Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 44 references

LoRAS: An oversampling approach for imbalanced datasets

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 LoRAS oversampling generates synthetic minority points as convex combinations of noise-augmented neighbourhood points, and the paper claims this improves both F1 score and balanced accuracy over SMOTE and its extensions.

desk verdict LoRAS is a plausible new oversampling method with a real variance argument, but the benchmark supporting its headline claim is not fair to the baselines. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.08346 v4 pith:NKEXBYJL submitted 2019-08-22 cs.LG stat.ML

Saptarshi Bej , Narek Davtyan , Markus Wolfien , Mariam Nassar , Olaf Wolkenhauer This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.LGstat.ML
keywords imbalanceddatasetsoversamplingSMOTEsyntheticsamplegenerationdatamanifoldLocalizedRandomAffineShadowsamplingF1-Scorebalancedaccuracy
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

LoRAS is an oversampling method for imbalanced classification that the paper claims produces better machine-learning models than SMOTE and four SMOTE extensions. Instead of interpolating between two minority-class points, LoRAS creates 'shadowsamples' by adding small Gaussian noise to every point in a local neighbourhood, then generates a synthetic point as a random convex combination of many shadowsamples. Across 14 tabular datasets, LoRAS attains the best average F1 score and balanced accuracy among the compared methods, and it is the only method that improves both at once. The paper gives a proof that a LoRAS sample is an unbiased estimator of the local mean of the minority-class distribution and that its variance is lower than a SMOTE sample's when the number of features exceeds two. This gives a principled reason to prefer manifold-averaging oversampling over pairwise interpolation for rare-class prediction.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the shadowsample: each minority training point is copied and jittered with zero-mean Gaussian noise per feature, and the copies are assumed to remain on the latent data manifold. A LoRAS oversample is a random convex combination of $N_{\text{aff}}$ shadowsamples drawn from a $k$-nearest-neighbour neighbourhood, with positive Dirichlet-distributed weights summing to one; the paper justifies this as sampling from an $(|F|-1)$-dimensional plane that locally approximates the $|F|$-dimensional minority-class manifold. The variance identity $2(\sigma'^2+\sigma_B^2)/(|F|+1)$ is what carries the argument: averaging many noise-augmented points shrinks the estimator variance compared with SMOTE's two-point convex combination, so LoRAS points fall near the local mean instead of stretching toward outlier neighbours.

What would settle it

Take a synthetic minority class with a known local mean and variance, then generate SMOTE and LoRAS samples while sweeping the shadow-noise level $\sigma_B$. The predicted variance ordering is $\frac{2(\sigma'^2+\sigma_B^2)}{|F|+1} < \frac{2\sigma'^2}{3}$ only when $3\sigma_B^2 < (|F|-2)\sigma'^2$; observing LoRAS variance above SMOTE variance under that condition, or observing the F1/balanced-accuracy advantage persist when the condition is violated, would settle where the mechanism holds.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that drawing synthetic minority samples from a locally approximated data manifold, rather than from line segments between raw samples, produces better classifiers because the synthetic points are more concentrated around the true local center of the minority class. The mathematical core is Theorem 1: treating a local minority sample as a shifted t-distribution with location parameter $\mu$, both SMOTE and LoRAS are unbiased estimators of $\mu$, but a LoRAS sample has per-feature variance $2(\sigma'^2+\sigma_B^2)/(|F|+1)$ while a SMOTE sample has variance $2\sigma'^2/3$; since SMOTE is the $|F|=2$ case of the same construction, the paper concludes that for $|F|>2$ LoRAS has lower variance. Empirically, using the best-performing classifier per dataset, LoRAS gives the highest average balanced accuracy (0.783) and F1 score (0.433) across the 14 datasets, compared with 0.775 and 0.352 for SMOTE, and the Wilcoxon signed-rank comparisons are significant at $\alpha=0.05$ for F1 score against every compared method.

Load-bearing premise

The argument stands on the assumption that small Gaussian noise keeps shadowsamples on the true minority-class manifold and that local minority samples are independent draws from a shifted t-distribution with a common mean; if the noise is large enough to leave the manifold, or the local draws are correlated, the variance advantage can disappear.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • On tabular imbalanced data, LoRAS gives the best average F1 score and balanced accuracy among the compared methods, and unlike the tested SMOTE extensions it does not sacrifice one metric for the other.
  • For datasets with imbalance ratios above 25:1, LoRAS raises average balanced accuracy and F1 score more than the other oversampling methods, with the largest relative gains on the most imbalanced datasets.
  • For high-dimensional datasets, LoRAS yields the highest average F1 score and close-to-best balanced accuracy, though the balanced-accuracy margin over one extension is small.
  • Because a LoRAS sample estimates the local mean with lower variance, the method should produce synthetic minority points that are less prone to overgeneralizing into majority-class territory, which is the mechanism the paper links to fewer majority-class misclassifications.
  • The statistical tests show the F1-score differences between LoRAS and each compared oversampling method are significant at the 0.05 level, with high effect-size ranks in favor of LoRAS.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper states Theorem 1 as valid for $|F|>2$, but comparing the displayed variances shows the LoRAS advantage actually requires the additional small-noise condition $3\sigma_B^2 < (|F|-2)\sigma'^2$; without it, the added shadow noise can make LoRAS noisier than SMOTE.
  • Not tested in the paper: LoRAS should also extend the framework of algorithms like Borderline-SMOTE or ADASYN by replacing their two-point interpolation step with multi-point affine combinations of shadowsamples, since the paper notes these extensions 'can also be built on the principle of LoRAS.'
  • If the variance mechanism is the real driver, LoRAS should be most valuable exactly where SMOTE's two-point interpolation is most unstable: high-dimensional tabular data with sparse local neighbourhoods, where averaging many points stabilises the estimated local mean.
  • A testable consequence of the manifold assumption: on synthetic data with a known low-dimensional manifold, the distance of LoRAS oversamples from the true manifold should stay small when the shadow noise is small, and should track the predicted variance formula as $\sigma_B$ grows.
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 introduces LoRAS (Localized Random Affine Shadowsampling), an oversampling method for imbalanced classification. For each minority-class parent point, LoRAS generates 'shadowsamples' by adding small Gaussian noise to nearby minority samples, then produces synthetic points as random affine (convex) combinations of multiple shadowsamples, with neighborhoods optionally chosen in a t-SNE embedding. The authors benchmark LoRAS against SMOTE, Borderline-1/2 SMOTE, SVM-SMOTE, and ADASYN on 14 datasets with logistic regression, SVM, and kNN classifiers, reporting F1-Score and Balanced Accuracy. They report that LoRAS has the best average F1-Score and Balanced Accuracy, and they provide a mathematical proof (Theorem 1) intended to show that LoRAS is an unbiased estimator of the local mean of the minority-class distribution with lower variance than SMOTE.

Significance. If the empirical results held under a fair comparison protocol, the paper would make a useful contribution to the imbalanced-learning literature: the variance computation in Theorem 1 is a clean formalization of the intuition that averaging multiple noisy local samples reduces dispersion around the local mean. The benchmark is also unusually broad for this area, with 14 datasets, three classifiers, 5x10-fold stratified cross-validation, and non-parametric significance testing. The paper is honest about the limits of its mathematical framework relative to classification performance. However, the central empirical claim is currently weakened by an asymmetric tuning protocol, and the main theorem is incomplete as stated because it omits the small-noise condition needed for the variance comparison. These issues are load-bearing for the paper's two central assertions: the average performance advantage and the theoretical explanation of that advantage.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3.2 / Table 4] The headline comparison is not a fair test between algorithms. For LoRAS, the authors performed a per-dataset random grid search over Naff, embedding, and perplexity (Table 3 and the supplementary tables), while SMOTE, Borderline-1/2, SVM-SMOTE, and ADASYN were run with a fixed neighborhood rule and no equivalent tuning. Because the paper's central claim is the average F1-Score and Balanced Accuracy advantage reported in Table 4, the tuning budget given only to LoRAS can by itself produce the reported advantage; the experiments do not establish that LoRAS's manifold construction is superior. Please add a comparison in which all methods receive the same tuning budget (for example, randomized grid search over each method's key hyperparameters in an inner cross-validation loop), or report LoRAS with its default parameters alongside the tuned variants.
  2. [Section 5, Theorem 1 and Eq. (6)] The theorem as stated is false without an additional small-noise condition. Equation (6) gives Var(L_j) = 2(sigma'^2_j + sigma_Bj^2)/(|F|+1) for LoRAS, while the SMOTE variance is 2 sigma'^2 / 3. Comparing these two expressions yields Var(LoRAS) < Var(SMOTE) if and only if 3 sigma_Bj^2 < (|F|-2) sigma'^2_j. This condition is not stated in Theorem 1 and is not verified anywhere in the paper. Since L_sigma is set to a constant 0.005 for all features, the condition can fail on features with small local variance, in which case LoRAS has larger variance than SMOTE. Please add the condition to the theorem, check it empirically on the datasets, or qualify the theoretical claim accordingly.
  3. [Section 2 and Section 5] The mathematical explanation rests on assumptions that are neither tested nor connected to the observed classification gains. The proof assumes local minority samples are independent draws from a shifted t-distribution with a common mean (Eq. 2) and that adding Gaussian noise produces shadowsamples that still lie on the latent data manifold. Moreover, the abstract claims a proof that LoRAS 'provides a better estimate for the mean of the underlying local data distribution,' but the theorem only compares the variance of the generated samples around that mean; it does not establish that lower variance translates into higher F1-Score or Balanced Accuracy. I recommend stating explicitly that the mathematical result is an explanatory heuristic, and adding a direct check of the distributional assumptions or an experiment that varies sigma_B to demonstrate when the predicted variance advantage actually occurs.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 3.2 and Table 3] The stated neighborhood rule (5 if there are fewer than 100 minority samples, otherwise 30) is contradicted by Table 3, which lists a neighborhood size of 3 for ar1 and ar3; please clarify or correct the rule.
  2. [Introduction and Abstract] The Introduction says the approach was validated with 12 datasets, while the Abstract and Table 4 report 14 datasets; please unify the count.
  3. [Section 6] The text refers to an 'ar2' dataset in the Small datasets discussion, but the datasets introduced and listed in Table 2 are ar1 and ar3; this appears to be a typo.
  4. [Availability of code] The GitHub code is described as preliminary and does not include the t-embedding parameter, although t-embedding is used in many of the reported experiments; please release the full implementation or state explicitly which parts are missing.
  5. [Section 5, Eq. (5)] The index notation in the covariance computation (Cov[alpha_k S^j_k, alpha_l S^j_l] with j, k, l) is hard to follow and should be cleaned up for readability.
  6. [Table 6] No multiple-comparison correction is applied to the six paired Wilcoxon tests; with p-values close to 0.05 (e.g., 0.0479 for border-line-1 and SVM-SMOTE in the F1 comparison), the significance statement should be qualified accordingly.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: Theorem 1 is a self-contained algebraic derivation from explicit distributional assumptions, and the benchmark comparisons are against external published methods.

full rationale

The paper's claimed first-principles result is Theorem 1 (Section 5), which asserts that LoRAS and SMOTE are unbiased estimators of the local mean and that the LoRAS estimator has lower variance for |F|>2. This claim is derived in the text: shadowsamples are defined as S = X + B with B ~ N(0, sigma_B^2), LoRAS samples are defined as Dirichlet-weighted convex combinations of |F| such shadowsamples, SMOTE is treated as the m=2 case with B=0, and Equations (3)-(6) compute E[S], Var[S], E[L], and Var(L_j) directly from these definitions and the stated shifted-t distributional assumption (Eq. 2). The variance comparison follows algebraically from these equations; the conclusion is not assumed in the premises. The empirical headline (Table 4) compares LoRAS against SMOTE and four SMOTE extensions using external, previously published algorithms and public datasets, so no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. Two genuine weaknesses exist, but they are not circularity: (i) the variance comparison requires the omitted small-noise condition 3*sigma_B^2 < (|F|-2)*sigma'^2 for LoRAS to beat SMOTE, so the theorem as stated is incomplete; and (ii) LoRAS's extra hyperparameters are tuned per dataset while the comparators are not, which is a benchmark-fairness threat to the empirical claim. Neither weakness makes the derivation equivalent to its inputs or reduces a prediction to a fit, so the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central empirical claim rests on per-dataset hyperparameter fitting (Naff, perplexity, embedding, noise scale), while the theoretical claim rests on distributional and independence assumptions about the local data and the noise.

free parameters (5)
  • Naff (number of shadowsamples per affine combination) = per-dataset, e.g., 10 for abalone19, 100 for arrhythmia, 179 for isolet (Table 3)
    Selected by random grid search on a hold-out split for each dataset; not derived from theory; directly controls the variance reduction claim.
  • t-SNE perplexity = per-dataset from grid [0.01, 0.1, 1, 10, 30, 100], e.g., 10 for abalone19, 1 for arrhythmia, 30 for isolet
    Tuned per dataset when embedding='t-embedding'; changes the neighborhood graph.
  • Embedding type = 'regular' or 't-embedding' per dataset and model, e.g., 't' for abalone19, 'r' for webpage
    Tuned per dataset via grid search; a core component of the manifold approximation claim.
  • Lσ (noise standard deviation) = 0.005 for all features and datasets
    Hand-set constant; the theorem's variance comparison depends on this being small relative to feature variance.
  • Oversampling neighborhood size k = 30 if |Cmin|>=100, else 5 (Table 3)
    Fixed by a simple rule for all methods; still a free choice that affects all oversamplers.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Local minority samples follow a shifted t-distribution with k degrees of freedom, location μ, and scaling σ.
    Section 5, before Eq. 2: 'We assume that a random variable X∈N^X_k follows a shifted t-distribution...' This is the distributional model used for the variance comparison.
  • domain assumption Samples in the same k-neighborhood are independent.
    Section 5, following Blagus and Lusa (2013), before Eq. 2: 'if X,X′∈N^X_k then X and X′ are independent.'
  • domain assumption Affine weights α are independent of the shadowsamples S.
    Section 5, before Eq. 4: 'Assuming α and S to be independent.' This is required for the variance computation.
  • ad hoc to paper Shadowsamples lie on the latent data manifold because the added Gaussian noise has low variance.
    Section 2: 'Considering the arbitrary low variance that we can choose for the Normal distribution from which we draw our shadowsamples, we assume that our shadowsamples lie in the latent data manifold itself.' This is load-bearing for the geometric interpretation.
  • domain assumption An |F|-dimensional manifold can be locally approximated by an (|F|-1)-dimensional plane containing |F| affinely independent shadowsamples.
    Section 2: 'An |F|-dimensional manifold can be locally approximated by a collection of (|F|-1)-dimensional planes.' The LoRAS sample is then treated as lying on that plane.
invented entities (1)
  • Shadowsample
    purpose: Noisy replica of a minority-class point, used as the building block for convex combinations in LoRAS.
    Defined entirely by the paper's algorithm; no external falsifiable prediction is attached to it.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of LoRAS: An oversampling approach for imbalanced datasets." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/NKEXBYJL

@misc{pith2026190808346,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: LoRAS: An oversampling approach for imbalanced datasets},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/NKEXBYJL}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.08346}
}
read the original abstract

The Synthetic Minority Oversampling TEchnique (SMOTE) is widely-used for the analysis of imbalanced datasets. It is known that SMOTE frequently over-generalizes the minority class, leading to misclassifications for the majority class, and effecting the overall balance of the model. In this article, we present an approach that overcomes this limitation of SMOTE, employing Localized Random Affine Shadowsampling (LoRAS) to oversample from an approximated data manifold of the minority class. We benchmarked our algorithm with 14 publicly available imbalanced datasets using three different Machine Learning (ML) algorithms and compared the performance of LoRAS, SMOTE and several SMOTE extensions that share the concept of using convex combinations of minority class data points for oversampling with LoRAS. We observed that LoRAS, on average generates better ML models in terms of F1-Score and Balanced accuracy. Another key observation is that while most of the extensions of SMOTE we have tested, improve the F1-Score with respect to SMOTE on an average, they compromise on the Balanced accuracy of a classification model. LoRAS on the contrary, improves both F1 Score and the Balanced accuracy thus produces better classification models. Moreover, to explain the success of the algorithm, we have constructed a mathematical framework to prove that LoRAS oversampling technique provides a better estimate for the mean of the underlying local data distribution of the minority class data space.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.08346 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Visualization of the workflow demonstrating a step-by-step explanation for LoRAS [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure showing for Principal Component Analysis plot of ozone dataset for baseline [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

44 extracted references · 32 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Aditsania , Adiwijaya , and A

    A. Aditsania , Adiwijaya , and A. L. Saonard . Handling imbalanced data in churn prediction using adasyn and backpropagation algorithm. In 2017 3rd International Conference on Science in Information Technology (ICSITech), pages 533--536, 2017. doi: https://doi.org/10.1109/ICSITech.2017.8257170

    work page arXiv 2017

  2. [2]

    A Study of Synthetic Oversampling for Twitter Imbalanced Sentiment Analysis

    Julien Ah-Pine, Edmundo-Pavel Soriano-Morales, and Edmundo Pavel Soriano Morales . A Study of Synthetic Oversampling for Twitter Imbalanced Sentiment Analysis . In Workshop on Interactions between Data Mining and Natural Language Processing (DMNLP 2016), volume 1646, pages 17--24, 2016

    work page 2016

  3. [3]

    An approach for classification of highly imbalanced data using weighting and undersampling

    Ashish Anand, Ganesan Pugalenthi, Gary Fogel, and Ponnuthurai Suganthan. An approach for classification of highly imbalanced data using weighting and undersampling. Amino acids, 39: 0 1385--91, 11 2010. doi:10.1007/s00726-010-0595-2

    work page doi:10.1007/s00726-010-0595-2 2010

  4. [4]

    Monirul Islam, Xin Yao, and Kazuyuki Murase

    Sukarna Barua, Md. Monirul Islam, Xin Yao, and Kazuyuki Murase. Mwmote--majority weighted minority oversampling technique for imbalanced data set learning. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, 26 0 (2): 0 405--425, Feb, 2014. doi: https://doi.org/10.1109/TKDE.2012.232 , ISSN: 1041-4347

    work page doi:10.1109/tkde.2012.232 2014

  5. [5]

    Manifold-based synthetic oversampling with manifold conformance estimation

    C Bellinger, C Drummond, and N Japkowicz. Manifold-based synthetic oversampling with manifold conformance estimation. Machine Learning, 107: 0 605--637, 2018. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10994-017-5670-4

    work page doi:10.1007/s10994-017-5670-4 2018

  6. [6]

    Beyond the boundaries of smote

    Colin Bellinger, Christopher Drummond, and Nathalie Japkowicz. Beyond the boundaries of smote. In Paolo Frasconi, Niels Landwehr, Giuseppe Manco, and Jilles Vreeken, editors, Machine Learning and Knowledge Discovery in Databases, pages 248--263, Cham, 2016. Springer International Publishing

    work page 2016

  7. [7]

    Smote for high-dimensional class-imbalanced data

    Rok Blagus and Lara Lusa. Smote for high-dimensional class-imbalanced data. BMC Bioinformatics, 14 0 (1): 0 106, Mar 2013. doi: https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2105-14-106, ISSN: 1471-2105

    doi:10.1186/1471-2105-14-106 2013

  8. [8]

    Safe-level-smote: Safe-level-synthetic minority over-sampling technique for handling the class imbalanced problem

    Chumphol Bunkhumpornpat, Krung Sinapiromsaran, and Chidchanok Lursinsap. Safe-level-smote: Safe-level-synthetic minority over-sampling technique for handling the class imbalanced problem. In Advances in Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, Lecture notes in Computer Science, volume 5476, pages 475--482. Springer, 2009. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-64...

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-642-01307-2 2009

Show all 44 references
  1. [9]

    A. M. Carvalho and R. C. Prati . Improving knn classification under unbalanced data. a new geometric oversampling approach. In 2018 International Joint Conference on Neural Networks (IJCNN), pages 1--6, July 2018. doi:10.1109/IJCNN.2018.8489411

    2018

  2. [10]

    N. V. Chawla, K. W. Bowyer, L. O. Hall, and W. P. Kegelmeyer. Smote: Synthetic minority over-sampling technique. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 16: 0 321--335, 2002. doi: https://doi.org/10.1613/jair.953

    2002 doi

  3. [11]

    SMOTEBoost: Improving Prediction of the Minority Class in Boosting

    Nitesh V Chawla, Aleksandar Lazarevic, Lawrence O Hall, and Kevin Bowyer. SMOTEBoost: Improving Prediction of the Minority Class in Boosting . In European Conference on Principles of Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery, pages 107--119, 2003. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-...

    2003 doi

  4. [12]

    Extreme anomalous oversampling technique for class imbalance

    C Chiamanusorn and K Sinapiromsaran. Extreme anomalous oversampling technique for class imbalance. In Proceedings of the 2017 International Conference on Information Technology, ICIT 2017, pages 341--345, New York, NY, USA, 2017. ACM. ISBN 978-1-4503-6351-8. doi:10.1145/317665...

    2017

  5. [13]

    Credit card fraud detection: A realistic modeling and a novel learning strategy

    Andrea Dal Pozzolo, Giacomo Boracchi, Olivier Caelen, Cesare Alippi, and Gianluca Bontempi. Credit card fraud detection: A realistic modeling and a novel learning strategy. IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems, 29: 0 1--14, 09 2017. doi: https://doi.org/10...

    2017

  6. [14]

    The relationship between precision-recall and roc curves

    Jesse Davis and Mark Goadrich. The relationship between precision-recall and roc curves. In Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Machine Learning, ICML '06, pages 233--240, New York, NY, USA, 2006. ACM. ISBN 1-59593-383-2. doi:10.1145/1143844.1143874. URL http:/...

    2006

  7. [15]

    Diversified Ensemble Classifiers for Highly Imbalanced Data Learning and Its Application in Bioinformatics

    Zejin Ding. Diversified Ensemble Classifiers for Highly Imbalanced Data Learning and Its Application in Bioinformatics. PhD thesis, Georgia State University, Atlanta, GA, USA, 2011. ISBN: 978-1-267-04661-1

    2011

  8. [16]

    Geometric smote a geometrically enhanced drop-in replacement for smote

    Georgios Douzas and Fernando Bacao. Geometric smote a geometrically enhanced drop-in replacement for smote. Information Sciences, 501: 0 118 -- 135, 2019. ISSN 0020-0255. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2019.06.007. URL http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S00200...

    2019 doi

  9. [17]

    Classification of Imbalance Data using Tomek Link (T-Link) Combined with Random Under-sampling (RUS) as a Data Reduction Method

    T Elhassan, M Aljurf, F Al-Mohanna, and M Shoukri. Classification of Imbalance Data using Tomek Link (T-Link) Combined with Random Under-sampling (RUS) as a Data Reduction Method . Global Journal of Technology and Optimization, 1: 0 2--11, 2016. doi: https://doi.org/10.21767/2...

    2016

  10. [18]

    Ming Gao, Xia Hong, Sheng Chen, and Chris J. Harris. On combination of SMOTE and particle swarm optimization based radial basis function classifier for imbalanced problems . In The 2011 International Joint Conference on Neural Networks, pages 1146--1153. IEEE, Jul, 2011. doi: ...

    2011

  11. [19]

    Gosain and S

    A. Gosain and S. Sardana . Handling class imbalance problem using oversampling techniques: A review. In 2017 International Conference on Advances in Computing, Communications and Informatics (ICACCI), pages 79--85, Sep 2017. doi: https://doi.org/10.1109/ICACCI.2017.8125820 , I...

    2017

  12. [20]

    Adasyn: Adaptive synthetic sampling approach for imbalanced learning

    He Haibo, Bai Yang, E Garcia, and Li Shutao. Adasyn: Adaptive synthetic sampling approach for imbalanced learning. In 2008 IEEE International Joint Conference on Neural Networks, June, 2008. doi: https://doi.org/10.1109/IJCNN.2008.4633969 , ISBN: 2161-4393

    2008

  13. [21]

    Borderline-smote: A new over-sampling method in imbalanced data sets learning

    Hui Han, Wen-Yuan Wang, and Bing-Huan Mao. Borderline-smote: A new over-sampling method in imbalanced data sets learning. In Advances in Intelligent Computing. ICIC, volume 3644, pages 878--887. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2005. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/1153805\_91, ISBN: ...

    2005 doi

  14. [22]

    SMOTE Bagging Algorithm for Imbalanced Dataset in Logistic Regression Analysis (Case: Credit of Bank X)

    Fithria Siti Hanifah, Hari Wijayanto, and Anang Kurnia. SMOTE Bagging Algorithm for Imbalanced Dataset in Logistic Regression Analysis (Case: Credit of Bank X) . Applied Mathematical Sciences, 9 0 (138): 0 6857--6865, 2015. doi: https://doi.org/10.12988/ams.2015.58562 , ISSN: ...

    2015

  15. [23]

    Geoffrey E Hinton and Sam T. Roweis. Stochastic neighbor embedding. In S. Becker, S. Thrun, and K. Obermayer, editors, Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 15, pages 857--864. MIT Press, 2003. URL http://papers.nips.cc/paper/2276-stochastic-neighbor-embedding.pdf

    2003

  16. [24]

    B2fse framework for high dimensional imbalanced data: A case study for drug toxicity prediction

    Nishtha Hooda, Seema Bawa, and Prashant Singh Rana. B2fse framework for high dimensional imbalanced data: A case study for drug toxicity prediction. Neurocomputing, 276: 0 31 -- 41, 2018. ISSN 0925-2312. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neucom.2017.04.081. URL http://www.scienced...

    2018 doi

  17. [25]

    MSMOTE: Improving Classification Performance when Training Data is imbalanced

    Shengguo Hu, Yanfeng Liang, Lintao Ma, and Ying He. MSMOTE: Improving Classification Performance when Training Data is imbalanced . In Second International Workshop on Computer Science and Engineering, volume 2, pages 13--17, Jan, 2009. doi: https://doi.org/10.1109/WCSE.2009.7...

    2009 doi

  18. [26]

    Simon D. Jackman. Bayesian analysis for the social sciences. WILEY, 2009. doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470686621, ISBN: 9780470011546

    2009 doi

  19. [27]

    Jing , X

    X. Jing , X. Zhang , X. Zhu , F. Wu , X. You , Y. Gao , S. Shan , and J. Yang . Multiset feature learning for highly imbalanced data classification. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, pages 1--1, 2019. ISSN 1939-3539. doi:10.1109/TPAMI.2019.2929166

    2019

  20. [28]

    Visualizing data using t-SNE

    D Kobak and P Berens. Visualizing data using t-SNE . Nature Communications, 10, 2019. doi: https://10.1038/s41467-019-13056-x

    2019 doi

  21. [29]

    Smote-variants: A python implementation of 85 minority oversampling techniques

    György Kovács. Smote-variants: A python implementation of 85 minority oversampling techniques. Neurocomputing, 366: 0 352 -- 354, 2019. ISSN 0925-2312. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neucom.2019.06.100. URL http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0925231219311622

    2019 doi

  22. [30]

    A hybrid approach using oversampling technique and cost-sensitive learning for bankruptcy prediction

    T Le, M Thanh Vo, B Vo, Y Lee, and W Baik. A hybrid approach using oversampling technique and cost-sensitive learning for bankruptcy prediction. Complexity, 2019, 03 2019. doi: https://10.1155/2019/8460934

    2019 doi

  23. [31]

    Noisy replication in skewed binary classification

    Sauchi Stephen Lee. Noisy replication in skewed binary classification. Comput. Stat. Data Anal., 34 0 (2): 0 165--191, August 2000. ISSN 0167-9473. doi:10.1016/S0167-9473(99)00095-X. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0167-9473(99)00095-X. doi: https://10.1016/S0167-9473(99)00095-X

    doi

  24. [32]

    Guillaume Lema \^i tre, Fernando Nogueira, and Christos K. Aridas. Imbalanced-learn: A Python Toolbox to Tackle the Curse of Imbalanced Datasets in Machine Learning . Journal of Machine Learning Research, 18: 0 559--563, Jan, 2017. ISSN: 1532-4435

    2017

  25. [33]

    Abd Elrahman and Ajith Abraham

    Shaza M. Abd Elrahman and Ajith Abraham. A review of class imbalance problem. Journal of Network and Innovative Computing, 1: 0 332--340, 2013. ISSN: 2160-2174

    2013

  26. [34]

    Kernel-based smote for svm classification of imbalanced datasets

    Josey Mathew, Ming Luo, Chee Khiang Pang, and Hian Leng Chan. Kernel-based smote for svm classification of imbalanced datasets. In IECON 2015 - 41st Annual Conference of the IEEE Industrial Electronics Society, pages 001127--001132. IEEE, Nov, 2015. doi: https://doi.org/10.110...

    2015

  27. [35]

    A pruning-based approach for searching precise and generalized region for synthetic minority over-sampling

    Kamthorn Puntumapon and Kitsana Waiyamai. A pruning-based approach for searching precise and generalized region for synthetic minority over-sampling. In Advances in Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, pages 371--382, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2012. Springer Berlin Heidelberg

    2012

  28. [36]

    Smote-frst: A new resampling method using fuzzy rough set theory

    Enislay Ramentol, Nele Verbiest, Rafael Bello, Yaile Caballero, Chris Cornelis, and Francisco Herrera. Smote-frst: A new resampling method using fuzzy rough set theory. In World Scientific Proceedings Series on Computer Engineering and Information Science, volume 7, pages 800-...

    2012 doi

  29. [37]

    Saez, Bartosz Krawczyk, and Micha Wo\' z niak

    Jos\' e A. Saez, Bartosz Krawczyk, and Micha Wo\' z niak. Analyzing the oversampling of different classes and types of examples in multi-class imbalanced datasets. Pattern Recognition, 57: 0 164--178, 2016. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.patcog.2016.03.012, ISBN: 978-1-267-04661-1

    2016 doi

  30. [38]

    The precision-recall plot is more informative than the roc plot when evaluating binary classifiers on imbalanced datasets

    Takaya Saito and Marc Rehmsmeier. The precision-recall plot is more informative than the roc plot when evaluating binary classifiers on imbalanced datasets. PLOS ONE, 10: 0 1--21, 03 2015. URL https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0118432. doi: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.p...

    2015 doi

  31. [39]

    Synthetic over sampling methods for handling class imbalanced problems : A review

    B Santoso, H Wijayanto, K A Notodiputro, and B Sartono. Synthetic over sampling methods for handling class imbalanced problems : A review. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science , 58: 0 012--031, Mar 2017. doi: https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/58/1/012031, ISS...

    2017 doi

  32. [40]

    A comparison of oversampling methods on imbalanced topic classification of korean news articles

    Yirey Suh, Jaemyung Yu, Jonghoon Mo, Leegu Song, and Cheongtag Kim. A comparison of oversampling methods on imbalanced topic classification of korean news articles. Journal of Cognitive Science, 18: 0 391--437, 2017

    2017

  33. [41]

    Visualizing data using t-SNE

    Laurens van der Maaten and Geoffrey Hinton. Visualizing data using t-SNE . Journal of Machine Learning Research, 9: 0 2579--2605, 2008. url: http://www.jmlr.org/papers/v9/vandermaaten08a.html

    2008

  34. [42]

    Varmedja , M

    D. Varmedja , M. Karanovic , S. Sladojevic , M. Arsenovic , and A. Anderla . Credit card fraud detection - machine learning methods. In 2019 18th International Symposium INFOTEH-JAHORINA (INFOTEH), pages 1--5, March 2019. doi: https://10.1109/INFOTEH.2019.8717766

    2019

  35. [43]

    A hybrid classifier combining SMOTE with PSO to estimate 5-year survivability of breast cancer patients

    Kung-Jeng Wang, Bunjira Makond, Kun-Huang Chen, and Kung-Min Wang. A hybrid classifier combining SMOTE with PSO to estimate 5-year survivability of breast cancer patients . Applied Soft Computing, 20: 0 15--24, Jul, 2014. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ASOC.2013.09.014 , ISSN:...

    2014 doi

  36. [44]

    Young, Ii, Scott L

    William A. Young, Ii, Scott L. Nykl, Gary R. Weckman, and David M. Chelberg. Using voronoi diagrams to improve classification performances when modeling imbalanced datasets. Neural Comput. Appl., 26 0 (5): 0 1041--1054, July 2015. ISSN 0941-0643. doi:10.1007/s00521-014-1780-0....

    2015 doi

Pith tools

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