ML Interview Q Series: How do One-vs-Rest and One-vs-One strategies in multi-class classification differ from each other?

📚 Browse the full ML Interview series here.

Comprehensive Explanation

One-vs-Rest (often also called One-vs-All) constructs a separate classifier for each class. Each classifier distinguishes whether an example belongs to that specific class or not. Suppose there are K distinct classes. In One-vs-Rest, you build K binary classifiers, each trained to separate one class from the remaining classes combined. When you want to predict, you typically feed the input into all K classifiers and choose the class whose corresponding classifier yields the highest confidence score.

One-vs-One, on the other hand, trains a classifier for every possible pair of classes. If there are K classes, then you end up with K(K-1)/2 classifiers. Each classifier is trained to distinguish between two particular classes. During inference, you feed the input to all these pairwise classifiers and then typically pick the class that wins the greatest number of pairwise “votes.”

A key difference lies in computational cost. One-vs-Rest demands training K classifiers. Each classifier sees both positive examples (those from its own class) and negative examples (all the data from the remaining classes). One-vs-One demands training many more classifiers (specifically K(K-1)/2), but each of those classifiers is trained only on the examples from the two relevant classes, often making each classifier faster to train for large K when you break down the data to only those two classes. The trade-off is that One-vs-One can be memory- and computation-intensive when you need to store or evaluate many classifiers at prediction time if K is large.

In One-vs-Rest, the final class decision is usually derived by picking the class whose classifier outputs the highest score. A typical formula for the predicted class in One-vs-Rest can be shown as follows:

Here, f_{k}(x) means the real-valued output function of the classifier dedicated to class k. The symbol hat{y} indicates the predicted class. We look for the k that maximizes that classifier’s output, reflecting our confidence in belonging to class k. In situations with uncalibrated outputs (like raw SVM distances), one might need to convert them into probabilities or normalized scores.

In One-vs-One, each pairwise classifier outputs the winning class for that pair. The class that accumulates the highest number of wins after voting across all pairwise classifiers becomes the final prediction. There are multiple ways to consolidate these pairwise votes. A simple technique is the majority vote, while some variations use weighted voting based on the distance from the decision boundary. Because only two classes appear in each training subset, each classifier may train more efficiently on very large datasets, as it only needs data from two classes at a time.

One potential challenge with One-vs-Rest arises if one class is severely underrepresented compared to the others: the negative class can dominate the training, making the classifier skewed. Class imbalance mitigation techniques can help. For One-vs-One, the most prominent challenge is the larger number of classifiers in settings with many classes, potentially inflating memory usage and inference time. However, each classifier gets a more balanced subset of data (only two classes), which can simplify certain training issues.

How is the decision boundary determined in One-vs-Rest compared to One-vs-One?

In One-vs-Rest, each binary classifier tries to find a boundary that separates a single class from the union of all the others. The overall classification boundary is basically an ensemble of K distinct “one-class vs. rest” decision boundaries. The final decision boundary in feature space is where two or more of these binary classifier outputs intersect in score.

In One-vs-One, each decision boundary is specific to a pair of classes. You end up with multiple pairwise boundaries. The final decision is the outcome of the combined results from these pairwise classifiers. Conceptually, you see a more fragmented set of boundaries. Each region of the feature space is assigned to the class that wins the majority of the pairwise matchups in that region.

How can class imbalance be handled in One-vs-Rest and One-vs-One?

For One-vs-Rest, class imbalance can be especially problematic for the smaller classes because their classifier is trained against a very large negative set. Techniques like class weighting, oversampling the minority class, or undersampling the majority classes can mitigate this imbalance. One can also carefully tune metrics like F1-score or area under the precision-recall curve, especially if the class distribution is skewed in real-world data.

For One-vs-One, imbalance is addressed on a pairwise level. When two classes are extremely unbalanced with respect to each other, sampling strategies or class-specific weights can still help. However, sometimes it is less of a concern compared to One-vs-Rest, because you never mix the other classes in your negative set. You only train on the two relevant classes at a time, so you potentially maintain a more balanced scenario for those two classes. The downside is that if your overall dataset has a handful of very rare classes, you might still end up with data scarcity in some of those pairwise classifiers.

Are there scenarios where One-vs-One might be more practical than One-vs-Rest?

One-vs-One becomes quite attractive when each class has a large number of data samples, and you can afford to train several classifiers that each uses data only from a pair of classes. Since each pairwise classifier only needs the examples of the two classes it distinguishes, it can sometimes be trained faster on large datasets, because you are not forcing the classifier to process all remaining classes in a single negative set. Also, certain algorithms that scale poorly with the size of the negative class might benefit from smaller pairwise training sets.

However, in practice, if K is very large (like thousands of classes), One-vs-One might lead to a massive number of classifiers, creating an unwieldy inference pipeline or requiring significant memory. So for extremely large K, One-vs-Rest might be simpler and more memory-efficient at inference time, despite each classifier’s training set including all other classes in the negative set.

Can you show a small code example demonstrating how to implement One-vs-Rest and One-vs-One in Python?

from sklearn import svm
from sklearn.multiclass import OneVsRestClassifier, OneVsOneClassifier
from sklearn.datasets import make_classification
from sklearn.model_selection import train_test_split
from sklearn.metrics import accuracy_score

# Generate a synthetic multi-class dataset
X, y = make_classification(n_samples=1000, n_features=20,
                           n_informative=5, n_redundant=2,
                           n_classes=5, random_state=42)

X_train, X_test, y_train, y_test = train_test_split(X, y,
                                                    test_size=0.2,
                                                    random_state=42)

# One-vs-Rest with SVM
ovr_model = OneVsRestClassifier(svm.SVC(probability=True, kernel='linear'))
ovr_model.fit(X_train, y_train)
ovr_predictions = ovr_model.predict(X_test)
print("One-vs-Rest accuracy:", accuracy_score(y_test, ovr_predictions))

# One-vs-One with SVM
ovo_model = OneVsOneClassifier(svm.SVC(probability=True, kernel='linear'))
ovo_model.fit(X_train, y_train)
ovo_predictions = ovo_model.predict(X_test)
print("One-vs-One accuracy:", accuracy_score(y_test, ovo_predictions))

This snippet illustrates a typical way of switching between One-vs-RestClassifier and One-vs-OneClassifier in scikit-learn. Both strategies wrap around a base classifier, such as an SVM. One-vs-Rest creates a separate SVM for each class vs. the rest, while One-vs-One creates a separate SVM for each pair of classes.

What are real-world implications when choosing One-vs-Rest or One-vs-One?

In practice, One-vs-Rest is often used because it is conceptually simple and requires fewer models to be maintained when there are many classes. In environments where memory is constrained, or the number of classes is extremely high, One-vs-Rest can be more scalable. However, you might face imbalance problems or classifier bias if one of the classes is much smaller or larger than the others.

In certain fields, like medical diagnostics where each classifier must be carefully optimized for pairwise distinction, One-vs-One might allow a more focused training approach between specific labels. The finer granularity of training data for each pair can sometimes reduce confusion among classes that might share overlapping feature space with many others. The potential trade-off is added complexity, more training routines, more parameters, and more classifier artifacts to maintain.

How do you select the final predicted class in One-vs-One if there is a tie?

In scenarios where two or more classes receive the same number of pairwise votes, one approach is to look at the raw decision function margins from those pairwise classifiers to break ties. Another strategy is to retrain a secondary model that resolves these tie cases specifically. Some implementations might break ties by selecting the class with the strongest average margin of victory across all pairwise comparisons.

If ties are frequent, it can signal that either the features are insufficient to distinguish classes, or that hyperparameters or the voting scheme need further refinement. Evaluating whether these ties are due to genuine confusion between classes or simply random noise can guide improvements in data collection or model tuning.

Why might a model trained with One-vs-Rest fail in certain cases?

If the training data for one class is overshadowed by the other classes combined, the classifier for that class might learn a suboptimal boundary. This can happen especially when K is large, and the single class in question makes up a small portion of the data. Hyperparameter tuning and class imbalance strategies can mitigate this, but out-of-the-box One-vs-Rest training can suffer from a biased view of “positive vs. huge negative set.”

Additionally, if two classes are very similar, the single class vs. rest approach might struggle more than specialized pairwise boundaries that specifically discriminate between those two classes. Depending on the shape of your data distribution, it is possible that focusing specifically on those similar classes in a dedicated classifier (One-vs-One) can sharpen the distinction.

How can you validate whether One-vs-Rest or One-vs-One is better for a particular problem?

Cross-validation on your dataset can help. One can implement both strategies and compare their performance metrics (such as accuracy, F1-score, confusion matrices, etc.). Since these two strategies can exhibit very different behavior regarding training speed, memory usage, and the balance between classes, it is valuable to measure training/inference times in addition to raw predictive performance. In practical production systems, you might also need to factor in model management complexity if you have to continuously update or redeploy many models.

Testing these strategies with real-world data distributions, especially where some classes may have more noise, more overlap, or are heavily underrepresented, offers the most reliable guide to which approach will perform better in practice.

Below are additional follow-up questions

How does label noise in certain classes influence One-vs-Rest vs. One-vs-One?

Label noise, where instances are mislabeled or ambiguous, can complicate training because each classifier sees conflicting examples. In One-vs-Rest, each classifier is pitted against the entire dataset of other classes, so label noise in any subset of the data might have a broad effect on the decision boundary. If the mislabeled examples in the negative set (i.e., the “Rest”) incorrectly represent the other classes, that single classifier can easily get confused.

In One-vs-One, label noise primarily impacts the pairwise classifiers related to the classes that contain the noisy labels. While that can still degrade performance, its effect is more localized: only the relevant pairwise classifiers suffer from those corrupted labels. This localized effect might make it simpler to identify and correct label noise. For instance, you could detect that certain pairwise matchups yield inconsistent training outcomes and investigate those subsets for mislabeling.

However, if label noise is spread across many classes, One-vs-One can still be hit particularly hard because you train so many classifiers. In practice, both strategies benefit from data cleaning, robust cross-validation, or specialized noise-handling techniques (such as label smoothing or confidence-based filtering). The choice of approach often comes down to which method yields smaller overall errors and how easily you can localize label-related issues.

What special considerations arise when dealing with extremely large class counts?

With extremely large numbers of classes, One-vs-Rest can be computationally simpler at inference time, because you only run K classifiers to get a prediction. Training can still be expensive if each classifier sees a huge negative set, but the memory footprint for storing trained models might remain more manageable (only K total models).

In One-vs-One, as the number of classes grows, the total number of pairwise classifiers K(K-1)/2 explodes. This can be extremely expensive in terms of both training time and memory storage for so many models. Additionally, inference time can become a bottleneck, since each new sample must be evaluated by each of the pairwise classifiers, unless you implement specialized data structures or approximate methods to reduce computation.

One potential workaround in large-scale scenarios is to do hierarchical classification, where you group similar classes together and apply different methods at different levels of this hierarchy. For example, you might first do a coarse classification that places a sample into one of several “super-classes,” then proceed with more fine-grained discrimination within that group. Another strategy is to use dimensionality reduction or embedding methods (like large-scale neural networks) to manage the complexity before applying a multi-class strategy.

How do we handle multi-label problems where a single instance may legitimately belong to more than one class?

Multi-label classification differs from standard multi-class classification because each instance can be assigned multiple valid labels simultaneously. One-vs-Rest is naturally extensible to multi-label problems: you can train one binary classifier per label, and each classifier outputs whether that label should apply or not. This approach allows each instance to activate multiple labels.

One-vs-One is less commonly used in multi-label scenarios because it presumes a competition between pairs of classes. That assumption is more aligned with exclusive multi-class classification, where each sample belongs to exactly one class. Attempting to repurpose One-vs-One for multi-label tasks can lead to contradictions when multiple pairwise classifiers produce overlapping or conflicting label assignments.

In real-world multi-label tasks like image tagging (an image can contain a cat and a dog simultaneously), or textual classification (a document can have multiple topics), the standard approach is to apply One-vs-Rest or more specialized multi-label methods (like classifier chains or adaptation of deep neural networks). The main pitfall is ignoring correlations among labels: training separate binary classifiers may overlook that some labels are more likely to co-occur than others, so advanced methods that model those correlations can outperform naive One-vs-Rest in multi-label settings.

Could we face inconsistencies in predictions with One-vs-Rest, and how do we manage them?

Yes, inconsistencies can arise when multiple class-specific classifiers all output high confidence for multiple classes simultaneously. For example, your set of binary classifiers could all confidently predict “positive” for different classes, implying that the sample belongs to multiple classes when you only want one final label. This scenario often results from uncalibrated outputs, especially if each classifier is trained independently without proper score normalization or probability calibration.

To address these inconsistencies, some practitioners use a softmax-like calibration of each classifier’s outputs. One approach is to interpret each classifier’s raw output as a log-odds and normalize them across all classes to ensure that the sum of probabilities is 1. Another possibility is to include a secondary decision layer that takes as input all the classifier outputs and chooses exactly one class, effectively handling tie-breaks or overlap. This secondary layer could be a simple “argmax” over the calibrated probabilities, or a small neural network that learns the interrelationships among the classifiers’ outputs.

How might interpretability differ between One-vs-Rest and One-vs-One models?

One-vs-Rest can be simpler to explain if you need to articulate why a sample is classified into a specific class. Each classifier is a binary decision system whose logic is “class k vs. not class k,” which can be more straightforward to interpret. You can point to feature importances or logistic regression coefficients that show which features guide the classifier toward the “positive” label for class k.

One-vs-One yields many pairwise decision boundaries. While each pairwise boundary can also be analyzed for interpretability, the overall classification outcome is the product of votes across these pairwise boundaries. Explaining how each classifier contributes to the final vote can be more complex, as there are many potential interactions. In some settings, you can interpret each pairwise classifier, but summing up a large number of pairwise justifications can overwhelm a stakeholder who wants a simple, direct explanation.

In high-stakes domains (like medical diagnosis or finance), interpretability is often a priority. If a model’s predictions must be explained to regulators or domain experts, a large number of pairwise classifiers might be cumbersome. In such cases, One-vs-Rest or other interpretable multi-class algorithms may be more transparent.

What if some classes have extremely high overlap in feature space?

High overlap means that two or more classes exhibit very similar feature distributions, making them hard to distinguish. One-vs-Rest might produce classifiers that struggle to isolate a single class from a broad negative group if multiple classes look alike. That negative set will inevitably include very similar examples from the overlapping classes, creating a complex boundary for each classifier.

One-vs-One can dedicate a special classifier solely to the pair of overlapping classes, focusing the learning algorithm on their nuanced differences. This sometimes yields better discriminative performance between those classes. However, if many classes are overlapping in pairs, you might not see a clear advantage, because you still have to create numerous pairwise classifiers that handle these overlaps in different permutations.

In both strategies, collecting more discriminative features or engineering domain-specific features can help separate overlapping classes. High overlap can be mitigated through advanced methods like metric learning, where you learn an embedding that separates classes more effectively. Another possibility is using deep neural networks with carefully designed architectures that automatically learn representations capable of discriminating subtle differences.

Are there any software libraries or frameworks beyond scikit-learn that provide efficient One-vs-Rest or One-vs-One implementations?

In addition to scikit-learn, many deep learning frameworks like PyTorch or TensorFlow do not necessarily provide a prepackaged One-vs-Rest or One-vs-One module, but you can implement multi-class classification in these frameworks using a single network with a final layer that outputs K logits and a softmax, effectively capturing multi-class distinctions in one model. This approach typically functions akin to “all classes at once” classification and might not explicitly use One-vs-Rest or One-vs-One, but the result is still a multi-class output.

For traditional machine learning (like SVMs or logistic regression), scikit-learn remains one of the most common libraries with straightforward wrappers for One-vs-Rest (OneVsRestClassifier) and One-vs-One (OneVsOneClassifier). Libraries such as XGBoost or LightGBM handle multi-class tasks internally, typically using strategies akin to one-vs-rest or a native multi-class approach. The user rarely needs to manually build multiple models because the library’s built-in logic does it under the hood. In specialized domains, you might find R packages (like “e1071” for SVM in R) that also natively support either strategy.

What considerations should we keep in mind when ensembling One-vs-Rest or One-vs-One models?

Ensembling usually means combining multiple base learners to improve predictive performance or reduce variance. With One-vs-Rest, you can ensemble at different levels, for example training multiple versions of each “class vs. rest” classifier with different random seeds or subsets of data, then averaging or voting their outputs.

In One-vs-One, ensembling can become more complicated because you already have so many pairwise classifiers. You might create an ensemble by training multiple sets of the pairwise classifiers with different random seeds or subsets of data. The final prediction is decided by combining the votes from all classifiers across all ensemble members. This can be powerful, but computationally very heavy, since you multiply an already large set of classifiers by however many ensemble members you have.

One pitfall is overfitting if you blindly add more classifiers without sufficient data or careful cross-validation. Another subtlety arises if each pairwise classifier in an ensemble has uncalibrated outputs, potentially skewing the final vote or average. Maintaining consistent calibration across all ensemble components is essential to avoid contradictory predictions.