Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 452

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 68 of the 68 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Boosting methods for multi-class imbalanced data classification: an experimental review

Open access
Tanha, Jafar, Abdi, Yousef, Samadi, Negin, Razzaghi, Nazila, Asadpour, Mohammad·2020·Journal of Big Data

Abstract

Since canonical machine learning algorithms assume that the dataset has equal number of samples in each class, binary classification became a very challenging task to discriminate the minority class samples efficiently in imbalanced datasets. For this reason, researchers have been paid attention and have proposed many methods to deal with this problem, which can be broadly categorized into data level and algorithm level. Besides, multi-class imbalanced learning is much harder than binary one and is still an open problem. Boosting algorithms are a class of ensemble learning methods in machine learning that improves the performance of separate base learners by combining them into a composite whole. This paper’s aim is to review the most significant published boosting techniques on multi-class imbalanced datasets. A thorough empirical comparison is conducted to analyze the performance of binary and multi-class boosting algorithms on various multi-class imbalanced datasets. In addition, based on the obtained results for performance evaluation metrics and a recently proposed criteria for comparing metrics, the selected metrics are compared to determine a suitable performance metric for multi-class imbalanced datasets. The experimental studies show that the CatBoost and LogitBoost algorithms are superior to other boosting algorithms on multi-class imbalanced conventional and big datasets, respectively. Furthermore, the MMCC is a better evaluation metric than the MAUC and G-mean in multi-class imbalanced data domains.

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/s40537-020-00349-y

Cites

68 of 68 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 68 references

Cited by

  • A Survey of Machine Unlearning

    Nguyen, T. T., Huynh, T. T., Ren, Z., Nguyen, P. L., Liew, A. W.-C., Yin, H., & Nguyen, Q. V. H. (2022) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2209.02299 · Cited by 193

    “However, partitioning data by class itself does not help the model’s training in the first place, as learning the differences between classes is the core of many learning algorithms [146].”

See all 452

Metadata

Authors
Tanha, J., Abdi, Y., Samadi, N., Razzaghi, N., & Asadpour, M.
Venue
Journal of Big Data
Published
2020-09-01
Volume
7
Issue
1
ISSN
2196-1115 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3082059448
Cited by
452
References
68
FWCI
16.38
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
gold

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: Boosting methods for multi-class imbalanced data classification: an experimental review. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1186/s40537-020-00349-y
The paper
Tanha, J., Abdi, Y., Samadi, N., Razzaghi, N., & Asadpour, M. (2020). Boosting methods for multi-class imbalanced data classification: an experimental review. Journal of Big Data. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40537-020-00349-y

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.