ML Interview Q Series: When to use OneHotEncoder VS LabelEncoder in Scikit-Learn?
📚 Browse the full ML Interview series here.
Comprehensive Explanation
LabelEncoder is generally used to transform a single categorical column into a numerical representation where each unique category is assigned an integer value. The transformation is relatively straightforward in that it replaces categories such as "red", "blue", "green" with integer values 0, 1, 2, etc. This is particularly useful when the categorical variable has some form of intrinsic ordinal relationship (for example, small, medium, large), or when you are dealing with target labels in a classification setting (because most estimators in scikit-learn require the target to be numeric).
OneHotEncoder, on the other hand, converts each unique category into a new dummy (binary) variable, creating as many new features as there are unique categories in that feature. So if a categorical feature has three categories "red", "blue", and "green", OneHotEncoder will create three new features (e.g., is_red, is_blue, is_green) each containing 0 or 1, depending on which category that row belongs to. This approach is beneficial for categorical features that do not have an intrinsic ordinal relationship. Many machine learning models either require or perform better with one-hot-encoded data, because the distance metrics or coefficient values are not distorted by arbitrary integer encodings.
Using LabelEncoder on a categorical feature that has no ordinal relationship can cause algorithms to interpret the numeric values as having some meaningful distance or magnitude relation. For instance, if "red" is mapped to 0 and "blue" to 1, a model might interpret "blue" as greater than "red" or might treat the difference between 1 and 0 as something significant. This could degrade model performance, especially in linear models or distance-based models like KNN or SVM with certain kernels. Therefore, one-hot encoding is preferred in such cases to avoid introducing nonsensical numeric relationships.
Conversely, if the categorical data is truly ordinal or if the model can naturally handle integer encodings (for instance, certain tree-based methods can sometimes handle integer-encoded data sensibly, though it still depends on the nature of the feature), then LabelEncoder might suffice. However, for safety, a typical approach is to use OneHotEncoder for non-ordinal categorical features.
Below is a simple illustrative Python snippet showing how one might use both LabelEncoder and OneHotEncoder from scikit-learn:
from sklearn.preprocessing import LabelEncoder, OneHotEncoder
import numpy as np
# Suppose we have a feature "color" with categories: red, blue, green
colors = np.array(['red', 'blue', 'green', 'blue', 'red']).reshape(-1, 1)
# Label Encoding
label_encoder = LabelEncoder()
encoded_labels = label_encoder.fit_transform(colors.ravel())
print("Label Encoded:", encoded_labels)
# One-Hot Encoding
onehot_encoder = OneHotEncoder(sparse=False, drop=None)
encoded_onehot = onehot_encoder.fit_transform(colors)
print("One-Hot Encoded:\n", encoded_onehot)
In practice, OneHotEncoder is often preferred when dealing with features that are purely nominal (i.e., no ordering among categories). LabelEncoder is generally used for encoding the target variable in a classification task or for ordinal features. If a large number of unique categories are present (high cardinality), one-hot encoding can explode the number of features. In such scenarios, approaches like target encoding, hashing trick, or embedding-based methods might be considered.
Common Pitfalls and Edge Cases
Using LabelEncoder on a non-ordinal categorical feature often introduces unintended ordinal relationships in the data. This will matter significantly for linear or distance-based algorithms, leading to degraded performance or misinterpretation. While decision trees can sometimes handle integer-encoded categories reasonably (by dividing the numeric values at certain thresholds), it is still advisable to use one-hot encoding or other appropriate encodings to be consistent across various algorithms and to ensure the model is not influenced by arbitrary integer assignments.
If the categorical feature is truly ordinal, such as education level (e.g., primary, secondary, bachelor’s, master’s, PhD), LabelEncoder might be a suitable choice because the numeric representation can reflect the order. For example, you might map "primary" to 1, "secondary" to 2, etc. However, if the distinction between consecutive levels is not truly linear, some models can still misinterpret the numerical difference.
When to Prefer Each Encoder
For classification labels: LabelEncoder is typically used to transform the labels of the classification target into numeric form.
For input features with nominal categories: OneHotEncoder is generally the recommended solution. It prevents the creation of spurious ordinal relationships.
For input features with ordinal categories: LabelEncoder can be used if the encoded integers respect the ordinal relationship without implying a strict linear distance. Otherwise, ordinal encoders that transform the categories into a monotonically increasing scale can be explored.
For extremely high-cardinality features: One-hot encoding can lead to a huge number of sparse features, so you might consider alternative encodings (e.g., target encoding, hashing, or embeddings) to manage dimensionality.
How Different Models Interpret Encodings
Linear models or distance-based models: They often rely on the numeric space having meaningful distances. One-hot encoding avoids forcing an ordinal or distance-based relationship among categories.
Tree-based models: Some tree-based models (like decision trees and random forests) can partially mitigate the effect of integer encoding because they split based on thresholds. Still, if there is no real order among the categories, any threshold-based split can be arbitrary. OneHotEncoder generally works in a more consistent manner.
Follow-Up Questions
What if a feature is ordinal but not purely numeric in nature?
In such a scenario, you might consider mapping it to an ordinal scale that respects the progression but does not necessarily treat distances as uniform. You can use custom ordinal mappings. As an example, "Low" -> 1, "Medium" -> 2, "High" -> 3, or other transformations that reflect domain knowledge. This approach can be beneficial for linear models that benefit from monotonic relationships.
How do we handle high-cardinality categorical features?
When the number of categories is extremely large, one-hot encoding might become infeasible because it rapidly increases the number of columns. In these cases, techniques like hashing trick, target encoding, or embedding-based encodings (common in deep learning) can be used. These approaches reduce dimensionality by mapping categories to a smaller numeric space. However, one must be careful with overfitting when using target encoding, because it uses label (target) information to encode categories.
Why do some tree-based models still perform well with LabelEncoder?
Certain tree-based algorithms (e.g., XGBoost, LightGBM, or Random Forest) can split integer-encoded categories at various thresholds. While the tree might attempt to find an optimal split that separates categories effectively, it can still suffer from the fact that it treats the feature as numeric. This can sometimes lead to suboptimal splits if there is no true ordering among categories. It works, but one-hot encoding is usually more consistent across different learning algorithms.
Do pandas.get_dummies and OneHotEncoder do the same thing?
They have similar functionality in producing dummy variables, but scikit-learn’s OneHotEncoder integrates better with scikit-learn pipelines, cross-validation, and parameter tuning. pandas.get_dummies is convenient for quick data transformations in a DataFrame. However, OneHotEncoder supports additional options such as handling unknown categories gracefully at inference time and controlling the output as sparse or dense arrays. In a production machine learning pipeline, OneHotEncoder is generally preferred to maintain consistency with scikit-learn’s transforms.
Below are additional follow-up questions
How to handle unseen categories during inference when using OneHotEncoder or LabelEncoder?
When you train encoders (OneHotEncoder or LabelEncoder), they memorize the categories observed in the training data. If, at inference time, new categories appear that were not seen during training, it can lead to errors or misclassifications. For example, LabelEncoder will raise an error by default because it does not know how to assign an integer to the unseen category. OneHotEncoder can also raise an error if it encounters a category it was not fitted on.
To mitigate this, you can configure OneHotEncoder with handle_unknown='ignore', which will produce zero values in all the one-hot columns corresponding to an unseen category. Some professionals also create a dedicated “unknown” category to capture all unseen categories. For LabelEncoder, it is more complicated because it does not natively handle unknown categories. You might need to manually map unseen categories to a special integer (for instance, -1) before feeding them into the model. Another approach is to incorporate specialized encoders such as scikit-learn’s OrdinalEncoder with parameter handle_unknown='use_encoded_value', allowing you to specify an integer for unseen categories.
Pitfall: Ignoring unknown categories without thoughtful handling may degrade model performance because the model cannot properly interpret unseen data. Furthermore, large numbers of unseen categories can lead to big discrepancies in how the model generalizes.
How does one-hot encoding impact feature importance in tree-based models?
With one-hot encoding, each category becomes an individual feature. Tree-based models like Random Forest or Gradient Boosted Trees compute feature importances based on splitting criteria (like Gini impurity or information gain). When you have one-hot-encoded features, each dummy variable can individually appear less important because it handles only one category out of many possible categories. However, collectively, the entire set of dummy variables for that feature can be crucial for making predictions.
A subtlety here is that when categories are split across separate one-hot features, the model might not unify them perfectly. Some categories can end up rarely or never being used in tree splits if their distribution in the training data does not provide a significant splitting advantage. This can misrepresent that category’s importance if we only look at single-feature importance metrics.
Pitfall: Relying on default feature importance might cause confusion if it seems that the original categorical feature is not “important.” In practice, you might want to examine feature importance collectively or use permutation-based feature importance, which can better reflect the combined effect of one-hot-encoded features.
What if the categorical variables have many levels, but we suspect only a few popular categories matter?
Sometimes real-world data has a long tail distribution, where a handful of categories appear very frequently and many others appear rarely. If you blindly apply one-hot encoding, you end up with many sparse columns that do not add much predictive power. This is especially problematic in large-scale scenarios.
One solution is grouping less frequent categories into an “other” bucket, effectively limiting the number of categories to a manageable size. Another approach is to combine categories based on domain knowledge or similarity (e.g., merging city-level data into a region-level grouping if city-level details are not crucial).
Pitfall: Grouping small categories into “other” can cause the model to lose granularity. This trade-off might be acceptable if the frequencies of those categories are indeed very small and if the additional complexity does not yield significant predictive value. Always evaluate performance after grouping.
Is it feasible to apply encoding dynamically when the set of categories changes over time?
In production environments, category distributions can shift significantly. Over time, new categories may be introduced, or existing categories may become obsolete. Retraining encoders to accommodate these new categories is often necessary.
A dynamic approach might involve periodically retraining the encoder on a rolling window of data to capture the evolving categorical space. If retraining is not feasible in real time, you can place new categories into an “unknown” or “other” bucket until the next retraining cycle. The frequency of retraining can depend on how frequently new categories appear and how critical it is for model performance to recognize them.
Pitfall: If new categories appear too frequently, you might be in a near-constant cycle of retraining. This can become computationally expensive and might reduce system stability. Having a robust strategy for handling unknown categories and scheduling encoder updates is essential for reliability.
Can we combine embedding-based encoding with classical machine learning models?
Embedding-based encoders (similar to what is done in deep learning for categorical variables) learn a dense representation for each category. In certain frameworks, you can learn these embeddings in a purely neural environment. However, you can also pretrain an embedding layer on your categorical data, extract the resulting embeddings for each category, and feed those dense vectors into a classical model like a gradient-boosted tree.
The advantage is that embedding-based encodings can capture nuanced relationships between categories, especially if the categories are numerous or have meaningful correlations. The drawback is that you need enough data to train a reliable embedding. Small datasets might not benefit, and you also introduce complexity in training and inference (the embeddings have to be learned, stored, and retrieved).
Pitfall: Overfitting is possible if the embedding dimension is large and the data is not sufficient. Also, the relationship between categories is not guaranteed to be learned perfectly without proper hyperparameter tuning and sufficient examples of each category.
Is there a risk of introducing collinearity with one-hot encoding?
By definition, the sum of all dummy columns for a particular categorical feature can equal 1 for every row. This introduces perfect collinearity if you keep all dummy columns. Many implementations of one-hot encoding address this by dropping one of the categories (often referred to as “drop=‘first’”). This approach eliminates the linear dependence, preventing issues in linear models where perfect collinearity can cause instability in parameter estimation.
Pitfall: If you do not drop at least one category (or some reference), certain regression-based models might have trouble fitting the parameters uniquely, leading to inflated standard errors for coefficients. This is less of a concern for tree-based models, but can still be conceptually relevant if you examine model interpretability.
How do we ensure that the integer-based encodings from LabelEncoder do not shift if the data loading order changes?
LabelEncoder assigns integer codes based on the order of unique categories it encounters. If the training dataset or a new batch of training data is shuffled, the mapping of category to integer might change, especially if you refit the LabelEncoder from scratch. This inconsistency can lead to chaos in a production pipeline if you rely on the encoded values matching a certain meaning.
To avoid this, you can store the mapping from category to integer after the first fit of the LabelEncoder, and then apply the same mapping consistently in subsequent runs. Alternatively, you can define a fixed mapping dictionary if you know all possible categories ahead of time and pass that to a custom encoder.
Pitfall: Refitting the LabelEncoder on different subsets of data can produce entirely different mappings for the same categories, potentially causing confusion or mislabeling. This is particularly problematic if you train a model offline and then expect to handle streaming data in real time. Always maintain consistency in your encoding pipeline.
Does using LabelEncoder for text classification targets pose any problems?
When using LabelEncoder for text classification targets (for example, mapping topics to numeric labels in a multi-class text classification scenario), it generally works fine. The main caveat is to remember that the encoded integer values themselves have no ordinal meaning. It is purely a mapping of label to integer for the model’s convenience.
Pitfall: If the label set is large or dynamic (e.g., new topics or labels could emerge), you must re-fit or update the encoder. Also, if you need to interpret predictions numerically (like top-K classes), ensure that the model outputs probabilities that are then mapped back to the original labels. Directly inspecting numeric labels can be confusing if you forget their actual textual meaning.
How do we handle columns that contain mixed data types (e.g., sometimes numeric, sometimes strings)?
Real-world data can be messy, and some columns might have mostly categorical data but occasionally contain numeric values. Ideally, you clean or preprocess the data to separate it into consistent types. If the numeric values are truly out of place, treat them as missing or erroneous data. If the numeric values are actually relevant categories (e.g., product codes that happen to be numeric), then treat them as strings.
Pitfall: If you let LabelEncoder handle a mixture of strings and numeric values without clarifying whether the numeric values are genuine categories or real numeric measurements, the model might misinterpret them. Clarify early in your data cleaning whether a column is nominal, ordinal, numeric, or something else.
What if the distribution of categories is heavily imbalanced?
In many real-world tasks, some categories dominate the data while others are very sparse. Standard one-hot encoding treats all categories equally, creating a column for each category. Sparse categories have very few samples with 1 in their corresponding column. This can lead to overfitting if your model tries to memorize those rare categories rather than learn generalizable patterns.
One approach to mitigate this is merging rare categories together, using domain knowledge to combine them meaningfully or simply using an “other” bucket. Another approach is target encoding for certain high-cardinality features, carefully regularized to avoid overfitting. If you can afford it and have enough data, embedding-based encoding might learn a more generalized representation, even for minority categories.
Pitfall: Merging or grouping categories can hide important signals if those rare categories are actually indicative of specific outcomes. Always evaluate performance trade-offs when deciding to group categories.