Leveraging Group Classification with Descending Soft Labeling for Deep Imbalanced Regression
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Deep imbalanced regression (DIR), where the target values have a highly skewed distribution and are also continuous, is an intriguing yet under-explored problem in machine learning. While recent works have already shown that incorporating various classification-based regularizers can produce enhanced outcomes, the role of classification remains elusive in DIR. Moreover, such regularizers (e.g., contrastive penalties) merely focus on learning discriminative features of data, which inevitably results in ignorance of either continuity or similarity across the data. To address these issues, we first bridge the connection between the objectives of DIR and classification from a Bayesian perspective. Consequently, this motivates us to decompose the objective of DIR into a combination of classification and regression tasks, which naturally guides us toward a divide-and-conquer manner to solve the DIR problem. Specifically, by aggregating the data at nearby labels into the same groups, we introduce an ordinal group-aware contrastive learning loss along with a multi-experts regressor to tackle the different groups of data thereby maintaining the data continuity. Meanwhile, considering the similarity between the groups, we also propose a symmetric descending soft labeling strategy to exploit the intrinsic similarity across the data, which allows classification to facilitate regression more effectively. Extensive experiments on real-world datasets also validate the effectiveness of our method.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.002 | 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 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".