179 questions
No questions match those filters.
You have 1:10,000 class imbalance and SMOTE isn't helpi...
This is one of the questions in the full AI/ML interview bank. Pro unlocks all 1789 questions; Premium includes the same bank plus the highest daily Practice limit.
See plansThe first move is a framing change, not a technique change: at 1:10,000, this stops being a classification problem you fix with resampling and becomes an anomaly detection problem.
Why SMOTE specifically stops helping. SMOTE synthesizes new minority examples by interpolating between existing ones. That’s useful when there are enough real minority points that interpolation fills in genuinely plausible in-between cases. At 1:10,000, the handful of real positives are so sparse that the interpolated points between them aren’t meaningfully different from noise — SMOTE isn’t adding information the data doesn’t have, it’s manufacturing volume without manufacturing signal.
What actually works:
- Unsupervised anomaly detection — an isolation forest or an autoencoder trained only on the negative (normal) class. It learns a model of “what normal looks like” without ever needing balanced positive examples, and anything sufficiently different from that learned normal gets flagged.
- A stacked approach for production — use the anomaly score as a pre-filter, then train a supervised model only on the flagged subset. This subset is small enough to be cheaply and thoroughly labeled, unlike the full unfiltered stream.
- Cost-sensitive weighting — if a supervised stage is used at all, weight the rare positive class heavily enough that the loss actually reflects the real cost asymmetry.
The metric has to change too. Accuracy and plain ROC-AUC both look great at this imbalance while describing a model that’s functionally useless — predicting “never positive” scores nearly as well as a real model on both. Use precision@k and recall@k instead, since they measure exactly what matters operationally: of the top K flagged cases, how many are real, and of all real positives, how many did the top K catch. Tune the threshold toward high recall — missing a rare positive is almost always costlier than a false alarm — and route the highest-scoring fraction to human review rather than trying to fully automate a decision this imbalanced.