arXiv:2608.16147v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: Class-imbalance handling is routinely evaluated on a single benchmark dataset, and the resulting conclusions are reported as if they were properties of the method. We show this practice is unsafe. On the public Kaggle credit-card fraud dataset, under a leakage-free nested cross-validation protocol in which the decision threshold is selected on a held-out inner validation fold, a plain Random Forest at the default 0.5 threshold attains F1 = 0.861 +/- 0.021, and threshold tuning yields it no benefit (delta-F1 = -0.002). Read alone, this supports an appealing conclusion: for a well-calibrated ensemble, imbalance handling is unnecessary.
We then apply the identical protocol to 45 binary tasks spanning imbalance ratios from 1:1.5 to 1:178 (2,025 model fits, four model families). The conclusion reverses. Random Forest benefits most from threshold tuning across the suite (delta-F1 = +0.101 +/- 0.134), not least, while three other families replicate their fraud-dataset behaviour almost exactly. SMOTE likewise harms the fraud dataset but helps across the suite (mean delta-F1 = +0.076; 138 wins, 39 losses; Wilcoxon p = 2.7e-17).
Two further results. Threshold-tuning benefit is non-monotonic in the imbalance ratio: near zero below 1:5, peaking at +0.120 in the 1:15-1:40 band, declining to +0.045 beyond 1:100 – explaining why the fraud dataset, at 1:577, is an unrepresentative place to study the question. And we reject an intuitive heuristic: validation-set calibration error does not predict tuning benefit (expected calibration error r = -0.087; Brier r = +0.137), so calibration diagnostics cannot tell a practitioner whether tuning is worthwhile. We release the protocol, the 45-task harness, and all per-run metrics.
Abstract: Class-imbalance handling is routinely evaluated on a single benchmark dataset, and the resulting conclusions are reported as if they were properties of the method. We show this practice is unsafe. On the public Kaggle credit-card fraud dataset, under a leakage-free nested cross-validation protocol in which the decision threshold is selected on a held-out inner validation fold, a plain Random Forest at the default 0.5 threshold attains F1 = 0.861 +/- 0.021, and threshold tuning yields it no benefit (delta-F1 = -0.002). Read alone, this supports an appealing conclusion: for a well-calibrated ensemble, imbalance handling is unnecessary.
We then apply the identical protocol to 45 binary tasks spanning imbalance ratios from 1:1.5 to 1:178 (2,025 model fits, four model families). The conclusion reverses. Random Forest benefits most from threshold tuning across the suite (delta-F1 = +0.101 +/- 0.134), not least, while three other families replicate their fraud-dataset behaviour almost exactly. SMOTE likewise harms the fraud dataset but helps across the suite (mean delta-F1 = +0.076; 138 wins, 39 losses; Wilcoxon p = 2.7e-17).
Two further results. Threshold-tuning benefit is non-monotonic in the imbalance ratio: near zero below 1:5, peaking at +0.120 in the 1:15-1:40 band, declining to +0.045 beyond 1:100 – explaining why the fraud dataset, at 1:577, is an unrepresentative place to study the question. And we reject an intuitive heuristic: validation-set calibration error does not predict tuning benefit (expected calibration error r = -0.087; Brier r = +0.137), so calibration diagnostics cannot tell a practitioner whether tuning is worthwhile. We release the protocol, the 45-task harness, and all per-run metrics.
This article has been indexed from cs.AI updates on arXiv.org
Read the original article: