mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Class-Dependent Hybrid Data Augmentation for Multiclass Migraine Classification under Severe Class Imbalance

arXiv 2605.23453 ↗First posted 22 May 2026cs.LGcited by 0

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

We conducted a reproducibility-oriented re-evaluation of prior migraine classification studies, correcting for data leakage and metric bias. We then introduced (i) a clinically motivated aggregation of two hemiplegic subtypes following ICHD-3 S1.2.3, (ii) a class-dependent hybrid augmentation strategy that assigns generation methods based on per-class sample size, and (iii) the concept of fidelity asymmetry, motivating proportionally constrained growth as an alternative to full class balance. Experiments were performed on a dataset of 400 patients across seven migraine subtypes under a two-stage protocol, including the six-class configuration described above. Models were evaluated using stratified 5-fold cross-validation with macro-averaged F1 as the primary metric. Correcting methodological flaws reduces previously inflated performance estimates, with the corrected macro-F1 baseline standing at 0.71. The proposed framework consistently outperformed individual augmenters in macro-F1 averaged across the eight evaluated classifiers (0.862 vs. 0.836 for Gaussian Copula, 0.815 for CTGAN, and 0.801 for the no-augmentation baseline), and achieved its peak result of 0.914 with FT-Transformer under proportional augmentation. The no-augmentation FT-Transformer baseline (0.896) shows that, at the per-classifier ceiling, clinically motivated class aggregation accounts for most of the absolute improvement; the framework's principal measurable contribution is the gain in average robustness across classifiers, highlighting the dominant role of problem formulation.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 9 of its 40 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 22 May 2026.

Builds on

9 of 40 references.

References · 9

  1. 2021Revisiting Deep Learning Models for Tabular Datacited by 740
  2. 2019Modeling Tabular data using Conditional GANcited by 699
  3. 2019TabNet: Attentive Interpretable Tabular Learningcited by 648
  4. 2021Tabular Data: Deep Learning is Not All You Needcited by 535
  5. 2021Deep Neural Networks and Tabular Data: A Surveycited by 491
  6. 2020Evaluation: from precision, recall and F-measure to ROC, informedness, markedness and correlationcited by 425
  7. 2021SAINT: Improved Neural Networks for Tabular Data via Row Attention and Contrastive Pre-Trainingcited by 319
  8. 2022Why do tree-based models still outperform deep learning on tabular data?cited by 199
  9. 2016Imbalanced-learn: A Python Toolbox to Tackle the Curse of Imbalanced Datasets in Machine Learningcited by 195

Built on by

Not cited yet.