Data Level Approach for Multiclass Imbalance Financial Data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the real world, the class imbalance problem is a common issue in which classifier gives more importance to the majority class whereas less importance to the minority class. In class imbalance, imbalance metrics would not be suitable to evaluate the performance of classifiers with error rate or predictive accuracy. One type of imbalance data -handling method is resampling. In this paper, three resampling methods, oversampling, under-sampling and hybrid, methods are used with different approaches for in class imbalance of two different financial data to see the impact of class imbalance ratios on performance measures of nine different classification algorithms. Aiming to achieve better change classification performance, the performance of the classification algorithms, Bayes Net, Navie Bayes, J48, Random Forest Meta-Attribute Selected Classifier, MetaClassification via Regression, Meta-Logitboost, Logistic Regression, and Decision Tree, are measured on two Canadian Banks multiclass imbalance data with the performance measures, Precision, Recall, ROC Area and Kappa Statistic, by using WEKA software. The outcome of these performance measurements compared with three different resampling methods. The results provide us with a clear picture on the overall impact of class imbalance on the classification dataset and they indicate that proposed resampling methods can also be used for in class imbalance problems
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.008 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".