Data imbalance remains one of the most widespread problems affecting contemporary machine learning. The negative effect data imbalance can have on the traditional learning algorithms is most severe in combination with other dataset difficulty factors, such as small disjuncts, presence of outliers and insufficient number of training observations. Said difficulty factors can also limit the applicability of some of the methods of dealing with data imbalance, in particular the neighborhood-based oversampling algorithms based on SMOTE. Radial-Based Oversampling (RBO) was previously proposed to mitigate some of the limitations of the neighborhood-based methods. In this paper we examine the possibility of utilizing the concept of mutual class potential, used to guide the oversampling process in RBO, in the undersampling procedure. Conducted computational complexity analysis indicates a significantly reduced time complexity of the proposed Radial-Based Undersampling algorithm, and the results of the performed experimental study indicate its usefulness, especially on difficult datasets.
Despite the abundance of different strategies of dealing with data imbalance, it often remains unclear under what conditions a given method is expected to guarantee a satisfactory performance. Furthermore, taking into the account the no free lunch theorem @cite_39 it is unreasonable to expect that any single method will be able to achieve a state-of-the-art performance on every provided dataset. Identifying the areas of applicability, conditions under which the method is expected to be more likely to achieve a good performance, is therefore desirable both from the point of view of a practitioner, who can use that information to narrow down the range of methods appropriate for a problem at hand, as well as a theoretician, who can use that insight in the process of developing novel methods.
@cite_39
2100483895
This is the first of two papers that use off-training set (OTS) error to investigate the assumption-free relationship between learning algorithms. This first paper discusses the senses in which there are no a priori distinctions between learning algorithms. (The second paper discusses the senses in which there are such distinctions.) In this first paper it is shown, loosely speaking, that for any two algorithms A and B, there are “as many” targets (or priors over targets) for which A has lower expected OTS error than B as vice versa, for loss functions like zero-one loss. In particular, this is true if A is cross-validation and B is “anti-cross-validation” (choose the learning algorithm with largest cross-validation error). This paper ends with a discussion of the implications of these results for computational learning theory. It is shown that one cannot say: if empirical misclassification rate is low, the Vapnik-Chervonenkis dimension of your generalizer is small, and the training set is large, then with high probability your OTS error is small. Other implications for “membership queries” algorithms and “punting” algorithms are also discussed.