Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 36 references

Enhancing Imbalance Learning: A Novel Slack-Factor Fuzzy SVM Approach

T0 review · 3 major / 6 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 Replacing a fixed threshold with a tunable location parameter in the fuzzy membership function reduces minority-class misclassification on imbalanced datasets.

desk verdict Tunable-threshold SFFSVM with honest self-awareness and code; the small gains are plausible but the 'consistently higher' claim needs variance estimates and a fairer baseline search before it can be taken at face value. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.17128 v1 pith:RD54MBA6 submitted 2024-11-26 cs.LG cs.NE

M. Tanveer , Anushka Tiwari , Mushir Akhtar , C.T. Lin This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.LGcs.NE
keywords classimbalancefuzzysupportvectormachineslackfactorlocationparametermembershipdifferenterrorcostimbalancedclassificationAUC-PR
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

This paper claims that a one-line change to the fuzzy membership rule of the slack-factor-based fuzzy SVM (SFFSVM) improves performance on class-imbalanced datasets. In SFFSVM, majority-class samples with slack factor below 2 receive full fuzzy membership; the proposed ISFFSVM replaces the fixed cutoff 2 with a tunable location parameter a. By assigning lower membership to majority samples whose slack factor lies between a and 2, the decision hyperplane from the different error cost (DEC) model is kept from shifting too far, which protects correctly classified minority samples from being misclassified. If correct, this gives a simple algorithmic-level remedy for imbalance that adds no computational cost beyond tuning one parameter, and the paper reports higher average F1-score, MCC, and AUC-PR on real-world datasets.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the location parameter $a$ in Eq. (9), a tunable cutoff in the fuzzy membership function for the majority class. In the prior SFFSVM, majority points with slack factor $\xi < 2$ all receive membership 1; ISFFSVM grants full membership only to points with $\xi < a$ and exponentially decays membership for $\xi \geq a$. This controls how far the DEC hyperplane $M_{dec}$ can shift rightward when the model retrains with these memberships: points with slack factors between $a$ and 2, which the old rule would weight at 1, now receive lower weight, so the boundary does not push past correctly classified minority points. The machinery also includes the DEC model of Eq. (7), which supplies the slack factors, and the two-stage training loop of Algorithm 1 that computes memberships from DEC slacks and then solves Eq. (10).

What would settle it

Run ISFFSVM across many higher-dimensional imbalanced datasets and check whether the optimal $a$ is systematically less than 2 and whether the number of correctly classified minority samples actually increases as $a$ decreases; if the best $a$ clusters at 2 or performance gains vanish when features increase, the location-parameter mechanism is not general. A direct check on real datasets is to record the false-negative count on the minority class for each $a$ in the range and test whether it decreases monotonically as claimed by the geometric story.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that the fixed value 2 used in SFFSVM's membership function for majority-class samples is not always the right threshold for shifting the DEC hyperplane, and that making this threshold a tunable location parameter a, with a chosen from 1.1 to 2, reduces the risk of misclassifying minority samples. Equations (8)-(9) set minority memberships as before, while majority memberships are 1 for slack factor $\xi < a$ and $e^{-\mu \xi}$ for $\xi \geq a$; for $a=2$ the model reduces to SFFSVM. The paper asserts, with 2D visual illustration and experiments on real-world imbalanced datasets, that this selective lower weighting of majority points near the boundary positions the shifted DEC hyperplane so that more minority samples are correctly classified, yielding consistently higher F1-score, MCC, and AUC-PR than baseline classifiers.

Load-bearing premise

The argument depends on the geometric assumption that lowering fuzzy memberships for majority samples with slack factors in $[a,2)$ shifts the decision boundary rightward just enough to save correctly classified minority points without harming them; this is illustrated only on a two-dimensional synthetic dataset and asserted without proof in higher dimensions.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For $a=2$, ISFFSVM reduces exactly to SFFSVM, so the proposal is a strict generalization that can only help when a different threshold fits the data better.
  • On both low-imbalance and high-imbalance public benchmark datasets, ISFFSVM reports higher average F1-score, MCC, and AUC-PR than SFFSVM and other baselines.
  • The computational complexity stays $O(dN^2)$, the same as SFFSVM, with the only extra cost being grid-search tuning of $a$.
  • On a schizophrenia diagnosis dataset, ISFFSVM improves slightly over SFFSVM on F1-score, MCC, and AUC-PR.
  • The model is most beneficial under severe class disparity, where preserving minority samples matters most.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The geometric story is only demonstrated on two-dimensional synthetic data; in higher dimensions the rightward shift of the DEC hyperplane may not be monotonic in $a$, so the reported gains could partly reflect per-dataset threshold selection rather than a universal mechanism.
  • A testable extension is an adaptive schedule that adjusts $a$ during training based on the current false-negative rate, removing the grid search.
  • The same thresholding idea could transfer to other fuzzy SVM variants or cost-sensitive classifiers, where membership cutoffs are currently fixed.
  • Because average gains over SFFSVM are roughly one percentage point, the practical value depends on variance across datasets and on the statistical tests reported in the supplementary material.
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

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes an improved slack-factor-based fuzzy support vector machine (ISFFSVM) for class-imbalanced learning. The novelty is a location parameter a in the fuzzy membership function for majority-class samples, which replaces the fixed threshold of 2 used in the baseline SFFSVM. The authors argue that this change reduces the risk of misclassifying correctly classified minority samples when shifting the DEC hyperplane. The method is evaluated on KEEL datasets grouped by imbalance ratio (IR < 10 and IR >= 10), using average F1-score, MCC, and AUC-PR, and additionally on a schizophrenia dataset. The reported results show small average improvements over baseline classifiers, and the paper includes a sensitivity analysis of the location parameter.

Significance. If the claimed improvements are statistically robust, this is a modest but useful extension of fuzzy SVM methods for class imbalance. The paper provides a simple algorithmic change, releases code, and uses standard public benchmarks, which are positive features. However, the theoretical justification is heuristic and the empirical evidence in the main text is incomplete, because only averages are reported and the significance tests are deferred to a supplementary that is not available for review. The work is likely to be of interest to the fuzzy SVM community, but the central claim of consistent improvement requires stronger support.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section III.A] The theoretical justification for the central mechanism is an assertion rather than a proof. The claim that assigning lower membership values to majority samples with slack factors in [a,2) better positions the DEC hyperplane Mdec when shifted to the right and reduces misclassification of correctly classified minority samples is argued entirely through the 2D example in Fig. 2 and the moons dataset in Fig. 3. No margin argument, bound, or high-dimensional validation is provided. This is load-bearing because if the mechanism does not hold generally, the reported gains reduce to per-dataset threshold selection. The authors should either provide a formal argument relating the membership weights to the optimal hyperplane or substantially soften the claim to say that a can be tuned to improve performance.
  2. [Section IV.B, Tables I and II] The empirical support for the 'consistently achieves higher' claim is incomplete. Tables I and II report only average F1, MCC, and AUC-PR over datasets, with no standard deviations, per-dataset paired differences, confidence intervals, or effect sizes. The paper mentions a Friedman test and Nemenyi post hoc test in Section IV.B but defers details to a supplementary that is not included in this manuscript. Furthermore, because ISFFSVM tunes a over the grid {1.1,...,2.0} per dataset and a=2 recovers SFFSVM, ISFFSVM is guaranteed to be at least as good as SFFSVM on the validation set. The reported average gains (e.g., F1 +1.01 on low IR and +1.73 on high IR) are therefore consistent with threshold picking rather than the proposed geometric mechanism. The authors should report the full statistical analysis in the main text, including paired tests and confidence intervals, and ideally a nested cross-validation where a is selected on the training fold only.
  3. [Section IV.D] The sensitivity analysis demonstrates that the optimal a varies widely across datasets (e.g., 1.1 for Haberman, 1.7 for Ecoli1) and that performance is highly sensitive to a, with steep declines when deviating from the best value (as in Haberman). This undercuts the paper's framing of a as a novel parameter that significantly advances the model in a principled way; it suggests the gains arise from per-dataset hyperparameter optimization. The authors should acknowledge this limitation explicitly and discuss the cost of tuning a relative to the small average improvements.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Equations (1) and (7)] The typesetting of the objective functions is confusing: the summation indices such as \sum_{x \in X^+} are placed after the weight terms, making the formulas hard to read; they should appear before the terms they multiply.
  2. [Section III.A] The term "right" is used informally to describe the direction of the DEC hyperplane shift; a more precise definition, for example in terms of the change in the bias b or the normal vector w, would improve rigor and reproducibility.
  3. [Abstract and Section IV.B] The abstract claims ISFFSVM "consistently achieves higher F1-scores" but the main text only reports averages without error bars or significance tests; the language should be tempered until statistical validation is presented.
  4. [Figure 4] The x-axis tick labels in Fig. 4 appear to be truncated or incorrectly placed, showing values up to 1.9 and then "255" instead of the full range from 1.1 to 2.0; the figure should be corrected.
  5. [Supplementary] The supplementary tables (S.V–S.X) and the statistical analysis section S.I.A are referenced but not included in the manuscript; for a self-contained review, either include them or summarize the key results in the main text.
  6. [Section III.B] The "Error Analysis" subsection is qualitative and largely repeats the mechanism described in Section III.A; it does not provide quantitative error bounds or a formal analysis of false positives and false negatives, so its length could be reduced.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the ISFFSVM modification is a genuine threshold-parameter change, and the reported gains come from held-out empirical comparison rather than from a definitional identity.

full rationale

The paper's central change is Eq. (9), which replaces the fixed threshold 2 in the SFFSVM majority-class membership Eq. (5) with a tunable location parameter a; Eq. (9) reduces to Eq. (5) at a=2, so SFFSVM is a nested special case rather than a hidden input. The claimed mechanism, that lowering memberships for majority samples with slack factors in [a,2) shifts the DEC hyperplane and protects minority samples, is asserted informally in Section III.A and illustrated on a 2D example, but that is an unsupported geometric claim, not a circular derivation: the membership values do not by definition determine the test-set F1, MCC, or AUC-PR. The numerical comparison tunes a on an [1.1, 2] grid via five-fold cross-validation and then compares on an 80:20 train/test split, so the reported gains are empirical results of model selection, not consequences of the equations. The only related concern is that a=2 is nested in the tuning grid, which can inflate validation-set performance over SFFSVM; this is a potential experimental-design weakness, but it does not make the central claim equivalent to its inputs by construction. There are no load-bearing self-citations: SFFSVM [24] is external prior work, and the other self-references are application or context citations. Thus no circular step meets the evidence bar.

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

The central claim rests primarily on one newly introduced fitted threshold a. The other hyperparameters, C and mu, are inherited from prior SVM and SFFSVM work. The geometric claim about hyperplane shifting is assumed rather than derived, so the method's benefit is largely an empirical tuning effect.

free parameters (3)
  • location parameter a = Grid-searched per dataset over [1.1, 2] in steps of 0.1; best values include 1.2 (Pima), 1.1 (Haberman), 1.6 (Yeast3)…
    Newly introduced threshold replacing the fixed value 2 in SFFSVM's majority-class membership function (Eq. 9). Reported results use the best a found by cross-validation for each dataset, so the main result depends on this fitted value.
  • regularization parameter C (zeta) = Tuned via grid search with five-fold cross-validation; exact values not reported in the main text
    Standard SVM trade-off inherited from DEC and SFFSVM; hyperparameter settings are taken from [24]. It appears in all QP formulations, including Eqs. (7) and (10).
  • smoothness parameter mu = Not reported in the main text; settings from [24]
    Controls how quickly fuzzy membership decays in Eqs. (8) and (9). It is not newly introduced but affects all membership values and therefore the decision boundary.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption Slack factor magnitude obtained from the DEC hyperplane orders samples by misclassification likelihood and noise.
    Used to construct slack-factor-based fuzzy memberships in Eq. (3) and Section II.B; the paper does not prove this ordering.
  • ad hoc to paper Reducing fuzzy memberships of majority samples with slack factors in [a, 2) shifts the decision hyperplane Mdec rightward and reduces misclassification of correctly classified minority samples.
    Asserted in Section III and illustrated with Figs. 2 and 3; no formal proof or high-dimensional validation is provided.
  • standard math SVM and DEC optimization problems are convex QPs with the usual structural risk minimization properties.
    Standard background inherited from SVM literature, relied upon throughout Eqs. (1), (2), (7), and (10).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Enhancing Imbalance Learning: A Novel Slack-Factor Fuzzy SVM Approach." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/RD54MBA6

@misc{pith2026241117128,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Enhancing Imbalance Learning: A Novel Slack-Factor Fuzzy SVM Approach},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/RD54MBA6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.17128}
}
read the original abstract

In real-world applications, class-imbalanced datasets pose significant challenges for machine learning algorithms, such as support vector machines (SVMs), particularly in effectively managing imbalance, noise, and outliers. Fuzzy support vector machines (FSVMs) address class imbalance by assigning varying fuzzy memberships to samples; however, their sensitivity to imbalanced datasets can lead to inaccurate assessments. The recently developed slack-factor-based FSVM (SFFSVM) improves traditional FSVMs by using slack factors to adjust fuzzy memberships based on misclassification likelihood, thereby rectifying misclassifications induced by the hyperplane obtained via different error cost (DEC). Building on SFFSVM, we propose an improved slack-factor-based FSVM (ISFFSVM) that introduces a novel location parameter. This novel parameter significantly advances the model by constraining the DEC hyperplane's extension, thereby mitigating the risk of misclassifying minority class samples. It ensures that majority class samples with slack factor scores approaching the location threshold are assigned lower fuzzy memberships, which enhances the model's discrimination capability. Extensive experimentation on a diverse array of real-world KEEL datasets demonstrates that the proposed ISFFSVM consistently achieves higher F1-scores, Matthews correlation coefficients (MCC), and area under the precision-recall curve (AUC-PR) compared to baseline classifiers. Consequently, the introduction of the location parameter, coupled with the slack-factor-based fuzzy membership, enables ISFFSVM to outperform traditional approaches, particularly in scenarios characterized by severe class disparity. The code for the proposed model is available at \url{https://github.com/mtanveer1/ISFFSVM}.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.17128 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Decision boundary visualization for SFFSVM and proposed ISFFSVM. (a) Illustration of decision hyperplane and slack [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Illustrates the impact of the location parameter [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Comparison of decision hyperplanes for SFFSVM [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Sensitivity analysis of the location parameter [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

36 extracted references · 32 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Machine learning driven extended matrix norm method for the solution of large-scale zero-sum matrix games,

    B. ˙Izgi, M. ¨Ozkaya, N. K. ¨Ure, and M. Perc, “Machine learning driven extended matrix norm method for the solution of large-scale zero-sum matrix games,” Journal of Computational Science , vol. 68, p. 101997, 2023

    work page 2023

  2. [2]

    Signal propagation in complex networks,

    P. Ji, J. Ye, Y . Mu, W. Lin, Y . Tian, C. Hens, M. Perc, Y . Tang, J. Sun, and J. Kurths, “Signal propagation in complex networks,” Physics Reports , vol. 1017, pp. 1– 96, 2023

    work page 2023

  3. [3]

    Machine learning partners in criminal networks,

    D. D. Lopes, B. R. d. Cunha, A. F. Martins, S. Gonc ¸alves, E. K. Lenzi, Q. S. Hanley, M. Perc, and H. V . Ribeiro, “Machine learning partners in criminal networks,” Scien- tific Reports, vol. 12, no. 1, p. 15746, 2022

    work page 2022

  4. [4]

    Machine learning techniques for the diagnosis of Alzheimer’s disease: A review,

    M. Tanveer, B. Richhariya, R. U. Khan, A. H. Rashid, P. Khanna, M. Prasad, and C. T. Lin, “Machine learning techniques for the diagnosis of Alzheimer’s disease: A review,” ACM Transactions on Multimedia Computing, Communications, and Applications (TOMM) , vol. 16, no. 1s, pp. 1–35, 2020

    work page 2020

  5. [5]

    Ensemble deep learning for Alzheimer’s disease characterization and estimation,

    M. Tanveer, T. Goel, R. Sharma, A. K. Malik, I. Beheshti, J. Del Ser, P. N. Suganthan, and C. T. Lin, “Ensemble deep learning for Alzheimer’s disease characterization and estimation,” Nature Mental Health , pp. 1–13, 2024. [Online]. Available: doi.org/10.1038/ s44220-024-00237-x

    work page 2024

  6. [6]

    Fuzzy deep learning for the diagnosis of Alzheimer’s disease: Approaches and challenges,

    M. Tanveer, M. Sajid, M. Akhtar, A. Quadir, T. Goel, A. Aimen, S. Mitra, Y . D. Zhang, C. T. Lin, and J. Del Ser, “Fuzzy deep learning for the diagnosis of Alzheimer’s disease: Approaches and challenges,” IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems , 2024. [Online]. Available: 10.1109/TFUZZ.2024.3409412

    arXiv 2024

  7. [7]

    Support-vector networks,

    C. Cortes and V . Vapnik, “Support-vector networks,” Machine Learning, vol. 20, pp. 273–297, 1995

    work page 1995

  8. [8]

    RoBoSS: A robust, bounded, sparse, and smooth loss function for supervised learning,

    M. Akhtar, M. Tanveer, and M. Arshad, “RoBoSS: A robust, bounded, sparse, and smooth loss function for supervised learning,” IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence , pp. 1–13, 2024. [Online]. Available: 10.1109/TPAMI.2024.3465535

    arXiv 2024

Show all 36 references
  1. [9]

    Ad- vancing supervised learning with the wave loss function: A robust and smooth approach,

    M. Akhtar, M. Tanveer, M. Arshad, and Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative, “Ad- vancing supervised learning with the wave loss function: A robust and smooth approach,” Pattern Recognition, p. 110637, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.patcog.2024.110637

    2024

  2. [10]

    GL-TSVM: A robust and smooth twin support vector machine with guardian loss function,

    M. Akhtar, M. Tanveer, and M. Arshad, “GL-TSVM: A robust and smooth twin support vector machine with guardian loss function,” 27th International Conference on Pattern Recognition (ICPR) , 2024. [Online]. Available: doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2408.16336

    2024 doi arXiv

  3. [11]

    Enhancing multiview synergy: Robust learning by exploiting the wave loss function with consensus and complementarity principles,

    A. Quadir, M. Akhtar, and M. Tanveer, “Enhancing multiview synergy: Robust learning by exploiting the wave loss function with consensus and complementarity principles,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.06819 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Diagnosis of breast cancer using flexible pinball loss support vector machine,

    A. Kumari, M. Akhtar, M. Tanveer, and M. Arshad, “Diagnosis of breast cancer using flexible pinball loss support vector machine,” Applied Soft Computing , vol. 157, p. 111454, 2024

    2024

  5. [13]

    Learning from imbalanced data: open challenges and future directions,

    B. Krawczyk, “Learning from imbalanced data: open challenges and future directions,” Progress in Artificial Intelligence, vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 221–232, 2016

    2016

  6. [14]

    Clas- sification of imbalanced data by oversampling in kernel space of support vector machines,

    J. Mathew, C. K. Pang, M. Luo, and W. H. Leong, “Clas- sification of imbalanced data by oversampling in kernel space of support vector machines,” IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems , vol. 29, no. 9, pp. 4065–4076, 2017

    2017

  7. [15]

    Ma- chine learning with oversampling and undersampling techniques: overview study and experimental results,

    R. Mohammed, J. Rawashdeh, and M. Abdullah, “Ma- chine learning with oversampling and undersampling techniques: overview study and experimental results,” in 2020 11th International Conference on Information and Communication Systems (ICICS). IEEE, 2020, pp. 243– 248

    2020

  8. [16]

    Survey of KEEL techniques for improv- ing classification performance in unbalanced datasets,

    A. More, “Survey of KEEL techniques for improv- ing classification performance in unbalanced datasets,” ArXiv:1608.06048, 2016

    2016 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Neural network with absent minority class samples and boundary shifting for imbalanced data classification,

    Z. A. Huang, Y . Sang, Y . Sun, and J. Lv, “Neural network with absent minority class samples and boundary shifting for imbalanced data classification,” Neural Computing and Applications , pp. 1–17, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00521-022-08135-y

    2023 doi

  10. [18]

    Cost-sensitive learning methods for imbalanced data,

    N. Thai-Nghe, Z. Gantner, and L. Schmidt-Thieme, “Cost-sensitive learning methods for imbalanced data,” in 2010 International Joint Conference on Neural Networks (IJCNN). IEEE, 2010, pp. 1–8

    2010

  11. [19]

    Support vector machine-based optimized de- cision threshold adjustment strategy for classifying im- balanced data,

    H. Yu, C. Mu, C. Sun, W. Yang, X. Yang, and X. Zuo, “Support vector machine-based optimized de- cision threshold adjustment strategy for classifying im- balanced data,” Knowledge-Based Systems , vol. 76, pp. 67–78, 2015

    2015

  12. [20]

    Imbalanced 10 data classification based on scaling kernel-based support vector machine,

    Y . Zhang, P. Fu, W. Liu, and G. Chen, “Imbalanced 10 data classification based on scaling kernel-based support vector machine,” Neural Computing and Applications , vol. 25, pp. 927–935, 2014

    2014

  13. [21]

    Con- trolling the sensitivity of support vector machines,

    K. Veropoulos, C. Campbell, and N. Cristianini, “Con- trolling the sensitivity of support vector machines,” in Proceedings of the International Joint Conference on AI , vol. 55. Stockholm, 1999, p. 60

    1999

  14. [22]

    Fuzzy support vector ma- chines,

    C.-F. Lin and S.-D. Wang, “Fuzzy support vector ma- chines,” IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks, vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 464–471, 2002

    2002

  15. [23]

    FSVM-CIL: fuzzy support vector machines for class imbalance learning,

    R. Batuwita and V . Palade, “FSVM-CIL: fuzzy support vector machines for class imbalance learning,” IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems , vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 558– 571, 2010

    2010

  16. [24]

    Slack-factor-based fuzzy support vector machine for class imbalance problems,

    J. Ren, Y . Wang, and X. Deng, “Slack-factor-based fuzzy support vector machine for class imbalance problems,” ACM Transactions on Knowledge Discovery from Data, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10. 1145/3579050

    2023

  17. [25]

    Hashing-based undersampling ensemble for imbalanced pattern classification problems,

    W. W. Ng, S. Xu, J. Zhang, X. Tian, T. Rong, and S. Kwong, “Hashing-based undersampling ensemble for imbalanced pattern classification problems,” IEEE Trans- actions on Cybernetics , vol. 52, no. 2, pp. 1269–1279, 2020

    2020

  18. [26]

    Centered kernel alignment inspired fuzzy support vector machine,

    T. Wang, Y . Qiu, and J. Hua, “Centered kernel alignment inspired fuzzy support vector machine,” Fuzzy Sets and Systems, vol. 394, pp. 110–123, 2020

    2020

  19. [27]

    Tackling the poor assumptions of naive bayes text classification. machine learning,

    J. D. Rennie, “Tackling the poor assumptions of naive bayes text classification. machine learning,” ICML-2003, Washington DC, 2003

    2003

  20. [28]

    Adaptive SV- borderline SMOTE-SVM algorithm for imbalanced data classification,

    J. Guo, H. Wu, X. Chen, and W. Lin, “Adaptive SV- borderline SMOTE-SVM algorithm for imbalanced data classification,” Applied Soft Computing , vol. 150, p. 110986, 2024

    2024

  21. [29]

    New oversampling ap- proaches based on polynomial fitting for imbalanced data sets,

    S. Gazzah and N. E. B. Amara, “New oversampling ap- proaches based on polynomial fitting for imbalanced data sets,” in 2008 the Eighth IAPR International Workshop on Document Analysis Systems . IEEE, 2008, pp. 677– 684

    2008

  22. [30]

    A study of the behavior of several methods for balancing machine learning training data,

    G. E. Batista, R. C. Prati, and M. C. Monard, “A study of the behavior of several methods for balancing machine learning training data,” ACM SIGKDD Explo- rations NewsLetter, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 20–29, 2004

    2004

  23. [31]

    MWMOTE–majority weighted minority oversampling technique for imbalanced data set learning,

    S. Barua, M. M. Islam, X. Yao, and K. Murase, “MWMOTE–majority weighted minority oversampling technique for imbalanced data set learning,” IEEE Trans- actions on Knowledge and Data Engineering , vol. 26, no. 2, pp. 405–425, 2012

    2012

  24. [32]

    KEEL data-mining software tool: Data set repository, integra- tion of algorithms and experimental analysis framework,

    J. Derrac, S. Garcia, L. Sanchez, and F. Herrera, “KEEL data-mining software tool: Data set repository, integra- tion of algorithms and experimental analysis framework,” J. Mult. Valued Logic Soft Comput , vol. 17, 2015

    2015

  25. [33]

    An over-sampling expert system for learing from imbalanced data sets,

    G. He, H. Han, and W. Wang, “An over-sampling expert system for learing from imbalanced data sets,” in 2005 International Conference on Neural Networks and Brain, vol. 1. IEEE, 2005, pp. 537–541

    2005

  26. [34]

    Learning with mitigating random consistency from the accuracy measure,

    J. Wang, Y . Qian, and F. Li, “Learning with mitigating random consistency from the accuracy measure,” Ma- chine Learning, vol. 109, pp. 2247–2281, 2020

    2020

  27. [35]

    Generalization performance of pure accuracy and its application in selective ensemble learning,

    J. Wang, Y . Qian, F. Li, J. Liang, and Q. Zhang, “Generalization performance of pure accuracy and its application in selective ensemble learning,” IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence , 2022. [Online]. Available: 10.1109/TPAMI.2022.3171436

    2022

  28. [36]

    Intuitionistic fuzzy weighted least squares twin SVMs,

    M. Tanveer, M. A. Ganaie, A. Bhattacharjee, and C. T. Lin, “Intuitionistic fuzzy weighted least squares twin SVMs,” IEEE Transactions on Cybernetics , vol. 53, no. 7, pp. 4400–4409, 2022

    2022

Pith tools

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