L2P: Learning to Place for Estimating Heavy-Tailed Distributed Outcomes

Onur Varol; Tina Eliassi-Rad; Xindi Wang

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 32 references

L2P: Learning to Place for Estimating Heavy-Tailed Distributed Outcomes

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that heavy-tailed outcome prediction is best done by learning pairwise comparisons between instances and then voting on where a new instance falls among known outcomes.

desk verdict L2P is a sensible and clearly described two-phase method, but the paper's central accuracy claim is not directly measured; it deserves serious refereeing, not a desk rejection. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.04628 v3 pith:LOPBQMMM submitted 2019-08-13 cs.LG cs.DSstat.ML

Xindi Wang , Onur Varol , Tina Eliassi-Rad This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.LGcs.DSstat.ML

keywords heavy-taileddistributionsoutcomepredictionpairwisepreferencelearningtorankvoting-basedplacementbooksalesartauctionpriceinterpretablemachine

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper introduces L2P, a two-phase method for predicting outcomes with heavy-tailed distributions such as book sales and art auction prices. Instead of regressing directly on the outcome value, L2P trains a classifier on pairwise comparisons—which of two instances has the larger outcome—then places a new instance among the training instances by voting and reads off the prediction from the bin with the most votes. The paper argues that this indirect route preserves the heavy-tailed shape of the distribution and avoids the systematic under-prediction of 'big and rare' instances that direct regression suffers. On three real datasets, L2P reports the best combination of distribution reproduction (low KS/EMD), ranking accuracy (high adapted AUC), and interpretability, and remains stable when up to 45% of pairwise relationships are randomly wrong. If correct, this makes pairwise comparison plus placement a stronger default than direct regression when the target is heavy-tailed.

What carries the argument

The central object is the pairwise preference classifier C trained on concatenated feature vectors $[f_i, f_j]$ with labels $+1$ if $t_i > t_j$ and $-1$ otherwise. The placing stage turns this classifier into predictions: bins along the sorted target-value axis receive upvotes and downvotes from each training instance according to the predicted relationship direction, and the midpoint of the bin with the maximum total vote is the prediction. The paper shows this argmax vote count is a maximum likelihood estimate of the optimal bin under a uniform prior over bins and probabilities $p^l_i(q)$ and $p^r_i(q)$, so the mechanism is an ordinal-placement estimator rather than a score regression. The voting step is linear in $n$ and can absorb substantial pairwise classification error.

What would settle it

Run L2P and the baselines on the same three datasets and compute the mean absolute error on log-transformed outcomes. If XGBoost or LambdaMART achieves lower pointwise error while L2P only wins on adapted AUC and distribution distances, the central claim of accurate prediction would be falsified; a sharper version is to compare errors restricted to the top 5% of outcomes.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

L2P claims that for heavy-tailed outcome variables, prediction accuracy and distribution fidelity are better achieved by recasting regression as a placement problem. Training builds a classifier over concatenated feature vectors of instance pairs, labeled by which instance's target value is larger. At test time, the classifier predicts the pairwise relationship between the new instance and every training instance; each training instance votes on all bins left or right of its own target value depending on the predicted relationship; and the bin with the highest vote determines the prediction. The paper argues via a maximum-likelihood calculation that this voting scheme is the optimal placement given the pairwise preferences, and it reports that L2P reaches top-tier AUC while also giving the most faithful heavy-tailed distribution in Q-Q plots and KS/EMD scores across nonfiction, fiction, and art auction data. It does not report a direct pointwise error metric such as mean absolute error.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that high scores on the paper's adapted ranking and distribution-matching metrics really mean accurate prediction, even though the paper notes that randomly shuffled true values can perfectly match the outcome distribution and the ranking metric does not measure error on individual values.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If L2P is right, practitioners predicting sales, prices, or demand with heavy tails should expect less under-prediction of top instances than from direct regression or XGBoost.
Because placement is derived from pairwise order, the predicted distribution retains the heavy tail and should match Q-Q plots at high quantiles better than methods optimizing only point loss.
The method's robustness means imperfect pairwise classifiers are acceptable: up to about 45% random pair errors leave overall AUC nearly unchanged.
Each prediction comes with interpretable context—the neighboring training instances it was placed between—useful for decisions like publisher advances or artist representation.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

A direct pointwise error comparison, such as mean absolute error on log-transformed outcomes, would sharpen the empirical claim; the reported AUC and distribution distances alone leave open whether L2P's advantage is mainly in ordering.
Because randomly shuffled true outcomes can achieve near-perfect KS and EMD, any heavy-tail method should be benchmarked against random permutation as a lower bound to show that distribution fidelity is not trivial.
A natural extension is a hybrid approach that uses direct regression for mid-tail values and placement voting to protect the tail, or applying L2P to other heavy-tailed targets such as insurance claims or online engagement counts.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

The paper proposes L2P, a two-phase method that trains a pairwise comparison classifier and then places new instances among training examples by voting over bins of the target variable. The adaptation of ordinal regression ideas to heavy-tailed prediction is not something I've seen done quite this way, and the presentation is refreshingly clear about how the method works. The placing-by-voting step is simple, interpretable, and O(n) at prediction time, which practitioners will like. The authors also include a robustness analysis showing that the voting stage tolerates a fair amount of classifier error, and they make code and data available. That is real work, and it deserves credit.

The soft spot is significant and directly hits the paper's main claim. The abstract says L2P outperforms competitors at both reproducing the heavy-tailed distribution and accurately predicting instance values, especially for 'big and rare' instances. But the evaluation never reports a direct point accuracy metric. The adapted AUC is a threshold-ranking measure: it tests whether predicted values exceed each actual threshold, not how close the predictions are. KS, EMD, and Q-Q plots compare marginal distributions, and the paper itself concedes that a random shuffle of true outcomes achieves perfect KS and EMD. So a model that ranks well and reproduces the marginal distribution could still make large per-instance errors—particularly in the tail, where the authors claim the advantage. This matters because L2P's predictions are structurally limited: Algorithm 2 returns the midpoint of a bin, so predictions are coarse and bounded by the training range. The claim of 'accurate predictions' is therefore not yet established.

There are lesser issues too. The comparisons use only three datasets, all from domains the authors already work in, with no significance tests. The MLE derivation in Section 2.1 is a sketch with assumptions stated but not validated. The efficient training variant's hyperparameters (ns, k) are not reported, so the exact experiments cannot be reproduced from the text alone. None of these are fatal, but together they make the strong empirical claim conditional.

Who is this for? Researchers in robust regression and practitioners in book sales, art pricing, and inventory forecasting will find the method interesting as an interpretable alternative to direct regression. The paper is not a finished proof of superiority, but it is a legitimate proposal. A serious referee should ask for log-scale MAE/RMSE, significance tests, and an analysis of how the binning granularity affects point predictions. With those additions, L2P could be a solid practical contribution. I would not desk-reject it, and I would bring it to a reading group to discuss the evaluation gap, but I would not yet cite it as the established best method for heavy-tailed prediction.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes L2P, a two-stage method for predicting heavy-tailed outcome variables. In the training stage, L2P learns a binary pairwise-preference classifier on concatenated feature pairs labeled by which instance has the larger target value. In the placing stage, it compares a test instance to every training instance, converts the predicted pairwise relations into +/-1 votes over bins sorted by training target values, and predicts the midpoint of the highest-vote bin. The authors claim that L2P consistently outperforms six baselines on three real-world datasets (nonfiction book sales, fiction book sales, and art auction prices) both in reproducing the heavy-tailed distribution and in accurately predicting instance values, especially for 'big and rare' tail instances. A theoretical section argues that the voting stage is a maximum likelihood estimate of the optimal bin, and case studies illustrate model interpretability.

Significance. If the claimed empirical advantage were established, L2P would be a practically useful default for heavy-tailed targets, with the additional benefit of interpretable placements. Strengths of the paper include a clearly specified algorithm, publicly available code, 5-fold cross-validation, and comparison with six methods, including heavy-tailed linear regression and LambdaMART. However, the current evaluation does not measure per-instance point accuracy, so the load-bearing claim of accurate prediction, particularly for tail instances, is not yet demonstrated. The contribution is potentially significant but needs additional evaluation before its central claim can be accepted.

major comments (3)

[Section 3.3, Eq. (3); Fig. 3] The evaluation does not measure point prediction accuracy, yet 'accurate predictions' is a central claim (abstract; Section 3.4.1 takeaway). The adapted AUC in Eq. (3) is a threshold-ranking metric: it checks whether predicted values exceed each actual threshold, not whether predicted and actual values are close. KS, EMD, and Q-Q plots compare marginal distributions, and the paper itself notes (Section 3.3) that random shuffling of true outcomes would achieve KS=0 and EMD=0. Consequently, a model could rank well and reproduce the marginal distribution while making large per-instance errors, such as systematically compressed predictions, especially in the tail. Please add direct error metrics on the original and log scales (MAE, RMSE, and mean/median absolute relative error), report fold-level means and standard deviations, and break these out for tail groups (e.g., top 1% and 5% of outcomes). Without these, the claim of consistent outperformance in accurate prediction is unsupported.
[Algorithm 2; Section 3.4.1] The placing phase predicts the midpoint of adjacent unique training target values, so L2P's predictions are structurally bounded by the minimum and maximum observed training values. This matters for the claimed strength on 'big and rare' tail instances: if a held-out tail instance exceeds the training maximum, L2P cannot produce a value that large. The paper does not report how many test instances fall outside the training target range, nor their prediction errors. Please quantify this; if L2P cannot extrapolate beyond the training range, the tail-accuracy claim should be qualified accordingly.
[Section 2.1] The theoretical justification that voting is a maximum likelihood estimator is a sketch, and the assumptions are not validated for the implemented algorithm. The derivation assumes independent evidence across training instances, a uniform prior over bins, and uniform conditional probability within the right/left region (footnote 4), but the implementation thresholds the pairwise probabilities into hard +1/-1 votes (footnote 3) rather than using p_l and p_r as written. As written, the proof does not establish that the implemented hard-voting rule is MLE. Please either provide a formal derivation for the exact voting rule used or present the MLE argument as an interpretation/heuristic.

minor comments (5)

[Section 2.2, Algorithm 1] Algorithm 1 appears to implement the vanilla O(n^2) all-pairs training, but Section 2.2 describes an efficient training procedure using the parameters ns and k; the pseudocode does not include the near-instance sampling or the random sampling of non-near instances. Please add the sampling steps or explicitly label Algorithm 1 as the full training variant.
[Section 3.3] The preprocessing description is ambiguous: 'we impose standard scaling on all the columns of the data matrix and the target variable. For all competing methods, we first take the logarithm...' does not make clear whether L2P also receives log-transformed features and target or only the baselines do. Please state explicitly which transformations are applied to L2P and confirm that all methods are compared on the same target scale.
[Section 3.4.1, Fig. 3] The text says methods are grouped into tiers based on the mean and standard deviation of the score, but no confidence intervals or significance tests are reported. Adding fold-level confidence intervals, or significance tests for the new point-error metrics requested above, would make the 'consistent outperformance' claim assessable.
[Section 3.4.1, Fig. 4] The LambdaMART failure analysis is performed on the full dataset, rather than on held-out folds. This is illustrative, but the statement that the failure to preserve neighborhood ranking is the 'root cause' of the poor held-out predictions goes beyond what this experiment establishes.
[Section 3.4.1] There is a typo: 'LamdaMART' should be 'LambdaMART'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: L2P's pairwise classifier and bin-placement prediction are trained/derived separately, and the paper's metric limitations are measurement-validity concerns, not circular reasoning.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained and not circular. L2P trains a pairwise preference classifier on labeled pairs (Eq. 1-2) where labels come from the target variable, and then in the placing phase uses that classifier to obtain votes over bins defined by training target values, predicting the midpoint of the winning bin (Algorithm 2). This is the method's definition, not a hidden fitting of test outcomes. The theoretical analysis in Section 2.1 recasts voting as an MLE over pairwise-conditional placement probabilities, but that is an interpretation of the algorithm's own voting rule, not an independent result imported to justify the algorithm. The central empirical claim rests on adapted AUC plus KS/EMD; while these metrics may not directly establish per-instance point accuracy (the paper itself notes random shuffling gives KS=0 and EMD=0), that is a correctness/evaluation concern, not circularity. The paper's self-citations, such as [1] for the book-sales dataset and [12] for logarithmic binning, supply data or preprocessing choices and are not used as load-bearing evidence that L2P works. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no uniqueness theorem or prior result is invoked to force the model choice. Therefore the appropriate circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical or conceptual entities are introduced. The free parameters are algorithm hyperparameters for the efficient training variant; the MLE interpretation adds assumptions rather than parameters. The central claim therefore rests mainly on the domain assumptions above.

free parameters (2)

ns (number of comparison samples per training instance in efficient training) = described as 20% of n, exact values not reported
Chosen by hand to reduce training complexity from O(n^2) to O(ns*n); changes the pairwise training distribution and therefore the learned classifier, but no ablation or selected values are reported.
k (number of near instances per training instance) = not reported
Controls how many near-target neighbors are always included in pairwise training; affects classifier performance on close item pairs and is not tied to data or theory.

assumptions (3)

domain assumption Pairwise comparisons learned from concatenated feature vectors are sufficient to place a new instance among training instances.
L2P's whole pipeline assumes the binary classifier generalizes to unseen pairs; the paper provides empirical AUC but no theoretical justification. Section 2.
ad hoc to paper Voting is maximum likelihood estimation: each training instance contributes independent evidence, with uniform prior over bins and uniform probability inside each region.
Section 2.1 states these assumptions ('assuming the test instance is equally probable to fall in each bin'); they are introduced to make the MLE argument and are not independently justified.
domain assumption For efficient training, nearness in target value makes pairwise relationships harder, so sampling distant pairs suffices.
Section 2.2 asserts the intuition and the robustness experiment supports it indirectly, but the main experiments do not report ns and k values or an ablation.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of L2P: Learning to Place for Estimating Heavy-Tailed Distributed Outcomes." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/LOPBQMMM

@misc{pith2026190804628,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: L2P: Learning to Place for Estimating Heavy-Tailed Distributed Outcomes},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/LOPBQMMM}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.04628}
}

read the original abstract

Many real-world prediction tasks have outcome variables that have characteristic heavy-tail distributions. Examples include copies of books sold, auction prices of art pieces, demand for commodities in warehouses, etc. By learning heavy-tailed distributions, "big and rare" instances (e.g., the best-sellers) will have accurate predictions. Most existing approaches are not dedicated to learning heavy-tailed distribution; thus, they heavily under-predict such instances. To tackle this problem, we introduce Learning to Place (L2P), which exploits the pairwise relationships between instances for learning. In its training phase, L2P learns a pairwise preference classifier: is instance A > instance B? In its placing phase, L2P obtains a prediction by placing the new instance among the known instances. Based on its placement, the new instance is then assigned a value for its outcome variable. Experiments on real data show that L2P outperforms competing approaches in terms of accuracy and ability to reproduce heavy-tailed outcome distribution. In addition, L2P provides an interpretable model by placing each predicted instance in relation to its comparable neighbors. Interpretable models are highly desirable when lives and treasure are at stake.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.04628 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** describes the training and placing phases for L2P. In the training phase, L2P learns a pairwise-relationship classifier, which predicts whether the target variable for an instance A (IA) is greater (or less) than another instance B (IB). To predict outcomes in the placing phase, the unplaced instance is compared with each training instance using the model learned in the training phase, generating pairwise-relationsh… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Our target variables, book sales and art auctions, have heavy-tailed distributions. using vertical logarithmic binning [12]. The features includes previous exhibition records (number of exhibitions, number of exhibitions at different grade), sales records (number of art pieces sold, various statistics of price of previous sold pieces), career length and medium information (full feature list see Supplementary Informa… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Experimental results. We compare L2P’s performance against 6 other methods (discussed in Section 3.2) across 3 datasets (see [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (2 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Ranking performance for LambdaMART on the fiction dataset. LambdaMART is trained and tested on the full fiction dataset. We observe that even when trained on the same dataset, LambdaMART’s ranking output is not accurate. While it exhibits general trends around the 45-d…

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: L2P’s Robustness L2P’s AUC scores after random errors (a) or distance-dependent errors (b) are introduced to L2P’s classifier for pairwise relationships. We observe significantly high tolerance towards random error and gradual degradation in L2P’s overall performance w…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

32 extracted references · 31 canonical work pages

[1]

Success in books: predicting book sales before publication

Xindi Wang, Burcu Yucesoy, Onur Varol, Tina Eliassi-Rad, and Albert-László Barabási. Success in books: predicting book sales before publication. EPJ Data Science, 8(1), 2019

work page 2019
[2]

Forecasting for inventory planning: a 50-year review

Aris A Syntetos, John E Boylan, and Stephen M Disney. Forecasting for inventory planning: a 50-year review. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 60(sup1):S149–S160, 2009

work page 2009
[3]

Smote: Synthetic minority over-sampling technique

Nitesh V Chawla, Kevin W Bowyer, Lawrence O Hall, and W Philip Kegelmeyer. Smote: Synthetic minority over-sampling technique. JAIR, 16, 2002

work page 2002
[4]

Logistic regression in large rare events and imbalanced data: A performance comparison of prior correction and weighting methods

Maher Maalouf, Dirar Homouz, and Theodore B Trafalis. Logistic regression in large rare events and imbalanced data: A performance comparison of prior correction and weighting methods. Computational Intelligence, 34(1), 2018

work page 2018
[5]

Learning on the border: Active learning in imbalanced data classiﬁcation

Seyda Ertekin, Jian Huang, Leon Bottou, and Lee Giles. Learning on the border: Active learning in imbalanced data classiﬁcation. In CIKM, pages 127–136, 2007

work page 2007
[6]

Imbalance-aware machine learning for predicting rare and common disease-associated non-coding variants

Max Schubach, Matteo Re, Peter N Robinson, and Giorgio Valentini. Imbalance-aware machine learning for predicting rare and common disease-associated non-coding variants. Scientiﬁc Reports, 7(1), 2017

work page 2017
[7]

Logistic regression in rare events data

Gary King and Langche Zeng. Logistic regression in rare events data. Political Analysis, 9(2), 2001

work page 2001
[8]

A physical model for efﬁcient ranking in networks

Caterina De Bacco, Daniel B Larremore, and Cristopher Moore. A physical model for efﬁcient ranking in networks. Science Advances, 4(7), 2018

work page 2018

Show all 32 references

[9]

Aggregating inconsistent information: Ranking and clustering

Nir Ailon, Moses Charikar, and Alantha Newman. Aggregating inconsistent information: Ranking and clustering. J. ACM, 55(5):23:1–23:27, 2008

2008
[10]

Learning to order things

William W Cohen, Robert E Schapire, and Yoram Singer. Learning to order things. In NIPS, pages 451–457, 1998

1998
[11]

Quantifying reputation and success in art

Samuel P Fraiberger, Roberta Sinatra, Magnus Resch, Christoph Riedl, and Albert-László Barabási. Quantifying reputation and success in art. Science, 362(6416), 2018

2018
[12]

It’s who you know: Graph mining using recursive structural features

Keith Henderson, Brian Gallagher, Lei Li, Leman Akoglu, Tina Eliassi-Rad, Hanghang Tong, and Christos Faloutsos. It’s who you know: Graph mining using recursive structural features. In KDD, pages 663–671, 2011

2011
[13]

Heavy-tailed regression with a generalized median-of-means

Daniel Hsu and Sivan Sabato. Heavy-tailed regression with a generalized median-of-means. In ICML, pages 37–45, 2014

2014
[14]

XGBoost: A scalable tree boosting system

Tianqi Chen and Carlos Guestrin. XGBoost: A scalable tree boosting system. In KDD, pages 785–794, 2016

2016
[15]

Optimizing search engines using clickthrough data

Thorsten Joachims. Optimizing search engines using clickthrough data. In KDD, pages 133–142, 2002

2002
[16]

From ranknet to lambdarank to lambdamart: An overview

Christopher JC Burges. From ranknet to lambdarank to lambdamart: An overview. Learning, 11(23-581):81, 2010

2010
[17]

Learning to rank with nonsmooth cost functions

Christopher J Burges, Robert Ragno, and Quoc V Le. Learning to rank with nonsmooth cost functions. In Advances in neural information processing systems, pages 193–200, 2007. 11 A PREPRINT - J ULY 8, 2021

2007
[18]

Greedy function approximation: A gradient boosting machine

Jerome H Friedman. Greedy function approximation: A gradient boosting machine. Annals of Statistics , 29(5):1189–1232, 2001

2001
[19]

Estimation of high conditional quantiles for heavy-tailed distributions

Huixia Judy Wang, Deyuan Li, and Xuming He. Estimation of high conditional quantiles for heavy-tailed distributions. JASA, 107(500):1453–1464, 2012

2012
[20]

Robust regression with asymmetric heavy-tail noise distributions

Ichiro Takeuchi, Yoshua Bengio, and Takafumi Kanamori. Robust regression with asymmetric heavy-tail noise distributions. Neural Computation, 14(10):2469–2496, 2002

2002
[21]

L1 regression with heavy-tailed distributions

Lijun Zhang and Zhi-Hua Zhou. L1 regression with heavy-tailed distributions. In NeurIPS, volume 31, pages 1076–1086, 2018

2018
[22]

Ordinal regression by extended binary classiﬁcation

Ling Li and Hsuan-Tien Lin. Ordinal regression by extended binary classiﬁcation. In NIPS, volume 19, pages 865–872, 2007

2007
[23]

A survey of predictive modeling on imbalanced domains

Paula Branco, Luís Torgo, and Rita P Ribeiro. A survey of predictive modeling on imbalanced domains. ACM Computing Surveys, 49(2), 2016

2016
[24]

Adasyn: Adaptive synthetic sampling approach for imbalanced learning

Haibo He, Yang Bai, Edwardo A Garcia, and Shutao Li. Adasyn: Adaptive synthetic sampling approach for imbalanced learning. In IEEE IJCNN, pages 1322–1328, 2008

2008
[25]

Learning when data sets are imbalanced and when costs are unequal and unknown

Marcus A Maloof. Learning when data sets are imbalanced and when costs are unequal and unknown. In ICML Workshop on Learning from Imbalanced Data Sets II, volume 2, 2003

2003
[26]

Utility-based regression

Luis Torgo and Rita Ribeiro. Utility-based regression. In PKDD, pages 597–604, 2007

2007
[27]

Sinha, and Huimin Zhao

Gaurav Bansal, Atish P. Sinha, and Huimin Zhao. Tuning data mining methods for cost-sensitive regression: A study in loan charge-off forecasting. J. of Mgmt Info Sys, 25(3):315–336, 2008

2008
[28]

Evaluating and tuning predictive data mining models using receiver operating characteristic curves

Atish P Sinha and Jerrold H May. Evaluating and tuning predictive data mining models using receiver operating characteristic curves. J. of Mgmt Info Sys, 21(3):249–280, 2004

2004
[29]

Fast pairwise query selection for large-scale active learning to rank

Buyue Qian, Xiang Wang, Jun Wang, Hongfei Li, Nan Cao, Weifeng Zhi, and Ian Davidson. Fast pairwise query selection for large-scale active learning to rank. In IEEE ICDM, pages 607–616, 2013

2013
[30]

An online algorithm for large scale image similarity learning

Gal Chechik, Uri Shalit, Varun Sharma, and Samy Bengio. An online algorithm for large scale image similarity learning. In NIPS, volume 22, pages 306–314, 2009

2009
[31]

Fast similarity search for learned metrics

Brian Kulis, Prateek Jain, and Kristen Grauman. Fast similarity search for learned metrics. IEEE TPAMI, 31(12):2143–2157, 2009

2009
[32]

Deep supervised hashing for fast image retrieval

Haomiao Liu, Ruiping Wang, Shiguang Shan, and Xilin Chen. Deep supervised hashing for fast image retrieval. In CVPR, pages 2064–2072, 2016. 12 Supplementary Information July 8, 2021 1 Supplementary Material 1.1 Reproducibility The code for Python implementation of L2P method i...

2016 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Success in books: predicting book sales before publication

Xindi Wang, Burcu Yucesoy, Onur Varol, Tina Eliassi-Rad, and Albert-László Barabási. Success in books: predicting book sales before publication. EPJ Data Science, 8(1), 2019

work page 2019

[2] [2]

Forecasting for inventory planning: a 50-year review

Aris A Syntetos, John E Boylan, and Stephen M Disney. Forecasting for inventory planning: a 50-year review. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 60(sup1):S149–S160, 2009

work page 2009

[3] [3]

Smote: Synthetic minority over-sampling technique

Nitesh V Chawla, Kevin W Bowyer, Lawrence O Hall, and W Philip Kegelmeyer. Smote: Synthetic minority over-sampling technique. JAIR, 16, 2002

work page 2002

[4] [4]

Logistic regression in large rare events and imbalanced data: A performance comparison of prior correction and weighting methods

Maher Maalouf, Dirar Homouz, and Theodore B Trafalis. Logistic regression in large rare events and imbalanced data: A performance comparison of prior correction and weighting methods. Computational Intelligence, 34(1), 2018

work page 2018

[5] [5]

Learning on the border: Active learning in imbalanced data classiﬁcation

Seyda Ertekin, Jian Huang, Leon Bottou, and Lee Giles. Learning on the border: Active learning in imbalanced data classiﬁcation. In CIKM, pages 127–136, 2007

work page 2007

[6] [6]

Imbalance-aware machine learning for predicting rare and common disease-associated non-coding variants

Max Schubach, Matteo Re, Peter N Robinson, and Giorgio Valentini. Imbalance-aware machine learning for predicting rare and common disease-associated non-coding variants. Scientiﬁc Reports, 7(1), 2017

work page 2017

[7] [7]

Logistic regression in rare events data

Gary King and Langche Zeng. Logistic regression in rare events data. Political Analysis, 9(2), 2001

work page 2001

[8] [8]

A physical model for efﬁcient ranking in networks

Caterina De Bacco, Daniel B Larremore, and Cristopher Moore. A physical model for efﬁcient ranking in networks. Science Advances, 4(7), 2018

work page 2018