A new framework to deal with the class imbalance problem in urban gain modeling based on clustering and ensemble models

References

• Ahmadlou M, Delavar MR, Basiri A, Karimi M. 2019. A comparative study of machine learning techniques to simulate land use changes. J Indian Soc Remote Sens. 47(1):53–62.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Basse RM, Omrani H, Charif O, Gerber P, Bódis K. 2014. Land use changes modelling using advanced methods: Cellular automata and artificial neural networks. The spatial and explicit representation of land cover dynamics at the cross-border region scale. Appl Geogr. 53:160–171.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Breiman L. 2001. Random forests. Machine Learn. 45(1):5–32.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Calinski T, Harabasz J. 1974. A dendrite method for cluster analysis. Comm Stats - Theory & Methods. 3(1):1–27.
   Google Scholar
• Chawla NV. 2009. Data mining for imbalanced datasets: An overview. In: Data mining and knowledge discovery handbook. Boston (MA): Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Cherkassky V, Mulier F. 1999. Vapnik-Chervonenkis (VC) learning theory and its applications. IEEE Trans Neural Networks. 10:985–987.
   Google Scholar
• Davies DL, Bouldin DW. 1979. A cluster separation measure. IEEE Trans Pattern Anal Mach Intell. PAMI-1(2):224–227.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Defries R, Hansen A, Turner B, Reid R, Liu J. 2007. Land use change around protected areas: management to balance human needs and ecological function. Ecol Appl. 17(4):1031–1038.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Duran-Medina E, Mas JF, Velázquez A. 2005. Land use/cover change in community-based forest management regions and protected areas in Mexico. In: The Community Forests of Mexico: managing for Sustainable Landscapes. Austin (TX): University of Texas Press.
   Google Scholar
• Efron B. 1987. Better bootstrap confidence intervals. J Am Stat Assoc. 82(397):171–185.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Feng W, Huang W, Ren J. 2018. Class imbalance ensemble learning based on the margin theory. Appl Sci. 8(5):815.
   Google Scholar
• Fernandes E, DE Leon Ferreira ACP, Carvalho D, Yao X. 2019. Ensemble of classifiers based on multiobjective genetic sampling for imbalanced data. IEEE Trans Knowl Data Eng. 32(6):1104–1115.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fernández A, DEL Río S, Chawla NV, Herrera F. 2017. An insight into imbalanced big data classification: outcomes and challenges. Complex Intell Syst. 3(2):105–120.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Guo H, Viktor HL. 2004. Learning from imbalanced data sets with boosting and data generation: the databoost-im approach. SIGKDD Explor Newsl. 6(1):30–39.
   Google Scholar
• Halkidi M, Batistakis Y, Vazirgiannis M. 2001. On clustering validation techniques. J Intell Information Syst. 17(2/3):107–145.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• He H, Garcia EA. 2009. Learning from imbalanced data. IEEE Trans Knowl Data Eng. 21:1263–1284.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Holland JH. 1992. Adaptation in natural and artificial systems: an introductory analysis with applications to biology, control, and artificial intelligence. Cambridge (MA): MIT press.
   Google Scholar
• Huang B, Xie C, Tay R, Wu B. 2009. Land-use-change modeling using unbalanced support-vector machines. Environ Plann B Plann Des. 36(3):398–416.
   Google Scholar
• Jain AK, Murty MN, Flynn PJ. 1999. Data clustering: a review. ACM Comput Surv. 31(3):264–323.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Japkowicz N. 2000. Learning from imbalanced data sets: a comparison of various strategies. In AAAI workshop on learning from imbalanced data sets, Menlo Park, CA, p. 10–15.
   Google Scholar
• Karimi F, Sultana S, Babakan AS, Suthaharan S. 2019. An enhanced support vector machine model for urban expansion prediction. Comput Environ Urban Syst. 75:61–75.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Krawczyk B. 2016. Learning from imbalanced data: open challenges and future directions. Prog Artif Intell. 5(4):221–232.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Likas A, Vlassis N, Verbeek JJ. 2003. The global k-means clustering algorithm. Pattern Recognit. 36(2):451–461.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liu RY. 1988. Bootstrap procedures under some non-iid models. Ann Statist. 16(4):1696–1708.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liu Y, Li Z, Xiong H, Gao X, Wu J. 2010. Understanding of internal clustering validation measures. IEEE International Conference on Data Mining, 2010. IEEE, p. 911–916.
   Google Scholar
• Long H, Qu Y. 2018. Land use transitions and land management: A mutual feedback perspective. Land Use Policy. 74:111–120.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Longadge R, Dongre S, Malik L. 2013. Class imbalance problem in data mining review. International Journal of Computer Science and Network. 2(1): 1–6.
   Google Scholar
• Macqueen J. 1967. Some methods for classification and analysis of multivariate observations. Proceedings of the Fifth Berkeley Symposium on Mathematical Statistics and Probability, Oakland, CA, p. 281–297.
   Google Scholar
• Nagendra H, Munroe DK, Southworth J. 2004. From pattern to process: landscape fragmentation and the analysis of land use/land cover change. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment. 101(2): 111–115.
   Google Scholar
• Oh S, Lee MS, Zhang B-T. 2010. Ensemble learning with active example selection for imbalanced biomedical data classification. IEEE/ACM Trans Comput Biol Bioinf. 8:316–325.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oshiro TM, Perez PS, Baranauskas JA. 2012. How many trees in a random forest? International workshop on machine learning and data mining in pattern recognition. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer. p. 154–168.
   Google Scholar
• Pijanowski BC, Brown DG, Shellito BA, Manik GA. 2002. Using neural networks and GIS to forecast land use changes: a land transformation model. Comput Environ Urban Syst. 26(6):553–575.
   Google Scholar
• Pontius RG, Castella J-C, DE Nijs T, Duan Z, Fotsing E, Goldstein N, Kok K, Koomen E, Lippitt CD, Mcconnell W. 2018. Lessons and challenges in land change modeling derived from synthesis of cross-case comparisons. In Trends in spatial analysis and modelling. Cham: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Pontius RG, Parmentier B. 2014. Recommendations for using the relative operating characteristic (ROC). Landscape Ecol. 29(3):367–382.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pontius Jr RG, Si K. 2014. The total operating characteristic to measure diagnostic ability for multiple thresholds. Int J Geograph Inform Sci. 28(3):570–583.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pontius RG, Walker R, Yao-Kumah R, Arima E, Aldrich S, Caldas M, Vergara D. 2007. Accuracy assessment for a simulation model of Amazonian deforestation. Ann Assoc Am Geograph. 97(4):677–695.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Qiang Y, Lam NS. 2015. Modeling land use and land cover changes in a vulnerable coastal region using artificial neural networks and cellular automata. Environ Monit Assess. 187(3):57.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Quintas-Soriano C, Castro AJ, Castro H, García-Llorente M. 2016. Impacts of land use change on ecosystem services and implications for human well-being in Spanish drylands. Land Use Policy. 54:534–548.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rotem-Mindali O, Michael Y, Helman D, Lensky IM. 2015. The role of local land-use on the urban heat island effect of Tel Aviv as assessed from satellite remote sensing. Appl Geogr. 56:145–153.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Salunkhe UR, Mali SN. 2016. Classifier ensemble design for imbalanced data classification: a hybrid approach. Procedia Comput Sci. 85:725–732.
   Google Scholar
• Samardžić‐Petrović M, Dragićević S, Kovačević M, Bajat B. 2016. Modeling urban land use changes using support vector machines. Trans in Gis. 20(5):718–734.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Samardžić-Petrović M, Kovačević M, Bajat B, Dragićević S. 2017. Machine learning techniques for modelling short term land-use change. IJGI. 6(12):387.
   Google Scholar
• Shafizadeh-Moghadam H. 2019. Improving spatial accuracy of urban growth simulation models using ensemble forecasting approaches. Comput Environ Urban Syst. 76:91–100.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shafizadeh-Moghadam H, Asghari A, Taleai M, Helbich M, Tayyebi A. 2017a. Sensitivity analysis and accuracy assessment of the land transformation model using cellular automata. GISci Remote Sens. 54(5):639–656.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shafizadeh-Moghadam H, Tayyebi A, Ahmadlou M, Delavar MR, Hasanlou M. 2017b. Integration of genetic algorithm and multiple kernel support vector regression for modeling urban growth. Comput Environ Urban Syst. 65:28–40.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sirami C, Caplat P, Popy S, Clamens A, Arlettaz R, Jiguet F, Brotons L, Martin JL. 2017. Impacts of global change on species distributions: obstacles and solutions to integrate climate and land use. Global Ecol Biogeogr. 26(4):385–394.
   Google Scholar
• Smith P, House JI, Bustamante M, Sobocká J, Harper R, Pan G, West PC, Clark JM, Adhya T, Rumpel C, et al. 2016. Global change pressures on soils from land use and management. Glob Change Biol. 22(3):1008–1028.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sun Y, Wong AK, Kamel MS. 2009. Classification of imbalanced data: A review. Int J Patt Recogn Artif Intell. 23(4):687–719.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tayyebi A, Pijanowski BC. 2014. Modeling multiple land use changes using ANN, CART and MARS: Comparing tradeoffs in goodness of fit and explanatory power of data mining tools. Int J Appl Earth Obs Geoinf. 28:102–116.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tayyebi A, Pijanowski BC, Linderman M, Gratton C. 2014. Comparing three global parametric and local non-parametric models to simulate land use change in diverse areas of the world. Environmental Modelling & Software. 59:202–221.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tomich TP, Thomas DE, VAN Noordwijk M. 2004. Environmental services and land use change in Southeast Asia: from recognition to regulation or reward? Agricult Ecosyst Environ. 104(1):229–244.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vapnik VN. 1999. An overview of statistical learning theory. IEEE Trans Neural Netw. 10(5):988–999.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wang L. 2005. Support vector machines: theory and applications. Berlin, ‎Heidelberg: Springer Science & Business Media.
   Google Scholar
• Wu Q, Li H-Q, Wang R-S, Paulussen J, He Y, Wang M, Wang B-H, Wang Z. 2006. Monitoring and predicting land use change in Beijing using remote sensing and GIS. Landscape Urban Plann. 78(4):322–333.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhai J, Zhang S, Wang C. 2017. The classification of imbalanced large data sets based on mapreduce and ensemble of elm classifiers. Int J Mach Learn & Cyber. 8(3):1009–1017.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar