Cited by 471Statistical Methods and Bayesian InferenceData Mining and Machine Learning ApplicationsMachine Learning and Data Classification

Comparison of performance of data imputation methods for numeric dataset

Open access
Jadhav, Anil, Pramod, Dhanya, Ramanathan, Krishnan·2019·Applied Artificial Intelligence

Abstract

Missing data is common problem faced by researchers and data scientists. Therefore, it is required to handle them appropriately in order to get better and accurate results of data analysis. Objective of this research paper is to provide better understanding of data missingness mechanism, data imputation methods, and to assess performance of the widely used data imputation methods for numeric dataset. It will help practitioners and data scientists to select appropriate method of data imputation for numeric dataset while performing data mining task. In this paper, we comprehensively compare seven data imputation methods namely mean imputation, median imputation, kNN imputation, predictive mean matching, Bayesian Linear Regression (norm), Linear Regression, non-Bayesian (norm.nob), and random sample. We have used five different numeric datasets obtained from UCI machine learning repository for analyzing and comparing performance of the data imputation methods. Performance of the data imputation methods is assessed using Normalized Root Mean Square Error (RMSE) method. The results of analysis show that kNN imputation method outperforms the other methods. It has also been found that performance of the data imputation method is independent of the dataset and percentage of missing values in the dataset.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/08839514.2019.1637138

Cites

43 of 43 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Mean imputation was applied to manage data missing completely at random.

    “Mean imputation was applied to manage data missing completely at random.62,63”

    From Mindfulness and Psychosocial Symptoms in People with Cancer: Testing Rumination and Experiential Avoidance as Mediators, and Sex as a Moderator. (2025) · cites this paper as [62]

    The Research Methodology section says the authors applied mean imputation to simulated missing values. The Missing Data Mechanisms section defines missing completely at random (MCAR), but the methodology does not say the simulated missingness was MCAR. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • KNN imputation has been shown to work well for numerical imputation on single datasets, but the algorithm is sensitive to the choice of the number of nearest neighbors (k) and is limited in that it does not utilize the potential structure across the entire set of observations.

    “KNN imputation has been shown to work well for numerical imputation on single datasets (Jadhav et al., 2019), but the algorithm is sensitive to the choice of the number of nearest neighbors (k) and is limited in that it does not utilize the potential structure across the entire set of observations.”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 45 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Han, J., and Kamber. 2012. Data mining: Concepts and techniques. 3rd ed. San Francisco, CA, USA: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers.
  2. D. Berrar, W. Dubitzky, and M. Granzow. US: Springer.
  3. van Buuren, S., and K. Groothuis-Oudshoorn. 2011. Multivariate Imputation by Chained Equations in R. Journal of Statistical Software 45 (3):1-67.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Jadhav, A., Pramod, D., & Ramanathan, K.
Affiliations
Symbiosis International University (IN)
Corresponding author
Jadhav, Anil
Venue
Applied Artificial Intelligence
Published
2019-07-04
Volume
33
Issue
10
Pages
913-933
ISSN
  • 0883-9514 (ISSN-L)
  • 1087-6545
OpenAlex
W2955443275
Cited by
471
References
45
Citations by year
2026: 64 · 2025: 124 · 2024: 102 · 2023: 97 · 2022: 44 · 2021: 27 · 2020: 13
FWCI
16.42
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Applied Artificial Intelligence (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods and Bayesian Inference
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Data Mining and Machine Learning Applications
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Machine Learning and Data Classification
Keywords
missing data imputation, missing data, KNN imputation, mean imputation, median imputation, predictive mean matching, Bayesian linear regression, linear regression, imputation method comparison

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review