lesleymaore.

PROJECT 03 / COMPETITION MODELLING · PYTHON · CATBOOST

Airline Satisfaction: Model Validation

Saved validation and submission results · Exploratory competition study

Does a more complex model add a reliable improvement?

View validation results ↗Read the experiment code↓

The question

Can CatBoost add useful information to an existing airline-satisfaction model? I compared a fixed blend across validation folds, then checked whether the result carried through to a competition submission.

The input is Kaggle’s Playground Series S6E10 competition data. Its generated records are a modelling benchmark, not an airline’s operational customer survey. The task predicts satisfaction; it does not identify what would cause a passenger to become satisfied.

The experiment

A fixed blend combines 70% of the existing tree/neural predictions with 30% CatBoost predictions. CatBoost uses native categorical inputs, additional rating categories and route-distance features. Competition target encodings are cross-fitted inside each outer training fold.

The retained confirmation code evaluates folds 2 and 3 after development on fold 1. Early stopping uses outer validation labels, and those folds have prior screening history. These are exploratory checks, not untouched final-test evidence.

SAVED EXPERIMENT 75 · ROC AUC

A small validation gain did not become a better submission.

Fold 2 baseline → blend
0.961215 → 0.961287
Fold 3 baseline → blend
0.960963 → 0.960997

The saved three-fold mean blend AUC is 0.961105. The later submitted blend scored 0.96066 on the public leaderboard, below the previous own-model submission of 0.96071. The small validation gain did not translate into a public-score improvement. ROC AUC measures ranking discrimination, not percentage accuracy.

What I learned

A model can add complementary predictions in validation without improving the submitted result. I kept the stronger existing submission rather than promoting the weaker candidate. Further work needs a fresh evaluation design and a meaningful gain against the exact retained best before spending more compute. A production decision would also need calibration, error analysis and a clear use case.

Evaluation scope and limits

The saved account-best public AUC is 0.96188 from a separate community-assisted ensemble using published prediction inputs and my own model components. It is not the CatBoost result or an independently developed end-to-end model. Public leaderboard scores and cross-validation scores use different evaluation data; no current rank or final private-test result is claimed.

The code and saved review are retained evidence. The code depends on earlier feature preparation and model predictions from the original experiment environment; it is not a standalone training pipeline. The later submitted blend is documented in the saved submission review. Training was not rerun during this website review.

Sources and further inspection

SAVED EXPERIMENT 75

A small gain.
A careful reading.

Retained confirmation metrics · Rounded to 6 decimals
FoldBaseline AUCBlend AUC
20.9612150.961287
30.9609630.960997

Fixed 30% CatBoost blend. AUC is not accuracy. These are not untouched final-test estimates.

01

Validation results

Inspect saved metrics and their evaluation limits.

THE EXPERIMENT RECORD

Saved evidence.
Open boundaries.

  • 01
    Stateful code extractRequires the original feature environment
  • 02
    Saved metricsSubmitted blend: public AUC 0.96066
  • 03
    Outstanding workFresh evaluation and standalone reproduction
02

Project files

Review the retained code and reproduction boundary.

THE DATA RECORD

Where the
data began.

  • 01
    Kaggle PlaygroundS6E10 generated competition data
  • 02
    Original public datasetAirline Passenger Satisfaction
  • 03
    Community inspirationReferences are credited in the README
03

Data & attribution

Open the competition and original dataset records.