Comparative benchmark demonstrates equivalent accuracy between Naïve Bayes and SVM in synthetic data, highlighting significant computational efficiency advantages for Naïve Bayes.
We compare a radial-basis-function support vector machine (SVM) with a Gaussian naive Bayes (NB) classifier on a reproducible synthetic binary task designed for controlled evaluation. The data matrix contains 1,000 samples and 20 features, of which 15 are informative and 5 are redundant linear combinations; class labels include a controlled flip rate of 0.1. Models were fitted in scikit-learn 1.3.0 (SVM: RBF kernel, C = 1.0, gamma = 'scale'; NB: GaussianNB with default variance smoothing) under an 80/20 stratified hold-out and 5-fold stratified cross-validation. On the test partition, NB attained accuracy 89.95%, precision 91.35%, and F1-score 90.48%, while SVM attained 89.45%, 90.48%, and 90.05%, respectively; recall was identical at 89.62%. McNemar's test (p = 0.8231) and Cohen's kappa (NB 0.7984; SVM 0.7882; Δκ = 0.0102) indicate that the two predictors are statistically equivalent in discriminative accuracy. The practical distinction is computational: NB trained 22.5× faster, predicted 12× faster, used 2.9× less memory, and produced a 12× smaller model file. Under resource limits, therefore, NB is the preferred choice even though predictive accuracy does not differ significantly from SVM.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Shanthini et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: