REVIEW 1 cited by
Improved Sampling Techniques for Learning an Imbalanced Data Set
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
Signed reviews
read the original abstract
This paper presents the performance of a classifier built using the stackingC algorithm in nine different data sets. Each data set is generated using a sampling technique applied on the original imbalanced data set. Five new sampling techniques are proposed in this paper (i.e., SMOTERandRep, Lax Random Oversampling, Lax Random Undersampling, Combined-Lax Random Oversampling Undersampling, and Combined-Lax Random Undersampling Oversampling) that were based on the three sampling techniques (i.e., Random Undersampling, Random Oversampling, and Synthetic Minority Oversampling Technique) usually used as solutions in imbalance learning. The metrics used to evaluate the classifier's performance were F-measure and G-mean. F-measure determines the performance of the classifier for every class, while G-mean measures the overall performance of the classifier. The results using F-measure showed that for the data without a sampling technique, the classifier's performance is good only for the majority class. It also showed that among the eight sampling techniques, RU and LRU have the worst performance while other techniques (i.e., RO, C-LRUO and C-LROU) performed well only on some classes. The best performing techniques in all data sets were SMOTE, SMOTERandRep, and LRO having the lowest F-measure values between 0.5 and 0.65. The results using G-mean showed that the oversampling technique that attained the highest G-mean value is LRO (0.86), next is C-LROU (0.85), then SMOTE (0.84) and finally is SMOTERandRep (0.83). Combining the result of the two metrics (F-measure and G-mean), only the three sampling techniques are considered as good performing (i.e., LRO, SMOTE, and SMOTERandRep).
Forward citations
Cited by 1 Pith paper
-
Ustnlp16 at SemEval-2025 Task 9: Improving Model Performance through Imbalance Handling and Focal Loss
On the SemEval-2025 food hazard detection task, Easy Data Augmentation outperformed oversampling and focal loss combinations, raising BERT's product-label accuracy from 0.22 to 0.55.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.