both approaches identified ethyl acetate as the most predictive parameter for beer appreciation (Fig.  4 ). Ethyl acetate is the most abundant ester in beer with a typical ‘fruity’, ‘solvent’ and ‘alcoholic’ flavor, but is often considered less important than other esters like isoamyl acetate. The second most important parameter identified by SHAP is ethanol, the most abundant beer compound after water. Apart from directly contributing to beer flavor and mouthfeel, ethanol drastically influences the physical properties of beer, dictating how easily volatile compounds escape the beer matrix to contribute to beer aroma 69 . Importantly, it should also be noted that the importance of ethanol for appreciation is likely inflated by the very low appreciation scores of non-alcoholic beers (Supplementary Fig.  S4 ). Despite not often being considered a driver of beer appreciation, protein level also ranks highly in both approaches, possibly due to its effect on mouthfeel and body 70 . Lactic acid, which contributes to the tart taste of sour beers, is the fourth most important parameter identified by SHAP, possibly due to the generally high appreciation of sour beers in our dataset.

Interestingly, some of the most important predictive parameters for our model are not well-established as beer flavors or are even commonly regarded as being negative for beer quality. For example, our models identify methanethiol and ethyl phenyl acetate, an ester commonly linked to beer staling 71 , as a key factor contributing to beer appreciation. Although there is no doubt that high concentrations of these compounds are considered unpleasant, the positive effects of modest concentrations are not yet known 72 , 73 .

To compare our approach to conventional statistics, we evaluated how well the 15 most important SHAP-derived parameters correlate with consumer appreciation (Fig.  4C ). Interestingly, only 6 of the properties derived by SHAP rank amongst the top 15 most correlated parameters. For some chemical compounds, the correlations are so low that they would have likely been considered unimportant. For example, lactic acid, the fourth most important parameter, shows a bimodal distribution for appreciation, with sour beers forming a separate cluster, that is missed entirely by the Spearman correlation. Additionally, the correlation plots reveal outliers, emphasizing the need for robust analysis tools. Together, this highlights the need for alternative models, like the Gradient Boosting model, that better grasp the complexity of (beer) flavor.

Finally, to observe the relationships between these chemical properties and their predicted targets, partial dependence plots were constructed for the six most important predictors of consumer appreciation 74 , 75 , 76 (Supplementary Fig.  S7 ). One-way partial dependence plots show how a change in concentration affects the predicted appreciation. These plots reveal an important limitation of our models: appreciation predictions remain constant at ever-increasing concentrations. This implies that once a threshold concentration is reached, further increasing the concentration does not affect appreciation. This is false, as it is well-documented that certain compounds become unpleasant at high concentrations, including ethyl acetate (‘nail polish’) 77 and methanethiol (‘sulfury’ and ‘rotten cabbage’) 78 . The inability of our models to grasp that flavor compounds have optimal levels, above which they become negative, is a consequence of working with commercial beer brands where (off-)flavors are rarely too high to negatively impact the product. The two-way partial dependence plots show how changing the concentration of two compounds influences predicted appreciation, visualizing their interactions (Supplementary Fig.  S7 ). In our case, the top 5 parameters are dominated by additive or synergistic interactions, with high concentrations for both compounds resulting in the highest predicted appreciation.

To assess the robustness of our best-performing models and model predictions, we performed 100 iterations of the GBR, RF and ET models. In general, all iterations of the models yielded similar performance (Supplementary Fig.  S8 ). Moreover, the main predictors (including the top predictors ethanol and ethyl acetate) remained virtually the same, especially for GBR and RF. For the iterations of the ET model, we did observe more variation in the top predictors, which is likely a consequence of the model’s inherent random architecture in combination with co-correlations between certain predictors. However, even in this case, several of the top predictors (ethanol and ethyl acetate) remain unchanged, although their rank in importance changes (Supplementary Fig.  S8 ).

Next, we investigated if a combination of RateBeer and trained panel data into one consolidated dataset would lead to stronger models, under the hypothesis that such a model would suffer less from bias in the datasets. A GBR model was trained to predict appreciation on the combined dataset. This model underperformed compared to the RateBeer model, both in the native case and when including a dataset identifier (R 2  = 0.67, 0.26 and 0.42 respectively). For the latter, the dataset identifier is the most important feature (Supplementary Fig.  S9 ), while most of the feature importance remains unchanged, with ethyl acetate and ethanol ranking highest, like in the original model trained only on RateBeer data. It seems that the large variation in the panel dataset introduces noise, weakening the models’ performances and reliability. In addition, it seems reasonable to assume that both datasets are fundamentally different, with the panel dataset obtained by blind tastings by a trained professional panel.

Lastly, we evaluated whether beer style identifiers would further enhance the model’s performance. A GBR model was trained with parameters that explicitly encoded the styles of the samples. This did not improve model performance (R2 = 0.66 with style information vs R2 = 0.67). The most important chemical features are consistent with the model trained without style information (eg. ethanol and ethyl acetate), and with the exception of the most preferred (strong ale) and least preferred (low/no-alcohol) styles, none of the styles were among the most important features (Supplementary Fig.  S9 , Supplementary Table  S5 and S6 ). This is likely due to a combination of style-specific chemical signatures, such as iso-alpha acids and lactic acid, that implicitly convey style information to the original models, as well as the low number of samples belonging to some styles, making it difficult for the model to learn style-specific patterns. Moreover, beer styles are not rigorously defined, with some styles overlapping in features and some beers being misattributed to a specific style, all of which leads to more noise in models that use style parameters.

Model validation

To test if our predictive models give insight into beer appreciation, we set up experiments aimed at improving existing commercial beers. We specifically selected overall appreciation as the trait to be examined because of its complexity and commercial relevance. Beer flavor comprises a complex bouquet rather than single aromas and tastes 53 . Hence, adding a single compound to the extent that a difference is noticeable may lead to an unbalanced, artificial flavor. Therefore, we evaluated the effect of combinations of compounds. Because Blond beers represent the most extensive style in our dataset, we selected a beer from this style as the starting material for these experiments (Beer 64 in Supplementary Data  1 ).

In the first set of experiments, we adjusted the concentrations of compounds that made up the most important predictors of overall appreciation (ethyl acetate, ethanol, lactic acid, ethyl phenyl acetate) together with correlated compounds (ethyl hexanoate, isoamyl acetate, glycerol), bringing them up to 95 th percentile ethanol-normalized concentrations (Methods) within the Blond group (‘Spiked’ concentration in Fig.  5A ). Compared to controls, the spiked beers were found to have significantly improved overall appreciation among trained panelists, with panelist noting increased intensity of ester flavors, sweetness, alcohol, and body fullness (Fig.  5B ). To disentangle the contribution of ethanol to these results, a second experiment was performed without the addition of ethanol. This resulted in a similar outcome, including increased perception of alcohol and overall appreciation.

Adding the top chemical compounds, identified as best predictors of appreciation by our model, into poorly appreciated beers results in increased appreciation from our trained panel. Results of sensory tests between base beers and those spiked with compounds identified as the best predictors by the model. A Blond and Non/Low-alcohol (0.0% ABV) base beers were brought up to 95th-percentile ethanol-normalized concentrations within each style. B For each sensory attribute, tasters indicated the more intense sample and selected the sample they preferred. The numbers above the bars correspond to the p values that indicate significant changes in perceived flavor (two-sided binomial test: alpha 0.05, n  = 20 or 13).

In a last experiment, we tested whether using the model’s predictions can boost the appreciation of a non-alcoholic beer (beer 223 in Supplementary Data  1 ). Again, the addition of a mixture of predicted compounds (omitting ethanol, in this case) resulted in a significant increase in appreciation, body, ester flavor and sweetness.

Predicting flavor and consumer appreciation from chemical composition is one of the ultimate goals of sensory science. A reliable, systematic and unbiased way to link chemical profiles to flavor and food appreciation would be a significant asset to the food and beverage industry. Such tools would substantially aid in quality control and recipe development, offer an efficient and cost-effective alternative to pilot studies and consumer trials and would ultimately allow food manufacturers to produce superior, tailor-made products that better meet the demands of specific consumer groups more efficiently.

A limited set of studies have previously tried, to varying degrees of success, to predict beer flavor and beer popularity based on (a limited set of) chemical compounds and flavors 79 , 80 . Current sensitive, high-throughput technologies allow measuring an unprecedented number of chemical compounds and properties in a large set of samples, yielding a dataset that can train models that help close the gaps between chemistry and flavor, even for a complex natural product like beer. To our knowledge, no previous research gathered data at this scale (250 samples, 226 chemical parameters, 50 sensory attributes and 5 consumer scores) to disentangle and validate the chemical aspects driving beer preference using various machine-learning techniques. We find that modern machine learning models outperform conventional statistical tools, such as correlations and linear models, and can successfully predict flavor appreciation from chemical composition. This could be attributed to the natural incorporation of interactions and non-linear or discontinuous effects in machine learning models, which are not easily grasped by the linear model architecture. While linear models and partial least squares regression represent the most widespread statistical approaches in sensory science, in part because they allow interpretation 65 , 81 , 82 , modern machine learning methods allow for building better predictive models while preserving the possibility to dissect and exploit the underlying patterns. Of the 10 different models we trained, tree-based models, such as our best performing GBR, showed the best overall performance in predicting sensory responses from chemical information, outcompeting artificial neural networks. This agrees with previous reports for models trained on tabular data 83 . Our results are in line with the findings of Colantonio et al. who also identified the gradient boosting architecture as performing best at predicting appreciation and flavor (of tomatoes and blueberries, in their specific study) 26 . Importantly, besides our larger experimental scale, we were able to directly confirm our models’ predictions in vivo.

Our study confirms that flavor compound concentration does not always correlate with perception, suggesting complex interactions that are often missed by more conventional statistics and simple models. Specifically, we find that tree-based algorithms may perform best in developing models that link complex food chemistry with aroma. Furthermore, we show that massive datasets of untrained consumer reviews provide a valuable source of data, that can complement or even replace trained tasting panels, especially for appreciation and basic flavors, such as sweetness and bitterness. This holds despite biases that are known to occur in such datasets, such as price or conformity bias. Moreover, GBR models predict taste better than aroma. This is likely because taste (e.g. bitterness) often directly relates to the corresponding chemical measurements (e.g., iso-alpha acids), whereas such a link is less clear for aromas, which often result from the interplay between multiple volatile compounds. We also find that our models are best at predicting acidity and alcohol, likely because there is a direct relation between the measured chemical compounds (acids and ethanol) and the corresponding perceived sensorial attribute (acidity and alcohol), and because even untrained consumers are generally able to recognize these flavors and aromas.

The predictions of our final models, trained on review data, hold even for blind tastings with small groups of trained tasters, as demonstrated by our ability to validate specific compounds as drivers of beer flavor and appreciation. Since adding a single compound to the extent of a noticeable difference may result in an unbalanced flavor profile, we specifically tested our identified key drivers as a combination of compounds. While this approach does not allow us to validate if a particular single compound would affect flavor and/or appreciation, our experiments do show that this combination of compounds increases consumer appreciation.

It is important to stress that, while it represents an important step forward, our approach still has several major limitations. A key weakness of the GBR model architecture is that amongst co-correlating variables, the largest main effect is consistently preferred for model building. As a result, co-correlating variables often have artificially low importance scores, both for impurity and SHAP-based methods, like we observed in the comparison to the more randomized Extra Trees models. This implies that chemicals identified as key drivers of a specific sensory feature by GBR might not be the true causative compounds, but rather co-correlate with the actual causative chemical. For example, the high importance of ethyl acetate could be (partially) attributed to the total ester content, ethanol or ethyl hexanoate (rho=0.77, rho=0.72 and rho=0.68), while ethyl phenylacetate could hide the importance of prenyl isobutyrate and ethyl benzoate (rho=0.77 and rho=0.76). Expanding our GBR model to include beer style as a parameter did not yield additional power or insight. This is likely due to style-specific chemical signatures, such as iso-alpha acids and lactic acid, that implicitly convey style information to the original model, as well as the smaller sample size per style, limiting the power to uncover style-specific patterns. This can be partly attributed to the curse of dimensionality, where the high number of parameters results in the models mainly incorporating single parameter effects, rather than complex interactions such as style-dependent effects 67 . A larger number of samples may overcome some of these limitations and offer more insight into style-specific effects. On the other hand, beer style is not a rigid scientific classification, and beers within one style often differ a lot, which further complicates the analysis of style as a model factor.

Our study is limited to beers from Belgian breweries. Although these beers cover a large portion of the beer styles available globally, some beer styles and consumer patterns may be missing, while other features might be overrepresented. For example, many Belgian ales exhibit yeast-driven flavor profiles, which is reflected in the chemical drivers of appreciation discovered by this study. In future work, expanding the scope to include diverse markets and beer styles could lead to the identification of even more drivers of appreciation and better models for special niche products that were not present in our beer set.

In addition to inherent limitations of GBR models, there are also some limitations associated with studying food aroma. Even if our chemical analyses measured most of the known aroma compounds, the total number of flavor compounds in complex foods like beer is still larger than the subset we were able to measure in this study. For example, hop-derived thiols, that influence flavor at very low concentrations, are notoriously difficult to measure in a high-throughput experiment. Moreover, consumer perception remains subjective and prone to biases that are difficult to avoid. It is also important to stress that the models are still immature and that more extensive datasets will be crucial for developing more complete models in the future. Besides more samples and parameters, our dataset does not include any demographic information about the tasters. Including such data could lead to better models that grasp external factors like age and culture. Another limitation is that our set of beers consists of high-quality end-products and lacks beers that are unfit for sale, which limits the current model in accurately predicting products that are appreciated very badly. Finally, while models could be readily applied in quality control, their use in sensory science and product development is restrained by their inability to discern causal relationships. Given that the models cannot distinguish compounds that genuinely drive consumer perception from those that merely correlate, validation experiments are essential to identify true causative compounds.

Despite the inherent limitations, dissection of our models enabled us to pinpoint specific molecules as potential drivers of beer aroma and consumer appreciation, including compounds that were unexpected and would not have been identified using standard approaches. Important drivers of beer appreciation uncovered by our models include protein levels, ethyl acetate, ethyl phenyl acetate and lactic acid. Currently, many brewers already use lactic acid to acidify their brewing water and ensure optimal pH for enzymatic activity during the mashing process. Our results suggest that adding lactic acid can also improve beer appreciation, although its individual effect remains to be tested. Interestingly, ethanol appears to be unnecessary to improve beer appreciation, both for blond beer and alcohol-free beer. Given the growing consumer interest in alcohol-free beer, with a predicted annual market growth of >7% 84 , it is relevant for brewers to know what compounds can further increase consumer appreciation of these beers. Hence, our model may readily provide avenues to further improve the flavor and consumer appreciation of both alcoholic and non-alcoholic beers, which is generally considered one of the key challenges for future beer production.

Whereas we see a direct implementation of our results for the development of superior alcohol-free beverages and other food products, our study can also serve as a stepping stone for the development of novel alcohol-containing beverages. We want to echo the growing body of scientific evidence for the negative effects of alcohol consumption, both on the individual level by the mutagenic, teratogenic and carcinogenic effects of ethanol 85 , 86 , as well as the burden on society caused by alcohol abuse and addiction. We encourage the use of our results for the production of healthier, tastier products, including novel and improved beverages with lower alcohol contents. Furthermore, we strongly discourage the use of these technologies to improve the appreciation or addictive properties of harmful substances.

The present work demonstrates that despite some important remaining hurdles, combining the latest developments in chemical analyses, sensory analysis and modern machine learning methods offers exciting avenues for food chemistry and engineering. Soon, these tools may provide solutions in quality control and recipe development, as well as new approaches to sensory science and flavor research.

Beer selection

250 commercial Belgian beers were selected to cover the broad diversity of beer styles and corresponding diversity in chemical composition and aroma. See Supplementary Fig.  S1 .

Chemical dataset

Sample preparation.

Beers within their expiration date were purchased from commercial retailers. Samples were prepared in biological duplicates at room temperature, unless explicitly stated otherwise. Bottle pressure was measured with a manual pressure device (Steinfurth Mess-Systeme GmbH) and used to calculate CO 2 concentration. The beer was poured through two filter papers (Macherey-Nagel, 500713032 MN 713 ¼) to remove carbon dioxide and prevent spontaneous foaming. Samples were then prepared for measurements by targeted Headspace-Gas Chromatography-Flame Ionization Detector/Flame Photometric Detector (HS-GC-FID/FPD), Headspace-Solid Phase Microextraction-Gas Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry (HS-SPME-GC-MS), colorimetric analysis, enzymatic analysis, Near-Infrared (NIR) analysis, as described in the sections below. The mean values of biological duplicates are reported for each compound.

HS-GC-FID/FPD

HS-GC-FID/FPD (Shimadzu GC 2010 Plus) was used to measure higher alcohols, acetaldehyde, esters, 4-vinyl guaicol, and sulfur compounds. Each measurement comprised 5 ml of sample pipetted into a 20 ml glass vial containing 1.75 g NaCl (VWR, 27810.295). 100 µl of 2-heptanol (Sigma-Aldrich, H3003) (internal standard) solution in ethanol (Fisher Chemical, E/0650DF/C17) was added for a final concentration of 2.44 mg/L. Samples were flushed with nitrogen for 10 s, sealed with a silicone septum, stored at −80 °C and analyzed in batches of 20.

The GC was equipped with a DB-WAXetr column (length, 30 m; internal diameter, 0.32 mm; layer thickness, 0.50 µm; Agilent Technologies, Santa Clara, CA, USA) to the FID and an HP-5 column (length, 30 m; internal diameter, 0.25 mm; layer thickness, 0.25 µm; Agilent Technologies, Santa Clara, CA, USA) to the FPD. N 2 was used as the carrier gas. Samples were incubated for 20 min at 70 °C in the headspace autosampler (Flow rate, 35 cm/s; Injection volume, 1000 µL; Injection mode, split; Combi PAL autosampler, CTC analytics, Switzerland). The injector, FID and FPD temperatures were kept at 250 °C. The GC oven temperature was first held at 50 °C for 5 min and then allowed to rise to 80 °C at a rate of 5 °C/min, followed by a second ramp of 4 °C/min until 200 °C kept for 3 min and a final ramp of (4 °C/min) until 230 °C for 1 min. Results were analyzed with the GCSolution software version 2.4 (Shimadzu, Kyoto, Japan). The GC was calibrated with a 5% EtOH solution (VWR International) containing the volatiles under study (Supplementary Table  S7 ).

HS-SPME-GC-MS

HS-SPME-GC-MS (Shimadzu GCMS-QP-2010 Ultra) was used to measure additional volatile compounds, mainly comprising terpenoids and esters. Samples were analyzed by HS-SPME using a triphase DVB/Carboxen/PDMS 50/30 μm SPME fiber (Supelco Co., Bellefonte, PA, USA) followed by gas chromatography (Thermo Fisher Scientific Trace 1300 series, USA) coupled to a mass spectrometer (Thermo Fisher Scientific ISQ series MS) equipped with a TriPlus RSH autosampler. 5 ml of degassed beer sample was placed in 20 ml vials containing 1.75 g NaCl (VWR, 27810.295). 5 µl internal standard mix was added, containing 2-heptanol (1 g/L) (Sigma-Aldrich, H3003), 4-fluorobenzaldehyde (1 g/L) (Sigma-Aldrich, 128376), 2,3-hexanedione (1 g/L) (Sigma-Aldrich, 144169) and guaiacol (1 g/L) (Sigma-Aldrich, W253200) in ethanol (Fisher Chemical, E/0650DF/C17). Each sample was incubated at 60 °C in the autosampler oven with constant agitation. After 5 min equilibration, the SPME fiber was exposed to the sample headspace for 30 min. The compounds trapped on the fiber were thermally desorbed in the injection port of the chromatograph by heating the fiber for 15 min at 270 °C.

The GC-MS was equipped with a low polarity RXi-5Sil MS column (length, 20 m; internal diameter, 0.18 mm; layer thickness, 0.18 µm; Restek, Bellefonte, PA, USA). Injection was performed in splitless mode at 320 °C, a split flow of 9 ml/min, a purge flow of 5 ml/min and an open valve time of 3 min. To obtain a pulsed injection, a programmed gas flow was used whereby the helium gas flow was set at 2.7 mL/min for 0.1 min, followed by a decrease in flow of 20 ml/min to the normal 0.9 mL/min. The temperature was first held at 30 °C for 3 min and then allowed to rise to 80 °C at a rate of 7 °C/min, followed by a second ramp of 2 °C/min till 125 °C and a final ramp of 8 °C/min with a final temperature of 270 °C.

Mass acquisition range was 33 to 550 amu at a scan rate of 5 scans/s. Electron impact ionization energy was 70 eV. The interface and ion source were kept at 275 °C and 250 °C, respectively. A mix of linear n-alkanes (from C7 to C40, Supelco Co.) was injected into the GC-MS under identical conditions to serve as external retention index markers. Identification and quantification of the compounds were performed using an in-house developed R script as described in Goelen et al. and Reher et al. 87 , 88 (for package information, see Supplementary Table  S8 ). Briefly, chromatograms were analyzed using AMDIS (v2.71) 89 to separate overlapping peaks and obtain pure compound spectra. The NIST MS Search software (v2.0 g) in combination with the NIST2017, FFNSC3 and Adams4 libraries were used to manually identify the empirical spectra, taking into account the expected retention time. After background subtraction and correcting for retention time shifts between samples run on different days based on alkane ladders, compound elution profiles were extracted and integrated using a file with 284 target compounds of interest, which were either recovered in our identified AMDIS list of spectra or were known to occur in beer. Compound elution profiles were estimated for every peak in every chromatogram over a time-restricted window using weighted non-negative least square analysis after which peak areas were integrated 87 , 88 . Batch effect correction was performed by normalizing against the most stable internal standard compound, 4-fluorobenzaldehyde. Out of all 284 target compounds that were analyzed, 167 were visually judged to have reliable elution profiles and were used for final analysis.

Discrete photometric and enzymatic analysis

Discrete photometric and enzymatic analysis (Thermo Scientific TM Gallery TM Plus Beermaster Discrete Analyzer) was used to measure acetic acid, ammonia, beta-glucan, iso-alpha acids, color, sugars, glycerol, iron, pH, protein, and sulfite. 2 ml of sample volume was used for the analyses. Information regarding the reagents and standard solutions used for analyses and calibrations is included in Supplementary Table  S7 and Supplementary Table  S9 .

NIR analyses

NIR analysis (Anton Paar Alcolyzer Beer ME System) was used to measure ethanol. Measurements comprised 50 ml of sample, and a 10% EtOH solution was used for calibration.

Correlation calculations

Pairwise Spearman Rank correlations were calculated between all chemical properties.

Sensory dataset

Trained panel.

Our trained tasting panel consisted of volunteers who gave prior verbal informed consent. All compounds used for the validation experiment were of food-grade quality. The tasting sessions were approved by the Social and Societal Ethics Committee of the KU Leuven (G-2022-5677-R2(MAR)). All online reviewers agreed to the Terms and Conditions of the RateBeer website.

Sensory analysis was performed according to the American Society of Brewing Chemists (ASBC) Sensory Analysis Methods 90 . 30 volunteers were screened through a series of triangle tests. The sixteen most sensitive and consistent tasters were retained as taste panel members. The resulting panel was diverse in age [22–42, mean: 29], sex [56% male] and nationality [7 different countries]. The panel developed a consensus vocabulary to describe beer aroma, taste and mouthfeel. Panelists were trained to identify and score 50 different attributes, using a 7-point scale to rate attributes’ intensity. The scoring sheet is included as Supplementary Data  3 . Sensory assessments took place between 10–12 a.m. The beers were served in black-colored glasses. Per session, between 5 and 12 beers of the same style were tasted at 12 °C to 16 °C. Two reference beers were added to each set and indicated as ‘Reference 1 & 2’, allowing panel members to calibrate their ratings. Not all panelists were present at every tasting. Scores were scaled by standard deviation and mean-centered per taster. Values are represented as z-scores and clustered by Euclidean distance. Pairwise Spearman correlations were calculated between taste and aroma sensory attributes. Panel consistency was evaluated by repeating samples on different sessions and performing ANOVA to identify differences, using the ‘stats’ package (v4.2.2) in R (for package information, see Supplementary Table  S8 ).

Online reviews from a public database

The ‘scrapy’ package in Python (v3.6) (for package information, see Supplementary Table  S8 ). was used to collect 232,288 online reviews (mean=922, min=6, max=5343) from RateBeer, an online beer review database. Each review entry comprised 5 numerical scores (appearance, aroma, taste, palate and overall quality) and an optional review text. The total number of reviews per reviewer was collected separately. Numerical scores were scaled and centered per rater, and mean scores were calculated per beer.

For the review texts, the language was estimated using the packages ‘langdetect’ and ‘langid’ in Python. Reviews that were classified as English by both packages were kept. Reviewers with fewer than 100 entries overall were discarded. 181,025 reviews from >6000 reviewers from >40 countries remained. Text processing was done using the ‘nltk’ package in Python. Texts were corrected for slang and misspellings; proper nouns and rare words that are relevant to the beer context were specified and kept as-is (‘Chimay’,’Lambic’, etc.). A dictionary of semantically similar sensorial terms, for example ‘floral’ and ‘flower’, was created and collapsed together into one term. Words were stemmed and lemmatized to avoid identifying words such as ‘acid’ and ‘acidity’ as separate terms. Numbers and punctuation were removed.

Sentences from up to 50 randomly chosen reviews per beer were manually categorized according to the aspect of beer they describe (appearance, aroma, taste, palate, overall quality—not to be confused with the 5 numerical scores described above) or flagged as irrelevant if they contained no useful information. If a beer contained fewer than 50 reviews, all reviews were manually classified. This labeled data set was used to train a model that classified the rest of the sentences for all beers 91 . Sentences describing taste and aroma were extracted, and term frequency–inverse document frequency (TFIDF) was implemented to calculate enrichment scores for sensorial words per beer.

The sex of the tasting subject was not considered when building our sensory database. Instead, results from different panelists were averaged, both for our trained panel (56% male, 44% female) and the RateBeer reviews (70% male, 30% female for RateBeer as a whole).

Beer price collection and processing

Beer prices were collected from the following stores: Colruyt, Delhaize, Total Wine, BeerHawk, The Belgian Beer Shop, The Belgian Shop, and Beer of Belgium. Where applicable, prices were converted to Euros and normalized per liter. Spearman correlations were calculated between these prices and mean overall appreciation scores from RateBeer and the taste panel, respectively.

Pairwise Spearman Rank correlations were calculated between all sensory properties.

Machine learning models

Predictive modeling of sensory profiles from chemical data.

Regression models were constructed to predict (a) trained panel scores for beer flavors and quality from beer chemical profiles and (b) public reviews’ appreciation scores from beer chemical profiles. Z-scores were used to represent sensory attributes in both data sets. Chemical properties with log-normal distributions (Shapiro-Wilk test, p  <  0.05 ) were log-transformed. Missing chemical measurements (0.1% of all data) were replaced with mean values per attribute. Observations from 250 beers were randomly separated into a training set (70%, 175 beers) and a test set (30%, 75 beers), stratified per beer style. Chemical measurements (p = 231) were normalized based on the training set average and standard deviation. In total, three linear regression-based models: linear regression with first-order interaction terms (LR), lasso regression with first-order interaction terms (Lasso) and partial least squares regression (PLSR); five decision tree models, Adaboost regressor (ABR), Extra Trees (ET), Gradient Boosting regressor (GBR), Random Forest (RF) and XGBoost regressor (XGBR); one support vector machine model (SVR) and one artificial neural network model (ANN) were trained. The models were implemented using the ‘scikit-learn’ package (v1.2.2) and ‘xgboost’ package (v1.7.3) in Python (v3.9.16). Models were trained, and hyperparameters optimized, using five-fold cross-validated grid search with the coefficient of determination (R 2 ) as the evaluation metric. The ANN (scikit-learn’s MLPRegressor) was optimized using Bayesian Tree-Structured Parzen Estimator optimization with the ‘Optuna’ Python package (v3.2.0). Individual models were trained per attribute, and a multi-output model was trained on all attributes simultaneously.

Model dissection

GBR was found to outperform other methods, resulting in models with the highest average R 2 values in both trained panel and public review data sets. Impurity-based rankings of the most important predictors for each predicted sensorial trait were obtained using the ‘scikit-learn’ package. To observe the relationships between these chemical properties and their predicted targets, partial dependence plots (PDP) were constructed for the six most important predictors of consumer appreciation 74 , 75 .

The ‘SHAP’ package in Python (v0.41.0) was implemented to provide an alternative ranking of predictor importance and to visualize the predictors’ effects as a function of their concentration 68 .

Validation of causal chemical properties

To validate the effects of the most important model features on predicted sensory attributes, beers were spiked with the chemical compounds identified by the models and descriptive sensory analyses were carried out according to the American Society of Brewing Chemists (ASBC) protocol 90 .

Compound spiking was done 30 min before tasting. Compounds were spiked into fresh beer bottles, that were immediately resealed and inverted three times. Fresh bottles of beer were opened for the same duration, resealed, and inverted thrice, to serve as controls. Pairs of spiked samples and controls were served simultaneously, chilled and in dark glasses as outlined in the Trained panel section above. Tasters were instructed to select the glass with the higher flavor intensity for each attribute (directional difference test 92 ) and to select the glass they prefer.

The final concentration after spiking was equal to the within-style average, after normalizing by ethanol concentration. This was done to ensure balanced flavor profiles in the final spiked beer. The same methods were applied to improve a non-alcoholic beer. Compounds were the following: ethyl acetate (Merck KGaA, W241415), ethyl hexanoate (Merck KGaA, W243906), isoamyl acetate (Merck KGaA, W205508), phenethyl acetate (Merck KGaA, W285706), ethanol (96%, Colruyt), glycerol (Merck KGaA, W252506), lactic acid (Merck KGaA, 261106).

Significant differences in preference or perceived intensity were determined by performing the two-sided binomial test on each attribute.

Reporting summary

Further information on research design is available in the  Nature Portfolio Reporting Summary linked to this article.

Data availability

The data that support the findings of this work are available in the Supplementary Data files and have been deposited to Zenodo under accession code 10653704 93 . The RateBeer scores data are under restricted access, they are not publicly available as they are property of RateBeer (ZX Ventures, USA). Access can be obtained from the authors upon reasonable request and with permission of RateBeer (ZX Ventures, USA).  Source data are provided with this paper.

Code availability

The code for training the machine learning models, analyzing the models, and generating the figures has been deposited to Zenodo under accession code 10653704 93 .

Tieman, D. et al. A chemical genetic roadmap to improved tomato flavor. Science 355 , 391–394 (2017).

Article   ADS   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Plutowska, B. & Wardencki, W. Application of gas chromatography–olfactometry (GC–O) in analysis and quality assessment of alcoholic beverages – A review. Food Chem. 107 , 449–463 (2008).

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Legin, A., Rudnitskaya, A., Seleznev, B. & Vlasov, Y. Electronic tongue for quality assessment of ethanol, vodka and eau-de-vie. Anal. Chim. Acta 534 , 129–135 (2005).

Loutfi, A., Coradeschi, S., Mani, G. K., Shankar, P. & Rayappan, J. B. B. Electronic noses for food quality: A review. J. Food Eng. 144 , 103–111 (2015).

Ahn, Y.-Y., Ahnert, S. E., Bagrow, J. P. & Barabási, A.-L. Flavor network and the principles of food pairing. Sci. Rep. 1 , 196 (2011).

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Bartoshuk, L. M. & Klee, H. J. Better fruits and vegetables through sensory analysis. Curr. Biol. 23 , R374–R378 (2013).

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Piggott, J. R. Design questions in sensory and consumer science. Food Qual. Prefer. 3293 , 217–220 (1995).

Article   Google Scholar  

Kermit, M. & Lengard, V. Assessing the performance of a sensory panel-panellist monitoring and tracking. J. Chemom. 19 , 154–161 (2005).

Cook, D. J., Hollowood, T. A., Linforth, R. S. T. & Taylor, A. J. Correlating instrumental measurements of texture and flavour release with human perception. Int. J. Food Sci. Technol. 40 , 631–641 (2005).

Chinchanachokchai, S., Thontirawong, P. & Chinchanachokchai, P. A tale of two recommender systems: The moderating role of consumer expertise on artificial intelligence based product recommendations. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 61 , 1–12 (2021).

Ross, C. F. Sensory science at the human-machine interface. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 20 , 63–72 (2009).

Chambers, E. IV & Koppel, K. Associations of volatile compounds with sensory aroma and flavor: The complex nature of flavor. Molecules 18 , 4887–4905 (2013).

Pinu, F. R. Metabolomics—The new frontier in food safety and quality research. Food Res. Int. 72 , 80–81 (2015).

Danezis, G. P., Tsagkaris, A. S., Brusic, V. & Georgiou, C. A. Food authentication: state of the art and prospects. Curr. Opin. Food Sci. 10 , 22–31 (2016).

Shepherd, G. M. Smell images and the flavour system in the human brain. Nature 444 , 316–321 (2006).

Meilgaard, M. C. Prediction of flavor differences between beers from their chemical composition. J. Agric. Food Chem. 30 , 1009–1017 (1982).

Xu, L. et al. Widespread receptor-driven modulation in peripheral olfactory coding. Science 368 , eaaz5390 (2020).

Kupferschmidt, K. Following the flavor. Science 340 , 808–809 (2013).

Billesbølle, C. B. et al. Structural basis of odorant recognition by a human odorant receptor. Nature 615 , 742–749 (2023).

Article   ADS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Smith, B. Perspective: Complexities of flavour. Nature 486 , S6–S6 (2012).

Pfister, P. et al. Odorant receptor inhibition is fundamental to odor encoding. Curr. Biol. 30 , 2574–2587 (2020).

Moskowitz, H. W., Kumaraiah, V., Sharma, K. N., Jacobs, H. L. & Sharma, S. D. Cross-cultural differences in simple taste preferences. Science 190 , 1217–1218 (1975).

Eriksson, N. et al. A genetic variant near olfactory receptor genes influences cilantro preference. Flavour 1 , 22 (2012).

Ferdenzi, C. et al. Variability of affective responses to odors: Culture, gender, and olfactory knowledge. Chem. Senses 38 , 175–186 (2013).

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Lawless, H. T. & Heymann, H. Sensory evaluation of food: Principles and practices. (Springer, New York, NY). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-6488-5 (2010).

Colantonio, V. et al. Metabolomic selection for enhanced fruit flavor. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 119 , e2115865119 (2022).

Fritz, F., Preissner, R. & Banerjee, P. VirtualTaste: a web server for the prediction of organoleptic properties of chemical compounds. Nucleic Acids Res 49 , W679–W684 (2021).

Tuwani, R., Wadhwa, S. & Bagler, G. BitterSweet: Building machine learning models for predicting the bitter and sweet taste of small molecules. Sci. Rep. 9 , 1–13 (2019).

Dagan-Wiener, A. et al. Bitter or not? BitterPredict, a tool for predicting taste from chemical structure. Sci. Rep. 7 , 1–13 (2017).

Pallante, L. et al. Toward a general and interpretable umami taste predictor using a multi-objective machine learning approach. Sci. Rep. 12 , 1–11 (2022).

Malavolta, M. et al. A survey on computational taste predictors. Eur. Food Res. Technol. 248 , 2215–2235 (2022).

Lee, B. K. et al. A principal odor map unifies diverse tasks in olfactory perception. Science 381 , 999–1006 (2023).

Mayhew, E. J. et al. Transport features predict if a molecule is odorous. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 119 , e2116576119 (2022).

Niu, Y. et al. Sensory evaluation of the synergism among ester odorants in light aroma-type liquor by odor threshold, aroma intensity and flash GC electronic nose. Food Res. Int. 113 , 102–114 (2018).

Yu, P., Low, M. Y. & Zhou, W. Design of experiments and regression modelling in food flavour and sensory analysis: A review. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 71 , 202–215 (2018).

Oladokun, O. et al. The impact of hop bitter acid and polyphenol profiles on the perceived bitterness of beer. Food Chem. 205 , 212–220 (2016).

Linforth, R., Cabannes, M., Hewson, L., Yang, N. & Taylor, A. Effect of fat content on flavor delivery during consumption: An in vivo model. J. Agric. Food Chem. 58 , 6905–6911 (2010).

Guo, S., Na Jom, K. & Ge, Y. Influence of roasting condition on flavor profile of sunflower seeds: A flavoromics approach. Sci. Rep. 9 , 11295 (2019).

Ren, Q. et al. The changes of microbial community and flavor compound in the fermentation process of Chinese rice wine using Fagopyrum tataricum grain as feedstock. Sci. Rep. 9 , 3365 (2019).

Hastie, T., Friedman, J. & Tibshirani, R. The Elements of Statistical Learning. (Springer, New York, NY). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-21606-5 (2001).

Dietz, C., Cook, D., Huismann, M., Wilson, C. & Ford, R. The multisensory perception of hop essential oil: a review. J. Inst. Brew. 126 , 320–342 (2020).

CAS   Google Scholar  

Roncoroni, Miguel & Verstrepen, Kevin Joan. Belgian Beer: Tested and Tasted. (Lannoo, 2018).

Meilgaard, M. Flavor chemistry of beer: Part II: Flavor and threshold of 239 aroma volatiles. in (1975).

Bokulich, N. A. & Bamforth, C. W. The microbiology of malting and brewing. Microbiol. Mol. Biol. Rev. MMBR 77 , 157–172 (2013).

Dzialo, M. C., Park, R., Steensels, J., Lievens, B. & Verstrepen, K. J. Physiology, ecology and industrial applications of aroma formation in yeast. FEMS Microbiol. Rev. 41 , S95–S128 (2017).

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Datta, A. et al. Computer-aided food engineering. Nat. Food 3 , 894–904 (2022).

American Society of Brewing Chemists. Beer Methods. (American Society of Brewing Chemists, St. Paul, MN, U.S.A.).

Olaniran, A. O., Hiralal, L., Mokoena, M. P. & Pillay, B. Flavour-active volatile compounds in beer: production, regulation and control. J. Inst. Brew. 123 , 13–23 (2017).

Verstrepen, K. J. et al. Flavor-active esters: Adding fruitiness to beer. J. Biosci. Bioeng. 96 , 110–118 (2003).

Meilgaard, M. C. Flavour chemistry of beer. part I: flavour interaction between principal volatiles. Master Brew. Assoc. Am. Tech. Q 12 , 107–117 (1975).

Briggs, D. E., Boulton, C. A., Brookes, P. A. & Stevens, R. Brewing 227–254. (Woodhead Publishing). https://doi.org/10.1533/9781855739062.227 (2004).

Bossaert, S., Crauwels, S., De Rouck, G. & Lievens, B. The power of sour - A review: Old traditions, new opportunities. BrewingScience 72 , 78–88 (2019).

Google Scholar  

Verstrepen, K. J. et al. Flavor active esters: Adding fruitiness to beer. J. Biosci. Bioeng. 96 , 110–118 (2003).

Snauwaert, I. et al. Microbial diversity and metabolite composition of Belgian red-brown acidic ales. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 221 , 1–11 (2016).

Spitaels, F. et al. The microbial diversity of traditional spontaneously fermented lambic beer. PLoS ONE 9 , e95384 (2014).

Blanco, C. A., Andrés-Iglesias, C. & Montero, O. Low-alcohol Beers: Flavor Compounds, Defects, and Improvement Strategies. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 56 , 1379–1388 (2016).

Jackowski, M. & Trusek, A. Non-Alcohol. beer Prod. – Overv. 20 , 32–38 (2018).

Takoi, K. et al. The contribution of geraniol metabolism to the citrus flavour of beer: Synergy of geraniol and β-citronellol under coexistence with excess linalool. J. Inst. Brew. 116 , 251–260 (2010).

Kroeze, J. H. & Bartoshuk, L. M. Bitterness suppression as revealed by split-tongue taste stimulation in humans. Physiol. Behav. 35 , 779–783 (1985).

Mennella, J. A. et al. A spoonful of sugar helps the medicine go down”: Bitter masking bysucrose among children and adults. Chem. Senses 40 , 17–25 (2015).

Wietstock, P., Kunz, T., Perreira, F. & Methner, F.-J. Metal chelation behavior of hop acids in buffered model systems. BrewingScience 69 , 56–63 (2016).

Sancho, D., Blanco, C. A., Caballero, I. & Pascual, A. Free iron in pale, dark and alcohol-free commercial lager beers. J. Sci. Food Agric. 91 , 1142–1147 (2011).

Rodrigues, H. & Parr, W. V. Contribution of cross-cultural studies to understanding wine appreciation: A review. Food Res. Int. 115 , 251–258 (2019).

Korneva, E. & Blockeel, H. Towards better evaluation of multi-target regression models. in ECML PKDD 2020 Workshops (eds. Koprinska, I. et al.) 353–362 (Springer International Publishing, Cham, 2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-65965-3_23 .

Gastón Ares. Mathematical and Statistical Methods in Food Science and Technology. (Wiley, 2013).

Grinsztajn, L., Oyallon, E. & Varoquaux, G. Why do tree-based models still outperform deep learning on tabular data? Preprint at http://arxiv.org/abs/2207.08815 (2022).

Gries, S. T. Statistics for Linguistics with R: A Practical Introduction. in Statistics for Linguistics with R (De Gruyter Mouton, 2021). https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110718256 .

Lundberg, S. M. et al. From local explanations to global understanding with explainable AI for trees. Nat. Mach. Intell. 2 , 56–67 (2020).

Ickes, C. M. & Cadwallader, K. R. Effects of ethanol on flavor perception in alcoholic beverages. Chemosens. Percept. 10 , 119–134 (2017).

Kato, M. et al. Influence of high molecular weight polypeptides on the mouthfeel of commercial beer. J. Inst. Brew. 127 , 27–40 (2021).

Wauters, R. et al. Novel Saccharomyces cerevisiae variants slow down the accumulation of staling aldehydes and improve beer shelf-life. Food Chem. 398 , 1–11 (2023).

Li, H., Jia, S. & Zhang, W. Rapid determination of low-level sulfur compounds in beer by headspace gas chromatography with a pulsed flame photometric detector. J. Am. Soc. Brew. Chem. 66 , 188–191 (2008).

Dercksen, A., Laurens, J., Torline, P., Axcell, B. C. & Rohwer, E. Quantitative analysis of volatile sulfur compounds in beer using a membrane extraction interface. J. Am. Soc. Brew. Chem. 54 , 228–233 (1996).

Molnar, C. Interpretable Machine Learning: A Guide for Making Black-Box Models Interpretable. (2020).

Zhao, Q. & Hastie, T. Causal interpretations of black-box models. J. Bus. Econ. Stat. Publ. Am. Stat. Assoc. 39 , 272–281 (2019).

Article   MathSciNet   Google Scholar  

Hastie, T., Tibshirani, R. & Friedman, J. The Elements of Statistical Learning. (Springer, 2019).

Labrado, D. et al. Identification by NMR of key compounds present in beer distillates and residual phases after dealcoholization by vacuum distillation. J. Sci. Food Agric. 100 , 3971–3978 (2020).

Lusk, L. T., Kay, S. B., Porubcan, A. & Ryder, D. S. Key olfactory cues for beer oxidation. J. Am. Soc. Brew. Chem. 70 , 257–261 (2012).

Gonzalez Viejo, C., Torrico, D. D., Dunshea, F. R. & Fuentes, S. Development of artificial neural network models to assess beer acceptability based on sensory properties using a robotic pourer: A comparative model approach to achieve an artificial intelligence system. Beverages 5 , 33 (2019).

Gonzalez Viejo, C., Fuentes, S., Torrico, D. D., Godbole, A. & Dunshea, F. R. Chemical characterization of aromas in beer and their effect on consumers liking. Food Chem. 293 , 479–485 (2019).

Gilbert, J. L. et al. Identifying breeding priorities for blueberry flavor using biochemical, sensory, and genotype by environment analyses. PLOS ONE 10 , 1–21 (2015).

Goulet, C. et al. Role of an esterase in flavor volatile variation within the tomato clade. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 109 , 19009–19014 (2012).

Article   ADS   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Borisov, V. et al. Deep Neural Networks and Tabular Data: A Survey. IEEE Trans. Neural Netw. Learn. Syst. 1–21 https://doi.org/10.1109/TNNLS.2022.3229161 (2022).

Statista. Statista Consumer Market Outlook: Beer - Worldwide.

Seitz, H. K. & Stickel, F. Molecular mechanisms of alcoholmediated carcinogenesis. Nat. Rev. Cancer 7 , 599–612 (2007).

Voordeckers, K. et al. Ethanol exposure increases mutation rate through error-prone polymerases. Nat. Commun. 11 , 3664 (2020).

Goelen, T. et al. Bacterial phylogeny predicts volatile organic compound composition and olfactory response of an aphid parasitoid. Oikos 129 , 1415–1428 (2020).

Article   ADS   Google Scholar  

Reher, T. et al. Evaluation of hop (Humulus lupulus) as a repellent for the management of Drosophila suzukii. Crop Prot. 124 , 104839 (2019).

Stein, S. E. An integrated method for spectrum extraction and compound identification from gas chromatography/mass spectrometry data. J. Am. Soc. Mass Spectrom. 10 , 770–781 (1999).

American Society of Brewing Chemists. Sensory Analysis Methods. (American Society of Brewing Chemists, St. Paul, MN, U.S.A., 1992).

McAuley, J., Leskovec, J. & Jurafsky, D. Learning Attitudes and Attributes from Multi-Aspect Reviews. Preprint at https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1210.3926 (2012).

Meilgaard, M. C., Carr, B. T. & Carr, B. T. Sensory Evaluation Techniques. (CRC Press, Boca Raton). https://doi.org/10.1201/b16452 (2014).

Schreurs, M. et al. Data from: Predicting and improving complex beer flavor through machine learning. Zenodo https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10653704 (2024).

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank all lab members for their discussions and thank all tasting panel members for their contributions. Special thanks go out to Dr. Karin Voordeckers for her tremendous help in proofreading and improving the manuscript. M.S. was supported by a Baillet-Latour fellowship, L.C. acknowledges financial support from KU Leuven (C16/17/006), F.A.T. was supported by a PhD fellowship from FWO (1S08821N). Research in the lab of K.J.V. is supported by KU Leuven, FWO, VIB, VLAIO and the Brewing Science Serves Health Fund. Research in the lab of T.W. is supported by FWO (G.0A51.15) and KU Leuven (C16/17/006).

Author information

These authors contributed equally: Michiel Schreurs, Supinya Piampongsant, Miguel Roncoroni.

Authors and Affiliations

VIB—KU Leuven Center for Microbiology, Gaston Geenslaan 1, B-3001, Leuven, Belgium

Michiel Schreurs, Supinya Piampongsant, Miguel Roncoroni, Lloyd Cool, Beatriz Herrera-Malaver, Florian A. Theßeling & Kevin J. Verstrepen

CMPG Laboratory of Genetics and Genomics, KU Leuven, Gaston Geenslaan 1, B-3001, Leuven, Belgium

Leuven Institute for Beer Research (LIBR), Gaston Geenslaan 1, B-3001, Leuven, Belgium

Laboratory of Socioecology and Social Evolution, KU Leuven, Naamsestraat 59, B-3000, Leuven, Belgium

Lloyd Cool, Christophe Vanderaa & Tom Wenseleers

VIB Bioinformatics Core, VIB, Rijvisschestraat 120, B-9052, Ghent, Belgium

Łukasz Kreft & Alexander Botzki

AB InBev SA/NV, Brouwerijplein 1, B-3000, Leuven, Belgium

Philippe Malcorps & Luk Daenen

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

S.P., M.S. and K.J.V. conceived the experiments. S.P., M.S. and K.J.V. designed the experiments. S.P., M.S., M.R., B.H. and F.A.T. performed the experiments. S.P., M.S., L.C., C.V., L.K., A.B., P.M., L.D., T.W. and K.J.V. contributed analysis ideas. S.P., M.S., L.C., C.V., T.W. and K.J.V. analyzed the data. All authors contributed to writing the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kevin J. Verstrepen .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

K.J.V. is affiliated with bar.on. The other authors declare no competing interests.

Peer review

Peer review information.

Nature Communications thanks Florian Bauer, Andrew John Macintosh and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work. A peer review file is available.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Supplementary information, peer review file, description of additional supplementary files, supplementary data 1, supplementary data 2, supplementary data 3, supplementary data 4, supplementary data 5, supplementary data 6, supplementary data 7, reporting summary, source data, source data, rights and permissions.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Schreurs, M., Piampongsant, S., Roncoroni, M. et al. Predicting and improving complex beer flavor through machine learning. Nat Commun 15 , 2368 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-024-46346-0

Download citation

Received : 30 October 2023

Accepted : 21 February 2024

Published : 26 March 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-024-46346-0

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines . If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

Sign up for the Nature Briefing: Translational Research newsletter — top stories in biotechnology, drug discovery and pharma.

• Search for: Toggle Search

Instant Latte: NVIDIA Gen AI Research Brews 3D Shapes in Under a Second

NVIDIA researchers have pumped a double shot of acceleration into their latest text-to-3D generative AI model, dubbed LATTE3D.

Like a virtual 3D printer, LATTE3D turns text prompts into 3D representations of objects and animals within a second.

Crafted in a popular format used for standard rendering applications, the generated shapes can be easily served up in virtual environments for developing video games, ad campaigns, design projects or virtual training grounds for robotics.

“A year ago, it took an hour for AI models to generate 3D visuals of this quality — and the current state of the art is now around 10 to 12 seconds,” said Sanja Fidler, vice president of AI research at NVIDIA, whose Toronto-based AI lab team developed LATTE3D. “We can now produce results an order of magnitude faster, putting near-real-time text-to-3D generation within reach for creators across industries.”

This advancement means that LATTE3D can produce 3D shapes near instantly when running inference on a single GPU, such as the NVIDIA RTX A6000 , which was used for the NVIDIA Research demo.

Ideate, Generate, Iterate: Shortening the Cycle

Instead of starting a design from scratch or combing through a 3D asset library, a creator could use LATTE3D to generate detailed objects as quickly as ideas pop into their head.

The model generates a few different 3D shape options based on each text prompt, giving a creator options. Selected objects can be optimized for higher quality within a few minutes. Then, users can export the shape into graphics software applications or platforms such as NVIDIA Omniverse , which enables Universal Scene Description (OpenUSD) -based 3D workflows and applications.

While the researchers trained LATTE3D on two specific datasets — animals and everyday objects — developers could use the same model architecture to train the AI on other data types.

If trained on a dataset of 3D plants, for example, a version of LATTE3D could help a landscape designer quickly fill out a garden rendering with trees, flowering bushes and succulents while brainstorming with a client. If trained on household objects, the model could generate items to fill in 3D simulations of homes, which developers could use to train personal assistant robots before they’re tested and deployed in the real world.

LATTE3D was trained using NVIDIA A100 Tensor Core GPUs . In addition to 3D shapes, the model was trained on diverse text prompts generated using ChatGPT to improve the model’s ability to handle the various phrases a user might come up with to describe a particular 3D object — for example, understanding that prompts featuring various canine species should all generate doglike shapes.

NVIDIA Research comprises hundreds of scientists and engineers worldwide, with teams focused on topics including AI, computer graphics, computer vision, self-driving cars and robotics.

Researchers shared work at NVIDIA GTC this week that advances the state of the art for training diffusion models. Read more on the NVIDIA Technical Blog , and see the full list of NVIDIA Research sessions at GTC , running in San Jose, Calif., and online through March 21.

For the latest NVIDIA AI news, watch the replay of NVIDIA founder and CEO Jensen Huang’s keynote address at GTC: 

NVIDIA websites use cookies to deliver and improve the website experience. See our cookie policy for further details on how we use cookies and how to change your cookie settings.

Share on Mastodon

To revisit this article, visit My Profile, then View saved stories .

• Backchannel
• Newsletters
• WIRED Insider
• WIRED Consulting

Will Knight

Apple’s MM1 AI Model Shows a Sleeping Giant Is Waking Up

While the tech industry went gaga for generative artificial intelligence , one giant has held back: Apple. The company has yet to introduce so much as an AI-generated emoji, and according to a New York Times report today and earlier reporting from Bloomberg, it is in preliminary talks with Google about adding the search company’s Gemini AI model to iPhones .

Yet a research paper quietly posted online last Friday by Apple engineers suggests that the company is making significant new investments into AI that are already bearing fruit. It details the development of a new generative AI model called MM1 capable of working with text and images. The researchers show it answering questions about photos and displaying the kind of general knowledge skills shown by chatbots like ChatGPT. The model’s name is not explained but could stand for MultiModal 1. MM1 appears to be similar in design and sophistication to a variety of recent AI models from other tech giants, including Meta’s open source Llama 2 and Google’s Gemini . Work by Apple’s rivals and academics shows that models of this type can be used to power capable chatbots or build “agents” that can solve tasks by writing code and taking actions such as using computer interfaces or websites. That suggests MM1 could yet find its way into Apple’s products.

“The fact that they’re doing this, it shows they have the ability to understand how to train and how to build these models,” says Ruslan Salakhutdinov , a professor at Carnegie Mellon who led AI research at Apple several years ago. “It requires a certain amount of expertise.”

MM1 is a multimodal large language model, or MLLM, meaning it is trained on images as well as text. This allows the model to respond to text prompts and also answer complex questions about particular images.

One example in the Apple research paper shows what happened when MM1 was provided with a photo of a sun-dappled restaurant table with a couple of beer bottles and also an image of the menu. When asked how much someone would expect to pay for “all the beer on the table,” the model correctly reads off the correct price and tallies up the cost.

When ChatGPT launched in November 2022, it could only ingest and generate text, but more recently its creator OpenAI and others have worked to expand the underlying large language model technology to work with other kinds of data. When Google launched Gemini (the model that now powers its answer to ChatGPT ) last December, the company touted its multimodal nature as beginning an important new direction in AI. “After the rise of LLMs, MLLMs are emerging as the next frontier in foundation models,” Apple’s paper says.

MM1 is a relatively small model as measured by its number of “parameters,” or the internal variables that get adjusted as a model is trained. Kate Saenko , a professor at Boston University who specializes in computer vision and machine learning, says this could make it easier for Apple’s engineers to experiment with different training methods and refinements before scaling up when they hit on something promising.

Saenko says the MM1 paper provides a surprising amount of detail on how the model was trained for a corporate publication. For instance, the engineers behind MM1 describe tricks for improving the performance of the model including increasing the resolution of images and mixing text and image data. Apple is famed for its secrecy, but it has previously shown unusual openness about AI research as it has sought to lure the talent needed to compete in the crucial technology.

Adrienne So

Saenko says it’s hard to draw too many conclusions about Apple’s plans from the research paper. Multimodal models have proven adaptable to many different use cases. But she suggests that MM1 could perhaps be a step toward building “some type of multimodal assistant that can describe photos, documents, or charts and answer questions about them.”

Apple’s flagship product, the iPhone, already has an AI assistant—Siri. The rise of ChatGPT and its rivals has quickly made the once revolutionary helper look increasingly limited and out-dated. Amazon and Google have said they are integrating LLM technology into their own assistants, Alexa and Google Assistant. Google allows users of Android phones to replace the Assistant with Gemini. Reports from The New York Times and Bloomberg that Apple may add Google’s Gemini to iPhones suggest Apple is considering expanding the strategy it has used for search on mobile devices to generative AI. Rather than develop web search technology in-house, the iPhone maker leans on Google, which reportedly pays more than $18 billion to make its search engine the iPhone default. Apple has also shown it can build its own alternatives to outside services, even when it starts from behind. Google Maps used to be the default on iPhones but in 2012 Apple replaced it with its own maps app .

Apple CEO Tim Cook has promised investors that the company will reveal more of its generative AI plans this year. The company faces pressure to keep up with rival smartphone makers, including Samsung and Google, that have introduced a raft of generative AI tools for their devices.

Apple could end up tapping both Google and its own, in-house AI, perhaps by introducing Gemini as a replacement for conventional Google Search while also building new generative AI tools on top of MM1 and other homegrown models. Last September, several of the researchers behind MM1 published details of MGIE , a tool that uses generative AI to manipulate images based on a text prompt.

Salakhutdinov believes his former employer may focus on developing LLMs that can be installed and run securely on Apple devices. That would fit with the company’s past emphasis on using “on-device” algorithms to safeguard sensitive data and avoid sharing it with other companies. A number of recent AI research papers from Apple concern machine-learning methods designed to preserve user privacy. “I think that's probably what Apple is going to do,” he says.

When it comes to tailoring generative AI to devices, Salakhutdinov says, Apple may yet turn out to have a distinct advantage because of its control over the entire software-hardware stack. The company has included a custom “neural engine” in the chips that power its mobile devices since 2017, with the debut of the iPhone X. “Apple is definitely working in that space, and I think at some point they will be in the front, because they have phones, the distribution.”

In a thread on X, Apple researcher Brandon McKinzie, lead author of the MM1 paper wrote : “This is just the beginning. The team is already hard at work on the next generation of models.”

You Might Also Like …

In your inbox: Will Knight's Fast Forward explores advances in AI

This shadowy firm enables businesses to operate in near-total secrecy

Scientists are inching closer to bringing back the woolly mammoth

The first rule of the Extreme Dishwasher Loading Facebook group is …

Phones for every budget: These devices stood up to WIRED’s testing

Morgan Meaker

Makena Kelly

Vittoria Elliott