Divide-and-Conquer Hard-thresholding Rules in High-dimensional Imbalanced Classification
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In binary classification, imbalance refers to situations in which one class is heavily under-represented. This issue is due to either a data collection process or because one class is indeed rare in a population. Imbalanced classification frequently arises in applications such as biology, medicine, engineering, and social sciences. In this manuscript, for the first time, we theoretically study the impact of imbalance class sizes on the linear discriminant analysis (LDA) in high dimensions. We show that due to data scarcity in one class, referred to as the minority class, and high-dimensionality of the feature space, the LDA ignores the minority class yielding a maximum misclassification rate. We then propose a new construction of a hard-thresholding rule based on a divide-and-conquer technique that reduces the large difference between the misclassification rates. We show that the proposed method is asymptotically optimal. We further study two well-known sparse versions of the LDA in imbalanced cases. We evaluate the finite-sample performance of different methods using simulations and by analyzing two real data sets. The results show that our method either outperforms its competitors or has comparable performance based on a much smaller subset of selected features, while being computationally more efficient.
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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".