Table 1.
Impact of imbalance mitigation techniques on model performance.
| Model | Adjustment | F1-Score | Recall | Precision | ROC-AUC |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CatBoost | Unadjusted | 0.83 | 0.85 | 0.81 | 0.86 |
| SMOTE + Class Weight | 0.89 | 0.91 | 0.87 | 0.92 | |
| GradientBoosting | Unadjusted | 0.76 | 0.79 | 0.75 | 0.81 |
| SMOTE + Class Weight | 0.81 | 0.85 | 0.80 | 0.85 | |
| LinearSVC | Unadjusted | 0.78 | 0.80 | 0.77 | 0.82 |
| Class Weighting | 0.82 | 0.83 | 0.81 | 0.85 | |
| Random Forest | Unadjusted | 0.80 | 0.82 | 0.78 | 0.83 |
| Stratified Sampling | 0.86 | 0.87 | 0.85 | 0.89 | |
| Bernoulli Naïve Bayes | Unadjusted | 0.78 | 0.83 | 0.77 | 0.82 |
| Class Weighting | 0.82 | 0.88 | 0.80 | 0.85 | |
| Logistic Regression | Unadjusted | 0.78 | 0.75 | 0.82 | 0.86 |
| Logistic Regression | Class Weighting | 0.84 | 0.8 | 0.88 | 0.89 |