See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/388688126

Handling Categorical Variables in Ensemble Algorithms

Article · February 2025

CITATIONS READS

0 45

1 author:

John Olusegun
Ladoke Akintola University of Technology
492 PUBLICATIONS 66 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by John Olusegun on 05 February 2025.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Handling Categorical Variables in
Ensemble Algorithms

Author: John Olusegun

Date: 5th Feb 2025

Abstract:
Categorical variables play a crucial role in machine learning models,
particularly in ensemble algorithms such as Random Forest, Gradient
Boosting, and XGBoost. Proper handling of these variables significantly
impacts model performance, interpretability, and generalization.
Traditional methods for encoding categorical data include one-hot
encoding, label encoding, target encoding, and entity embeddings, each
with advantages and trade-offs. While one-hot encoding is effective for
tree-based models, it can lead to high-dimensional sparsity. Target
encoding, though useful, requires careful regularization to prevent data
leakage. Recent advancements integrate categorical encodings within
ensemble learning frameworks to enhance predictive accuracy. This
paper explores different strategies for handling categorical variables in
ensemble algorithms, evaluating their impact on model performance and
computational efficiency. We also discuss practical considerations and
best practices for selecting the most suitable encoding technique based on
dataset characteristics and algorithm requirements.

1. Introduction

A. Importance of Categorical Variables in Machine

Learning
Categorical variables represent qualitative data, such as names, labels, or
categories, which are crucial in many real-world applications, including
customer segmentation, medical diagnosis, and fraud detection. Unlike
numerical data, categorical variables convey meaningful group
distinctions that influence model predictions. Ensemble algorithms, such
as Random Forest, Gradient Boosting, and XGBoost, leverage categorical
variables to improve decision boundaries and enhance model
performance.
B. Challenges Posed by Categorical Data in Ensemble
Models
Handling categorical data in ensemble algorithms presents several

challenges:

High Cardinality – Some categorical features have many unique values,

leading to increased dimensionality and overfitting risks.
Ordinal vs. Nominal Data – Some categories have an inherent order (e.g.,
education levels), while others do not (e.g., colors). Improper encoding
may distort relationships.
Encoding Bias – Certain encoding techniques, such as label encoding,
may introduce artificial relationships between categories, negatively
impacting model performance.
Computational Complexity – Encoding categorical variables increases
computational costs, especially in high-dimensional datasets used in
ensemble models.

C. Overview of Different Strategies to Handle

Categorical Variables Effectively
Several encoding techniques exist to transform categorical variables into
a numerical format suitable for ensemble algorithms:

One-Hot Encoding (OHE) – Converts categories into binary vectors,

suitable for tree-based models but can cause sparsity in high-cardinality
features.
Label Encoding – Assigns numerical labels to categories but may
introduce ordinal relationships where none exist.
Target Encoding (Mean Encoding) – Replaces categories with their target
variable mean, effective for high-cardinality features but prone to data
leakage.
Frequency Encoding – Uses category frequency instead of labels, helping
preserve categorical significance.
Entity Embeddings – Learns representations of categories in a continuous
space, useful in deep learning and complex feature interactions.
This paper explores these techniques in depth, analyzing their impact on
ensemble model performance, computational efficiency, and best
practices for real-world applications.

2. Understanding Categorical Variables

A. Types of Categorical Data
Categorical variables can be classified into two main types:

Nominal Variables – These are categorical variables with no inherent

order or ranking. Examples include:

Gender (Male, Female, Other)

Color (Red, Blue, Green)
Country (USA, Canada, UK)
Ordinal Variables – These variables have a meaningful order or ranking
but may not have equal spacing between categories. Examples include:

Education Level (High School < Bachelor’s < Master’s < PhD)
Customer Satisfaction (Low < Medium < High)
Economic Status (Low < Middle < High)
Understanding the distinction between these types is essential for
selecting the appropriate encoding technique, as improper handling may
distort relationships in ensemble learning models.

B. Why Categorical Variables Require Special

Handling in Ensemble Methods?
Ensemble learning models, such as Random Forest, Gradient Boosting,
and XGBoost, rely on numerical inputs to make predictions. Categorical
variables must be transformed into a numerical format, but their unique
properties pose challenges, including:

 Incompatibility with Mathematical Operations – Unlike numerical

data, categorical values cannot be directly used in calculations or
distance-based measures.
 Impact on Decision Trees – Tree-based methods split data based on
feature values, and poorly encoded categorical features may lead to
suboptimal splits.
 Curse of Dimensionality – One-hot encoding, a common technique
for categorical data, can significantly increase the feature space when
dealing with high-cardinality variables.
 Overfitting Risks – Methods like target encoding may introduce data
leakage, leading to overly optimistic model performance on training
data but poor generalization on unseen data.
 Bias Introduction – Label encoding assigns numerical values to
categories, creating unintended ordinal relationships that can mislead
the model.
To address these challenges, various encoding techniques are applied,
ensuring that categorical variables contribute effectively to ensemble
learning models without distorting relationships or increasing
computational costs.

3. Encoding Techniques for Categorical

Variables
Handling categorical variables effectively is crucial for optimizing the
performance of ensemble learning models. Encoding techniques
transform categorical data into numerical representations, enabling
machine learning algorithms to process them efficiently. These
techniques can be classified into basic, advanced, and hybrid methods.

A. Basic Encoding Methods

These fundamental techniques are widely used due to their simplicity and
ease of implementation:

 One-Hot Encoding (OHE)

Converts categorical values into binary vectors, with each category

represented as a separate column.
Suitable for low-cardinality categorical variables.
Can lead to high-dimensional feature space if the category count is large.

 Label Encoding

Assigns a unique integer to each category (e.g., Red → 0, Blue → 1,

Green → 2).
Efficient for ordinal categorical variables but may introduce unintended
ordinal relationships for nominal variables.

 Binary Encoding

Converts category labels into binary numbers and represents them as

separate columns.
Reduces dimensionality compared to one-hot encoding while maintaining
category differentiation.

B. Advanced Encoding Methods

These techniques address the limitations of basic encoding methods,
particularly for high-cardinality categorical variables:
 Target Encoding (Mean Encoding)

Replaces category values with the mean of the target variable.

Useful for high-cardinality features but susceptible to data leakage.
Requires careful cross-validation to prevent overfitting.

 Frequency Encoding

Encodes each category based on its frequency in the dataset.

Preserves category importance without increasing dimensionality.
May not capture complex relationships within categories.

 Entity Embeddings

Uses deep learning models to learn dense vector representations of

categorical variables.
Captures complex relationships between categories.
Computationally expensive and requires large datasets.

C. Hybrid Encoding Approaches

Combining multiple encoding techniques can enhance model
performance while addressing specific dataset challenges:

1. One-Hot Encoding + Target Encoding

Uses one-hot encoding for low-cardinality variables and target encoding

for high-cardinality ones.
Balances interpretability and model efficiency.

 Frequency Encoding + Entity Embeddings

Leverages frequency encoding for categorical variables with a moderate

number of categories and entity embeddings for those with complex
relationships.
Effective for large datasets with mixed categorical variables.

 Clustering-Based Encoding

Groups similar categorical values based on their feature interactions and

encodes them accordingly.
Reduces noise and improves model interpretability.
By selecting the appropriate encoding technique based on dataset
characteristics and model requirements, practitioners can improve the
performance and efficiency of ensemble algorithms while mitigating the
risks associated with categorical variable handling.

4. Impact of Encoding on Ensemble Learning

Algorithms
Encoding categorical variables directly influences the performance,
interpretability, and computational efficiency of ensemble learning
algorithms. Different ensemble models respond differently to various
encoding strategies, making it essential to select the most suitable
approach.

A. Tree-Based Models (Random Forest, XGBoost,

LightGBM, CatBoost)
Tree-based models handle categorical variables differently, with some
algorithms offering built-in support for categorical features:

 Random Forest

Works well with one-hot encoding (OHE) but suffers from increased
dimensionality with high-cardinality features.
Label encoding can mislead the model by introducing artificial ordinal
relationships.
Target encoding can be beneficial but requires careful cross-validation to
avoid data leakage.

 XGBoost

Requires categorical variables to be preprocessed into numerical format

(e.g., OHE, label encoding, or frequency encoding).
Target encoding can be useful but must be handled carefully to prevent
overfitting.
Frequency encoding provides a good trade-off between dimensionality
and information preservation.

 LightGBM

Supports native categorical handling using an integer-based approach,

avoiding the need for one-hot encoding.
Performs well with label encoding, as the model internally manages
categorical splits effectively.
High-cardinality categorical variables benefit from target encoding or
frequency encoding.

 CatBoost

Designed to handle categorical variables natively, reducing preprocessing

requirements.
Uses an advanced form of target encoding with ordered boosting to
prevent data leakage.
Performs exceptionally well on datasets with high-cardinality categorical
features.

B. Boosting Algorithms (Gradient Boosting,

AdaBoost, Stacking, Bagging)
 Gradient Boosting (GBM)

Requires categorical variables to be converted into numerical format.

OHE can work but may lead to sparsity and increased computation time.
Target encoding and frequency encoding are preferred for high-
cardinality features.

 AdaBoost

Sensitive to encoding techniques due to its reliance on weak learners.

One-hot encoding may cause overfitting if too many categorical variables
are introduced.
Binary encoding or label encoding works well for moderate-cardinality
features.

 Stacking

Uses multiple base models, requiring careful selection of encoding

strategies to ensure consistency across models.
Hybrid encoding approaches (e.g., one-hot encoding for low-cardinality
and frequency encoding for high-cardinality) work effectively.

 Bagging

Similar to Random Forest, as it trains multiple independent models.

Encoding should be optimized based on the base learner used.
One-hot encoding is common but may be replaced with target encoding
or frequency encoding for efficiency.

C. Neural Networks in Ensemble Learning

Neural networks process numerical data efficiently but require specific
encoding techniques for categorical variables:

 One-Hot Encoding (OHE)

Works well for low-cardinality categorical variables.

Leads to high memory consumption for high-cardinality features.

 Entity Embeddings

Converts categorical variables into dense vector representations,

capturing complex relationships.
Significantly improves neural network performance by reducing feature
dimensionality.

 Frequency Encoding + Embeddings

A hybrid approach where frequency encoding is used for simpler

categorical variables and embeddings for complex relationships.
Effective for deep learning models and ensemble techniques that
incorporate neural networks.
By selecting the appropriate encoding method based on the ensemble
learning algorithm used, practitioners can enhance model performance,
reduce computational costs, and prevent issues like overfitting and data
leakage.

5. Best Practices for Handling Categorical

Variables in Ensembles
Handling categorical variables effectively in ensemble learning models
requires careful selection of encoding techniques, mitigation of
overfitting risks, and feature selection strategies. By following best
practices, practitioners can enhance model performance while
maintaining computational efficiency and interpretability.
 A. Choosing the Right Encoding Based on Model
Type
Selecting the appropriate encoding method depends on the type of
ensemble algorithm used:

 Tree-Based Models (Random Forest, XGBoost, LightGBM,

CatBoost):

LightGBM & CatBoost: Prefer native categorical handling.

XGBoost & Random Forest: Work well with target encoding, frequency
encoding, or one-hot encoding (for low-cardinality features).

 Boosting Algorithms (Gradient Boosting, AdaBoost, Bagging,

Stacking):

Gradient Boosting & AdaBoost: Prefer target encoding or frequency

encoding for high-cardinality features.
Bagging & Stacking: Require consistent encoding strategies across base
models, often using hybrid approaches.

 Neural Networks in Ensemble Learning:

Entity embeddings work best for deep learning models.

One-hot encoding is suitable for low-cardinality categorical features.
B. Handling High-Cardinality Categorical Features
High-cardinality categorical features pose challenges such as increased
memory consumption and model overfitting. Effective strategies include:

 Target Encoding (Mean Encoding):

Computes the mean of the target variable for each category.

Requires cross-validation to prevent overfitting.

 Frequency Encoding:

Replaces categories with their occurrence frequency in the dataset.

Helps preserve category importance while maintaining a compact
representation.

 Entity Embeddings:

Uses deep learning to create dense vector representations.

Effective for categorical variables with thousands of unique values.

 Clustering-Based Encoding:

Groups similar categories together based on feature interactions.

Reduces sparsity and computational complexity.

 C. Avoiding Data Leakage and Overfitting in Encoding Strategies

To prevent data leakage and overfitting, consider the following practices:

 Use Cross-Validation with Target Encoding:

Instead of computing target means on the entire dataset, use K-fold mean
encoding to ensure category statistics are learned from training data only.

 Apply Regularization in Target Encoding:

Smoothing techniques (e.g., weighting category means with global mean)

can prevent small-sample categories from dominating predictions.

 Drop Rare Categories or Group Them:

Categories with very few occurrences should be combined into an

"Other" category to prevent noise.

 Monitor Feature Importance:

If an encoded categorical feature dominates model predictions, consider

dimensionality reduction or penalizing over-represented categories.

D. Feature Selection Techniques for Categorical

Variables
Feature selection helps retain only the most relevant categorical features,
reducing model complexity and improving generalization. Key
techniques include:

 Chi-Square Test:

Measures the independence between categorical features and the target

variable.
Useful for classification problems.
 Mutual Information (MI):

Measures the dependency between categorical variables and the target.

Works well for both classification and regression.

 Permutation Feature Importance:

Shuffles feature values and measures performance degradation to assess

feature relevance.

 Tree-Based Feature Selection:

Uses feature importance scores from tree-based models (e.g., Random

Forest, XGBoost) to eliminate low-importance categorical variables.

 Dimensionality Reduction (PCA for Encoded Features):

Applied after encoding to reduce the number of features while preserving

information.
By applying these best practices, data scientists can ensure categorical
variables are efficiently utilized in ensemble learning models, leading to
improved predictive accuracy, robustness, and interpretability.

6. Challenges and Future Directions

Despite advancements in encoding techniques, handling categorical
variables in ensemble learning remains challenging. As datasets grow in
size and complexity, new approaches are needed to enhance scalability,
interpretability, and automation.

A. Scalability of Encoding Methods for Large

Datasets
Handling categorical features efficiently in large-scale datasets presents
several challenges:

 Computational Cost:

One-hot encoding creates high-dimensional sparse matrices, increasing

memory consumption and processing time.
Target encoding requires calculating means across large groups, leading
to computational bottlenecks.
 Parallelization & Distributed Computing:

Many encoding methods are not inherently parallelizable, making them

inefficient for big data applications.
Scalable frameworks like Dask, Spark, and RAPIDS are being explored
to handle categorical encoding in distributed environments.

 Adaptive Encoding Strategies:

Hybrid approaches that dynamically switch between encoding methods

based on dataset size and category distribution are being developed to
enhance efficiency.

B. Improving Interpretability of Encoded Categorical

Features
While encoding techniques improve machine learning performance, they
often reduce interpretability. Key challenges include:

 Loss of Human Readability:

Encoding techniques like embeddings and frequency encoding transform

categorical data into abstract numerical representations, making it
difficult to explain model decisions.

 Feature Importance in Transformed Data:

Understanding the impact of encoded categorical features on model

predictions requires specialized interpretation methods, such as:
Permutation Importance: Evaluates the effect of feature shuffling on
model performance.
SHAP Values: Quantifies the contribution of encoded categorical
variables to predictions.
Partial Dependence Plots (PDPs): Visualizes how categorical variables
influence model outputs.

 Mapping Encoded Features Back to Categories:

Techniques for reverse-mapping numerical representations to their

original categories are being explored to improve explainability in real-
world applications.
C. Automated Feature Engineering Approaches for
Ensemble Learning
With increasing dataset complexity, automating categorical variable
processing is a crucial area of research. Future advancements include:

 AutoML for Categorical Encoding:

Automated machine learning (AutoML) frameworks (e.g., AutoGluon,

H2O.ai, TPOT) are incorporating adaptive encoding strategies to
optimize categorical feature transformations without manual intervention.

 Neural-Based Feature Engineering:

Entity embeddings and deep-learning-based transformations are evolving

to autonomously learn meaningful representations for categorical features
in ensemble models.

 Meta-Learning for Encoding Selection:

AI-driven systems that dynamically choose the best encoding method

based on dataset characteristics are being developed to enhance model
performance and efficiency.

 Self-Supervised Learning for Categorical Features:

Leveraging self-supervised learning to extract feature representations

from categorical data without manual labeling is an emerging research
direction.

Conclusion
As machine learning models become more complex and datasets grow
larger, handling categorical variables in ensemble algorithms will
continue to evolve. Future innovations in scalable encoding,
interpretability techniques, and automated feature engineering will play a
key role in optimizing categorical feature processing, leading to more
efficient, accurate, and interpretable ensemble learning models.

7. Conclusion
Handling categorical variables effectively is a crucial aspect of building
robust ensemble learning models. The choice of encoding technique
directly impacts model performance, computational efficiency, and
interpretability. By carefully selecting the right encoding methods and
incorporating best practices, practitioners can achieve better results and
optimize the potential of ensemble models.

A. Summary of Best Encoding Strategies for

Ensemble Models
Several encoding techniques are available, and their selection depends on
the type of ensemble model and dataset characteristics:

 For Tree-Based Models (Random Forest, XGBoost, LightGBM,

CatBoost):

CatBoost and LightGBM offer native support for categorical variables,

making them ideal for high-cardinality data.
Target encoding and frequency encoding are effective for high-cardinality
features, while one-hot encoding works well for low-cardinality variables.

 For Boosting Algorithms (Gradient Boosting, AdaBoost, Bagging):

Target encoding or frequency encoding is generally preferred, as they

help balance computational efficiency and model performance.

 For Neural Networks:

Entity embeddings offer powerful representations for complex categorical

data, while one-hot encoding remains suitable for low-cardinality features.
By combining multiple encoding techniques for different types of
categorical variables (e.g., hybrid encoding), models can handle both low
and high-cardinality features efficiently.

B. Importance of Careful Feature Engineering for

Better Performance
Feature engineering plays a pivotal role in improving the predictive
power of ensemble models. Categorical features must be processed and
encoded in ways that preserve their inherent relationships without
introducing bias or noise. Careful feature selection, regularization, and
the avoidance of overfitting are critical steps in building accurate models.

 Best practices include:

Cross-validation with target encoding to prevent data leakage.

Dimensionality reduction to handle the curse of dimensionality,
particularly with high-cardinality features.
Feature importance analysis to identify the most relevant categorical
variables for model training.

C. Future Trends in Categorical Variable Handling in

ML Ensembles
As machine learning models evolve, so do the techniques for handling
categorical variables. Future trends include:

 Scalability:

With the increasing size of datasets, future encoding methods will focus
on computational efficiency, leveraging distributed frameworks (e.g.,
Dask, Spark) for large-scale categorical feature handling.

 Improved Interpretability:

Advances in explainable AI (XAI), such as SHAP values and LIME, will

improve our understanding of how encoded categorical features impact
model predictions.
The development of tools to reverse-map encoded features to their
original categorical representations will help improve interpretability.

 Automated Feature Engineering:

AutoML frameworks will automate the process of selecting the best

encoding strategies and feature engineering techniques based on the
dataset’s characteristics, further streamlining model building.
Meta-learning techniques will dynamically optimize encoding choices,
adapting to the specific requirements of ensemble models.

 Self-Supervised Learning:

Self-supervised learning techniques may emerge, allowing models to

automatically extract meaningful representations of categorical features
without manual supervision or labeling.
These innovations will contribute to more efficient, accurate, and
interpretable ensemble learning models, driving forward the field of
machine learning and data science.

Reference:
1. Vellela, S. S., Rao, M. V., Mantena, S. V., Reddy, M. J., Vatambeti,
R., & Rahman, S. Z. (2024). Evaluation of Tennis Teaching Effect
Using Optimized DL Model with Cloud Computing
System. International Journal of Modern Education and Computer
Science (IJMECS), 16(2), 16-28.

2. Reddy, M. J., & Kavitha, B. (2010, February). Neural networks for

prediction of loan default using attribute relevance analysis. In 2010
International Conference on Signal Acquisition and Processing (pp.
274-277). IEEE.

3. Reddy, M. J., & Kavitha, B. (2012). Clustering the mixed numerical

and categorical dataset using similarity weight and filter
method. International Journal of Database Theory and
Application, 5(1), 121-134.

4. Reddy, M. J., & Kavitha, B. (2010, December). Efficient ensemble

algorithm for mixed numeric and categorical data. In 2010 IEEE
International Conference on Computational Intelligence and
Computing Research (pp. 1-4). IEEE.

5. Reddy, M. J., & Kavitha, B. (2010). Extracting Prediction Rules for

Loan Default Using Neural Networks through Attribute Relevance
Analysis. International Journal of Computer Theory and
Engineering, 2(4), 596.

6. Reddy, M. J., & Kavitha, B. (2015). Expert System to Predict the

Type of Fever Using Data Mining Techniques on Medical
Databases. International Journal of Computer Science and
Engineering, 3(09), 165-171.

7. Sathiyaraj, R., Rahamathunnisa, U., Jagannatha Reddy, M. V., &

Parameswaran, T. (2022). Convergence of Big Data and Cognitive
Computing in Healthcare. Cognitive Intelligence and Big Data in
Healthcare, 67-96.

8. Swathi, M., & Reddy, M. J. (2013). Authentication Using Persuasive

Cued Click-Points. International Journal of Engineering Research &
Technology (IJERT), 2(7), 2278-0181.

9. Gupta, S. K., Reddy, M. J., & Kumar, A. N. (2010). Possibilistic

Clustering Adaptive Smoothing Bilateral Filter Using Artificial
 Neural Network. International Journal of Engineering and
Technology, 2(6), 499.

10. Reddy, M. J., Gupta, S. K., & Kavitha, B. (2010, February). Noise
Load Adaptive Filter Using Neural Network. In 2010 International
Conference on Data Storage and Data Engineering (pp. 197-200).
IEEE.

11. Swathi, M., & Reddy, M. J. (2013). Authentication Using Persuasive

Cued Click-Points. International Journal of Engineering Research &
Technology (IJERT), 2(7), 2278-0181.

View publication stats