ML Interview Q Series: What's the difference between Random Oversampling and Random Undersampling and when they can be used?
📚 Browse the full ML Interview series here.
Comprehensive Explanation
Random Oversampling is a data-level approach for handling class imbalance by duplicating existing samples from the minority class. The technique increases the presence of minority examples in the training set without changing the majority class distribution. Because you keep reusing the minority samples, there's a potential risk of overfitting to these duplicated points. Yet, it is straightforward to implement and can help many algorithms pay more attention to minority class signals.
Random Undersampling addresses class imbalance by removing samples from the majority class. This shrinks the size of your training data but helps the minority class form a more balanced proportion in your dataset. This can make training faster and can help avoid overwhelming the model with majority class samples. However, it might discard valuable information from the majority class and thus reduce your model’s ability to generalize.
Both techniques can be used when the data is highly imbalanced. Oversampling is often preferred when there aren’t many minority samples and you risk losing essential variability if you remove too many majority samples. Undersampling is used when there's a huge volume of majority class data and we can afford to drop some samples without risking the loss of critical information.
Potential Pitfalls and Considerations
Random Oversampling Risks: If your dataset is already limited in the minority class and you keep duplicating those same few examples, your model may learn very specific patterns that do not generalize well. This can result in overfitting, where the model memorizes duplicates of the minority samples instead of learning more robust decision boundaries.
Random Undersampling Risks: Discarding valuable majority class samples can remove important variability. This can be detrimental in cases where the majority class exhibits diverse patterns. If too many majority samples are removed, the model might miss key majority class trends.
Optimal Usage: One should consider the complexity of the model being used, the size of the datasets, and the relative degrees of imbalance. Sometimes combining methods—like using small amounts of random undersampling to shrink an extremely large dataset and then applying more sophisticated oversampling techniques such as SMOTE—can be effective.
Practical Python Examples
Below is a simple Python snippet demonstrating how to do random oversampling and random undersampling using imbalanced-learn library.
from collections import Counter
from sklearn.datasets import make_classification
from imblearn.over_sampling import RandomOverSampler
from imblearn.under_sampling import RandomUnderSampler
from sklearn.model_selection import train_test_split
# Generate a synthetic imbalanced dataset
X, y = make_classification(n_samples=1000, n_features=5,
n_informative=2, n_redundant=0,
weights=[0.9, 0.1], random_state=42)
print("Original distribution:", Counter(y))
X_train, X_test, y_train, y_test = train_test_split(X, y,
test_size=0.3,
random_state=42)
# Random Oversampling
oversampler = RandomOverSampler(random_state=42)
X_over, y_over = oversampler.fit_resample(X_train, y_train)
print("After oversampling:", Counter(y_over))
# Random Undersampling
undersampler = RandomUnderSampler(random_state=42)
X_under, y_under = undersampler.fit_resample(X_train, y_train)
print("After undersampling:", Counter(y_under))
In this example, you can see how random oversampling leads to replicating minority instances until the classes match in size, while random undersampling removes majority samples to achieve balance.
Follow-up Questions
Could we combine Random Oversampling and Random Undersampling in the same pipeline?
It is possible, especially when you have an extremely large dataset for the majority class and a very small number of minority samples. A viable approach is to undersample the majority class to a moderate level (so that you still keep some diversity of majority examples), and then oversample the minority class so that it is closer to the new majority class size. In practice, you can combine random methods with more sophisticated techniques such as SMOTE to generate synthetic examples for the minority class, thus reducing overfitting risk.
What if we want to avoid random duplication in oversampling?
Random oversampling simply duplicates existing minority class samples. This can lead to severe overfitting. A more sophisticated approach is SMOTE (Synthetic Minority Over-sampling Technique). SMOTE takes existing minority samples and interpolates between them to create new, synthetic points. This can introduce additional diversity, which helps reduce overfitting. However, SMOTE also can create outliers or noisy points, especially near class boundaries, so it must be used judiciously.
How do we decide which approach is optimal for our problem?
The decision depends on: • The amount of data available in each class. • The expected complexity of patterns within each class. • The tolerance for losing information in the majority class if you undersample. • The risk of overfitting the minority class if you oversample.
In many real projects, you conduct experiments and evaluate model performance with different sampling strategies via validation metrics such as precision, recall, F1-score, or more specialized metrics like AUROC or AUPRC for imbalanced data. The method that yields the best balance of these metrics while preserving generalization to new data is often chosen.
Do sampling methods apply to all machine learning algorithms?
Yes, they can apply broadly. However, some algorithms are more sensitive to sampling techniques than others. Tree-based methods sometimes handle imbalanced data fairly well, but if the imbalance is severe, sampling methods can still help. Linear models or neural networks may be more sensitive to the data distribution, so sampling can have an even bigger impact. It is essential to experiment with the chosen model and sampling technique to see if it improves performance.
How can we evaluate these sampling techniques effectively?
A common pitfall is to perform sampling before splitting into train and test sets. If you oversample or undersample before creating the test set, you can leak information across splits. The correct approach is to split your data into train and test sets first, then only apply sampling to the training set. When you evaluate the model on the test set, you preserve its original, imbalanced nature. Additionally, use cross-validation techniques and track metrics like recall, precision, F1-score, or confusion matrices to ensure that your sampling method indeed mitigates imbalance issues without causing other generalization problems.
Below are additional follow-up questions
How do random sampling approaches affect models that rely heavily on feature distribution assumptions?
Models such as logistic regression may assume a certain distribution of features across classes. If you randomly oversample, you're replicating the same minority points multiple times, which can inadvertently inflate certain feature correlations. Undersampling can remove many majority class instances, potentially shifting or trimming the feature distribution in unpredictable ways. A subtle real-world issue occurs if the remaining majority samples are not truly representative, leading to skewed parameter estimates. One should monitor metrics like calibration curves and distribution plots of critical features before and after sampling to catch such discrepancies.
What happens if the dataset has a significant amount of mislabeled data?
When mislabeled points exist in the training set, both oversampling and undersampling can exacerbate the issue in different ways. Oversampling might replicate erroneous minority labels, further confusing the model about the correct decision boundary. Undersampling might accidentally remove correct majority examples while retaining mislabeled ones, shifting the decision boundary in the wrong direction. This edge case can be particularly severe in noisy, real-world datasets. A good strategy could be to detect and correct or remove suspicious samples before applying any sampling method. One might use anomaly detection techniques to identify potential label errors.
Could random undersampling inadvertently remove important boundary examples?
When you randomly remove samples from the majority class, there is a possibility of discarding boundary points that separate classes in the feature space. These boundary examples can be critical for the model to understand nuanced decision regions. If these points are lost, the model may oversimplify the class boundary, leading to poor generalization. In practice, you can mitigate this by using informed undersampling techniques that preserve boundary examples, such as using clustering or distance-based selection to ensure essential majority samples remain.
How would these sampling methods work in a streaming data context?
In streaming or online learning scenarios, data arrives continuously, and you cannot simply oversample or undersample the entire dataset if it keeps growing. Oversampling in an online setting might mean replicating or weighting minority class instances as they arrive, which can complicate memory constraints. Undersampling in a stream can mean discarding some majority class samples in real time, but you risk losing critical incoming patterns. A more refined approach is to track class distributions dynamically, employing incremental techniques that selectively retain or replicate instances based on time windows, data drift detection, or adaptive thresholds to ensure you preserve essential information while maintaining class balance.
Do these sampling methods still matter when we’re using very large neural networks with sufficient data augmentation?
Large neural networks often thrive with more data. If the dataset is huge, random undersampling may lose valuable information. Random oversampling might still help if the minority class is severely underrepresented, but if you already have massive data, duplicating minority samples might not produce a substantial improvement. Data augmentation could serve as a more powerful solution—particularly for images or text—by transforming existing samples instead of just replicating them. However, if the imbalance is extreme, even large networks might fail to learn minority features without adequate representation, making these sampling methods relevant regardless.
Are there scenarios where class imbalance is not a problem at all?
In some domains, algorithms and performance metrics are robust to mild imbalances. For example, certain tree-based ensembles can handle moderate skew in class frequencies without significant degradation. Additionally, if your metric of interest weights classes differently or focuses on ranking metrics (like ROC AUC in moderately imbalanced contexts), you may find your model performs adequately without sampling. However, if your performance metric emphasizes minority detection (e.g., high recall for rare classes) and your data is extremely skewed, imbalance remains a serious concern, and sampling might be necessary.
What if the minority class has high intra-class variability, while the majority class is relatively homogeneous?
If the minority class is diverse but severely underrepresented, you may need more sophisticated oversampling methods that preserve the broad range of its different subgroups. Random oversampling might replicate only a few subclasses within the minority, neglecting others. This uneven replication can cause the model to overfit a subset of minority patterns and remain ignorant of others. In such cases, techniques like SMOTE or ADASYN can create synthetic samples that span the latent space more effectively, ensuring each minority subgroup is adequately represented in the training set.
How do we handle multi-label or multi-class problems where multiple classes are imbalanced in different proportions?
When there are more than two classes, each with its own degree of imbalance, random oversampling or undersampling of just one minority class might not suffice. You could end up fixing the imbalance for one class while creating new imbalances among the others. The challenge is to balance each class in a way that preserves essential relationships among all classes. One approach is to treat each class separately in a one-vs-all manner and apply sampling individually, but you might also need multi-class sampling techniques (e.g., oversampling each minority class proportionally) or specialized algorithms that handle multi-class skew holistically. In multi-label scenarios—where a single sample can have multiple labels—you have the added complexity that any given sample might be both majority and minority for different labels. You would need specialized methods to ensure you do not distort the label correlations.
Can random sampling techniques interfere with cross-validation processes?
If you apply random oversampling or undersampling before performing cross-validation splits, you risk data leakage because the duplicated minority samples (for oversampling) could end up in both training and validation folds. The correct approach is to perform cross-validation splits first and then apply sampling on each training fold separately. This ensures that each validation fold remains an accurate representation of the original distribution. Similarly, for undersampling, doing it before splitting might discard instances that could have been important for your validation. Always split first, then sample within each fold to mimic the real-world scenario of training on an imbalanced dataset and evaluating on untouched data.
How to measure success or failure of random sampling approaches in production?
In production, the ultimate goal is often related to improving recall for rare but critical classes (like fraud detection or disease diagnosis) or optimizing other domain-specific metrics. You might face distribution shifts where the class imbalance changes over time. If your oversampling or undersampling approach is not adaptive, it might fail once new data distributions emerge. Regular monitoring of performance metrics such as precision, recall, or F1-score—along with periodic re-training that updates the sampling strategy—is necessary to confirm the approach remains effective. In some real-world systems, an automated feedback loop could detect significant drops in performance or changes in class distribution and then retrigger the sampling pipeline to rebalance the classes for the new conditions.