Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 49 references

Double-Coupling Learning for Multi-Task Data Stream Classification

T0 review · 3 major / 6 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 The paper claims that classifying several related data streams jointly, by coupling each stream's time-window classifiers to their predecessors and to the other streams' same-time classifiers, improves accuracy over classifying each…

desk verdict A sensible extension of TA-SVM to multiple related streams, but the missing dual derivation currently leaves the experimental results floating. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.06021 v1 pith:AZCM3AMG submitted 2019-08-15 cs.LG stat.ML

Yingzhong Shi , Zhaohong Deng , Haoran Chen , Kup-Sze Choi , Shitong Wang This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.LGstat.ML
keywords multi-taskdatastreamsstreamclassificationdouble-couplingsupportvectormachineinternalcouplingexternalconceptdriftlearningtime-adaptiveSVM
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 sets out to show that data streams should not always be classified one at a time. When several streams are related, such as weather in neighboring cities, readings from similar gas sensors, or water quality at nearby monitoring points, the classifiers for those streams can be learned together, and the paper claims this joint learning beats learning each stream separately. The proposed method, double-coupling support vector machines (DC-SVM), places one SVM sub-classifier at every time window of every stream and adds two kinds of smoothing: each classifier is pulled toward its predecessor in the same stream, and toward the classifiers of the other streams at the same time window. Experiments on artificial and real-world stream collections support the claim, with the largest gains appearing when each time window contains few samples. The paper closes by listing open extensions: unbalanced samples inside a stream, ensuring streams benefit from each other evenly, and efficient training for more than two streams.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is a double-coupling regularizer added to a sequence of SVM sub-classifiers. For two streams with classifiers $f_t$ and $g_t$ at time window $t$, the objective penalizes $$\sum_t (\|f_t\|^2+\|g_t\|^2) + \gamma_1\sum_t \|f_t-f_{t-1}\|^2 + \gamma_2\sum_t \|g_t-g_{t-1}\|^2 + \$\lambda$\sum_t \|f_t-g_t\|^2 + C\sum_t \ell_t,$$ with $\ell_t$ the hinge loss on the current window. The first pair of coupling sums is the internal coupling within each stream; the $\lambda$ sum is the external coupling between streams. The paper encodes which classifiers are neighbors through a membership matrix $P$ and two relation matrices $R^\gamma$ and $R^\lambda$, and shows that the whole problem reduces to one quadratic program whose dual has the familiar SVM form. Changing these matrices extends the same formulation to more than two streams.

What would settle it

A clean test would use two rotating-hyperplane streams whose decision boundaries start identical and then rotate in opposite directions at the same speed while remaining internally smooth. Under the paper's stable-similarity premise, forcing the streams together with $\lambda$ should degrade accuracy relative to ITA-SVM as $\lambda$ grows; if it does not, the external-coupling mechanism is doing something beyond the stated assumption.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

DC-SVM's central claim is that internal and external coupling belong together. It constructs one SVM per stream per time window and solves for all of them simultaneously, rather than fitting each stream with its own drift-adaptive SVM. The paper reports that on sliding Gaussian streams, rotating hyperplanes, their noisy and sample-starved variants, gas sensor drift data, water quality monitoring streams, and air quality sensor readings, DC-SVM achieves higher classification accuracy than the single-stream methods TA-SVM and ITA-SVM, and also outperforms applying ITA-SVM to the streams merged into one. The advantage is largest when the streams are highly similar and when each time window has few samples, and it shrinks as the deviation between streams grows.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that at every time window the true classifiers of the related streams are similar to a stable degree, so that pulling them together helps rather than biases both models.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • On the paper's evidence, organizations monitoring several related streams can expect better classifiers from joint modeling than from maintaining separate drift-adaptive models.
  • The benefit of external coupling is largest when per-window data are scarce, so joint modeling is most valuable exactly where single-stream classifiers struggle.
  • Merging related streams into one stream is not enough: the paper's ITA-SVM(Merge) baseline degrades sharply when streams diverge, whereas DC-SVM's explicit coupling keeps an advantage.
  • The same dual quadratic-program formulation extends to more than two streams by changing the membership and relation matrices, so the method is not limited to a pair of streams.
  • The external-coupling parameter $\lambda$ should be set according to how similar the streams are; the paper's sweeps show large $\lambda$ suits strongly related streams and small $\lambda$ suits weakly related ones.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because the coupling regularizer only involves the model functions and not the labels, the same double-coupling idea should transfer to streaming regression or ranking, settings the paper does not test.
  • The method assumes all streams share a synchronized time-window grid; a natural next step is asynchronous coupling with an alignment step for streams sampled at different rates or with missing windows.
  • The paper tunes $\lambda$ by grid search and assumes the degree of relatedness is stable; an online estimator of between-stream similarity could make $\lambda$ adaptive when the relationship itself drifts.
  • The stated open problem of making all streams benefit evenly suggests that a single fixed $\lambda$ may over-couple a weak or noisy stream to a stronger one; per-stream coupling weights would be a direct extension.
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.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes DC-SVM, a multi-task data stream classification method that couples classifiers across adjacent time windows within each stream (internal coupling) and across streams at the same time window (external coupling). The primal objective is formulated as a regularized SVM, and the authors state a dual QP in Eq. (5) that is used in all experiments. The method is evaluated on synthetic streams with controlled deviations between tasks and on three real-world datasets, where it is compared against TA-SVM, ITA-SVM, and a merged-stream baseline. The reported results indicate consistent accuracy improvements, with gains shrinking as the streams become less related.

Significance. If the dual derivation is completed and the empirical comparisons are made statistically rigorous, the contribution would be of interest to both the data-stream and multi-task learning communities. The problem formulation is natural, the synthetic experiments include controlled deviation sweeps that produce monotone effects consistent with the external-coupling assumption, and the paper explicitly identifies the regime (related streams with stable similarity) in which the method is intended to help. The main obstacle is that the paper's quantitative claims currently rest on a dual objective that is neither derived nor correctly typeset, so the reported accuracy gains cannot yet be unambiguously attributed to the proposed model.

major comments (3)
  1. [III, Eq. (5)] The dual problem in Eq. (5) is asserted without derivation, and the printed formula is internally inconsistent. As typeset, it reads as an objective involving (P M P^T) ⊗ K, but P is defined as a (km)×n matrix, so P M P^T is (km)×(km), which cannot be entrywise multiplied by the n×n kernel matrix K under the paper's own definition of ⊗. The likely intended object is P^T M P, but that is not what is written. More importantly, for a primal with a quadratic coupling regularizer of the form w^T M w, the dual normally involves the inverse of a combined kernel/coupling matrix or an equivalent Schur complement, not M directly as the displayed formula suggests. Because Eq. (5) is the QP solved in every experiment in Section IV, the accuracy tables cannot be attributed to the model in Eq. (4) until this equivalence is demonstrated. Please provide a complete derivation from (4) to (5), correct the dimensions and the definition of ⊗, and reconcile the constraint (α ≥ 0, 1^T α = 1) with the slack variables and flexible margin ρ of the primal.
  2. [IV.D-F, Figs. 5-10] The real-world experiments report single accuracy curves with no error bars, standard deviations, or significance tests, even though the synthetic experiments in Tables 2-4 report means and standard deviations over 10 runs. The text repeatedly concludes that 'DC-SVM always performs better' than TA-SVM and ITA-SVM on GSADD, Water Quality, and Air Quality, but the plotted curves alone do not establish that the differences exceed run-to-run variability. Please add error bars over the repeated experimental procedure or a paired statistical test over the batches, and state the number of independent runs used for each real-world figure.
  3. [IV.C, IV.D] The comparison protocol for DC-SVM versus TA-SVM and ITA-SVM needs clarification. It is not stated whether the regularization parameter C, the kernel width σ, and the internal-coupling parameter γ are retuned separately for each baseline on the same validation splits, nor is the grid-search budget per method specified. For the ITA-SVM(Merge) baseline, the merging procedure is also underspecified: concatenating the streams into a single sequence may create fictitious transitions between the ends of one stream and the starts of the other, which could unfairly disadvantage the baseline. Please describe the hyperparameter tuning protocol per method and define the exact merging and time-alignment procedure used for ITA-SVM(Merge).
minor comments (6)
  1. [Eq. (6)] Equation (6), which defines the synthetic DS1-Task2 data, is garbled in the current typesetting; please rewrite it clearly with all variables defined.
  2. [Figs. 4(b), 6, 7, 8, 10] The legend in several figures labels the proposed method as 'BC-SVM' instead of 'DC-SVM'; please correct the legends and the corresponding mention in the caption of Fig. 4(b).
  3. [Fig. 2] The two panels (a) and (b) of Fig. 2 appear visually identical, yet the captions state that they correspond to Gaussian and linear kernels, respectively; please verify that the correct plots are shown.
  4. [Section III, matrix definitions] The definitions of the matrices P, R^γ, R^λ, and M are hard to parse because of the typesetting; please restate them with explicit dimensions and index ranges, and distinguish clearly between the entrywise product and any Kronecker or block product used in Eq. (5).
  5. [Section IV.D-F] The paper does not provide code or an implementation link. Given that Eq. (5) is nontrivial and currently corrupted in the text, making the code publicly available would substantially help reproducibility and verification.
  6. [Section IV.E] The water quality experiment divides the data into batches of only 4 samples per batch; with batches that small, label imbalance within a batch can make the classification task unstable. Please explain how the positive/negative ratio is controlled per batch, or discuss why the small batch size does not affect the comparison.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the DC-SVM advantage is an empirical result tested against independent baselines.

full rationale

The paper's central claim—that external coupling across related data streams improves classification—is supported by experiments on synthetic and real-world multi-task streams against TA-SVM, ITA-SVM, and ITA-SVM(Merge). Coupling parameters γ and λ are selected by grid search on separate validation batches, not fitted to test outcomes, so the reported accuracy gains are not forced by construction. The only self-citation is [20] (ITA-SVM), which is used as a comparison baseline and as a source for the flexible-margin term ρ; it is not load-bearing evidence for the proposed method's superiority. The definition of multi-task data streams as streams that are related, similar, and stable in similarity is an explicit assumption that the objective enforces, not a result derived from that assumption. The asserted step from primal (4) to dual (5) is not derived in the text and the typesetting is corrupted, but that is a derivation/correctness gap rather than circularity; it does not make the method's performance claim equivalent to its inputs. No step reduces by definition, fitted parameter renaming, or self-citation chain to the claimed conclusion.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

All numerical hyperparameters (C, sigma, gamma, lambda) are tuned by grid search on validation windows; none is derived from first principles. The model relies on standard SVM convexity, on gradual drift, and on a stable similarity between streams, which is exactly the external-coupling assumption in the paper's definition of multi-task data streams. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (4)
  • Regularization parameter C = Grid-searched over {10^-1, ..., 10^5}.
    Controls the SVM hinge-loss trade-off; tuned on validation windows in Section IV.A.
  • Gaussian kernel width sigma = Grid-searched over {2^-10, ..., 2^5}.
    Kernel scale for nonlinear experiments; not used with the linear kernel.
  • Internal coupling parameter gamma = Grid-searched over {2^0, ..., 2^20}.
    Controls temporal smoothness within each stream; appears in Eq (3) and the grid in Section IV.A.
  • External coupling parameter lambda = Grid-searched over {2^0, ..., 2^20}.
    Controls inter-stream similarity penalty; this is the key new parameter, selected by validation in Sections IV.B and IV.C.
assumptions (4)
  • standard math SVM/RKHS machinery: the kernel K defines a valid Mercer kernel and the primal and dual QP problems are convex and solvable.
    Invoked throughout Section III without proof; standard background for SVM methods.
  • domain assumption Gradual concept drift with smooth temporal evolution: adjacent time-window models should be similar.
    This is the internal-coupling premise borrowed from TA-SVM [19], stated in the assumptions in Section III.
  • domain assumption Multi-task data streams have stable inter-stream similarity: at each time, related streams' models are similar.
    Encoded in the Definition in Section III and the external-coupling term lambda ||f_t - g_t||^2 in Eq (3); if false, the method may hurt performance.
  • domain assumption Time windows are aligned across streams and each stream has the same number and sequence of windows.
    The P and R matrices in Section III assume a common time grid and equal batch sizes across streams; this need not hold in practice.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Double-Coupling Learning for Multi-Task Data Stream Classification." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/AZCM3AMG

@misc{pith2026190806021,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Double-Coupling Learning for Multi-Task Data Stream Classification},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/AZCM3AMG}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.06021}
}
read the original abstract

Data stream classification methods demonstrate promising performance on a single data stream by exploring the cohesion in the data stream. However, multiple data streams that involve several correlated data streams are common in many practical scenarios, which can be viewed as multi-task data streams. Instead of handling them separately, it is beneficial to consider the correlations among the multi-task data streams for data stream modeling tasks. In this regard, a novel classification method called double-coupling support vector machines (DC-SVM), is proposed for classifying them simultaneously. DC-SVM considers the external correlations between multiple data streams, while handling the internal relationship within the individual data stream. Experimental results on artificial and real-world multi-task data streams demonstrate that the proposed method outperforms traditional data stream classification methods.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

49 extracted references · 49 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Multitask learning,

    R. Caruana, “Multitask learning,” Machine Learning, vol. 28, no. 1, pp. 41-75, Jul. 1997

    work page 1997

  2. [2]

    A model of inductive bias learning ,

    J. Baxter , “A model of inductive bias learning ,” Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research , vol. 12, pp. 149-198, May. 2000

    work page 2000

  3. [3]

    Regularized multi-task learning,

    T. Evgeniou and M. Pontil, “Regularized multi-task learning,” Proceedings of the 10th ACM SIGKDD, 2004, pp. 109-117

    work page 2004

  4. [4]

    Visual classification with multi -task joint sparse representation ,

    X. T. Yuan and S. Yan . “Visual classification with multi -task joint sparse representation ,” Proc. IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2010, pp. 3493-3500

    work page 2010

  5. [5]

    Large margin multi -task metric learning ,

    S. Parameswaran and K. Weinberger, “Large margin multi -task metric learning ,” Proc. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 2010, pp. 1867-1875

    work page 2010

  6. [6]

    Multi-task clustering via domain adaptation,

    Z. Zhang and J. Zhou, “Multi-task clustering via domain adaptation,” Pattern Recognition, vol. 45, no. 1, pp. 465-473, Jan, 2012

    work page 2012

  7. [7]

    Multi-task co-clustering via nonnegative matrix factorization,

    S. Xie, H. Lu and Y. He, “Multi-task co-clustering via nonnegative matrix factorization,” Proc. International Conference on Pattern Recognition, Tsukuba, Japan, 2012, pp. 2954-2958

    work page 2012

  8. [8]

    A multi-task learning strategy for unsupervised clustering via explicitly separating the commonality ,

    S. Kong, D. Wang , “A multi-task learning strategy for unsupervised clustering via explicitly separating the commonality ,” Proc. International Conference on Pattern Recognition, Tsukuba, Japan, 2012, pp.771-774

    work page 2012

Show all 49 references
  1. [9]

    A new sparse multi -task regression and feature selection method to identify brain imaging predictors for memory performance,

    H. Wang et al , “A new sparse multi -task regression and feature selection method to identify brain imaging predictors for memory performance,” Proc. IEEE Conference on Computer Vision, 2011, pp. 557-562

    2011

  2. [10]

    Multi-task regression using minimal penalties,

    M. Solnon, S. Arlot.et al, “Multi-task regression using minimal penalties,” Journal of Machine Learning Research, vol. 13, pp. 2773-2812, Jul. 2012

    2012

  3. [11]

    Tracking drifting concepts by minimizing disagreements,

    D. P. Helmbold, P. M. Long, “Tracking drifting concepts by minimizing disagreements,” Machine Learning, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 27–45, Jan. 1994

    1994

  4. [12]

    Learning changing concepts by exploiting the structure of change,

    P. L. Bartlett, S. B. Dabid, and S. R. Kulkarni , “Learning changing concepts by exploiting the structure of change,” Machine Learning, vol. 41, no. 2, pp. 153-174, Nov. 2000

    2000

  5. [13]

    Learning with a slowly changing distribution,

    P. L. Bartlett , “Learning with a slowly changing distribution,” Proc. 5th Annu. Workshop Comput. Learn. Theory , Pittsburgh, PA, 1992, pp.243–252

    1992

  6. [14]

    Learning in the presence of concept drift and hidden contexts,

    G. Widmer and M. Kubat , “Learning in the presence of concept drift and hidden contexts,” Machine Learning, vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 69-101, Apr. 1996

    1996

  7. [15]

    Just-in-time adaptive classifiers-part II: Designing the classifier,

    C. Alippi and M. Roveri, “Just-in-time adaptive classifiers-part II: Designing the classifier,” IEEE Trans. Neural Networks, vol. 19, no. 12, pp. 2053-2064, Dec. 2008

    2008

  8. [16]

    Detecting concept drift with support vector m achines,

    R. Klinkenberg and T. Joachims , “Detecting concept drift with support vector m achines,” Proc. 17th Int. Conf. Mach. Learn., San Mateo, CA, 2000, pp. 487-49

    2000

  9. [17]

    Adaptive information filtering: Learning in the presence of concept drifts,

    R. Klinkenberg and I. Renz , “Adaptive information filtering: Learning in the presence of concept drifts,” Proc. Workshop Notes of the ICML/AAAI Workshop Learning for Text Categorization. Menlo Park, CA: AAAI Press, 1998, pp. 33-40

    1998

  10. [18]

    Enhancing test classification to improve information filtering,

    C. Lanquillon , “Enhancing test classification to improve information filtering,” Ph.D. thesis, Faculty Comp. Sci., Univ. Magdeburg, Magdeburg, Germany, 2001

    2001

  11. [19]

    Solving Nonstationary Classification Problems with Coupled Support Vector Machines,

    G. L. Grinblat, L.C.Uzal, et al, “Solving Nonstationary Classification Problems with Coupled Support Vector Machines,” IEEE Trans. Neural Networks, vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 37-51, Nov. 2011

    2011

  12. [20]

    An Improved TA -SVM Method Without Matrix Inversion and Its Fast Implementation for Non-stationary Datasets,

    Y. Z. Shi，F. Chung，S. Wang, “An Improved TA -SVM Method Without Matrix Inversion and Its Fast Implementation for Non-stationary Datasets,” IEEE Trans. Neural Networks and Learning Systems , vol. 25, no. 9, pp. 2005-2018, Sept. 2015

    2005

  13. [21]

    Chemical gas sensor drift compensation using classifier ensembles,

    A. Vergara, S. Vembu, T. Ayhan, et al , “Chemical gas sensor drift compensation using classifier ensembles,” Sensors & Actuators B Chemical, s166–167(9), pp. 320-329, May. 2012

    2012

  14. [22]

    An integrated machine learning and control theoretic model for mining concept-drifting data streams,

    S. Shetty, S. K. Mukkavilli, and L. H. Keel, “An integrated machine learning and control theoretic model for mining concept-drifting data streams,” Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. HST, Boston, MA, USA, 2011, pp. 14–17

    2011

  15. [23]

    MOA concept drift active learning strategies for streaming data,

    I. Zliobaite, A. Bifet, G. Holmes, and B. Pfahringer, “MOA concept drift active learning strategies for streaming data,” Proc. 2nd Workshop Appl. Pattern Anal. , 2011, pp. 48–55

    2011

  16. [24]

    Incremental learning of concept drift in nonstationary environments,

    R. Polikar, R. Elwell, “Incremental learning of concept drift in nonstationary environments,” IEEE Trans. Neural Networks, vol. 22, no. 10, pp. 1517–1531, Nov. 2011

    2011

  17. [25]

    Just in time classifiers: Managing the slow drift case,

    C. Alippi, G. Boracchi, and M. Roveri, “Just in time classifiers: Managing the slow drift case,” Proc. Int. Joint Conf. Neural Netw., Atlanta, GA, USA, 2009, pp. 114–120

    2009

  18. [26]

    On the complexity of learning from drifting distributions,

    R. D. Barve and P. M. Long , “On the complexity of learning from drifting distributions,” Proc. 9th Annu. Workshop Comput. Learn. Theory, San Mateo, CA, 1996, pp. 170–193

    1996

  19. [27]

    Learning under persistent drift,

    Y. Freund and Y. Mansour . “Learning under persistent drift,” Proc. 3rd Eur. Conf. Comput. Learn. Theory , London, U.K, 1997, pp. 109–118

    1997

  20. [28]

    Tolerating concept and sampling shift in lazy learning using prediction error conte xt switching,

    M. Salganicoff, “Tolerating concept and sampling shift in lazy learning using prediction error conte xt switching,” Artificial Intelligence Review, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 133–155, Feb. 1997

    1997

  21. [29]

    A streaming ensemble algorithm (SEA) for large-scale classification,

    W. N. Street and Y. Kim , “A streaming ensemble algorithm (SEA) for large-scale classification,” Proc. 7th ACM SIGKDD Int. Conf. Knowl. Discovery Data Mining, San Francisco, CA, USA, 2001, pp. 377–382

    2001

  22. [30]

    Paired learners for concept drift,

    S. H. Bach and M. A. Maloof , “Paired learners for concept drift,” Proc. 8th IEEE Int. Conf. Data Mining, Los Alamitos, CA, USA, Dec. 2008, pp. 23–32

    2008

  23. [31]

    Just-in-time adaptive classifiers—Part I: Detect ing nonstationary changes,

    C. Alippi and M. Roveri , “Just-in-time adaptive classifiers—Part I: Detect ing nonstationary changes,” IEEE Trans. Neural Networks, vol. 19, no. 7, pp. 1145–1153, Jul. 2008

    2008

  24. [32]

    Experience with a learning personal assistant,

    T. Mitchell, R. Caruana, D. Freitag, et al , “Experience with a learning personal assistant,” Commun ication of the ACM , vol.37, no.7, pp. 81–91, Jul. 1994

    1994

  25. [33]

    Anomaly detection model based on data stream clustering,

    M. Yin, Y. Chun, et al, “Anomaly detection model based on data stream clustering,” Cluster Computing , vol. 30, no. 1, pp. 1-10, Aug. 2017

    2017

  26. [34]

    Improving data partition schemes in Smart Grids via clustering data streams,

    A. S. Asensio, J. Navarro, I. A. Salinas, et al , “Improving data partition schemes in Smart Grids via clustering data streams,” Expert Systems with Applications, vol.41, no.13, pp. 5832-5842, Oct. 2014

    2014

  27. [35]

    Clustering High -Dimensional Data Stream: A Survey on Subspace Clustering, Projected Clustering on Bioinformatics Applications,

    A. Baghernia, H . Pavin, M. Mirnabibaboli, et al , “Clustering High -Dimensional Data Stream: A Survey on Subspace Clustering, Projected Clustering on Bioinformatics Applications,” Advanced Science, vol. 8, no. 9, pp.749-757, Sept. 2016

    2016

  28. [36]

    An optimal and stable feature selection approach for traffic classification based on multi-criterion fusion,

    Adil Fahad, Zahir Tari, et al , “An optimal and stable feature selection approach for traffic classification based on multi-criterion fusion,” Future Generation Computer Systems, vol. 36, no. 7, pp. 156-169, Jul. 2014

    2014

  29. [37]

    A class-oriented feature selection approach for multi -class imbalanced network traffic datasets based on local and global metrics fusion,

    Z. Liu, R. Wang, M. Tao, X. Cai, “A class-oriented feature selection approach for multi -class imbalanced network traffic datasets based on local and global metrics fusion,” Neurocomputing, vol. 168, no. 30, pp. 365-381, Jun. 2015

    2015

  30. [38]

    COMPOSE: a semisupervised learning framework for initially labeled nonstationary streaming data,

    K. Dyer, R. Capo, and R . Polikar, “COMPOSE: a semisupervised learning framework for initially labeled nonstationary streaming data,” IEEE Trans. Neural Networks and Learning Systems, vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 12-26, May. 2014

    2014

  31. [39]

    An ensemble of cluster -based classifiers for semi-supervised classification of non-stationary data streams,

    M. J. Hosseini, A. Gholipour and H. Beigy, “An ensemble of cluster -based classifiers for semi-supervised classification of non-stationary data streams,” Knowledge Info. Systems, vol. 46, no. 3, pp. 567-597, Mar. 2016

    2016

  32. [40]

    Mining textual stream with partial labeled instances using ensemble framework,

    G. Song, Y. Li, C. Li, et al, “Mining textual stream with partial labeled instances using ensemble framework,” International Journal of Database Theory and Application, vol. 7, no. 4, pp. 47-58, Apr. 2014

    2014

  33. [41]

    Deep learning in partially -labeled data streams,

    J. Read, F . P. Cruz and A. Bifet, “Deep learning in partially -labeled data streams,” Proc . ACM Symposium on Applied Computing (ACM-SAC), Salamanca, Spain, 2015, pp. 954-959

    2015

  34. [42]

    Adaptation to drifting concepts,

    G. Castillo, J. Gama, and P. Medas , “Adaptation to drifting concepts,” Proc. Progress Artif. Intell., 11th Portuguese Conf. Artif. Intell. (EPIA), LNCS 2902. Beja, Portugal, 2003, pp. 279–293

    2003

  35. [43]

    Learning drifting concepts: Example selection versus example weighting,

    R. Klinkenberg, “Learning drifting concepts: Example selection versus example weighting,” Intell. Data Anal., vol. 8, no. 3, pp. 281–300, Aug. 2004

    2004

  36. [44]

    Estimating the generalization performance of a SVM efficiently,

    T. Joachims, “Estimating the generalization performance of a SVM efficiently,” Proc. 17th Int. Conf. Mach. Learn. , San Francisco, CA, 2000, pp. 431–438

    2000

  37. [45]

    Dynamic weighted majority: An ensemble method for drifting concepts,

    J. Z. Kolter and M. A. Maloof , “Dynamic weighted majority: An ensemble method for drifting concepts,” J ournal of Machine Learning Research, vol. 8, pp. 2755–2790, Dec. 2007

    2007

  38. [46]

    Core vector machines: Fast SVM training on very large data sets,

    I. Tsang, J. Kwok, and P Cheung, “Core vector machines: Fast SVM training on very large data sets,” Journal of Machine Learning Research, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 363- 392, Apr. 2005

    2005

  39. [47]

    Ministry of Ecological Environment of the P. R. China . (2018, Dec 31 ). Water Quality Dataset . Available: http://www.mee.gov.cn/hjzl/shj/dbszdczb/

    2018

  40. [48]

    S. De Vito. (2016, March 23), Air Quality Dataset. Available: http://archive.ics.uci.edu/ml/datasets/Air+Quality

    2016

  41. [49]

    On field calibration of an electronic nose for benzene estimation in an urban pollution monitoring scenario

    S. De Vito, E.Massera, M.Piga, et al , “On field calibration of an electronic nose for benzene estimation in an urban pollution monitoring scenario”, Sensors and Actuators B: Chemical. vol. 129, no. 2, pp. 750-757, Feb. 2008

    2008

Pith tools

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