Tabular learning tasks often suffer from class imbalance, which is often addressed via weighting-based strategies. In this work, we compare the naive approach (unweighted) with the weighting-based rebalancing strategies. Somewhat surprisingly, we demonstrate that, asymptotically, as the predictor complexity increases with sample size, weighting strategies yield predictive performance identical to unweighted approaches across all evaluation metrics, up to a shift in the final threshold. To go beyond, we theoretically study the estimation of a linear regression function through weighted and unweighted CART trees with limited depths. In this setting, we prove that the points in the PR space for both strategies are distributed along the same curve, thus illustrating the similar nonasymptotic performance of the two strategies. Then, we numerically identify more complex synthetic settings where performance gaps, evaluated via fixed classifier complexity, favor weighting strategies. Thus, to guide practitioners, we introduce an indicator that aims at signaling whether a data set may benefit from weighting.

翻译：暂无翻译