MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409363516 · doi:10.1609/aaai.v39i19.34200

Leveraging Group Classification with Descending Soft Labeling for Deep Imbalanced Regression

2025· article· en· W4409363516 on OpenAlexafffund
Ruizhi Pu, Gezheng Xu, Ruiyi Fang, Bing-Kun Bao, Charles X. Ling, Boyu Wang

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicImbalanced Data Classification Techniques
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsArtificial intelligenceRegressionGroup (periodic table)Computer sciencePattern recognition (psychology)Natural language processingStatisticsMathematicsChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.030

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.004
Open science0.0030.004
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.078
GPT teacher head0.320
Teacher spread0.242 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial IntelligenceSame topicImbalanced Data Classification TechniquesFrench-language works237,207