michi bench
target: purchased
5
models
600
rows
5
folds
classification
task
balanced_accuracy
ranked by

Results

modelbalanced_accuracy 95% intervalvs leader
linear 0.892 0.8599–0.9241 leader
rf 0.8779 0.8323–0.9235 tied with leader (p=0.589)
hist-gbm 0.8746 0.83–0.9192 tied with leader (p=0.589)
knn 0.8621 0.8282–0.896 tied with leader (p=0.355)
dummy 0.5 0.5–0.5 worse (p<0.0001)
Verdict. linear scores highest, but rf, hist-gbm, knn are statistically indistinguishable from it at this sample size. Choosing between them on these numbers alone is not supported.

Checks

warn 3 model(s) are not statistically distinguishable from linear: rf, hist-gbm, knn

How this was measured

cross-validation5-fold, stratified, shuffled with seed 0
preparationnumeric: impute median · categorical: impute most_frequent + onehot · standardise (scale-sensitive models only) — fitted inside each fold
baselinea dummy model is always included as the floor
significancecorrected resampled t-test (Nadeau & Bengio, 2003), Holm-adjusted across models
intervals95% t-interval across folds — optimistic, since folds share training data

Intervals describe the spread of fold scores, not true generalisation error. The significance test, which corrects for the overlap between training folds, is what the verdict relies on.