Resampling strategies for imbalanced regression: a survey and empirical analysis
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
Abstract Imbalanced problems can arise in different real-world situations, and to address this, certain strategies in the form of resampling or balancing algorithms are proposed. This issue has largely been studied in the context of classification, and yet, the same problem features in regression tasks, where target values are continuous. This work presents an extensive experimental study comprising various balancing and predictive models, and wich uses metrics to capture important elements for the user and to evaluate the predictive model in an imbalanced regression data context. It also proposes a taxonomy for imbalanced regression approaches based on three crucial criteria: regression model, learning process, and evaluation metrics. The study offers new insights into the use of such strategies, highlighting the advantages they bring to each model’s learning process, and indicating directions for further studies. The code, data and further information related to the experiments performed herein can be found on GitHub: https://github.com/JusciAvelino/imbalancedRegression .
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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