MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2119480209 · doi:10.1109/lgrs.2009.2021964

Mine Classification With Imbalanced Data

2009· article· en· W2119480209 on OpenAlexaff
David P. Williams, Vincent Myers, Miranda Schatten Silvious

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Geoscience and Remote Sensing Letters · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMachine Learning and Algorithms
Canadian institutionsDefence Research and Development Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsClutterComputer scienceSonarOne-class classificationData miningStatistical classificationClass (philosophy)Data setRadarLogistic regressionSupport vector machineSet (abstract data type)Classification ruleArtificial intelligenceRemote sensingPattern recognition (psychology)Machine learningGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In many remote-sensing classification problems, the number of targets (e.g., mines) present is very small compared with the number of clutter objects. Traditional classification approaches usually ignore this class imbalance, causing performance to suffer accordingly. In contrast, the recently developed infinitely imbalanced logistic regression (IILR) algorithm explicitly addresses class imbalance in its formulation. We describe this algorithm and give the details necessary to employ it for remote-sensing data sets that are characterized by class imbalance. The method is applied to the problem of mine classification on three real measured data sets. Specifically, classification performance using the IILR algorithm is shown to exceed that of a standard logistic regression approach on two land-mine data sets collected with a ground-penetrating radar and on one underwater-mine data set collected with a sidescan sonar.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.021
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.042

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.021
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.023
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.236 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations89
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Geoscience and Remote Sensing LettersSame topicMachine Learning and AlgorithmsFrench-language works237,207