Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 34 references

Rare Event Detection in Imbalanced Multi-Class Datasets Using an Optimal MIP-Based Ensemble Weighting Approach

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A single mixed-integer program can select the ensemble and set each class's voting weights, beating six standard schemes by an average of 4.53% in balanced accuracy.

desk verdict A legitimate MIP formulation for per-class ensemble weighting with reproducible code, but the headline empirical claim rests on a single 80/20 split with no error bars and a mislabeled elastic net penalty. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.13439 v3 pith:VFULSQCN submitted 2024-12-18 cs.LG

Georgios Tertytchny , Georgios L. Stavrinides , Maria K. Michael This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.LG MSC 90C1168T05
keywords ensemblelearningweightedvotingmixedintegerprogrammingclassimbalancerareeventdetectioncyber-physicalsystemselasticnetregularizationmulti-classclassification
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 tries to establish that the weighting problem inside a voting ensemble—who votes, and how much each classifier's vote counts for each class—can be solved exactly as one mixed-integer program rather than by the usual heuristics. The method takes the mean per-class validation accuracy of each classifier, treats the weights as continuous decision variables and the choice of $K$ classifiers as binary decisions, and maximizes the mean weighted accuracy minus an elastic net penalty. Across four imbalanced datasets used for rare event detection in cyber-physical systems (water-distribution leaks and network intrusions), and ensemble sizes $K=2$ through $8$, the paper reports balanced-accuracy gains over six established weighting schemes ranging from $0.99\%$ to $7.31\%$, with an average of $4.53\%$. If the claim holds, practitioners get a compact ensemble that is explicitly tuned for rare classes and whose weight calculation cost does not grow with dataset size.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the mixed-integer program with objective (1) and constraints (2)–(9). The decision variables are binary $x_i$ (whether classifier $C_i$ is in the ensemble) and continuous $w_{ij}$ (the vote weight of classifier $C_i$ for class $E_j$); constraint (4) fixes $\sum_i x_i = K$, constraint (5) normalizes the weights of each class to sum to one, constraints (6)–(7) link selection to weights, and constraints (8)–(9) require the weighted accuracy for every class, and overall, to exceed the uniform-weight average by a small $\epsilon$. The objective (1) maximizes $\frac{1}{m}\sum_i\sum_j w_{ij} v_{ij}$ minus the elastic net penalty $\lambda\left(\alpha\sum w_{ij} + \frac{1-\alpha}{2}\sum w_{ij}^2\right)$, where $v_{ij}$ comes from stratified 5-fold cross-validation. Because the optimization is driven only by the $n\times m$ accuracy matrix $V$, its size is independent of the training set size.

What would settle it

Run the method and all six baselines on the same four datasets over many random 80/20 splits, re-optimizing the MIP weights inside each training fold; if MIP does not beat the best baseline in balanced accuracy on most splits—especially on the tiny minority classes such as F4 and A3—then the reported 4.53% average edge does not generalize.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that an optimal per-class weight matrix $W$ for a weighted voting ensemble can be computed jointly with the selection of the ensemble's $K$ members by solving one optimization problem. The objective maximizes the mean over classes of the weighted sum of validation accuracies $v_{ij}$, penalized by elastic net regularization to keep the weights sparse and stable, and the constraints force the per-class and overall weighted accuracy to beat the uniform-weight baseline on the validation data. The authors report that this formulation, solved with a standard MIP solver, outperformed all six baselines on all four datasets and every tested ensemble size, with the advantage growing as $K$ grows and remaining positive on the highly imbalanced datasets. The worked example on NSL-KDD shows the mechanism: the MIP gives the SVM classifier large weights precisely for the two classes where it is strong, while the baseline schemes spread weight more evenly.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the mean validation accuracy of each classifier on each class, computed by 5-fold cross-validation, faithfully predicts that classifier's per-class performance on unseen data; for the smallest classes (F4 with 74 instances, A3 with 11) those estimates are noisy, and the optimized weights can overfit them.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Classifier selection and weight assignment are solved in one run, so a user can prescribe any ensemble size $K$ and get the corresponding optimal weights without evaluating all $\binom{n}{K}$ combinations separately.
  • The reported advantage over all six baselines grows with $K$: on the tested datasets the improvement in balanced accuracy is consistently larger for $K=7,8$ than for $K=2,3$.
  • The method remains effective as imbalance worsens: in the LeakDB ablation, balanced accuracy fell by only 0.51–0.92 percentage points when the imbalance ratio was halved or doubled, and stayed at 0.973 or higher when the number of minority classes grew to six.
  • The weight calculation is cheap enough for practice: on NSL-KDD with $K=3$ and $n=8$ classifiers it takes 0.35 seconds, and the speedup over the baselines grows sharply as $n$ increases to 24.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: the reported 4.53% average is computed from one fixed 80/20 split per dataset, so repeated re-splitting with weights re-optimized inside each training fold would show how much of the edge is stable; classes with as few as 11 or 74 examples make the validation matrix noisy.
  • Because the objective consumes only a per-class accuracy matrix, the same formulation can be adapted to cost-sensitive rare event detection by substituting a utility or cost matrix for $v_{ij}$, letting missed leaks or attacks be penalized more heavily than ordinary errors.
  • The optimization's independence from dataset size suggests the weighting step could be re-run periodically as new validation data arrive, supporting deployment under concept drift; the paper does not test this.
  • The per-class weight matrix itself is an interpretability artifact: as the SVM example shows, the MIP concentrates weight on the classes where a classifier is strong, which could help operators see which model carries each rare class.
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

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes a mixed integer programming (MIP) approach to assign per-class weights to classifiers in a majority-voting ensemble for imbalanced multi-class rare-event detection. Given a validation accuracy matrix V obtained from stratified cross-validation, the method maximizes per-class weighted accuracy with an elastic-net penalty while selecting exactly K classifiers through binary variables. The authors compare the method against six baseline weighting schemes on four datasets (LeakDB, NSL-KDD, SG-MITM, CIC-IDS2017) for ensemble sizes K=2..8, reporting balanced-accuracy improvements of 0.99% to 7.31% (average 4.53%) and corresponding macro-averaged precision, recall, and F1 improvements, together with a computational efficiency study.

Significance. If the reported gains are robust, the paper offers a practically useful contribution: a compact, per-class weighted voting ensemble with explicit cardinality control, backed by a public code repository. The experimental scope is broad for this setting, covering four datasets, seven ensemble sizes, six baselines, and supplementary ablations, and the proposed optimization problem is well posed. The computational efficiency comparison is a clear strength. However, the central empirical claim currently rests on a single data split with no error bars or significance tests, and the advertised elastic-net regularization is mathematically mis-stated; these issues must be addressed before the results can be regarded as establishing the paper's main claims.

major comments (4)
  1. [Problem Formulation, Eq. (1) and Constraint (5)] The L1 penalty in the objective is constant and therefore has no effect on the optimal solution. Constraint (5) imposes sum_i w_ij = 1 for every class j, so sum_i sum_j w_ij = m identically. Consequently, the term -lambda * alpha * sum_i sum_j w_ij contributes only a constant to the objective and cannot promote sparsity. The actual objective reduces to maximizing (1/m) sum_i sum_j w_ij v_ij - (lambda(1-alpha)/2) sum_i sum_j w_ij^2, i.e., an L2-regularized (ridge) objective. The claims in the Introduction, Abstract, and Related Work that the method 'utilizes elastic net regularization' and that the L1 penalty leads to a sparse and robust weight assignment are therefore not supported. Any sparsity in the solution comes from the hard cardinality constraint via the binary variables x_i, not from the L1 penalty. The authors should either correct the formulation to include a genuine L1 penalty (e.g., by not fixing the total weight sum) or revise the contribution claims to describe ridge regularization plus hard classifier selection.
  2. [Experimental Setup and Results & Discussion, Table 1] The central outperformance claim is based on a single 80/20 split with no repeated trials, confidence intervals, or significance tests. This is especially problematic for the minority classes in Table 1: class F4 in D1 has 74 instances and class A3 in D2 has 11 instances, so the 5-fold validation accuracies for these classes are high-variance estimates and the test sets contain only a handful of instances (about two for A3 in D2). The reported gains of 0.99% to 7.31% in balanced accuracy could therefore lie within split-to-split noise. The authors should repeat the evaluation over multiple stratified splits (or use repeated k-fold cross-validation), report means and standard deviations of the improvements, and apply a paired statistical test across datasets and ensemble sizes (e.g., Wilcoxon signed-rank or at least a paired bootstrap). Without such evidence, the abstract's quantitative claim that MIP 'outperforms all existing approaches' is not established.
  3. [Problem Formulation, Constraints (8) and (9)] Constraints (8) and (9) force the MIP solution to achieve, on the validation matrix V, a per-class and overall weighted accuracy that exceeds the uniform-weight average by at least epsilon. Because UW-PC and UW-PCC are two of the six baselines, this makes the validation-stage comparison with the uniform baselines partly loaded by construction: the MIP weights are required to beat the uniform baseline on the very matrix used to compute the weights. The test-time comparison is still out-of-sample, so this is not fatal, but it is a fairness concern. The authors should report an ablation without constraints (8)-(9), state how often these constraints are active, and discuss feasibility for small K. They should also give the numerical value of epsilon used in (7)-(9), rather than only saying it is 'sufficiently small.'
  4. [Experimental Setup, hyperparameter tuning] The tuning of lambda and alpha is described as incrementing/decrementing each parameter and 'terminating adjustments when performance began to deteriorate,' with no separate validation set and no sensitivity analysis. Since the same V is then used in the MIP objective and constraints, this procedure risks selecting hyperparameters that overfit V. The paper does not report whether the 4.53% average improvement is stable across a range of lambda and alpha values, or whether the conclusion depends critically on the four reported pairs. A sensitivity table or grid study would substantially strengthen the generalization claim.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Proposed Weighting Scheme, Phase 1] The notation E_N and E_A is introduced but never used anywhere else in the paper; it should be removed or put to use in the discussion.
  2. [Results & Discussion, Tables 2-5 and Figures 2-5] All results are reported as percentage improvements over baselines; the absolute balanced accuracy and macro-F1 values of the baselines are never given. Reporting absolute values in a supplementary table would let readers judge the practical magnitude of the gains.
  3. [Computational Efficiency] The text states that the problem is 'NP-hard' but gives no proof or reference for this specific formulation. Either provide a hardness argument or soften the wording to 'the MIP is solved by a general-purpose solver and may be computationally expensive in the worst case.'
  4. [Problem Formulation, Constraints (7)-(9)] The constants M and epsilon are not specified numerically; the paper should state the chosen values or explain how they were selected, since both affect the feasibility and the strength of the constraints.
  5. [Existing Weighting Schemes] The sentence 'Without loss of generality, we used the mean validation accuracy matrix V as the likelihood matrix in BMA' is not a lossless reduction; using validation accuracy as a Bayesian posterior likelihood is a modeling choice and should be justified as such.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the MIP weights are optimized on a validation accuracy matrix and the reported improvements are measured on a held-out test set, so the central claim is not forced by construction.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained: phase 1 produces the mean validation accuracy matrix V from stratified 5-fold cross-validation, phase 2 optimizes weights against V through objective (1) with constraints (2)-(9), and phase 3 evaluates on a disjoint 20% test split (Figure 1). Constraints (8) and (9) only require the validation objective to exceed the uniform-weight baseline on V; they do not fix the test balanced accuracy, and the headline 0.99%-7.31% improvements are reported from the test-phase results in Figures 2-5 and Tables 2-6. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction: the weights are fitted to V, and the test results are out-of-sample. The elastic-net L1 term is constant under constraint (5), so the sparsity claim is overstated and the optimization effectively reduces to a ridge-like penalty; this is a modeling correctness issue, not circularity. The single 80/20 split without repeated trials or confidence intervals is an evaluation-robustness concern, not a circularity concern. Self-citations (Tertytchny, Nicolaou, and Michael 2020 for CPS motivation; Elrawy et al. 2023 for the SG-MITM dataset) are not load-bearing theoretical premises, and no uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported from prior work. Therefore no step in the claimed derivation reduces to its own input by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The method's central design relies on the validation accuracy matrix V, which is noisy for tiny minority classes, and on regularization parameters lambda and alpha that are tuned per dataset. The L1 penalty is mathematically inert due to constraint (5).

free parameters (3)
  • lambda (elastic net regularization strength) = 0.95 (D1), 0.96 (D2), 1.00 (D3), 0.95 (D4)
    Tuned per dataset in Experimental Setup; controls the strength of the regularization penalty in objective (1). Because the L1 term is constant, only lambda*(1-alpha) actually matters.
  • alpha (elastic net mixing parameter) = 0.85 (D1), 0.80 (D2), 0.82 (D3), 0.86 (D4)
    Tuned per dataset; in principle balances L1 and L2 penalties, but due to constraint (5) the L1 term is constant, so alpha only scales the L2 penalty.
  • epsilon (in constraints 8 and 9) = not reported
    Positive constant used to convert strict inequalities; its value is not disclosed and could affect feasibility of the MIP.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The mean validation accuracy matrix V reliably estimates per-class generalization accuracy.
    All weight optimization uses V; minority classes with as few as 11 or 74 instances yield noisy entries.
  • ad hoc to paper The L1 penalty of elastic net is active in the optimization.
    The paper claims sparsity from the L1 term, but constraint (5) makes the L1 norm constant, so the claim is mathematically unfounded.
  • ad hoc to paper Constraints (8) and (9), which force the weighted validation accuracy to exceed the uniform-average accuracy, are feasible.
    If all classifiers have identical per-class accuracy, these constraints would be infeasible; the paper does not discuss this edge case.
  • standard math The Gurobi solver returns a global optimum for the MIP.
    The paper relies on Gurobi 11.0.3; problem sizes are small (n<=8, m<=7) so this is reasonable.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Rare Event Detection in Imbalanced Multi-Class Datasets Using an Optimal MIP-Based Ensemble Weighting Approach." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/VFULSQCN

@misc{pith2026241213439,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Rare Event Detection in Imbalanced Multi-Class Datasets Using an Optimal MIP-Based Ensemble Weighting Approach},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/VFULSQCN}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.13439}
}
read the original abstract

To address the challenges of imbalanced multi-class datasets typically used for rare event detection in critical cyber-physical systems, we propose an optimal, efficient, and adaptable mixed integer programming (MIP) ensemble weighting scheme. Our approach leverages the diverse capabilities of the classifier ensemble on a granular per class basis, while optimizing the weights of classifier-class pairs using elastic net regularization for improved robustness and generalization. Additionally, it seamlessly and optimally selects a predefined number of classifiers from a given set. We evaluate and compare our MIP-based method against six well-established weighting schemes, using representative datasets and suitable metrics, under various ensemble sizes. The experimental results reveal that MIP outperforms all existing approaches, achieving an improvement in balanced accuracy ranging from 0.99% to 7.31%, with an overall average of 4.53% across all datasets and ensemble sizes. Furthermore, it attains an overall average increase of 4.63%, 4.60%, and 4.61% in macro-averaged precision, recall, and F1-score, respectively, while maintaining computational efficiency.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.13439 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Overview of methodology for incorporating the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Improvement achieved in balanced accuracy by [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Improvement achieved in balanced accuracy by [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Speedup attained by proposed MIP approach over [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]
Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Balanced accuracy of proposed MIP approach under increasing ρ (ablation study 1). r ρ Class Distribution (# Instances, %) Total N1 N2 N3 F1 F2 F3 F4 1 6198.73 92 981 92 981 92 981 92 981 92 981 92 981 15 557 901 16.666 16.666 16.666 16.666 16.666 16.666 0.003 100% 3 60…
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Balanced accuracy of proposed MIP approach under increasing r (ablation study 2). 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 UW-PC UW-PCC WA-PC WA-PCC DE BMA M a c r o - Av g. A U P R C In c r e a s e (%) Weighting Scheme Avg [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_2.png]
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Improvement achieved in macro-averaged AUPRC [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_3.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

34 extracted references · 29 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter edition editor eid eprint howpublished institution isbn journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts #0 'before.a...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in bbl.in capitalize " " * FUNCT...

  3. [3]

    K.; Neto, E

    Danso, P. K.; Neto, E. C. P.; Dadkhah, S.; Zohourian, A.; Molyneaux, H.; and Ghorbani, A. A. 2022. Ensemble-based intrusion detection for Internet of Things devices. In Proceedings of the IEEE 19th International Conference on Smart Communities: Improving Quality of Life Using ICT, IoT and AI (HONET'22), 34--39. Marietta, GA, USA: IEEE

    work page 2022

  4. [4]

    Dogan, A.; and Birant, D. 2019. A weighted majority voting ensemble approach for classification. In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Computer Science and Engineering (UBMK'19), 1--6. Samsun, Turkey: IEEE

    work page 2019

  5. [5]

    Dong, X.; Yu, Z.; Cao, W.; Shi, Y.; and Ma, Q. 2020. A survey on ensemble learning. Frontiers of Computer Science, 14(2): 241--258

    work page 2020

  6. [6]

    F.; Hadjidemetriou, L.; Laoudias, C.; and Michael, M

    Elrawy, M. F.; Hadjidemetriou, L.; Laoudias, C.; and Michael, M. K. 2023. Detecting and classifying man-in-the-middle attacks in the private area network of smart grids. Sustainable Energy, Grids and Networks, 36: 101167

    work page 2023

  7. [7]

    Giesen, J.; S\"oren, L.; Andreas, L.; and Schneider, C. 2019. Using Benson ’s algorithm for regularization parameter tracking. In Proceedings of the 33rd AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI'19), 3689--3696. AAAI

    work page 2019

  8. [8]

    Grandini, M.; Bagli, E.; and Visani, G. 2020. Metrics for multi-class classification: An overview. arXiv:2008.05756

    arXiv 2020

Show all 34 references
  1. [9]

    Gurobi, LLC . 2024. https://www.gurobi.com. Accessed: 2024-06-03

    2024

  2. [10]

    Hastie, T.; Tibshirani, R.; and Friedman, J. 2009. The Elements of Statistical Learning: Data Mining, Inference, and Prediction. New York, NY: Springer, 2nd edition. ISBN 978-0-387-84858-7

    2009

  3. [11]

    He, H.; and Garcia, E. A. 2009. Learning from imbalanced data. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, 21(9): 1263--1284

    2009

  4. [12]

    A.; Chaudhari, O.; and Chandra, R

    Khan, A. A.; Chaudhari, O.; and Chandra, R. 2024. A review of ensemble learning and data augmentation models for class imbalanced problems: Combination , implementation and evaluation. Expert Systems with Applications, 244: 122778

    2024

  5. [13]

    Lango, M.; and Stefanowski, J. 2022. What makes multi-class imbalanced problems difficult? An experimental study. Expert Systems with Applications, 199: 116962

    2022

  6. [14]

    Liu, Z.; Cao, W.; Gao, Z.; Bian, J.; Chen, H.; Chang, Y.; and Liu, T.-Y. 2020. Self-paced ensemble for highly imbalanced massive data classification. In Proceedings of the IEEE 36th International Conference on Data Engineering (ICDE'20), 841--852. Dallas, TX, USA: IEEE

    2020

  7. [15]

    S.; and Idrisi, M

    Maheshwari, A.; Mehraj, B.; Khan, M. S.; and Idrisi, M. S. 2022. An optimized weighted voting based ensemble model for DDoS attack detection and mitigation in SDN environment. Microprocessors and Microsystems, 89: 104412

    2022

  8. [16]

    McTavish, H.; Zhong, C.; Achermann, R.; Karimalis, I.; Chen, J.; Rudin, C.; and Seltzer, M. 2022. Fast sparse decision tree optimization via reference ensembles. In Proceedings of the 36th AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI'22), 9604--9613. AAAI

    2022

  9. [17]

    Opitz, D.; and Maclin, R. 1999. Popular ensemble methods: An empirical study. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 11: 169--198

    1999

  10. [18]

    E.; Madigan, D.; and Hoeting, J

    Raftery, A. E.; Madigan, D.; and Hoeting, J. A. 1997. Bayesian model averaging for linear regression models. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 92(437): 179--191

    1997

  11. [19]

    Sagi, O.; and Rokach, L. 2018. Ensemble learning: A survey. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery, 8(4): e1253

    2018

  12. [20]

    H.; and Ghorbani, A

    Sharafaldin, I.; Lashkari, A. H.; and Ghorbani, A. A. 2018. Toward generating a new intrusion detection dataset and intrusion traffic characterization. In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Information Systems Security and Privacy (ICISSP'18), 108--116. Madeira...

    2018

  13. [21]

    Shyalika, C.; Wickramarachchi, R.; and Sheth, A. 2023. A comprehensive survey on rare event prediction. arXiv:2309.11356

    2023 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Storn, R.; and Price, K. 1997. Differential evolution – A simple and efficient heuristic for global optimization over continuous spaces. Journal of Global Optimization, 11(4): 341--359

    1997

  15. [23]

    Taheri, M.; Khorasani, K.; Shames, I.; and Meskin, N. 2024. Cyberattack and machine-induced fault detection and isolation methodologies for cyber-physical systems. IEEE Transactions on Control Systems Technology, 32(2): 502--517

    2024

  16. [24]

    Tavallaee, M.; Bagheri, E.; Lu, W.; and Ghorbani, A. A. 2009. A detailed analysis of the KDD CUP 99 data set. In Proceedings of the 2009 IEEE Symposium on Computational Intelligence for Security and Defense Applications (CISDA'09), 1--6. Ottawa, ON, Canada: IEEE

    2009

  17. [25]

    Tertytchny, G.; Nicolaou, N.; and Michael, M. K. 2020. Classifying network abnormalities into faults and attacks in IoT -based cyber physical systems using machine learning. Microprocessors and Microsystems, 77: 103121

    2020

  18. [26]

    G.; Kyriakou, M

    Vrachimis, S. G.; Kyriakou, M. S.; Eliades, D. G.; and Polycarpou, M. M. 2018. LeakDB: A benchmark dataset for leakage diagnosis in water distribution networks . In Proceedings of the 1st International WDSA/CCWI 2018 Joint Conference. Kingston, ON, Canada: Queen's University

    2018

  19. [27]

    Wang, C.; Li, X.; Sun, J.; Zhang, X.; Li, Y.; Peng, X.; Liu, J.; and Jiao, Z. 2022. Ensemble learning model of power system transient stability assessment based on Bayesian Model Averaging method. In Proceedings of the IEEE 6th Conference on Energy Internet and Energy System I...

    2022

  20. [28]

    Wang, L.; Xu, S.; Wang, X.; and Zhu, Q. 2021. Addressing class imbalance in federated learning. In Proceedings of the 35th AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI'21), 10165--10173. AAAI

    2021

  21. [29]

    Yin, J.; Gan, C.; Zhao, K.; Lin, X.; Quan, Z.; and Wang, Z.-J. 2020. A novel model for imbalanced data classification. In Proceedings of the 34th AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI'20), 6680--6687. AAAI

    2020

  22. [30]

    X.; Liu, Y

    Zhang, S. X.; Liu, Y. H.; Zheng, L. M.; and Zheng, S. Y. 2024. Differential evolution with collective ensemble learning. Swarm and Evolutionary Computation, 87: 101521

    2024

  23. [31]

    Zhang, Y.; Zhang, H.; Cai, J.; and Yang, B. 2014. A weighted voting classifier based on differential evolution. Abstract and Applied Analysis, 2014(1): 376950

    2014

  24. [32]

    Zhou, Y.; Cheng, G.; Jiang, S.; and Dai, M. 2020. Building an efficient intrusion detection system based on feature selection and ensemble classifier. Computer Networks, 174: 107247

    2020

  25. [33]

    Zhou, Z.-H. 2021. Ensemble Learning. In Machine Learning, chapter 8, 181--210. Singapore: Springer, 1st edition

    2021

  26. [34]

    Zou, H.; and Hastie, T. 2005. Regularization and variable selection via the elastic net. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B: Statistical Methodology, 67(2): 301--320

    2005

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.