The DOI matches its OpenAlex record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Boosted Classification Trees and Class Probability/Quantile Estimation
Open accessAbstract
The standard by which binary classifiers are usually judged, misclassification error, assumes equal costs of misclassifying the two classes or, equivalently, classifying at the 1/2 quantile of the conditional class probability function P[y = 1|x]. Boosted classification trees are known to perform quite well for such problems. In this article we consider the use of standard, off-the-shelf boosting for two more general problems: 1) classification with unequal costs or, equivalently, classification at quantiles other than 1/2, and 2) estimation of the conditional class probability function P[y = 1|x]. We first examine whether the latter problem, estimation of P[y = 1|x], can be solved with Logit-Boost, and with AdaBoost when combined with a natural link function. The answer is negative: both approaches are often ineffective because they overfit P[y = 1|x] even though they perform well as classifiers. A major negative point of the present article is the disconnect between class probability estimation and classification. Next we consider the practice of over/under-sampling of the two classes. We present an algorithm that uses AdaBoost in conjunction with Over/Under-Sampling and Jittering of the data (“JOUS-Boost”). This algorithm is simple, yet successful, and it preserves the advantage of relative protection against overfitting, but for arbitrary misclassification costs and, equivalently, arbitrary quantile boundaries. We then use collections of classifiers obtained from a grid of quantiles to form estimators of class probabilities. The estimates of the class probabilities compare favorably to those obtained by a variety of methods across both simulated and real data sets.
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
Friedman, J., Hastie, T., & Tibshirani, R. (2000) · The Annals of Statistics · doi:10.1214/aos/1016218223 · Cited by 6,884
Cited by
He, H., & Garcia, E. A. (2009) · IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering · doi:10.1109/tkde.2008.239 · Cited by 10,359
Survey on deep learning with class imbalance
Johnson, J. M., & Khoshgoftaar, T. M. (2019) · Journal of Big Data · doi:10.1186/s40537-019-0192-5 · Cited by 3,032
Multiclass Imbalance Problems: Analysis and Potential Solutions
Wang, S., & Yao, X. (2012) · IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Part B (Cybernetics) · doi:10.1109/tsmcb.2012.2187280 · Cited by 567
Boosting methods for multi-class imbalanced data classification: an experimental review
Tanha, J., Abdi, Y., Samadi, N., Razzaghi, N., & Asadpour, M. (2020) · Journal of Big Data · doi:10.1186/s40537-020-00349-y · Cited by 452
Kruppa, J., Liu, Y., Biau, G., Kohler, M., König, I. R., Malley, J. D., & Ziegler, A. (2014) · Biometrical Journal · doi:10.1002/bimj.201300068 · Cited by 97
Metadata
- Authors
- Mease, D., Wyner, A. J., & Buja, A.
- Venue
- ScholarlyCommons (University of Pennsylvania)
- Publisher
- University of Pennsylvania
- Published
- 2007-12-01
- Volume
- 8
- Issue
- 16
- Pages
- 409-439
- DOI
- 10.5555/1248659.1248675
- OpenAlex
- W2163667253
- Cited by
- 243
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 10.24
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
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: Boosted Classification Trees and Class Probability/Quantile Estimation. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.5555/1248659.1248675
- The paper
- Mease, D., Wyner, A. J., & Buja, A. (2007). Boosted Classification Trees and Class Probability/Quantile Estimation. ScholarlyCommons (University of Pennsylvania). https://doi.org/10.5555/1248659.1248675
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.