Understanding CNN fragility when learning with imbalanced data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Convolutional neural networks (CNNs) have achieved impressive results on imbalanced image data, but they still have difficulty generalizing to minority classes and their decisions are difficult to interpret. These problems are related because the method by which CNNs generalize to minority classes, which requires improvement, is wrapped in a black-box. To demystify CNN decisions on imbalanced data, we focus on their latent features. Although CNNs embed the pattern knowledge learned from a training set in model parameters, the effect of this knowledge is contained in feature and classification embeddings ( FE and CE ). These embeddings can be extracted from a trained model and their global, class properties (e.g., frequency, magnitude and identity) can be analyzed. We find that important information regarding the ability of a neural network to generalize to minority classes resides in the class top-K CE and FE . We show that a CNN learns a limited number of class top-K CE per category, and that their magnitudes vary based on whether the same class is balanced or imbalanced. We hypothesize that latent class diversity is as important as the number of class examples, which has important implications for re-sampling and cost-sensitive methods. These methods generally focus on rebalancing model weights, class numbers and margins; instead of diversifying class latent features. We also demonstrate that a CNN has difficulty generalizing to test data if the magnitude of its top-K latent features do not match the training set. We use three popular image datasets and two cost-sensitive algorithms commonly employed in imbalanced learning for our experiments.
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 | 0.003 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".