Types of minority class examples and their influence on learning classifiers from imbalanced data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many real-world applications reveal difficulties in learning classifiers from imbalanced data. Although several methods for improving classifiers have been introduced, the identification of conditions for the efficient use of the particular method is still an open research problem. It is also worth to study the nature of imbalanced data, characteristics of the minority class distribution and their influence on classification performance. However, current studies on imbalanced data difficulty factors have been mainly done with artificial datasets and their conclusions are not easily applicable to the real-world problems, also because the methods for their identification are not sufficiently developed. In our paper, we capture difficulties of class distribution in real datasets by considering four types of minority class examples: safe, borderline, rare and outliers. First, we confirm their occurrence in real data by exploring multidimensional visualizations of selected datasets. Then, we introduce a method for an identification of these types of examples, which is based on analyzing a class distribution in a local neighbourhood of the considered example. Two ways of modeling this neighbourhood are presented: with k-nearest examples and with kernel functions. Experiments with artificial datasets show that these methods are able to re-discover simulated types of examples. Next contributions of this paper include carrying out a comprehensive experimental study with 26 real world imbalanced datasets, where (1) we identify new data characteristics basing on the analysis of types of minority examples; (2) we demonstrate that considering the results of this analysis allow to differentiate classification performance of popular classifiers and pre-processing methods and to evaluate their areas of competence. Finally, we highlight directions of exploiting the results of our analysis for developing new algorithms for learning classifiers and pre-processing methods.
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 | 0.014 | 0.078 |
| 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 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".