Imbalanced Data Clustering via Targeted Data Augmentation Using GMM and LLM

Abdallah Alaa-Eddine Djamai; Imed Keraghel; Mohamed Nadif; Noor Khalal

REVIEW 5 major objections 4 minor 31 references

Imbalanced Data Clustering via Targeted Data Augmentation Using GMM and LLM

T0 review · 5 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-03 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that Gaussian Mixture Model volume-to-proportion ratios can identify underrepresented semantic regions in text data, and that adding LLM-generated documents sampled from those regions improves minority-topic representation

desk verdict New unsupervised augmentation idea worth looking at, but the paper overclaims and doesn't validate its targeting mechanism; needs revision before it can be trusted. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.28635 v1 pith:SOKECH66 submitted 2026-05-19 cs.CL cs.LG

Noor Khalal , Abdallah Alaa-Eddine Djamai , Imed Keraghel , Mohamed Nadif This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.CLcs.LG MSC 62H3068T50

keywords imbalancedclusteringdataaugmentationGaussianMixtureModellargelanguagemodelsunsupervisedlearningtextembeddingsUMAPvolume-to-proportionratio

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 proposes an unsupervised data augmentation method for imbalanced text clustering. It fits a Gaussian Mixture Model to low-dimensional embeddings of documents, ranks the resulting clusters by their volume-to-proportion ratio, generates synthetic points from the highest-ranked clusters, and uses a large language model to convert those points into new documents. The authors report that across five imbalanced text datasets, clustering performance (measured by NMI and ARI) is preserved in all cases and often improves, while underrepresented clusters become more interpretable. The central claim is that GMM geometry alone can serve as a label-free signal for where minority topics live.

What carries the argument

The central object is the GMM cluster's volume-to-proportion ratio, S_k = V_k / π_k, where V_k is computed from the determinant of the cluster's covariance matrix after Tikhonov regularization (Σ'_k = Σ_k + αI) to avoid singular determinants in low-variance embeddings. Documents are embedded with a Transformer model, reduced to 10 dimensions with UMAP, and clustered via EM. The ratio identifies the top half of clusters for augmentation; synthetic points are drawn from the corresponding Gaussians, mapped back to real documents by nearest-neighbor search, and an LLM generates new texts from those neighbors.

What would settle it

Take a dataset with known ground-truth class labels, fit the GMM as described, rank clusters by S_k, and compare the top-ranked clusters to the known minority classes. If the overlap is no better than random, the premise fails. Additionally, recompute S_k with different values of the regularization parameter α (which the paper never reports) and observe whether the ranking—and the resulting augmentation—changes materially.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's core claim is that the volume-to-proportion ratio S_k = V_k / π_k of a Gaussian mixture component is a workable proxy for semantic underrepresentation: clusters with high volume but low proportion mark regions of the embedding space where data are sparse yet spread out, which the authors interpret as underrepresented topics. Building on this, they show that sampling synthetic points from those clusters and asking an LLM to generate documents from the three nearest real documents produces a label-free augmentation that improves minority-cluster representation and interpretability without sacrificing clustering quality.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that a GMM cluster with high volume relative to its proportion, computed in a 10-dimensional UMAP embedding after Tikhonov regularization, faithfully corresponds to an underrepresented semantic topic rather than to noise or an artifact of dimensionality reduction.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Clustering imbalanced text data can be improved without any labels by using GMM geometry to locate sparse semantic regions and LLM generation to fill them in.
The method preserves clustering quality: across all five datasets, NMI and ARI either match or exceed the non-augmented baselines, with the largest gains on more imbalanced datasets like Reddit.
Cluster interpretability improves in measurable ways, as shown by keyword analyses where underrepresented clusters gain more specific, domain-relevant terms after augmentation.
The approach is scalable to large corpora because UMAP reduction keeps covariance estimation stable and LLM generation is targeted only at the selected clusters, not the whole dataset.

Reading between the lines

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

The validity of the volume-to-proportion proxy is untested against ground truth: since no dataset is used to verify that high-S_k clusters actually align with known minority classes, the method's core premise remains an assumption that could be checked directly.
The 'no degradation' claim is based on aggregate NMI/ARI over five runs with KMeans and SKMeans; downstream tasks or finer-grained per-class metrics might reveal trade-offs that aggregate scores hide.
Because generated documents are embedded and added back, the method implicitly changes the local density of the embedding space; future work could test whether the effect persists under different dimensionality-reduction settings or regularization strengths.
The acknowledged bias risk of LLM-generated data could be probed by measuring whether generated documents shift the tail of the embedding distribution toward certain demographics or styles, which would affect the very clusters being augmented.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Colleague,

The genuinely new thing here is the combination: GMMs to find sparse clusters by volume-to-proportion ratio, then LLMs to generate synthetic documents for those clusters only. Most prior LLM augmentation is uniform over the whole dataset or needs labels, so this is a real gap. The pipeline is clear and reasonably simple—embed, reduce with UMAP, fit a GMM, rank clusters, sample synthetic points, fetch nearest real documents, prompt Mistral. That's a recipe a practitioner could try.

What the paper does well: the empirical work covers five imbalanced datasets, reports NMI and ARI with standard deviations, and the keyword tables give a concrete sense that underrepresented clusters like Skincare or Neurology become more topically focused. Some of the numbers improve, and the qualitative illustrations are suggestive.

The problems are serious, though. The abstract claims performance is preserved in all cases; Table 2 directly contradicts that—Biorxiv KMeans NMI drops from 34.03 to 30.39, well outside the error bars. That claim must be rewritten. The core mechanism is also unvalidated: the volume-to-proportion ratio is computed in 10-dimensional UMAP space with Tikhonov regularization, and the regularization parameter α is never reported. UMAP doesn't preserve global volume, so a high S_k cluster may just be a noise region, not a meaningful minority topic. The paper never checks whether selected clusters correspond to actual minority classes before augmentation. The interpretability evidence is partly circular because the LLM conditions on nearest neighbors from those clusters, so seeing those clusters' keywords more often is by construction. And there are no baselines against uniform augmentation or random resampling, so we can't tell if the targeting adds value. No significance tests, and hyperparameters like nsamp and k* are unreported.

This is a fixable paper, not a hopeless one. A revision that narrows the claim, adds a uniform augmentation baseline, reports all hyperparameters including α, quantifies minority-class representation before and after, and validates the S_k proxy against ground truth would make it solid. As is, I would not cite it yet.

I would still send it to peer review rather than desk-reject—the idea is worth a referee's time and the flaws are addressable—but the current version should come back with major revision.

Referee Report

5 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes an unsupervised targeted-data-augmentation method for imbalanced text clustering. Documents are embedded with a Transformer model, projected to 10-dimensional UMAP, and clustered with a Gaussian mixture model. Clusters are ranked by the volume-to-proportion ratio S_k = V_k/π_k; the top k* clusters are deemed underrepresented. Synthetic points are sampled from the selected Gaussian components, mapped to the three nearest original documents, and used as context for Mistral-7B-Instruct to generate new documents. The augmented corpus is re-embedded and evaluated with KMeans and Spherical KMeans on five datasets using NMI/ARI, supplemented by qualitative keyword tables.

Significance. Label-free augmentation that targets underrepresented semantic regions would be a useful contribution to unsupervised NLP, and the paper's combination of GMM geometry with LLM generation is plausible. The evaluation spans five datasets and uses publicly available components, and the keyword analysis is suggestive. However, the central targeting mechanism is not validated, no baselines distinguish targeted from uniform augmentation, key quantities (α, k*, nsamp, UMAP settings) are unreported, and the abstract's claim that the approach 'preserves clustering performance in all cases' is contradicted by the paper's own Table 2. As it stands, the contribution is an interesting but unsupported recipe rather than an established method.

major comments (5)

[Abstract; Table 2] The abstract's claim that the approach 'preserves clustering performance in all cases' is contradicted by Table 2: Biorxiv KMeans NMI falls from 34.03 ± 0.17 to 30.39 ± 0.21, and Reddit/Biorxiv SKmeans NMI also decrease (55.91±0.83→55.46±1.21; 34.12±0.16→33.86±0.29). No significance tests are reported for any comparison, so the apparent improvements are also not established. The performance-preservation claim must either be withdrawn or supported by appropriate statistical tests with a pre-specified criterion.
[§3.2, Eq. (S_k=V_k/π_k)] The selection mechanism is unvalidated. V_k is the determinant of a covariance fitted in 10-D UMAP coordinates; UMAP is nonlinear and does not preserve global volumes, so a high det(Σ_k) need not correspond to a sparse semantic region. Tikhonov regularization Σ'_k=Σ_k+αI changes determinants in an eigenvalue-dependent way, and α is never reported. More importantly, the selected high-S_k clusters are never compared with ground-truth minority classes before augmentation, so there is no evidence that S_k tracks semantic underrepresentation rather than noise.
[§3.3 vs. Algorithm 1] The augmentation protocol as written is ambiguous. Section 3.3 says nsamp is allocated among all g components by a multinomial and then points are drawn 'for each component k', whereas Algorithm 1 and Section 3.2 state that only the top k* clusters are augmented. The values of k*, nsamp, and α are not given; UMAP hyperparameters and the LLM prompt are also unspecified. This makes the experiments difficult to reproduce and leaves open whether the 'targeting' described in the text is actually what was implemented when producing Table 2.
[§4.3, Table 2] There is no baseline corresponding to uniform augmentation, random oversampling of low-density regions, or untargeted LLM augmentation. Observed gains (e.g., Reddit KMeans ARI 25.69→29.41) could therefore be due simply to adding LLM-generated text rather than to the GMM volume-proportion targeting that is the paper's novelty. A demonstration that S_k-based selection outperforms a uniform-augmentation control is needed before the central claim can be assessed.
[§4.3, Table 1] The keyword evidence for improved interpretability is partly circular. The added documents are generated from the three nearest neighbors of synthetic points inside the very clusters whose keywords are then reported, so reinforcement of cluster-specific terms is expected by construction. No independent interpretability measure or comparison against an untargeted augmentation baseline is provided, and the paper's own conclusion (Sec. 5) acknowledges that LLM-bias risks are not assessed.

minor comments (4)

[§3.2] The volume formula writes V_k = π^{d/2}_k/(dΓ(d/2))√det(Σ_k); a cluster volume should not depend on the mixing weight π_k. Please clarify whether the first factor is the mathematical constant π or the mixing weight, and correct the notation accordingly.
[§4.2] No code or data-release link is mentioned, and key hyperparameters (α, k*, nsamp, UMAP n_neighbors/min_dist, Mistral prompt and decoding settings) are absent. This hampers reproducibility.
[Figure 4] The claim that augmented-data peaks align with minority classes is presented qualitatively. A quantitative overlap measure between augmented cluster sizes and ground-truth minority class labels would be more convincing.
[Algorithm 1; §4] There are minor typos and notational inconsistencies, e.g., 'fork = 1←k*' in Algorithm 1, 'KMean' in Section 4, and the undefined symbol p in Algorithm 1 line 24.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Interpretability evidence is partly by construction; core NMI/ARI evaluation remains independent.

self definitional [Section 3.3, 'Textual document generation'; Section 4.3, 'Keyword comparison', Table 1]
"For each sampled point in the reduced representation space, we identify the three closest neighbors among the original documents based on Euclidean distance. ... Using the content of these three nearest documents, we prompt the LLM to generate a new textual document that reflects their combined themes and content."

The 'interpretability' evidence in Table 1 is produced by prompting the LLM with documents drawn from the very clusters selected by the GMM volume-to-proportion criterion. New cluster-specific keywords (e.g., 'happy'/'smile' in Optimism, 'cream'/'toner' in Skincare) therefore appear because the generation rule forced them to reflect the selected cluster's content. Observing these keywords in the augmented cluster restates the augmentation procedure rather than independently validating that high-S_k clusters correspond to semantically underrepresented regions.

full rationale

The paper's core quantitative evaluation uses external ground-truth labels (NMI and ARI on MTEB-derived datasets, Reddit, Tweet Emotion), so the claim that augmentation 'preserves clustering performance' is not circular: augmented and non-augmented numbers are independently comparable, and some results even decline. The S_k=V_k/pi_k selection heuristic is an unvalidated proxy for semantic underrepresentation, but that is a correctness/falsifiability concern, not a circularity, because S_k is not defined in terms of the ground-truth minority classes it is meant to identify. The one self-citation ([14], Keraghel et al.) supports the choice of embeddings but is not load-bearing for the main derivation. The only genuinely circular component is the interpretability demonstration: the keyword enrichment is by construction of the LLM prompt based on nearest neighbors inside the same selected clusters. Thus a modest score of 4 captures a partial, non-central circularity while acknowledging that the main clustering-performance claim is independently benchmarked.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The method's core selection step rests on unvalidated volume-proportion geometry in a reduced space, with at least six unreported or heuristic free parameters. There are no new physical/ontological entities; the invented 'entity' here is the volume-proportion proxy itself, which is not independently validated.

free parameters (6)

Tikhonov regularization α
Added to GMM covariance diagonals to make determinants computable; value not reported though it directly controls V_k and hence which clusters are selected.
Number of augmented clusters k*
Section 3.2 says 'top half' of clusters ranked by V_k/π_k, but the experimental setup never states k* per dataset.
Number of synthetic points per cluster nsamp
Synthetic embedding counts are allocated multinomially, but the total nsamp is unspecified; it determines how many documents are generated.
GMM component count g = ⌈nDocs^(1/3)⌉
Heuristic from reference [30]; no model selection and no sensitivity analysis, yet it defines the cluster structure used for targeting.
UMAP dimension and hyperparameters = 10 dimensions
Dimensionality is fixed to 10, but n_neighbors and min_dist are not reported; volume estimates depend on this embedding geometry.
Nearest-neighbor count for LLM context = 3
Three closest documents are used to prompt the LLM; no ablation is provided to justify this choice.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption GMM/EM provide valid clusters of text embeddings
Standard statistical model, but its clusters are assumed to correspond to semantic topics in the UMAP space; no validation of this correspondence is given.
ad hoc to paper Volume-to-proportion ratio identifies underrepresentation
The central selection criterion S_k=V_k/π_k is introduced in Section 3.2 without validation against ground-truth minority classes.
domain assumption UMAP preserves volume/cluster structure
Volumes are computed in the 10-D UMAP space; UMAP is nonlinear and does not preserve Euclidean volumes, yet the volume calculation assumes it does.
domain assumption LLM generation from nearest neighbors preserves cluster themes
Generated documents are assumed to be coherent and to enrich the target cluster rather than introduce off-topic content; no quality check or human evaluation is provided.
ad hoc to paper Tikhonov regularization yields meaningful determinants
α shifts eigenvalues; the determinant and V_k depend on α, which is unreported, so the volume ranking is not uniquely determined.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Imbalanced Data Clustering via Targeted Data Augmentation Using GMM and LLM." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/SOKECH66

@misc{pith2026260728635,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Imbalanced Data Clustering via Targeted Data Augmentation Using GMM and LLM},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/SOKECH66}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.28635}
}

read the original abstract

In Natural Language Processing (NLP), dealing with underrepresented topics is challenging, especially in unsupervised tasks where clustering might not adequately capture minority topics. To tackle this challenge, our paper presents a novel unsupervised data augmentation method that integrates Gaussian Mixture Models (GMMs) and Large Language Models (LLMs). Due to their flexibility and robustness, GMMs can detect clusters corresponding to underrepresented areas in the data, while LLMs create synthetic documents to enrich these clusters and improve their representation. Experiments on various imbalanced text datasets demonstrate that our approach preserves clustering performance in all cases and often enhances cluster interpretability, offering a robust and scalable solution for improving data representation in unsupervised NLP tasks.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.28635 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** Workflow for generating synthetic documents in a dataset. 1) Text inputs are [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Clusters with various orientations, shapes, proportions, and volumes. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (1 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Document distributions across clusters for the Arxiv (left) and Reddit (right) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

31 extracted references · 1 linked inside Pith

[1]

Biometrics 49(3), 803–821 (1993)

Banfield, J.D., Raftery, A.E.: Model-based gaussian and non-gaussian clustering. Biometrics 49(3), 803–821 (1993)

1993
[2]

ACM Computing Surveys55(7), 1–39 (2022)

Bayer, M., Kaufhold, M.A., Reuter, C.: A survey on data augmentation for text classification. ACM Computing Surveys55(7), 1–39 (2022)

2022
[3]

In: ICDMW

Cai, X., Xiao, M., Ning, Z., Zhou, Y .: Resolving the imbalance issue in hierarchical disci- plinary topic inference via llm-based data augmentation. In: ICDMW. pp. 1424–1429 (2023)

2023
[4]

Dai, H., Liu, Z., Liao, W., Huang, X., Cao, Y ., Wu, Z., Zhao, L., Xu, S., Liu, W., Liu, N., et al.: Auggpt: Leveraging chatgpt for text data augmentation (2023)

2023
[5]

Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B39(1), 1–22

Dempster, A.P., Laird, N.M., Rubin, D.B.: Maximum likelihood from incomplete data via the EM algorithm. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B39(1), 1–22
[6]

Advances in neural information processing sys- tems27(2014)

Goodfellow, I., Pouget-Abadie, J., Mirza, M., Xu, B., Warde-Farley, D., Ozair, S., Courville, A., Bengio, Y .: Generative adversarial nets. Advances in neural information processing sys- tems27(2014)

2014
[7]

Pattern Recognition36(2), 463–473 (2003)

Govaert, G., Nadif, M.: Clustering with block mixture models. Pattern Recognition36(2), 463–473 (2003)

2003
[8]

John Wiley & Sons (2013)

Govaert, G., Nadif, M.: Co-clustering: models, algorithms and applications. John Wiley & Sons (2013)

2013

Show all 31 references

[9]

Guo, H., Mao, Y ., Zhang, R.: Augmenting data with mixup for sentence classification: An empirical study (2019)

2019
[10]

Frontiers in Applied Mathematics and Statistics5(2020)

Gupta, S., Kanchinadam, T., Conathan, D., Fung, G.: Task-optimized word embeddings for text classification representations. Frontiers in Applied Mathematics and Statistics5(2020)

2020
[11]

Advances in Data Analysis and Classification pp

Hoseinipour, S., Aminghafari, M., Mohammadpour, A., Nadif, M.: A sparse exponential family latent block model for co-clustering. Advances in Data Analysis and Classification pp. 1–37 (2024)

2024
[12]

Jiang, A.Q., Sablayrolles, A., Mensch, A., Bamford, C., Chaplot, D.S., Casas, D.d.l., Bres- sand, F., Lengyel, G., Lample, G., Saulnier, L., et al.: Mistral 7b (2023)

2023
[13]

Karimi, A., Rossi, L., Prati, A.: Aeda: An easier data augmentation technique for text classi- fication (2021)

2021
[14]

Keraghel, I., Morbieu, S., Nadif, M.: Beyond words: a comparative analysis of LLM embed- dings for effective clustering. In: IDA. pp. 205–216 (2024)

2024
[15]

Kumar, V ., Choudhary, A., Cho, E.: Data augmentation using pre-trained transformer models (2020)

2020
[16]

McInnes, L., Healy, J., Melville, J.: Umap: Uniform manifold approximation and projection for dimension reduction (2018)

2018
[17]

In: Vlachos, A., Augenstein, I

Muennighoff, N., Tazi, N., Magne, L., Reimers, N.: MTEB: Massive text embedding bench- mark. In: Vlachos, A., Augenstein, I. (eds.) EACL (May 2023)

2023
[18]

In: Inter- national Symposium on Intelligent Data Analysis

Nadif, M., Govaert, G.: Block clustering of contingency table and mixture model. In: Inter- national Symposium on Intelligent Data Analysis. pp. 249–259. Springer (2005)

2005
[19]

In: Companion proceedings of the web conference 2020

Qiu, S., Xu, B., Zhang, J., Wang, Y ., Shen, X., De Melo, G., Long, C., Li, X.: Easyaug: An automatic textual data augmentation platform for classification tasks. In: Companion proceedings of the web conference 2020. pp. 249–252 (2020)

2020
[20]

Khalal et al

Radford, A., Metz, L., Chintala, S.: Unsupervised representation learning with deep convo- lutional generative adversarial networks (2015) 14 N. Khalal et al

2015
[21]

In: Pro- ceedings of the 2017 SIAM International Conference on Data Mining

Salah, A., Nadif, M.: Model-based von mises-fisher co-clustering with a conscience. In: Pro- ceedings of the 2017 SIAM International Conference on Data Mining. pp. 246–254. SIAM (2017)

2017
[22]

Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery31, 1218–1241 (2017)

Salah, A., Nadif, M.: Social regularized von mises–fisher mixture model for item recommen- dation. Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery31, 1218–1241 (2017)

2017
[23]

Advances in Data Analysis and Classification 13, 591–620 (2019)

Salah, A., Nadif, M.: Directional co-clustering. Advances in Data Analysis and Classification 13, 591–620 (2019)

2019
[24]

Nature631(8022), 755–759 (Jul 2024)

Shumailov, I., Shumaylov, Z., Zhao, Y ., Papernot, N., Anderson, R., Gal, Y .: Ai models collapse when trained on recursively generated data. Nature631(8022), 755–759 (Jul 2024)

2024
[25]

Psychological methods9(3), 386 (2004)

Steinley, D.: Properties of the hubert-arable adjusted rand index. Psychological methods9(3), 386 (2004)

2004
[26]

Journal of machine learning research3(Dec), 583–617 (2002)

Strehl, A., Ghosh, J.: Cluster ensembles—a knowledge reuse framework for combining mul- tiple partitions. Journal of machine learning research3(Dec), 583–617 (2002)

2002
[27]

Halsted Press book

Tikhonov, A., Arsenin, V .: Solutions of Ill-posed Problems. Halsted Press book
[28]

In: the 13th Workshop on Computational Approaches to Subjectivity, Sentiment, & Social Media Analysis

Van Nooten, J., Daelemans, W.: Improving dutch vaccine hesitancy monitoring via multi- label data augmentation with gpt-3.5. In: the 13th Workshop on Computational Approaches to Subjectivity, Sentiment, & Social Media Analysis. vol. 1, pp. 251–270 (2023)

2023
[29]

Wei, J., Zou, K.: Eda: Easy data augmentation techniques for boosting performance on text classification tasks (2019)

2019
[30]

Journal of the American Statistical Association77(380), 841–847 (1982)

Wong, M.A.: A hybrid clustering method for identifying high-density clusters. Journal of the American Statistical Association77(380), 841–847 (1982)

1982
[31]

arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.14568 (2024)

Ye, J., Xu, N., Wang, Y ., Zhou, J., Zhang, Q., Gui, T., Huang, X.: Llm-da: Data aug- mentation via large language models for few-shot named entity recognition. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.14568 (2024)

2024 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 3, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Biometrics 49(3), 803–821 (1993)

Banfield, J.D., Raftery, A.E.: Model-based gaussian and non-gaussian clustering. Biometrics 49(3), 803–821 (1993)

1993

[2] [2]

ACM Computing Surveys55(7), 1–39 (2022)

Bayer, M., Kaufhold, M.A., Reuter, C.: A survey on data augmentation for text classification. ACM Computing Surveys55(7), 1–39 (2022)

2022

[3] [3]

In: ICDMW

Cai, X., Xiao, M., Ning, Z., Zhou, Y .: Resolving the imbalance issue in hierarchical disci- plinary topic inference via llm-based data augmentation. In: ICDMW. pp. 1424–1429 (2023)

2023

[4] [4]

Dai, H., Liu, Z., Liao, W., Huang, X., Cao, Y ., Wu, Z., Zhao, L., Xu, S., Liu, W., Liu, N., et al.: Auggpt: Leveraging chatgpt for text data augmentation (2023)

2023

[5] [5]

Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B39(1), 1–22

Dempster, A.P., Laird, N.M., Rubin, D.B.: Maximum likelihood from incomplete data via the EM algorithm. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B39(1), 1–22

[6] [6]

Advances in neural information processing sys- tems27(2014)

Goodfellow, I., Pouget-Abadie, J., Mirza, M., Xu, B., Warde-Farley, D., Ozair, S., Courville, A., Bengio, Y .: Generative adversarial nets. Advances in neural information processing sys- tems27(2014)

2014

[7] [7]

Pattern Recognition36(2), 463–473 (2003)

Govaert, G., Nadif, M.: Clustering with block mixture models. Pattern Recognition36(2), 463–473 (2003)

2003

[8] [8]

John Wiley & Sons (2013)

Govaert, G., Nadif, M.: Co-clustering: models, algorithms and applications. John Wiley & Sons (2013)

2013