Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 375

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 37 of the 37 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A Comparison of Undersampling, Oversampling, and SMOTE Methods for Dealing with Imbalanced Classification in Educational Data Mining

Open access
Wongvorachan, Tarid, He, Surina, Bulut, Okan·2023·Information

Abstract

Educational data mining is capable of producing useful data-driven applications (e.g., early warning systems in schools or the prediction of students’ academic achievement) based on predictive models. However, the class imbalance problem in educational datasets could hamper the accuracy of predictive models as many of these models are designed on the assumption that the predicted class is balanced. Although previous studies proposed several methods to deal with the imbalanced class problem, most of them focused on the technical details of how to improve each technique, while only a few focused on the application aspect, especially for the application of data with different imbalance ratios. In this study, we compared several sampling techniques to handle the different ratios of the class imbalance problem (i.e., moderately or extremely imbalanced classifications) using the High School Longitudinal Study of 2009 dataset. For our comparison, we used random oversampling (ROS), random undersampling (RUS), and the combination of the synthetic minority oversampling technique for nominal and continuous (SMOTE-NC) and RUS as a hybrid resampling technique. We used the Random Forest as our classification algorithm to evaluate the results of each sampling technique. Our results show that random oversampling for moderately imbalanced data and hybrid resampling for extremely imbalanced data seem to work best. The implications for educational data mining applications and suggestions for future research are discussed.

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 · 10.3390/info14010054

Cites

37 of 37 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 37 references

Cited by

See all 375

Metadata

Authors
Wongvorachan, T., He, S., & Bulut, O.
Venue
Information
Publisher
MDPI AG
Published
2023-01-16
Volume
14
Issue
1
Pages
54
ISSN
2078-2489 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4316469706
Cited by
375
References
37
FWCI
32.86
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: A Comparison of Undersampling, Oversampling, and SMOTE Methods for Dealing with Imbalanced Classification in Educational Data Mining. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.3390/info14010054
The paper
Wongvorachan, T., He, S., & Bulut, O. (2023). A Comparison of Undersampling, Oversampling, and SMOTE Methods for Dealing with Imbalanced Classification in Educational Data Mining. Information. https://doi.org/10.3390/info14010054

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.