Coupling different methods for overcoming the class imbalance problem

Many classification problems must deal with imbalanced datasets where one class \u2013 the majority class \u2013 outnumbers the other classes. Standard classification methods do not provide accurate predictions in this setting since classification is generally biased towards the majority class. The minority classes are oftentimes the ones of interest (e.g., when they are associated with pathological conditions in patients), so methods for handling imbalanced datasets are critical. Using several different datasets, this paper evaluates the performance of state-of-the-art classification methods for handling the imbalance problem in both binary and multi-class datasets. Different strategies are considered, including the one-class and dimension reduction approaches, as well as their fusions. Moreover, some ensembles of classifiers are tested, in addition to stand-alone classifiers, to assess the effectiveness of ensembles in the presence of imbalance. Finally, a novel ensemble of ensembles is designed specifically to tackle the problem of class imbalance: the proposed ensemble does not need to be tuned separately for each dataset and outperforms all the other tested approaches. To validate our classifiers we resort to the KEEL-dataset repository, whose data partitions (training/test) are publicly available and have already been used in the open literature: as a consequence, it is possible to report a fair comparison among different approaches in the literature. Our best approach (MATLAB code and datasets not easily accessible elsewhere) will be available at https://www.dei.unipd.it/node/2357

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

Software defect prediction: do different classifiers find the same defects?

Open Access: This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License CC BY 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.During the last 10 years, hundreds of different defect prediction models have been published. The performance of the classifiers used in these models is reported to be similar with models rarely performing above the predictive performance ceiling of about 80% recall. We investigate the individual defects that four classifiers predict and analyse the level of prediction uncertainty produced by these classifiers. We perform a sensitivity analysis to compare the performance of Random Forest, Naïve Bayes, RPart and SVM classifiers when predicting defects in NASA, open source and commercial datasets. The defect predictions that each classifier makes is captured in a confusion matrix and the prediction uncertainty of each classifier is compared. Despite similar predictive performance values for these four classifiers, each detects different sets of defects. Some classifiers are more consistent in predicting defects than others. Our results confirm that a unique subset of defects can be detected by specific classifiers. However, while some classifiers are consistent in the predictions they make, other classifiers vary in their predictions. Given our results, we conclude that classifier ensembles with decision-making strategies not based on majority voting are likely to perform best in defect prediction.Peer reviewedFinal Published versio