ML Interview Q Series: In a classification setting where one class heavily outweighs the other, how would you select the most suitable evaluation measure?
📚 Browse the full ML Interview series here.
Comprehensive Explanation
When the class distribution in a dataset is highly skewed (one class appears far more frequently than the other), evaluating performance via accuracy alone can be deceptive. In such scenarios, alternative metrics are considered to capture the performance on the minority class accurately. Below are some key metrics and concepts to guide the choice:
Accuracy vs. Imbalanced Datasets
Accuracy simply calculates the fraction of correct predictions among all predictions. If the imbalance is severe, a naive model that always predicts the majority class can achieve deceptively high accuracy. Thus, accuracy is often not meaningful under heavy skew.
Precision and Recall
Precision measures how many of the predicted positives are actually positive. Recall measures how many of the actual positives are correctly predicted as positive. In imbalanced contexts, recall is often a priority because identifying all positive (minority class) samples can be critical (e.g., detecting fraudulent transactions, diagnosing a rare disease). However, focusing solely on recall can inflate false positives, so precision also matters to avoid too many wrong alerts.
F1 Score
F1 is the harmonic mean of precision and recall. It balances both metrics in one single value, making it a popular choice for dealing with imbalance when both false positives and false negatives are significant.
Parameters inside the F1 formula:
Precision is (True Positives) / (True Positives + False Positives).
Recall is (True Positives) / (True Positives + False Negatives).
The factor 2 makes the F1 measure put balanced emphasis on precision and recall.
F1 is considered a good default metric for imbalanced classification tasks when there is roughly equal importance of avoiding both false positives and false negatives.
Precision-Recall (PR) Curve and Average Precision
Rather than a single threshold-based measure, we can look at the precision-recall curve, which plots precision vs. recall at various classification thresholds. For severely skewed classes, the PR curve and the area under that curve (Average Precision) can provide a more informative picture of performance. A high area under the PR curve means the model can maintain high recall without drastically sacrificing precision.
ROC Curve and AUC
The ROC curve plots the true positive rate (recall) vs. false positive rate at different thresholds. Although popular, the ROC-AUC metric can sometimes paint an overly optimistic picture when the data is highly imbalanced. This happens because the false positive rate might remain relatively low, given the vast number of negatives. Still, ROC-AUC can be useful if we want to measure the trade-off between sensitivity (recall) and specificity across various thresholds.
Balanced Accuracy
Balanced accuracy is the average of true positive rate (recall) and true negative rate. It corrects for the case where the negatives (majority) overwhelmingly dominate and can provide a more holistic view of performance across both classes.
Practical Implementation
In Python, common ways to compute these metrics are through scikit-learn’s classification_report, confusion_matrix, and direct metric functions like f1_score, precision_score, recall_score, and roc_auc_score. Below is a quick example:
from sklearn.metrics import classification_report, confusion_matrix, roc_auc_score
import numpy as np
# Suppose y_true is the true labels, and y_pred is the predicted labels
y_true = np.array([0, 0, 0, 1, 1, 1, 1])
y_pred = np.array([0, 0, 1, 0, 1, 1, 1])
print("Confusion Matrix:")
print(confusion_matrix(y_true, y_pred))
print("\nClassification Report:")
print(classification_report(y_true, y_pred, digits=3))
print("\nROC-AUC Score (requires probabilities or decision_function values for y_pred_proba):")
y_pred_proba = np.array([0.1, 0.2, 0.7, 0.4, 0.8, 0.9, 0.99]) # hypothetical probabilities
print(roc_auc_score(y_true, y_pred_proba))
How to Choose the Right Metric
Criticality of the Minority Class: If missing a positive instance is very costly, recall-oriented metrics like recall, F1, or PR-AUC can be key.
When False Positives Are Expensive: If incorrectly flagging negatives as positive is expensive, focus on higher precision or a suitable precision threshold.
Need for A Single Threshold-Independent Measure: ROC-AUC is frequently used; however, PR-AUC could be more telling when the positive class is extremely rare.
Balanced Accuracy: For multi-class or multi-label scenarios with imbalance in multiple classes, balanced accuracy or macro-averaged metrics often help.
How to Address Potential Follow-Up Questions
Could we use Accuracy if the classes remain imbalanced but not extremely skewed?
Accuracy can still provide some information if the imbalance is not severe or if we use a balanced training approach. However, it is typically safer to rely on metrics like precision, recall, F1, or balanced accuracy that are more robust to changes in the distribution of classes. One might use accuracy as a supplementary metric but not as the sole deciding criterion.
When would we favor ROC-AUC over Precision-Recall AUC?
ROC-AUC is a good measure when false positives (from the large negative class) are not extremely costly or when both classes have comparable levels of priority. However, in situations where we are specifically focused on the minority class performance and want to maintain high recall with minimal precision drop, PR-AUC is more revealing.
Why might we use a weighted or macro-averaged F1 score?
In multiclass or multi-label settings with imbalance across multiple categories, a simple averaged F1 may be dominated by performance on the majority classes. Weighted or macro-averaged F1 ensures that each class contributes equally (or proportionally) to the overall metric, providing a more equitable measure of performance across all classes.
How do you use thresholds in practice to control Precision vs. Recall?
Models usually output probabilistic predictions. By adjusting the probability threshold above which an instance is labeled as positive, one can trade off between precision and recall. For instance, lowering the threshold raises recall but can harm precision. Tools such as the precision-recall curve or the ROC curve can guide selecting an optimal threshold based on the business need (e.g., to minimize cost or risk).
What if the dataset is so imbalanced that the model rarely predicts positives?
When the dataset is extremely skewed (e.g., 1% positives vs. 99% negatives), some models may collapse to always predicting negatives. Strategies to address this include oversampling the minority class, undersampling the majority class, or synthesizing new minority examples (e.g., SMOTE). One may also employ class-weighting techniques or ensemble methods specifically designed to handle skewed distributions. After adjusting these techniques, metrics like recall and precision should be revisited to ensure the model is genuinely capturing minority instances.
Are there domain-specific considerations in choosing the metric?
Yes, domain context often dictates which type of error is most critical. For medical diagnoses, missing a positive case (false negative) could be life-threatening, so high recall is critical. For spam detection, too many false positives can overshadow the benefit of catching spam, thus a good balance between precision and recall is essential. Always evaluate metrics in the context of real-world constraints.
Below are additional follow-up questions
How should we handle concept drift in imbalanced scenarios?
Concept drift occurs when the statistical properties of the target variable or the data features shift over time. In imbalanced contexts, this shift can be especially problematic if the minority class evolves differently than the majority class. For instance, a spam detection model trained on historical emails might underperform if spammers significantly alter their tactics.
A major pitfall here is assuming that the original class distribution remains constant. If the frequency of the minority class increases or decreases drastically, previously established thresholds for precision and recall may become outdated. Monitoring key performance indicators like recall, precision, or the F1 over time can reveal signs of drift. Retraining or fine-tuning on the latest data, potentially with updated sampling or class weighting strategies, helps maintain performance.
In real-world applications, active learning can be adopted. In active learning setups, the model selectively queries examples it is least certain about, thereby focusing labeling efforts on areas that might be drifting. This strategy is useful when labeling resources are limited, ensuring that newly emerging variations of the minority class are quickly accounted for in the training process.
Does cost-sensitive learning provide a more reliable path for imbalanced classification?
Cost-sensitive learning explicitly incorporates different misclassification costs in the loss function. In an imbalanced classification problem, one might assign a higher penalty for misclassifying minority class samples. This incentivizes the model to pay more attention to minority instances during training. However, it is crucial to accurately estimate or justify these misclassification costs in a real-world context. Overestimating or arbitrarily assigning costs can produce skewed model behavior, such as excessively labeling points as positive to avoid high penalties for false negatives.
Another subtlety is that different cost matrices can lead to different optimal decision boundaries. If the application domain does not have clear guidance on the cost structure (e.g., a health application might have well-defined costs for missing a diagnosis vs. false alarms), practitioners may have to experiment with various cost combinations. A mismatch between the cost matrix used during training and the real-world cost trade-off can degrade performance once deployed.
How do we evaluate and choose metrics when multiple classes have different degrees of imbalance?
Multi-class problems often contain multiple imbalances: some classes might comprise only 1% of the data, while others might represent 30% or more. Relying on standard accuracy or a single micro-averaged precision/recall can mask poor performance on the most underrepresented classes.
Macro-averaging calculates each class’s metric independently and then takes the average across classes, treating all classes equally regardless of frequency. Weighted averaging weights each class’s contribution by its prevalence, which can dilute the effect of severely underrepresented classes.
When each class is critical to detect (e.g., different but equally important types of fraud), macro-averaged F1 or recall can highlight performance on rare classes. If classes have different real-world priorities, you can assign custom weights in a weighted F1 or recall to reflect domain-specific importance.
What are some interpretability considerations for evaluation metrics in imbalanced settings?
Imbalanced classification often arises in high-stakes situations such as medical diagnoses or financial fraud. In these domains, interpretability is paramount. Some metrics, like precision and recall, are intuitively easier for stakeholders to understand: “Out of all labeled as positive, how many are correct?” (precision) and “Out of all actual positives, how many are detected?” (recall).
Complex metrics like ROC-AUC might appear less transparent to non-technical stakeholders because they aggregate performance across threshold variations. Presenting confusion matrices or providing threshold-specific metrics can improve interpretability. Decision thresholds can also be explained in business terms, such as the cost of a false alarm vs. the cost of missing a critical event, ensuring stakeholders grasp how metrics align with real-world outcomes.
What role can partial AUC play in imbalanced data scenarios?
Partial AUC focuses on a specific range of interest on the ROC curve, often the region of extremely low false positive rates if those are the most critical (e.g., screening for a rare disease where we want minimal false positives for practical or ethical reasons). In highly imbalanced data, a small portion of the ROC curve may matter more, especially if you must operate at a low false positive rate regime to avoid overwhelming the system with false alarms.
However, partial AUC might be misleading if chosen arbitrarily or without concrete domain constraints. One pitfall is ignoring how the model performs outside that chosen region. If business requirements change and a different false positive rate range becomes relevant, the partial AUC might no longer be representative. It is thus essential to align the partial AUC range with a well-justified operating zone.
Why is stratified cross-validation important for imbalanced classification?
Stratified cross-validation preserves the class distribution within each fold, ensuring that each training/validation split has a representative proportion of minority and majority classes. If standard cross-validation (without stratification) is used, some folds might contain too few or even zero minority samples, leading to misleading estimates of performance.
Stratified sampling becomes even more crucial if the dataset is small or the minority class percentage is extremely low. It prevents overfitting to particular folds and yields more reliable estimates of the model’s generalization. An edge case arises when the minority class is extremely rare and some folds might still miss minority instances. Data augmentation or repeated stratified cross-validation (with multiple random seeds) can mitigate this risk.
How can threshold calibration become tricky when the positive class is extremely rare?
If the minority class is extremely rare, the raw output probabilities from the model may tend to be skewed toward the majority class. Calibrating the decision threshold involves setting a cutoff such that samples with predicted probability above that cutoff are predicted as the minority class. A common pitfall is blindly using a default threshold of 0.5; the model might rarely exceed 0.5 when the minority class is rare, thus producing very few positive predictions.
Techniques like Platt scaling or isotonic regression can be applied for probability calibration, ensuring better alignment between predicted probabilities and actual frequencies of the minority class. However, collecting enough positive samples to properly calibrate these models can be challenging. One must also consider that calibration depends on stable distributions. If the data shifts or the prior probability of the minority class changes over time, you might need to recalibrate thresholds or re-estimate calibration models.