Cited by 35Machine Learning and Data ClassificationImbalanced Data Classification TechniquesMachine Learning and Algorithms

Reverse testing: an efficient framework to select amongst classifiers under sample selection bias

Fan, Wei, Davidson, Ian·2006·Proceedings of the 12th ACM SIGKDD international conference on Knowledge discovery and data mining

Abstract

One of the most important assumptions made by many classification algorithms is that the training and test sets are drawn from the same distribution, i.e., the so-called "stationary distribution assumption" that the future and the past data sets are identical from a probabilistic standpoint. In many domains of real-world applications, such as marketing solicitation, fraud detection, drug testing, loan approval, sub-population surveys, school enrollment among others, this is rarely the case. This is because the only labeled sample available for training is biased in different ways due to a variety of practical reasons and limitations. In these circumstances, traditional methods to evaluate the expected generalization error of classification algorithms, such as structural risk minimization, ten-fold cross-validation, and leave-one-out validation, usually return poor estimates of which classification algorithm, when trained on biased dataset, will be the most accurate for future unbiased dataset, among a number of competing candidates. Sometimes, the estimated order of the learning algorithms' accuracy could be so poor that it is not even better than random guessing. Therefore,a method to determine the most accurate learner is needed for data mining under sample selection bias for many real-world applications. We present such an approach that can determine which learner will perform the best on an unbiased test set, given a possibly biased training set, in a fraction of the computational cost to use cross-validation based approaches.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1145/1150402.1150422

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • Reverse validation [34] is based on reverse testing [35], where a new classifier is trained on predictions on test data and evaluated on training data.

    “The basic idea of reverse validation [34] is based on reverse testing [35], where a new classifier is trained on predictions on the test data and evaluated again on the training data.”
  • RCA differs from reverse validation and reverse testing in that it trains a reverse classifier on every single instance, whereas those approaches train single classifiers over the whole test set jointly.

    “While the idea of RCA is similar to reverse validation [34] and reverse testing [35], the important difference is that in our approach we train a reverse classifier on every single instance while the approaches in [34], [35] train single classifiers over the whole test set and its predictions jointly to find out what the best original predictor is.”

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Fan, W., & Davidson, I.
Affiliations
  • IBM (United States) (US)
  • University at Albany, State University of New York (US)
Venue
Proceedings of the 12th ACM SIGKDD international conference on Knowledge discovery and data mining
Publisher
ACM
Published
2006-08-20
Pages
147-156
OpenAlex
W2037758579
Cited by
35
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 1
FWCI
1.44
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining (KDD) (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Machine Learning and Data Classification
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Imbalanced Data Classification Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Machine Learning and Algorithms
Keywords
sample selection bias, biased training data, classifier comparison, generalization error estimation, cross-validation, structural risk minimization, leave-one-out cross-validation, data mining

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