A Comprehensive Benchmark of Machine and Deep Learning Across Diverse Tabular Datasets

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2408.14817v1
• Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2024 06:58:52 GMT
• Title: A Comprehensive Benchmark of Machine and Deep Learning Across Diverse Tabular Datasets
• Authors: Assaf Shmuel, Oren Glickman, Teddy Lazebnik,
• Abstract summary: We introduce a benchmark aimed at better characterizing types of datasets where Deep Learning models excel. We evaluate 111 datasets with 20 different models, including both regression and classification tasks. Building on the results of this benchmark, we train a model that predicts scenarios where DL models outperform alternative methods with 86.1% accuracy.
• Score: 0.6144680854063939
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/
• Abstract: The analysis of tabular datasets is highly prevalent both in scientific research and real-world applications of Machine Learning (ML). Unlike many other ML tasks, Deep Learning (DL) models often do not outperform traditional methods in this area. Previous comparative benchmarks have shown that DL performance is frequently equivalent or even inferior to models such as Gradient Boosting Machines (GBMs). In this study, we introduce a comprehensive benchmark aimed at better characterizing the types of datasets where DL models excel. Although several important benchmarks for tabular datasets already exist, our contribution lies in the variety and depth of our comparison: we evaluate 111 datasets with 20 different models, including both regression and classification tasks. These datasets vary in scale and include both those with and without categorical variables. Importantly, our benchmark contains a sufficient number of datasets where DL models perform best, allowing for a thorough analysis of the conditions under which DL models excel. Building on the results of this benchmark, we train a model that predicts scenarios where DL models outperform alternative methods with 86.1% accuracy (AUC 0.78). We present insights derived from this characterization and compare these findings to previous benchmarks.

Related papers

• LiveXiv -- A Multi-Modal Live Benchmark Based on Arxiv Papers Content [62.816876067499415]
  We propose LiveXiv: a scalable evolving live benchmark based on scientific ArXiv papers. LiveXiv accesses domain-specific manuscripts at any given timestamp and proposes to automatically generate visual question-answer pairs. We benchmark multiple open and proprietary Large Multi-modal Models (LMMs) on the first version of our benchmark, showing its challenging nature and exposing the models true abilities.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-14T17:51:23Z)
• Align$^2$LLaVA: Cascaded Human and Large Language Model Preference Alignment for Multi-modal Instruction Curation [56.75665429851673]
  This paper introduces a novel instruction curation algorithm, derived from two unique perspectives, human and LLM preference alignment. Experiments demonstrate that we can maintain or even improve model performance by compressing synthetic multimodal instructions by up to 90%.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-27T08:20:59Z)
• Numerical Literals in Link Prediction: A Critical Examination of Models and Datasets [2.5999037208435705]
  Link Prediction models that incorporate numerical literals have shown minor improvements on existing benchmark datasets. It is unclear whether a model is actually better in using numerical literals, or better capable of utilizing the graph structure. We propose a methodology to evaluate LP models that incorporate numerical literals.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-25T17:55:33Z)
• Benchmark Self-Evolving: A Multi-Agent Framework for Dynamic LLM Evaluation [51.99752147380505]
  This paper presents a benchmark self-evolving framework to dynamically evaluate Large Language Models (LLMs) We utilize a multi-agent system to manipulate the context or question of original instances, reframing new evolving instances with high confidence. Our framework widens performance discrepancies both between different models and within the same model across various tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-18T03:40:06Z)
• Large Language Model Routing with Benchmark Datasets [40.42044096089315]
  No single model typically achieves the best accuracy in all tasks and use cases. We propose a new formulation for the problem, in which benchmark datasets are repurposed to learn a "router" model for this selection. We show that this problem can be reduced to a collection of binary classification tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-27T17:08:40Z)
• The Languini Kitchen: Enabling Language Modelling Research at Different Scales of Compute [66.84421705029624]
  We introduce an experimental protocol that enables model comparisons based on equivalent compute, measured in accelerator hours. We pre-process an existing large, diverse, and high-quality dataset of books that surpasses existing academic benchmarks in quality, diversity, and document length. This work also provides two baseline models: a feed-forward model derived from the GPT-2 architecture and a recurrent model in the form of a novel LSTM with ten-fold throughput.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-20T10:31:17Z)
• Anchor Points: Benchmarking Models with Much Fewer Examples [88.02417913161356]
  In six popular language classification benchmarks, model confidence in the correct class on many pairs of points is strongly correlated across models. We propose Anchor Point Selection, a technique to select small subsets of datasets that capture model behavior across the entire dataset. Just several anchor points can be used to estimate model per-class predictions on all other points in a dataset with low mean absolute error.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-14T17:45:51Z)
• Using Explainable Boosting Machine to Compare Idiographic and Nomothetic Approaches for Ecological Momentary Assessment Data [2.0824228840987447]
  This paper explores the use of non-linear interpretable machine learning (ML) models in classification problems. Various ensembles of trees are compared to linear models using imbalanced synthetic and real-world datasets. In one of the two real-world datasets, knowledge distillation method achieves improved AUC scores.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-04-04T17:56:37Z)
• Deep Learning Models for Knowledge Tracing: Review and Empirical Evaluation [2.423547527175807]
  We review and evaluate a body of deep learning knowledge tracing (DLKT) models with openly available and widely-used data sets. The evaluated DLKT models have been reimplemented for assessing and replicability of previously reported results.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-12-30T14:19:27Z)
• Comparing Test Sets with Item Response Theory [53.755064720563]
  We evaluate 29 datasets using predictions from 18 pretrained Transformer models on individual test examples. We find that Quoref, HellaSwag, and MC-TACO are best suited for distinguishing among state-of-the-art models. We also observe span selection task format, which is used for QA datasets like QAMR or SQuAD2.0, is effective in differentiating between strong and weak models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-06-01T22:33:53Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.