MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4387623800 · doi:10.1109/tsmc.2023.3319694

A New Oversampling Method Based on Triangulation of Sample Space

2023· article· en· W4387623800 on OpenAlexaff
Yueqi Chen, Witold Pedrycz, Jian Wang, Chao Zhang, Jie Yang

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Systems Man and Cybernetics Systems · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicFace and Expression Recognition
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersFundamental Research Funds for the Central UniversitiesNational Key Research and Development Program of ChinaNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsOversamplingSample (material)TriangulationSpace (punctuation)Computer scienceArtificial intelligenceGeographyCartographyPhysicsTelecommunicationsBandwidth (computing)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Coping with imbalanced data is a challenging task in practical classification problems. One of effective methods to solve imbalanced problems is to oversample the minority class. Gls SMOTE is a classical oversampling method. However, it exhibits two disadvantages, namely, a linear generation and overgeneralization. In this article, an improved synthetic minority oversampling technique (SMOTE) method, FE- SMOTE, is proposed based on the idea of the method of finite elements. FE- SMOTE not only overcomes the above two disadvantages of SMOTE but also can generate samples that are more in line with the density distribution of the original minority class than those generated by the existing SMOTE variants. The originality of the proposed method stems from constructing a simplex for every minority sample and then triangulating it to expand the region of synthetic samples from lines to space. A new definition of the relative size for triangular elements not only helps determine the number of synthetic samples but also weakens the adverse impact of outliers. Generated samples by FE- SMOTE can effectively reflect the local potential distribution structure arising around every minority sample. Compared with 16 commonly studied oversampling methods, FE- SMOTE produces promising results quantified in terms of$G$-mean, AUC,$F$-measure, and accuracy on 22 benchmark imbalanced datasets and the big dataset MNIST.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.031
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.243 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations7
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Systems Man and Cybernetics SystemsSame topicFace and Expression RecognitionFrench-language works237,207