Class imbalance should not throw you off balance: Choosing the right classifiers and performance metrics for brain decoding with imbalanced data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Machine learning (ML) is increasingly used in cognitive, computational and clinical neuroscience. The reliable and efficient application of ML requires a sound understanding of its subtleties and limitations. Training ML models on datasets with imbalanced classes is a particularly common problem, and it can have severe consequences if not adequately addressed. With the neuroscience ML user in mind, this paper provides a didactic assessment of the class imbalance problem and illustrates its impact through systematic manipulation of data imbalance ratios in (i) simulated data and (ii) brain data recorded with electroencephalography (EEG), magnetoencephalography (MEG) and functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI). Our results illustrate how the widely-used Accuracy (Acc) metric, which measures the overall proportion of successful predictions, yields misleadingly high performances, as class imbalance increases. Because Acc weights the per-class ratios of correct predictions proportionally to class size, it largely disregards the performance on the minority class. A binary classification model that learns to systematically vote for the majority class will yield an artificially high decoding accuracy that directly reflects the imbalance between the two classes, rather than any genuine generalizable ability to discriminate between them. We show that other evaluation metrics such as the Area Under the Curve (AUC) of the Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC), and the less common Balanced Accuracy (BAcc) metric - defined as the arithmetic mean between sensitivity and specificity, provide more reliable performance evaluations for imbalanced data. Our findings also highlight the robustness of Random Forest (RF), and the benefits of using stratified cross-validation and hyperprameter optimization to tackle data imbalance. Critically, for neuroscience ML applications that seek to minimize overall classification error, we recommend the routine use of BAcc, which in the specific case of balanced data is equivalent to using standard Acc, and readily extends to multi-class settings. Importantly, we present a list of recommendations for dealing with imbalanced data, as well as open-source code to allow the neuroscience community to replicate and extend our observations and explore alternative approaches to coping with imbalanced data.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.020 | 0.096 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".