Enhancing Model Performance in Hybrid Class Imbalance Techniques
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Class imbalance is a crucial issue in real world scenarios. Traditional classifiers trained with imbalanced datasets become biased towards the majority class (class with more instances), resulting in misclassification. Therefore, it is essential to have uniform class distribution within the dataset. Ensemble methods have gained more attention from the researchers for managing the issue of imbalance distribution of classes. In this paper, three hybrid approaches are implemented using Over-sampling technique (Adaptive Synthetic Sampling- ADASYN) and Ensemble methods: Bagging, Boosting and Stacking. The performance of these hybrid approaches (ADASYN-Bagging, ADASYN-Boosting and ADASYN-Stacking) is evaluated using four performance metrics Accuracy (ACC), F 1 -score, Geometric-mean (GM) and Receiver operator characteristics Area under the ROC curve (ROC-AUC) on twelve imbalanced datasets taken from KEEL repository. The study suggest that ADASYN-Stacking outperforms all other approaches with ROC-AUC value 99.93%.
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 | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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.
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".