A systematic review of machine learning-based missing value imputation techniques
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The primary aim of this study is to review the studies from different dimensions including type of methods, experimentation setup and evaluation metrics used in the novel approaches proposed for data imputation, particularly in the machine learning (ML) area. This ultimately provides an understanding about how well the proposed framework is evaluated and what type and ratio of missingness are addressed in the proposals. The review questions in this study are (1) what are the ML-based imputation methods studied and proposed during 2010–2020? (2) How the experimentation setup, characteristics of data sets and missingness are employed in these studies? (3) What metrics were used for the evaluation of imputation method? Design/methodology/approach The review process went through the standard identification, screening and selection process. The initial search on electronic databases for missing value imputation (MVI) based on ML algorithms returned a large number of papers totaling at 2,883. Most of the papers at this stage were not exactly an MVI technique relevant to this study. The literature reviews are first scanned in the title for relevancy, and 306 literature reviews were identified as appropriate. Upon reviewing the abstract text, 151 literature reviews that are not eligible for this study are dropped. This resulted in 155 research papers suitable for full-text review. From this, 117 papers are used in assessment of the review questions. Findings This study shows that clustering- and instance-based algorithms are the most proposed MVI methods. Percentage of correct prediction (PCP) and root mean square error (RMSE) are most used evaluation metrics in these studies. For experimentation, majority of the studies sourced the data sets from publicly available data set repositories. A common approach is that the complete data set is set as baseline to evaluate the effectiveness of imputation on the test data sets with artificially induced missingness. The data set size and missingness ratio varied across the experimentations, while missing datatype and mechanism are pertaining to the capability of imputation. Computational expense is a concern, and experimentation using large data sets appears to be a challenge. Originality/value It is understood from the review that there is no single universal solution to missing data problem. Variants of ML approaches work well with the missingness based on the characteristics of the data set. Most of the methods reviewed lack generalization with regard to applicability. Another concern related to applicability is the complexity of the formulation and implementation of the algorithm. Imputations based on k -nearest neighbors (kNN) and clustering algorithms which are simple and easy to implement make it popular across various domains.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.049 | 0.228 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.011 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.017 | 0.016 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".