Abstract
Resampling methods such as SMOTE and random under/over-sampling are standard tools for class-imbalanced classification, almost always evaluated by minority-class accuracy or F1. Prior work has established that undersampling degrades probability calibration by distorting the training prior [1]. We extend this lens to synthetic oversampling (SMOTE) and provide a practical, evidence-based guide to when calibration damage matters and how to fix it. Across five public datasets (imbalance ratio 1.9-70) and two ensemble models (random forest, gradient boosting), with ten seeds and paired statistics, we find: (1) SMOTE's calibration cost is real but small (ECE +0.009; Cliff's delta = +0.27, small-to-moderate) across the studied imbalance range (IR 1.9-70) and its discrimination gains typically outweigh the calibration penalty; (2) random undersampling is the genuine danger -- its damage grows sharply with imbalance, inflating ECE from 0.008 to 0.395 on a dataset with ratio 70, largely because the resulting training sets are too small to estimate probabilities reliably; (3) a single post-hoc recalibration step (Platt or isotonic) eliminates the damage, reducing ECE by up to 66% at a negligible ranking-power cost (AUC -0.002, Cliff's delta = -0.07); and (4) the analytic prior-shift correction that repairs undersampling does not transfer to SMOTE, because SMOTE distorts the class-conditional density rather than only the prior -- so data-driven recalibration remains necessary. We recommend that imbalanced-learning studies report calibration alongside discrimination, and that practitioners recalibrate after resampling whenever predicted probabilities drive decisions.
Explore similar work
Date pendingstat.ML
Class imbalance complicates probabilistic classification because standard training objectives emphasize majority-class performance. Synthetic oversampling can reduce imbalance, but discrepancies between the synthetic and target minority distributions may bias the fitted classifier, especially because synthetic samples depend on the observed data. We propose a bias-correction procedure that estimates the generator-induced loss discrepancy from a held-out subset of majority observations and transfers this correction to the minority class under a uniform bias-transfer condition. We establish finite-sample bounds for bias transfer and for the excess balanced risk of the resulting empirical risk minimizer, and characterize a regime in which SMOTE induces non-negligible loss bias. The framework can also be implemented in imbalanced multi-task learning and propensity-score estimation, with details provided in the Supplementary Material. Real data analyses show that the correction is most useful when synthetic distortion is appreciable.
Pengfei Lyu, Zhengchi Ma, Linjun Zhang +1
Jun 2, 2025cs.LG
Data imbalance persists as a pervasive challenge in regression tasks, introducing bias in model performance and undermining predictive reliability. This is particularly detrimental in applications aimed at predicting rare events that fall outside of the domain of the bulk of the training data. In this study, we review the current state-of-the-art regarding sampling-based methods and cost-sensitive learning. Additionally, we propose novel approaches to mitigate model bias. To better assess the importance of data, we introduce the density-distance and density-ratio relevance functions, which effectively integrate empirical frequency of data with domain-specific preferences, offering enhanced interpretability for end-users. Furthermore, we present advanced mitigation techniques (cSMOGN and crbSMOGN), which build upon and improve existing sampling methods. In a quantitative evaluation, we benchmark state-of-the-art methods on 10 synthetic and 42 real-world datasets, using neural networks, XGBoosting trees and Random Forest models. Our analysis shows that while most strategies improve performance on rare samples, they degrade it on frequent ones. The trade-off becomes larger the more the performance on rare samples is increased. However, to reduce this effect we demonstrate that constructing an ensemble of models -- one trained with imbalance mitigation and another without -- can be used. The key findings underscore the superior performance of our novel crbSMOGN sampling technique with the density-ratio relevance function for neural networks, outperforming state-of-the-art methods.
Jelke Wibbeke, Sebastian Rohjans, Andreas Rauh
Jun 11, 2026cs.LG
We present Simplex-Constrained Sparse Bagging (SCSB), a mathematically rigorous framework for post-training compression and probability calibration of bootstrap-based bagging ensembles. Standard bagging ensembles (such as Random Forests, Bagged SVMs, and Bagged Neural Networks) assign uniform voting power to all constituent estimators. However, this naive uniform prior ignores the varying local competence of base estimators and contributes to model overconfidence. We formulate ensemble pruning and calibration as a joint optimization problem over the probability simplex by minimizing the Out-Of-Bag (OOB) loss. To induce sparsity, we address the theoretical "L1-simplex paradox" - the mathematical reality that the L1 norm is constant on the simplex and fails to prune - by introducing a concave quadratic penalty. SCSB is model-agnostic and achieves up to 96% ensemble compression, yielding linear inference speedups and superior probability calibration (lowered Expected Calibration Error) while preserving or enhancing generalization accuracy.
Meher Sai Preetam Madiraju, Meher Bhaskar Madiraju