The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Comparing Boosting and Bagging Techniques With Noisy and Imbalanced Data
Abstract
This paper compares the performance of several boosting and bagging techniques in the context of learning from imbalanced and noisy binary-class data. Noise and class imbalance are two well-established data characteristics encountered in a wide range of data mining and machine learning initiatives. The learning algorithms studied in this paper, which include SMOTEBoost, RUSBoost, Exactly Balanced Bagging, and Roughly Balanced Bagging, combine boosting or bagging with data sampling to make them more effective when data are imbalanced. These techniques are evaluated in a comprehensive suite of experiments, for which nearly four million classification models were trained. All classifiers are assessed using seven different performance metrics, providing a complete perspective on the performance of these techniques, and results are tested for statistical significance via analysis-of-variance modeling. The experiments show that the bagging techniques generally outperform boosting, and hence in noisy data environments, bagging is the preferred method for handling class imbalance.
Overview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
SMOTE synthetic minority over-sampling technique
Chawla, N. V., Bowyer, K. W., Hall, L. O., & Kegelmeyer, W. P. (2002) · Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research · doi:10.1613/jair.953 · Cited by 32,865
The class imbalance problem: A systematic study1
Japkowicz, N., & Stephen, S. (2002) · Intelligent Data Analysis · doi:10.3233/ida-2002-6504 · Cited by 3,295
Mining with rarity: a unifying framework
Weiss, G. M. (2004) · ACM SIGKDD Explorations Newsletter · doi:10.1145/1007730.1007734 · Cited by 1,393
Cited by
A Parallel Random Forest Algorithm for Big Data in a Spark Cloud Computing Environment
Chen, J., Li, K., Tang, Z., Bilal, K., Yu, S., Weng, C., & Li, K. (2017) · IEEE Transactions on Parallel and Distributed Systems · doi:10.1109/tpds.2016.2603511 · Cited by 435
Dealing with Noise Problem in Machine Learning Data-sets: A Systematic Review
Gupta, S., & Gupta, A. (2019) · Procedia Computer Science · doi:10.1016/j.procs.2019.11.146 · Cited by 325
Mafarja, M., Thaher, T., Al-Betar, M. A., Too, J., Awadallah, M. A., Abu Doush, I., & Turabieh, H. (2023) · Applied Intelligence · doi:10.1007/s10489-022-04427-x · Cited by 91
Lee, S., Park, H. J., Hwang, J., Lee, S. W., Han, K. S., Kim, W. Y., Jeong, J., Kang, H., Kim, A., Lee, C., et al. (2023) · Emergency Medicine International · doi:10.1155/2023/1221704 · Cited by 8
Metadata
- Authors
- Khoshgoftaar, T. M., Van Hulse, J., & Napolitano, A.
- Venue
- IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics - Part A: Systems and Humans
- Published
- 2011-05
- Volume
- 41
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 552-568
- ISSN
- 1083-4427 (ISSN-L)
- 1558-2426
- OpenAlex
- W2170413589
- Cited by
- 300
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 11.56
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Comparing Boosting and Bagging Techniques With Noisy and Imbalanced Data. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1109/tsmca.2010.2084081
- The paper
- Khoshgoftaar, T. M., Van Hulse, J., & Napolitano, A. (2011). Comparing Boosting and Bagging Techniques With Noisy and Imbalanced Data. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics - Part A: Systems and Humans. https://doi.org/10.1109/tsmca.2010.2084081
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.