A Measure Optimized Cost-Sensitive Learning Framework for Imbalanced Data Classification
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Class imbalance is one of the challenging problems for machine-learning in many real-world applications. Many methods have been proposed to address and attempt to solve the problem, including sampling and cost-sensitive learning. The latter has attracted significant attention in recent years to solve the problem, but it is difficult to determine the precise misclassification costs in practice. There are also other factors that influence the performance of the classification including the input feature subset and the intrinsic parameters of the classifier. This chapter presents an effective wrapper framework incorporating the evaluation measure (AUC and G-mean) into the objective function of cost sensitive learning directly to improve the performance of classification by simultaneously optimizing the best pair of feature subset, intrinsic parameters, and misclassification cost parameter. The optimization is based on Particle Swarm Optimization (PSO). The authors use two different common methods, support vector machine and feed forward neural networks, to evaluate the proposed framework. Experimental results on various standard benchmark datasets with different ratios of imbalance and a real-world problem show that the proposed method is effective in comparison with commonly used sampling techniques.
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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| 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 it