Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 39 references

K-GBS3FCM -- KNN Graph-Based Safe Semi-Supervised Fuzzy C-Means

T0 review · 5 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · 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 K-GBS3FCM, a fuzzy c-means variant that sizes each labeled point's unlabeled neighborhood by KNN density and boosts the labeled-to-unlabeled influence when average safety is high, wins 36 of 56 benchmark configurations…

desk verdict A coherent incremental variant of AS3FCM with a promising dynamic-neighborhood idea, but the 64% superiority claim is unproven because baselines were not rerun under matched conditions. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.14728 v1 pith:QBEOETSL submitted 2024-11-22 cs.LG

Gabriel Santos , Rita Julia , Marcelo Nascimento This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.LG
keywords safesemi-supervisedclusteringfuzzyc-meansK-nearestneighborsgraphsafetydegreemislabeleddataaccuracylabelnoise
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 K-GBS3FCM, a safe semi-supervised fuzzy c-means algorithm that uses a K-nearest-neighbor graph to decide how many unlabeled neighbors each labeled point should consult. This is meant to fix a weakness in the prior AS3FCM method, which fixed that neighbor count at 5 regardless of local density. The paper claims the new algorithm is significantly better than eight baselines in 64% of 56 configurations across eight datasets, including cases with up to 30% intentionally wrong labels. If true, it supports the idea that graph-based neighborhood estimation plus a simple reliability threshold can make semi-supervised fuzzy clustering safer under label noise.

What carries the argument

The central object is the KNN-based dynamic neighborhood size dpUN_k (Eq. 13), which maps the average distance to K nearest unlabeled neighbors to a value between UN_min and UN_max. This dpUN feeds a simplified safety degree s_k = 1/(1 + local_inconsistency/dpUN) (Eq. 15), and a step function Step(mean s) (Eq. 16) multiplies the λ2 regularization term in the objective function when the average safety degree is reliable. The machinery ties the density proxy to how much each labeled point is trusted and how strongly it influences nearby unlabeled points.

What would settle it

A direct check is to rerun the eight baseline algorithms on the same eight datasets under the paper's stated protocol (20% labeled, 0-30% mislabeling in 5% steps, accuracy metric of Eq. 20) and see whether K-GBS3FCM still wins 36 of 56 configurations; if the baselines reproduce the [17] numbers and the win rate drops well below 64%, the central claim fails, and if the baselines do not reproduce, the original comparison is not trustworthy.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

K-GBS3FCM replaces the fixed number of unlabeled neighbors used in AS3FCM with a per-labeled-point dynamic number dpUN, estimated from the average distance to a fixed K initial neighbors as a density proxy. It simplifies the safety-degree computation to a closed form based on local inconsistency, and it adds a step function that amplifies the influence of labeled data on unlabeled data when the average safety degree passes a threshold. The paper reports that this combination achieves higher clustering accuracy than FCM, K-Means, and several recent safe semi-supervised methods, and holds up better as mislabeling rises.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the published baseline numbers taken from AS3FCM [17] were produced under the same experimental conditions as the authors' own runs, since those baselines were not rerun (the paper states this in Section IV-B); if the random splits, tuning, or evaluation code differ, the claimed superiority rests on an apples-to-oranges comparison.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • With correct labels (0% mislabeling), K-GBS3FCM outperforms all baselines on all datasets except Gauss50x.
  • Through 30% mislabeling, K-GBS3FCM wins 36 of 56 configurations, i.e., 64.28% of the tested cases.
  • Accuracy degrades gracefully with mislabeling, with the worst drop being 9.2 percentage points on the Bupa dataset (from 69.3% to 60.1%).
  • The algorithm loses to other semi-supervised methods only on the heavily overlapping Gauss50x dataset, where KNN neighborhoods mix clusters and safety degrees become unreliable.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The step function is a hard switch: it either fully activates or fully deactivates the boosted λ2 term. A softer weighting could yield smoother behavior on datasets near the threshold, which is a testable extension.
  • Because dpUN is a linear rescaling of mean distance, it is sensitive to outliers that inflate the maximum distance. Using a robust density proxy or percentile scaling might improve performance on datasets like Gauss50x.
  • The simplification from AS3FCM's quadratic-programming safety degree to a closed-form consistency score suggests that the extra complexity may not be necessary; a head-to-head rerun of AS3FCM under identical conditions would test this directly.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

5 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes K-GBS3FCM, a safe semi-supervised fuzzy c-means algorithm that extends AS3FCM. The proposed modifications are: (i) a dynamic number of unlabeled neighbors per labeled point, computed via an average KNN-distance density proxy; (ii) a simplified safety-degree estimate defined as the inverse of a normalized local inconsistency; and (iii) a step-function-activated amplification of the λ2 term when the average safety degree exceeds a threshold. The authors evaluate the method on eight datasets with mislabeling rates from 0% to 30%, comparing against eight baselines, and claim the method is significantly superior in 64% of the 56 test configurations.

Significance. The algorithmic ideas are coherent and potentially of interest to the safe semi-supervised fuzzy clustering community, and the authors provide publicly available code, which is a concrete strength. If the dynamic-neighborhood mechanism were validated under a sound experimental protocol, it would be a useful contribution. However, the current empirical evidence does not support the headline comparative claim: the baselines were not rerun under matched conditions, the hyperparameter selection is not validation-based, and no statistical significance testing is reported. The contribution is therefore not yet established.

major comments (5)
  1. [Section IV-B] The benchmark comparison is invalid as a test of superiority because the eight baselines were not rerun under the same protocol. The paper states: 'These algorithms have not been rerun; instead, the results published in [17] are relied upon.' Consequently, the baseline accuracy values may come from different random 20/80 splits, different mislabeling injection masks, different hyperparameter tuning, and possibly different evaluation code. The abstract's claim of 'significantly superior in 64% of the 56 test configurations' is therefore not supported. The authors should rerun all baselines on the same splits, with the same mislabeling procedure, and report paired error bars and significance tests.
  2. [Section IV-C] The hyperparameter selection procedure is under-specified. λ1 and λ2 are searched over a 6×6 grid, but the paper does not state whether a validation split was used to choose them. If the reported accuracies (Table II) are the best test-set values over the grid, the results are positively biased and not comparable to baselines tuned differently. The authors must describe the selection rule and use a validation-based procedure for all methods.
  3. [Section III-C] Eqs. (17)-(19) contain an undefined multiplier written as 'λ2λStep(¯s) 1'. The surrounding text says the step value 'activates a multiplier of λ2 part', while Algorithm 1 says the λ2 part is 'amplified by λ1'. This ambiguity affects the core objective function and the membership update equations. The authors should clarify the correct form and confirm that (18) and (19) are exact derivatives of (17).
  4. [Section III-B and Algorithm 1] The algorithm is an iterative reweighting heuristic rather than a solver for a single objective function: sk in Eq. (15) is computed from the current memberships uir, while those memberships are updated in Eqs. (18)-(19) using the previous sk. This is not necessarily wrong, but the paper should explicitly state that the objective (17) is minimized only over u and v with sk held fixed, and discuss the convergence behavior. In addition, dpUNk in Eq. (13) is a real number but is used to select a number of nearest neighbors; the rounding scheme is not specified.
  5. [Section IV-E] The term 'significantly superior' is not supported by any statistical evidence. The paper reports 20 runs per configuration but provides no standard deviations, confidence intervals, or paired significance tests. Even if the baselines had been rerun, the claim of significance would require such tests. The authors should report these statistics and state the exact test used.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section IV-B] The text says 'The results of these five algorithms' but eight algorithms are listed; this should be corrected.
  2. [Eq. (13)] Please specify how dpUNk is rounded to an integer before it is used as a KNN parameter.
  3. [Eq. (20)] Please describe how predicted labels are aligned with true labels (e.g., Hungarian matching); without this, the accuracy definition is ambiguous.
  4. [Section III-C] The sentence 'the λ2 part of the objective function is amplified by λ1' appears to be a typo; it should probably refer to Step(¯s) as the multiplier.
  5. [Section III-E] The complexity discussion does not justify the claim that K-GBS3FCM 'would typically perform better' than AS3FCM; this assertion should be supported with a comparative complexity table or removed.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found: the iterative coupling of safety degrees and memberships is an optimization loop, and the empirical claim rests on external benchmarks with code released.

full rationale

The derivation chain in K-GBS3FCM is an objective-function minimization with coordinate-descent updates, not a circular reduction. Safety degrees are computed from current memberships in Eqs. (14)-(15) and then used to weight regularization terms in Eq. (17) and updates (18)-(19); this mutual dependence is a standard fixed-point iteration, and no quantity is fitted to the reported accuracy and then renamed as a prediction. The headline superiority claim is an empirical comparison against eight external algorithms, and the paper explicitly relies on results published in [17] by Gan, Yang, and Zhou, which are not the present authors' own prior results; therefore no self-citation is load-bearing. The fact that the baselines from [17] were not rerun under matched random splits and mislabeling masks is a real experimental-validity limitation, but it is a benchmarking weakness rather than a definitional or constructional circularity. The authors also acknowledge the failure mode on Gauss50x and release their code publicly, which further supports treating the claim as an independent, falsifiable empirical result. No step in the paper makes the output equivalent to its inputs by construction, so the appropriate circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on a set of hand-chosen parameters (K, theta_s, UN_min, UN_max), a grid-searched pair (lambda_1, lambda_2), a heuristic safety formula with no derivation, and an external baseline comparison that was not reproduced. These choices, not a first-principles derivation, carry the experimental result.

free parameters (6)
  • lambda_1 = not reported; grid searched over {1e-3, 1e-2, 1e-1, 1, 10, 100}
    Controls fidelity to provided labels in the objective; the paper does not report the chosen value per dataset, suggesting it was selected to maximize test accuracy.
  • lambda_2 = not reported; grid searched over same set
    Controls the pull of labeled points on unlabeled neighbors; selected per dataset and mislabeling level without a described validation set.
  • K = 5
    Initial number of unlabeled neighbors used for the density proxy in eq (12); fixed by hand with no sensitivity analysis.
  • theta_s = 0.6
    Threshold on average safety degree in eq (16); chosen by hand, no analysis of its impact.
  • UN_min = 5
    Lower bound for dpUN in eq (13); chosen by hand.
  • UN_max = sqrt(n)
    Upper bound for dpUN in eq (13); chosen by hand.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Euclidean distance is an appropriate similarity measure for all eight datasets
    Used for KNN and graph construction in eqs (6) and (12); never validated per dataset.
  • ad hoc to paper The local inconsistency sum in eq (14) is a valid proxy for label reliability
    The safety degree sk is defined directly from memberships u_ir that the algorithm itself computes; no independent evidence connects this heuristic to actual mislabeling.
  • ad hoc to paper Average KNN distance is a monotone density proxy, making eq (13) produce useful dynamic neighbor counts
    The paper states high-density regions have small average distances, but no formal or empirical justification is given beyond intuition.
  • domain assumption Baseline results in [17] are directly comparable without rerunning
    The central comparison depends on matching experimental conditions across papers; the authors did not rerun any baseline.
  • domain assumption Alternating updates in Algorithm 1 converge to a useful local optimum of the non-convex objective
    No convergence proof or initialization study is provided; the objective includes a step function that can create discontinuities.
  • ad hoc to paper Relaxing the sum-to-1 constraint on safety degrees does not hurt performance
    The authors justify this by belief, not by experiment or derivation.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of K-GBS3FCM -- KNN Graph-Based Safe Semi-Supervised Fuzzy C-Means." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/QBEOETSL

@misc{pith2026241114728,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: K-GBS3FCM -- KNN Graph-Based Safe Semi-Supervised Fuzzy C-Means},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/QBEOETSL}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.14728}
}
read the original abstract

Clustering data using prior domain knowledge, starting from a partially labeled set, has recently been widely investigated. Often referred to as semi-supervised clustering, this approach leverages labeled data to enhance clustering accuracy. To maximize algorithm performance, it is crucial to ensure the safety of this prior knowledge. Methods addressing this concern are termed safe semi-supervised clustering (S3C) algorithms. This paper introduces the KNN graph-based safety-aware semi-supervised fuzzy c-means algorithm (K-GBS3FCM), which dynamically assesses neighborhood relationships between labeled and unlabeled data using the K-Nearest Neighbors (KNN) algorithm. This approach aims to optimize the use of labeled data while minimizing the adverse effects of incorrect labels. Additionally, it is proposed a mechanism that adjusts the influence of labeled data on unlabeled ones through regularization parameters and the average safety degree. Experimental results on multiple benchmark datasets demonstrate that the graph-based approach effectively leverages prior knowledge to enhance clustering accuracy. The proposed method was significantly superior in 64% of the 56 test configurations, obtaining higher levels of clustering accuracy when compared to other semi-supervised and traditional unsupervised methods. This research highlights the potential of integrating graph-based approaches, such as KNN, with established techniques to develop advanced clustering algorithms, offering significant applications in fields that rely on both labeled and unlabeled data for more effective clustering.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.14728 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Comparison of algorithms across different datasets [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_1.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

39 extracted references · 31 canonical work pages

  1. [17]

    Adaptive safety-aware semi-supervised clustering,

    H. Gan, Z. Yang, and R. Zhou, “Adaptive safety-aware semi-supervised clustering,” Expert Systems with Applications, vol. 212, p. 118751, 2023

    work page 2023

  2. [1]

    A comprehensive survey of clustering algorithms,

    D. Xu and Y . Tian, “A comprehensive survey of clustering algorithms,” Annals of data science , vol. 2, pp. 165–193, 2015

    work page 2015

  3. [2]

    Algorithm as 136: A k-means clustering algorithm,

    J. A. Hartigan and M. A. Wong, “Algorithm as 136: A k-means clustering algorithm,” Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series C (Applied Statistics) , vol. 28, no. 1, pp. 100–108, 1979. [Online]. Available: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2346830

    arXiv 1979

  4. [3]

    J. C. Bezdek, Pattern recognition with fuzzy objective function algo- rithms. Springer Science & Business Media, 2013

    work page 2013

  5. [4]

    An iterative algorithm for entropy regularized likelihood learning on gaussian mixture with automatic model selection,

    Z. Lu, “An iterative algorithm for entropy regularized likelihood learning on gaussian mixture with automatic model selection,” Neurocomputing, vol. 69, no. 13, pp. 1674–1677, 2006, blind Source Separation and Independent Component Analysis. [Online]. Available: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0925231206000294

    work page 2006

  6. [5]

    Using clustering analysis to improve semi-supervised classification,

    H. Gan, N. Sang, R. Huang, X. Tong, and Z. Dan, “Using clustering analysis to improve semi-supervised classification,” Neurocomputing, vol. 101, pp. 290–298, 2013

    work page 2013

  7. [6]

    Semi-supervised clustering methods,

    E. Bair, “Semi-supervised clustering methods,” Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Computational Statistics , vol. 5, no. 5, pp. 349–361, 2013

    2013

  8. [7]

    Unsupervised and semi- supervised clustering: a brief survey,

    N. Grira, M. Crucianu, and N. Boujemaa, “Unsupervised and semi- supervised clustering: a brief survey,” A review of machine learning techniques for processing multimedia content , vol. 1, no. 2004, pp. 9– 16, 2004

    work page 2004

Show all 39 references
  1. [8]

    Fuzzy clustering with partial supervision,

    W. Pedrycz and J. Waletzky, “Fuzzy clustering with partial supervision,” IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Part B (Cyber- netics), vol. 27, no. 5, pp. 787–795, 1997

    1997

  2. [9]

    Safety-aware semi-supervised classification,

    Y . Wang and S. Chen, “Safety-aware semi-supervised classification,” IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems , vol. 24, pp. 1763–1772, 2013. [Online]. Available: https://api.semanticscholar. org/CorpusID:14396569

    2013

  3. [10]

    Safe semi-supervised fuzzy c-means clustering,

    H. Gan, “Safe semi-supervised fuzzy c-means clustering,” IEEE Access, vol. 7, pp. 95 659–95 664, 2019

    2019

  4. [11]

    Local homogeneous consistent safe semi-supervised clustering,

    H. Gan, Y . Fan, Z. Luo, and Q. Zhang, “Local homogeneous consistent safe semi-supervised clustering,” Expert Systems with Applications, vol. 97, pp. 384–393, 2018. [Online]. Available: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0957417417308680

    2018

  5. [12]

    Multiple kernel approach to semi-supervised fuzzy clustering algorithm for land-cover classification,

    S. D. Mai and L. T. Ngo, “Multiple kernel approach to semi-supervised fuzzy clustering algorithm for land-cover classification,” Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence , vol. 68, pp. 205–213, 2018. [Online]. Available: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article...

    2018

  6. [13]

    Particle swarm optimization (pso). a tutorial,

    F. Marini and B. Walczak, “Particle swarm optimization (pso). a tutorial,” Chemometrics and Intelligent Laboratory Systems , vol. 149, pp. 153–165, 2015. [Online]. Available: https://www.sciencedirect.com/ science/article/pii/S0169743915002117

    2015

  7. [14]

    Confidence- weighted safe semi-supervised clustering,

    H. Gan, Y . Fan, Z. Luo, R. Huang, and Z. Yang, “Confidence- weighted safe semi-supervised clustering,” Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence, vol. 81, pp. 107–116, 2019. [Online]. Available: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0952197619300302

    2019

  8. [15]

    Smkfc-er: Semi-supervised multiple kernel fuzzy clustering based on entropy and relative entropy,

    F. Salehi, M. R. Keyvanpour, and A. Sharifi, “Smkfc-er: Semi-supervised multiple kernel fuzzy clustering based on entropy and relative entropy,” Information Sciences, vol. 547, pp. 667–688, 2021. [Online]. Available: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0020025520308562

    2021

  9. [16]

    Robust semi-supervised nonnegative matrix factorization for image clustering,

    S. Peng, W. Ser, B. Chen, and Z. Lin, “Robust semi-supervised nonnegative matrix factorization for image clustering,” Pattern Recognition, vol. 111, p. 107683, 2021. [Online]. Available: https: //www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0031320320304866

    2021

  10. [18]

    Gc-flow: A graph- based flow network for effective clustering,

    T. Wang, F. Mirzazadeh, X. Zhang, and J. Chen, “Gc-flow: A graph- based flow network for effective clustering,”ArXiv, vol. abs/2305.17284,

    arXiv

  11. [19]

    Semi-supervised graph clustering: a kernel approach,

    B. Kulis, S. Basu, I. Dhillon, and R. Mooney, “Semi-supervised graph clustering: a kernel approach,” in Proceedings of the 22nd international conference on machine learning , 2005, pp. 457–464

    2005

  12. [20]

    Fix, Discriminatory analysis: nonparametric discrimination, consis- tency properties

    E. Fix, Discriminatory analysis: nonparametric discrimination, consis- tency properties. USAF school of Aviation Medicine, 1985, vol. 1

    1985

  13. [21]

    Nearest neighbor pattern classification,

    T. Cover and P. Hart, “Nearest neighbor pattern classification,” IEEE transactions on information theory , vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 21–27, 1967

    1967

  14. [22]

    Fast density peak clustering for large scale data based on knn,

    Y . Chen, X. Hu, W. Fan, L. Shen, Z. Zhang, X. Liu, J. Du, H. Li, Y . Chen, and H. Li, “Fast density peak clustering for large scale data based on knn,” Knowledge-Based Systems, vol. 187, p. 104824, 2020

    2020

  15. [23]

    Effects of distance measure choice on k-nearest neighbor classifier performance: a review,

    H. A. Abu Alfeilat, A. B. Hassanat, O. Lasassmeh, A. S. Tarawneh, M. B. Alhasanat, H. S. Eyal Salman, and V . S. Prasath, “Effects of distance measure choice on k-nearest neighbor classifier performance: a review,” Big data, vol. 7, no. 4, pp. 221–248, 2019

    2019

  16. [24]

    Performance comparison of k-means algorithm and fcm algorithm with respect to color image segmentation,

    D. J. Bora, “Performance comparison of k-means algorithm and fcm algorithm with respect to color image segmentation,” International Journal of Emerging Technology and Advanced Engineering , vol. 7, no. 8, pp. 460–470, 2017

    2017

  17. [25]

    Learning from crowdsourced labeled data: a survey,

    J. Zhang, X. Wu, and V . S. Sheng, “Learning from crowdsourced labeled data: a survey,” Artificial Intelligence Review , vol. 46, pp. 543–576, 2016

    2016

  18. [26]

    Semi-automated data labeling,

    M. Desmond, E. Duesterwald, K. Brimijoin, M. Brachman, and Q. Pan, “Semi-automated data labeling,” in NeurIPS 2020 Competition and Demonstration Track. PMLR, 2021, pp. 156–169

    2020

  19. [27]

    A survey on machine learning techniques for auto labeling of video, audio, and text data,

    S. Zhang, O. Jafari, and P. Nagarkar, “A survey on machine learning techniques for auto labeling of video, audio, and text data,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2109.03784, 2021

    2021 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Liver Disorders,

    “Liver Disorders,” UCI Machine Learning Repository, 1990, DOI: https://doi.org/10.24432/C54G67

    1990 doi

  21. [29]

    Dermatology,

    N. Ilter and H. Guvenir, “Dermatology,” UCI Machine Learning Repos- itory, 1998, DOI: https://doi.org/10.24432/C5FK5P

    1998 doi

  22. [30]

    Waveform Database Generator (Version 1),

    L. Breiman and C. Stone, “Waveform Database Generator (Version 1),” UCI Machine Learning Repository, 1988, DOI: https://doi.org/10.24432/C5CS3C

    1988 doi

  23. [31]

    Uci machine learning repository,

    A. Frank, “Uci machine learning repository,” http://archive. ics. uci. edu/ml, 2010

    2010

  24. [32]

    (2024) Kaggle datasets repository

    Kaggle. (2024) Kaggle datasets repository. Accessed: 2024-06-08. [On- line]. Available: https://www.kaggle.com/datasets/akshaydattatraykhare/ diabetes-dataset

    2024

  25. [33]

    Heart Disease,

    A. Janosi, W. Steinbrunn, M. Pfisterer, and R. Detrano, “Heart Disease,” UCI Machine Learning Repository, 1988, DOI: https://doi.org/10.24432/C52P4X

    1988 doi

  26. [34]

    (2024) Kaggle datasets repository

    Kaggle. (2024) Kaggle datasets repository. Accessed: 2024- 06-08. [Online]. Available: https://www.kaggle.com/datasets/uciml/ breast-cancer-wisconsin-data

    2024

  27. [35]

    (2024) Kaggle: Your home for data science

    ——. (2024) Kaggle: Your home for data science. Accessed: 2024-06-08. [Online]. Available: https://www.kaggle.com

    2024

  28. [36]

    Cost-sensitive classification: Empirical evaluation of a hybrid genetic decision tree induction algorithm,

    P. D. Turney, “Cost-sensitive classification: Empirical evaluation of a hybrid genetic decision tree induction algorithm,” Journal of artificial intelligence research, vol. 2, pp. 369–409, 1994

    1994

  29. [37]

    C. M. Bishop and N. M. Nasrabadi, Pattern recognition and machine learning. Springer, 2006, vol. 4, no. 4, chapter 9

    2006

  30. [38]

    Model-based clustering, discriminant analysis, and density estimation,

    C. Fraley and A. E. Raftery, “Model-based clustering, discriminant analysis, and density estimation,” Journal of the American statistical Association, vol. 97, no. 458, pp. 611–631, 2002

    2002

  31. [2023]

    Available: https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID: 258960696

    [Online]. Available: https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID: 258960696

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.