Evaluating Supervised Machine Learning Models: Principles, Pitfalls, and Metric Selection

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2604.13882v1
• Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2026 13:44:35 GMT
• Title: Evaluating Supervised Machine Learning Models: Principles, Pitfalls, and Metric Selection
• Abstract summary: This paper examines the principles, challenges, and practical considerations involved in evaluating supervised learning algorithms.<n>It discusses how evaluation outcomes are influenced by dataset characteristics, validation design, class imbalance, asymmetric error costs, and the choice of performance metrics.
• Score: 5.015895904388096
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: The evaluation of supervised machine learning models is a critical stage in the development of reliable predictive systems. Despite the widespread availability of machine learning libraries and automated workflows, model assessment is often reduced to the reporting of a small set of aggregate metrics, which can lead to misleading conclusions about real-world performance. This paper examines the principles, challenges, and practical considerations involved in evaluating supervised learning algorithms across classification and regression tasks. In particular, it discusses how evaluation outcomes are influenced by dataset characteristics, validation design, class imbalance, asymmetric error costs, and the choice of performance metrics. Through a series of controlled experimental scenarios using diverse benchmark datasets, the study highlights common pitfalls such as the accuracy paradox, data leakage, inappropriate metric selection, and overreliance on scalar summary measures. The paper also compares alternative validation strategies and emphasizes the importance of aligning model evaluation with the intended operational objective of the task. By presenting evaluation as a decision-oriented and context-dependent process, this work provides a structured foundation for selecting metrics and validation protocols that support statistically sound, robust, and trustworthy supervised machine learning systems.

Related papers

• What Do Learned Models Measure? [0.0]
  In many scientific and data-driven applications, machine learning models are increasingly used as measurement instruments.<n>We show that standard evaluation criteria in machine learning, including generalization error, calibration, and robustness, do not guarantee measurement stability.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-26T09:00:48Z)
• Understanding challenges to the interpretation of disaggregated evaluations of algorithmic fairness [49.35494016290887]
  We show that equal performance across subgroups is an unreliable measure of fairness when data are representative of relevant populations but reflective of real-world disparities.<n>Our framework suggests complementing disaggregated evaluations with explicit causal assumptions and analysis to control for confounding and distribution shift.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-04T17:40:31Z)
• Interpretable Credit Default Prediction with Ensemble Learning and SHAP [3.948008559977866]
  This study focuses on the problem of credit default prediction, builds a modeling framework based on machine learning, and conducts comparative experiments on a variety of mainstream classification algorithms.<n>The results show that the ensemble learning method has obvious advantages in predictive performance, especially in dealing with complex nonlinear relationships between features and data imbalance problems.<n>The external credit score variable plays a dominant role in model decision making, which helps to improve the model's interpretability and practical application value.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-27T07:23:22Z)
• Are We Truly Forgetting? A Critical Re-examination of Machine Unlearning Evaluation Protocols [14.961054239793356]
  We introduce a rigorous unlearning evaluation setup, in which forgetting classes exhibit semantic similarity to downstream task classes.<n>We hope our benchmark serves as a standardized protocol for evaluating unlearning algorithms under realistic conditions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-10T07:11:34Z)
• Meta-Statistical Learning: Supervised Learning of Statistical Inference [59.463430294611626]
  This work demonstrates that the tools and principles driving the success of large language models (LLMs) can be repurposed to tackle distribution-level tasks.<n>We propose meta-statistical learning, a framework inspired by multi-instance learning that reformulates statistical inference tasks as supervised learning problems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-17T18:04:39Z)
• Developing a Dataset-Adaptive, Normalized Metric for Machine Learning Model Assessment: Integrating Size, Complexity, and Class Imbalance [0.0]
  Traditional metrics like accuracy, F1-score, and precision are frequently used to evaluate machine learning models.<n>A dataset-adaptive, normalized metric that incorporates dataset characteristics like size, feature dimensionality, class imbalance, and signal-to-noise ratio is presented.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-10T07:10:00Z)
• A Probabilistic Perspective on Unlearning and Alignment for Large Language Models [48.96686419141881]
  We introduce the first formal probabilistic evaluation framework for Large Language Models (LLMs)<n> Namely, we propose novel metrics with high probability guarantees concerning the output distribution of a model.<n>Our metrics are application-independent and allow practitioners to make more reliable estimates about model capabilities before deployment.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-04T15:44:23Z)
• Bring Your Own Data! Self-Supervised Evaluation for Large Language Models [52.15056231665816]
  We propose a framework for self-supervised evaluation of Large Language Models (LLMs) We demonstrate self-supervised evaluation strategies for measuring closed-book knowledge, toxicity, and long-range context dependence. We find strong correlations between self-supervised and human-supervised evaluations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-23T17:59:09Z)
• Post-hoc Models for Performance Estimation of Machine Learning Inference [22.977047604404884]
  Estimating how well a machine learning model performs during inference is critical in a variety of scenarios. We systematically generalize performance estimation to a diverse set of metrics and scenarios. We find that proposed post-hoc models consistently outperform the standard confidence baselines.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-10-06T02:20:37Z)
• Causal Feature Selection for Algorithmic Fairness [61.767399505764736]
  We consider fairness in the integration component of data management. We propose an approach to identify a sub-collection of features that ensure the fairness of the dataset.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-06-10T20:20:10Z)
• How Training Data Impacts Performance in Learning-based Control [67.7875109298865]
  This paper derives an analytical relationship between the density of the training data and the control performance. We formulate a quality measure for the data set, which we refer to as $rho$-gap. We show how the $rho$-gap can be applied to a feedback linearizing control law.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-05-25T12:13:49Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.