10,408 research outputs found
CUSBoost: Cluster-based Under-sampling with Boosting for Imbalanced Classification
Class imbalance classification is a challenging research problem in data
mining and machine learning, as most of the real-life datasets are often
imbalanced in nature. Existing learning algorithms maximise the classification
accuracy by correctly classifying the majority class, but misclassify the
minority class. However, the minority class instances are representing the
concept with greater interest than the majority class instances in real-life
applications. Recently, several techniques based on sampling methods
(under-sampling of the majority class and over-sampling the minority class),
cost-sensitive learning methods, and ensemble learning have been used in the
literature for classifying imbalanced datasets. In this paper, we introduce a
new clustering-based under-sampling approach with boosting (AdaBoost)
algorithm, called CUSBoost, for effective imbalanced classification. The
proposed algorithm provides an alternative to RUSBoost (random under-sampling
with AdaBoost) and SMOTEBoost (synthetic minority over-sampling with AdaBoost)
algorithms. We evaluated the performance of CUSBoost algorithm with the
state-of-the-art methods based on ensemble learning like AdaBoost, RUSBoost,
SMOTEBoost on 13 imbalance binary and multi-class datasets with various
imbalance ratios. The experimental results show that the CUSBoost is a
promising and effective approach for dealing with highly imbalanced datasets.Comment: CSITSS-201
An empirical evaluation of imbalanced data strategies from a practitioner's point of view
This research tested the following well known strategies to deal with binary
imbalanced data on 82 different real life data sets (sampled to imbalance rates
of 5%, 3%, 1%, and 0.1%): class weight, SMOTE, Underbagging, and a baseline
(just the base classifier). As base classifiers we used SVM with RBF kernel,
random forests, and gradient boosting machines and we measured the quality of
the resulting classifier using 6 different metrics (Area under the curve,
Accuracy, F-measure, G-mean, Matthew's correlation coefficient and Balanced
accuracy). The best strategy strongly depends on the metric used to measure the
quality of the classifier. For AUC and accuracy class weight and the baseline
perform better; for F-measure and MCC, SMOTE performs better; and for G-mean
and balanced accuracy, underbagging
- …