Evaluation of SMOTE for High-Dimensional Class-Imbalanced Microarray Data

Synthetic Minority Oversampling TEchnique (SMOTE) is a popular oversampling method that was proposed to improve random oversampling but its behavior on high-dimensional data has not been thoroughly investigated. In this paper we evaluate the performance of SMOTE on high-dimensional data, using gene expression microarray data. We observe that SMOTE does not attenuate the bias towards the classification in the majority class for most classifiers, and it is less effective than random undersampling. SMOTE is beneficial for k-NN classifiers based on the Euclidean distance if the number of variables is reduced performing some type of variable selection and the benefit is larger if more neighbors are used. If the variable selection is not performed than the k-NN classification is counter intuitively biased towards the minority class, so SMOTE for k-NN without variable selection should not be used in practice.

[1]  W. Marsden.  I and J , 2012 .

[2]  Rok Blagus,et al.  Class prediction for high-dimensional class-imbalanced data , 2010, BMC Bioinformatics.

[3]  E. Lander,et al.  A molecular signature of metastasis in primary solid tumors , 2003, Nature Genetics.

[4]  Carla E. Brodley,et al.  Class Imbalance, Redux , 2011, 2011 IEEE 11th International Conference on Data Mining.

[5]  Haibo He,et al.  Learning from Imbalanced Data , 2009, IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering.

[6]  Todd,et al.  Diffuse large B-cell lymphoma outcome prediction by gene-expression profiling and supervised machine learning , 2002, Nature Medicine.

[7]  Nitesh V. Chawla,et al.  SMOTE: Synthetic Minority Over-sampling Technique , 2002, J. Artif. Intell. Res..

[8]  Tom Fawcett,et al.  An introduction to ROC analysis , 2006, Pattern Recognit. Lett..

[9]  P. Hall,et al.  An expression signature for p53 status in human breast cancer predicts mutation status, transcriptional effects, and patient survival. , 2005, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[10]  Janez Demsar,et al.  Statistical Comparisons of Classifiers over Multiple Data Sets , 2006, J. Mach. Learn. Res..

[11]  N. Iizuka,et al.  MECHANISMS OF DISEASE Mechanisms of disease , 2022 .

[12]  Philip M. Long,et al.  Breast cancer classification and prognosis based on gene expression profiles from a population-based study , 2003, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[13]  M. West,et al.  Integrated modeling of clinical and gene expression information for personalized prediction of disease outcomes. , 2004, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[14]  P. Hall,et al.  An expression signature for p 53 status in human breast cancer predicts mutation status , transcriptional effects , and patient survival , 2005 .

[15]  S. Dudoit,et al.  Comparison of Discrimination Methods for the Classification of Tumors Using Gene Expression Data , 2002 .

[16]  Taghi M. Khoshgoftaar,et al.  Experimental perspectives on learning from imbalanced data , 2007, ICML '07.