Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 759

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 62 of the 62 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A survey on addressing high-class imbalance in big data

Open access
Leevy, Joffrey L., Khoshgoftaar, Taghi M., Bauder, Richard A., Seliya, Naeem·2018·Journal of Big Data

Abstract

In a majority–minority classification problem, class imbalance in the dataset(s) can dramatically skew the performance of classifiers, introducing a prediction bias for the majority class. Assuming the positive (minority) class is the group of interest and the given application domain dictates that a false negative is much costlier than a false positive, a negative (majority) class prediction bias could have adverse consequences. With big data, the mitigation of class imbalance poses an even greater challenge because of the varied and complex structure of the relatively much larger datasets. This paper provides a large survey of published studies within the last 8 years, focusing on high-class imbalance (i.e., a majority-to-minority class ratio between 100:1 and 10,000:1) in big data in order to assess the state-of-the-art in addressing adverse effects due to class imbalance. In this paper, two techniques are covered which include Data-Level (e.g., data sampling) and Algorithm-Level (e.g., cost-sensitive and hybrid/ensemble) Methods. Data sampling methods are popular in addressing class imbalance, with Random Over-Sampling methods generally showing better overall results. At the Algorithm-Level, there are some outstanding performers. Yet, in the published studies, there are inconsistent and conflicting results, coupled with a limited scope in evaluated techniques, indicating the need for more comprehensive, comparative studies.

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.

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1186/s40537-018-0151-6

Cites

62 of 62 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

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

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

Show all 62 references

Research works printed but not linked: 16

  1. Chi Z, Yan H, Pham T. Fuzzy algorithms with applications to image processing and pattern recognition. Singapore: World Scientific; 1996.
  2. Langford J, Li L, Zhang T. Sparse online learning via truncated gradient. J Mach Learn Res. 2009;10:777–801.
  3. Triguero I, Galar M, Merino D, Maillo J, Bustince H, Herrera F. Evolutionary undersampling for extremely imbalanced Big Data classification under Apache Spark. In: IEEE congress on evolutionary computation (CEC). 2016. · doi:10.1109/cec.2016.7743853
  4. Wang H, Khoshgoftaar TM, Napolitano A. An empirical investigation on Wrapper-Based feature selection for predicting software quality. Int J Softw Eng Knowl Eng. 2015;25(1):93–114. · doi:10.1142/s0218194015400057
  5. McCallum A, Nigam K. A comparison of event models for Naive Bayes text classification. In: AAAI-98 workshop on learning for text categorization. 1998.
  6. Ho T. Random decision forests. In: Proceedings of the third international conference on document analysis and recognition. 1995.
  7. Ahumada H, Grinblat G, Uzal L, Granitto P, Ceccatto A. REPMAC: a new hybrid approach to highly imbalanced classification problems. In: Eighth international conference on hybrid intelligent systems. 2008. · doi:10.1109/his.2008.142
  8. Frank E, Hall MA, Witten IH. The WEKA Workbench: data mining: practical machine learning tools and techniques. 4th ed. Burlington: Morgan Kaufmann; 2016.
  9. Evolutionary computation for Big Data and Big learning workshop data mining competition 2014: self-deployment track. 2014. http://cruncher.ico2s.org/bdcomp/ . Accessed 4 Sept 2018.
  10. Triguero I, Galar M, Vluymans S, Cornelis C, Bustince H, Herrera F, Saeys Y. Evolutionary under sampling for imbalanced big data classification. In: IEEE congress on evolutionary computation (CEC), May 2015, pp. 715–22. · doi:10.1109/cec.2015.7256961
  11. Park S, Kim S, Ha Y. Highway traffic accident prediction using VDS big data analysis. J Supercomput. 2016;72(7):2815–31. · doi:10.1007/s11227-016-1624-z
  12. Park S, Ha Y. Large imbalance data classification based on MapReduce for traffic accident prediction. In: Eighth international conference on innovative mobile and internet services in ubiquitous computing. 2014. · doi:10.1109/imis.2014.6
  13. Marchant NG, Rubinstein BIP. In search of an entity resolution OASIS: optimal asymptotic sequential importance sampling. Proc VLDB Endow. 2017;10(11):1322–33. · doi:10.14778/3137628.3137642
  14. D’Addabbo A, Maglietta R. Parallel selective sampling method for imbalanced and large data classification. Pattern Recogn Lett. 2015;62:61–7. · doi:10.1016/j.patrec.2015.05.008
  15. Zhai J, Zhang S, Wang C. The classification of imbalanced large data sets based on MapReduce and ensemble of ELM classifiers. Int J Mach Learn Cybern. 2017;8(3):1009–17. · doi:10.1007/s13042-015-0478-7
  16. Hebert J. Predicting rare failure events using classification trees on large scale manufacturing data with complex interactions. In: IEEE international conference on Big data. 2016. · doi:10.1109/bigdata.2016.7840825

Cited by

See all 759

Metadata

Authors
Leevy, J. L., Khoshgoftaar, T. M., Bauder, R. A., & Seliya, N.
Venue
Journal of Big Data
Published
2018-11-01
Volume
5
Issue
1
ISSN
2196-1115 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2899434936
Cited by
759
References
62
FWCI
30.84
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
gold
Licence
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0 (tdm)

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: A survey on addressing high-class imbalance in big data. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1186/s40537-018-0151-6
The paper
Leevy, J. L., Khoshgoftaar, T. M., Bauder, R. A., & Seliya, N. (2018). A survey on addressing high-class imbalance in big data. Journal of Big Data. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40537-018-0151-6

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.