The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Regularized target encoding outperforms traditional methods in supervised machine learning with high cardinality features
Open accessAbstract
Since most machine learning (ML) algorithms are designed for numerical inputs, efficiently encoding categorical variables is a crucial aspect in data analysis. A common problem are high cardinality features, i.e. unordered categorical predictor variables with a high number of levels. We study techniques that yield numeric representations of categorical variables which can then be used in subsequent ML applications. We focus on the impact of these techniques on a subsequent algorithm’s predictive performance, and—if possible—derive best practices on when to use which technique. We conducted a large-scale benchmark experiment, where we compared different encoding strategies together with five ML algorithms (lasso, random forest, gradient boosting,k-nearest neighbors, support vector machine) using datasets from regression, binary- and multiclass–classification settings. In our study, regularized versions of target encoding (i.e. using target predictions based on the feature levels in the training set as a new numerical feature) consistently provided the best results. Traditionally widely used encodings that make unreasonable assumptions to map levels to integers (e.g. integer encoding) or to reduce the number of levels (possibly based on target information, e.g. leaf encoding) before creating binary indicator variables (one-hot or dummy encoding) were not as effective in comparison.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Fitting Linear Mixed-Effects Models Using lme4
Bates, D., Mächler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2015) · Journal of Statistical Software · doi:10.18637/jss.v067.i01 · Cited by 86,835
Statistical Classification Methods in Consumer Credit Scoring: A Review
Hand, D. J., & Henley, W. E. (1997) · Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A: Statistics in Society · doi:10.1111/j.1467-985x.1997.00078.x · Cited by 1,042
Feature Engineering and Selection: A Practical Approach for Predictive Models
Kuhn, M., & Johnson, K. (2019) · doi:10.1201/9781315108230 · Cited by 523
Cited by
Hyperparameter optimization: Foundations, algorithms, best practices, and open challenges
Bischl, B., Binder, M., Lang, M., Pielok, T., Richter, J., Coors, S., Thomas, J., Ullmann, T., Becker, M., Boulesteix, A., et al. (2023) · WIREs Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery · doi:10.1002/widm.1484 · Cited by 930
Self-citationDay, E. C., Chittari, S. S., Cunha, K. C., Zhao, R. J., Dodds, J. N., Davis, D. C., Baker, E. S., Berlow, R. B., Shea, J.-E., Kulkarni, R. U., et al. (2024) · Chem · doi:10.1016/j.chempr.2024.07.025 · Cited by 8
Metadata
- Authors
- Pargent, F., Pfisterer, F., Thomas, J., & Bischl, B.
- Venue
- Computational Statistics
- Published
- 2022-03-04
- Volume
- 37
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 2671-2692
- ISSN
- 0943-4062 (ISSN-L)
- 1613-9658
- OpenAlex
- W3142848995
- Cited by
- 165
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 9.21
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Regularized target encoding outperforms traditional methods in supervised machine learning with high cardinality features. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1007/s00180-022-01207-6
- The paper
- Pargent, F., Pfisterer, F., Thomas, J., & Bischl, B. (2022). Regularized target encoding outperforms traditional methods in supervised machine learning with high cardinality features. Computational Statistics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00180-022-01207-6
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.