Challenges in the calibration of tree-based models for imbalanced classification
Bibliographic record
Abstract
When using machine learning for imbalanced binary classification problems, it is common to subsample the majority class to create a (more) balanced training dataset. This biases the model's predictions because the model learns from data that is not fully representative of the underlying population of interest. One way of accounting for this bias is analytically mapping the resulting predictions to new values based on the sampling rate for the majority class. We show that calibrating a random forest this way has negative consequences, including prevalence estimates that depend on both the number of predictors considered at each split in the random forest and the sampling rate used. We explain the former using known properties of random forests and analytical calibration and the latter by demonstrating a bias in decision trees. In contradiction with much of the existing literature, we show that decision trees can be biased towards the minority class. These issues indicate that tree-based models trained on undersampled data should not be calibrated analytically. Calibration approaches that can learn a miscalibration pattern in the original model (e.g., beta calibration) are more suitable.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".