🤖 AI Summary
This study addresses the unreliability of conclusions regarding class-imbalance methods derived from single-dataset evaluations. Employing a leakage-free nested cross-validation protocol across 45 binary classification tasks, we conducted large-scale experiments to reassess these techniques. Results reveal that threshold tuning benefits exhibit non-monotonic variation with imbalance ratios and refute the hypothesis that calibration error predicts tuning gains. Furthermore, Random Forest combined with SMOTE demonstrated significant effectiveness across multiple tasks, highlighting the limitations of findings based solely on single fraud datasets. This work systematically clarifies the true utility and applicability boundaries of resampling and threshold tuning, providing robust empirical evidence for the reliable evaluation of imbalanced classification methods.
📝 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.