Table 2.

Top Table: Unbalanced setup (first to fifth column): for each dataset and each task (first to fifth row from top to bottom) executed on data from genome version hg19, we report the class unbalancing ratio, computed as the ratio between the cardinality of the most-represented class and the cardinality of the less-represented class. Bottom table: the unbalancing ratios describing the unbalancing for data in hg38 are shown

Genome version	Task	Unbalancing ratios for different setups
		Unbalanced setup					Full-balanced setup [34]
		HepG2	HelaS3	K562	GM12878	Average	All cell lines
hg19	IE versus IP	2.78	2.46	2.41	2.62	2.57	1
	AP versus IP	8.39	7.34	8.22	6.83	7.70	2
	AE versus IE	23.59	17.42	38.47	9.78	22.32	2
	AE versus AP	7.83	5.83	11.27	3.76	7.17	1
	AE + AP versus else	18.49	17.76	20.47	15.29	18.00	8
	Avg per cell line	12.22	10.16	16.17	7.66	11.55	2.8

		Unbalanced setup
		HepG2	K562	GM12878	Average
hg38	IE versus IP	1.53	1.51	1.66	1.57
	AP versus IP	6.09	6.98	6.12	6.39
	AE versus IE	7.82	10.46	4.46	7.58
	AE versus AP	1.96	2.27	1.21	1.81
	Avg per cell line	4.35	5.30	3.36	4.34

The fifth column (Average) shows the average unbalancing ratio over all the four cell lines, when the unbalanced setup is used. Task AE versus IE and task AE + AP versus else are, on average, the most unbalanced. Full-balanced setup (sixth column): the unbalancing ratio in each task is equal for all the cell lines. The comparison between the averages (over each cell lines) of the unbalancing factors (fifth and sixth columns) shows the striking difference between the two unbalancing modes.