Balancing Performance Measures in Classification Using Ensemble Learning Methods

  • Neeraj Bahl
  • Ajay BansalEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing book series (LNBIP, volume 354)


Ensemble learning methods have recently been widely used in various domains and applications owing to the improvements in computational efficiency and distributed computing advances. However, with the advent of wide variety of applications of machine learning techniques to class imbalance problems, further focus is needed to evaluate, improve and balance other performance measures such as sensitivity (true positive rate) and specificity (true negative rate) in classification. This paper demonstrates an approach to evaluate and balance the performance measures (specifically sensitivity and specificity) using ensemble learning methods for classification that can be especially useful in class imbalanced datasets. In this paper, ensemble learning methods (specifically bagging and boosting) are used to balance the performance measures (sensitivity and specificity) on a diabetes dataset to predict if a patient will be readmitted to the hospital based on various feature vectors. From the experiments conducted, it can be empirically concluded that, by using ensemble learning methods, although accuracy does improve to some margin, both sensitivity and specificity are balanced significantly and consistently over different cross validation approaches.


Ensemble methods Classification Boosting Balancing 


  1. 1.
    Strack, B., et al.: Impact of HbA1c measurement on hospital readmission rates: analysis of 70,000 clinical database patient records. BioMed Research International, vol. 2014, Article ID 781670, 11 pages (2014)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hsiao, J.C.-Y., Lo, H.-Y., Yin, T.-C., Lin, S.-D.: Optimizing specificity under perfect sensitivity for medical data classification. In: Proceedings of International Conference on Data Science and Advanced Analytics (DSAA), Shanghai, pp. 163–169 (2014).
  3. 3.
    Polikar, R.: Ensemble learning. Scholarpedia 4(1), 2776 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Musicant, D., Kumar, V., Ozgur. A.: Optimizing f-measure with support vector machines. In: Proceedings of FLAIRS (2003)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Nan, Y., Chai, K.M., Lee, W.S., Chieu, H.L.: Optimizing F-measure: a tale of two approaches. In: Proceedings of International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML) (2012)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Diabetes 130-US hospitals for years 1999–2008 Data Set, UC Irvine (UCI) Machine Learning Repository. Accessed 2 Apr 2017
  7. 7.
  8. 8.
    Mandal, I.: A novel approach for predicting DNA splice junctions using hybrid machine learning algorithms. Soft Comput. 19(12), 3431–3444 (2015). Scholar
  9. 9.
    Brownlee, J.: How to Build an Ensemble of Machine Learning Algorithms in R (2016). Accessed 20 Apr 2017
  10. 10.
    Amunategui, M.: Bagging/ Bootstrap Aggregation with R (2015). Accessed 20 Apr 2017
  11. 11.
    Asmita, S., Shukla, K.K.: Review on the architecture, algorithm and fusion strategies in ensemble learning. Int. J. Comput. Appl. (0975 - 8887). 108(8), December 2014CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Zeng, X., Wong, D.F., Chao, L.S.: Constructing better classifier ensemble based on weighted accuracy and diversity measure. Sci. World J. vol. 2014, Article ID 961747, 12 pages (2014). Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Arizona State UniversityMesaUSA

Personalised recommendations