Why do tree-based models still outperform deep learning on tabular data?

AI-generated keywords: Tree-based models Deep learning Tabular data Benchmarking Neural networks

AI-generated Key Points

⚠The license of the paper does not allow us to build upon its content and the key points are generated using the paper metadata rather than the full article.

Authors conducted a comprehensive analysis comparing deep learning models to tree-based models on tabular data
Tree-based models outperformed deep learning models on medium-sized datasets containing around 10,000 samples
Identified key challenges for neural networks in handling tabular data: robustness against uninformative features, preservation of data orientation, and effective learning of irregular functions
Provided a standardized benchmark and raw data from an extensive hyperparameter search to encourage further research in developing specialized neural network architectures for tabular data

Also access our AI generated: Comprehensive summary, Lay summary, Blog-like article; or ask questions about this paper to our AI assistant.

Authors: Léo Grinsztajn (SODA), Edouard Oyallon (ISIR, CNRS), Gaël Varoquaux (SODA)

arXiv: 2207.08815v1 - DOI (cs.LG)

License: NONEXCLUSIVE-DISTRIB 1.0

Abstract: While deep learning has enabled tremendous progress on text and image datasets, its superiority on tabular data is not clear. We contribute extensive benchmarks of standard and novel deep learning methods as well as tree-based models such as XGBoost and Random Forests, across a large number of datasets and hyperparameter combinations. We define a standard set of 45 datasets from varied domains with clear characteristics of tabular data and a benchmarking methodology accounting for both fitting models and finding good hyperparameters. Results show that tree-based models remain state-of-the-art on medium-sized data ($\sim$10K samples) even without accounting for their superior speed. To understand this gap, we conduct an empirical investigation into the differing inductive biases of tree-based models and Neural Networks (NNs). This leads to a series of challenges which should guide researchers aiming to build tabular-specific NNs: 1. be robust to uninformative features, 2. preserve the orientation of the data, and 3. be able to easily learn irregular functions. To stimulate research on tabular architectures, we contribute a standard benchmark and raw data for baselines: every point of a 20 000 compute hours hyperparameter search for each learner.

Submitted to arXiv on 18 Jul. 2022

Ask questions about this paper to our AI assistant

You can also chat with multiple papers at once here.

⚠The license of the paper does not allow us to build upon its content and the AI assistant only knows about the paper metadata rather than the full article.

AI assistant instructions?

Results of the summarizing process for the arXiv paper: 2207.08815v1

⚠This paper's license doesn't allow us to build upon its content and the summarizing process is here made with the paper's metadata rather than the article.

Comprehensive Summary
Key points
Layman's Summary
Blog article

In their paper titled "Why do tree-based models still outperform deep learning on tabular data? ", authors Léo Grinsztajn, Edouard Oyallon, and Gaël Varoquaux delve into the ongoing debate surrounding the performance of deep learning models compared to traditional tree-based models on tabular data. While deep learning has shown remarkable success in text and image datasets, its effectiveness in handling tabular data remains uncertain. To address this issue, the authors conducted a comprehensive analysis by benchmarking a wide range of standard and innovative deep learning techniques alongside well-established tree-based models like XGBoost and Random Forests. They utilized a diverse set of 45 datasets from various domains specifically chosen for their tabular characteristics. The benchmarking methodology employed accounted for both model fitting and hyperparameter optimization across different dataset sizes and complexities. Surprisingly, the results revealed that tree-based models continued to outperform deep learning models on medium-sized datasets containing approximately 10,000 samples, even without considering their superior computational efficiency. To gain insights into this performance gap, the authors conducted an empirical investigation into the inherent biases of tree-based models versus Neural Networks (NNs). This analysis led to the identification of key challenges that researchers should consider when designing neural networks tailored for tabular data. These challenges include the need for robustness against uninformative features, preservation of data orientation, and the ability to effectively learn irregular functions. To encourage further research in developing specialized neural network architectures for tabular data, the authors provided a standardized benchmark along with raw data from an extensive 20,000 compute hours hyperparameter search for each learner. Overall, this study sheds light on the factors contributing to the continued dominance of tree-based models over deep learning approaches in handling tabular data and provides valuable insights for future research directions in this field.

- Authors conducted a comprehensive analysis comparing deep learning models to tree-based models on tabular data
- Tree-based models outperformed deep learning models on medium-sized datasets containing around 10,000 samples
- Identified key challenges for neural networks in handling tabular data: robustness against uninformative features, preservation of data orientation, and effective learning of irregular functions
- Provided a standardized benchmark and raw data from an extensive hyperparameter search to encourage further research in developing specialized neural network architectures for tabular data

Summary- Scientists compared different computer models to see which one is best for organizing information in tables. - One type of model, called tree-based models, did better than another type called deep learning models on medium-sized sets of data with about 10,000 pieces of information. - They found that deep learning models have some difficulties when dealing with table data, such as handling unimportant information, keeping the data organized correctly, and learning complex patterns. - To help other scientists improve these models for table data, they shared a set of rules and detailed information from their experiments. Definitions- Authors: People who wrote or created something. - Analysis: Studying something carefully to understand it better. - Deep learning models: Computer programs that can learn and make decisions on their own based on lots of examples. - Tree-based models: Computer programs that organize information like branches on a tree to make predictions. - Tabular data: Information arranged in rows and columns like a table.

Introduction

The use of deep learning models has revolutionized the field of artificial intelligence, achieving remarkable success in tasks such as image and text recognition. However, when it comes to handling tabular data, traditional tree-based models like XGBoost and Random Forests continue to outperform deep learning approaches. This ongoing debate has sparked the interest of researchers to understand the underlying reasons for this performance gap. In their paper titled "Why do tree-based models still outperform deep learning on tabular data?", authors Léo Grinsztajn, Edouard Oyallon, and Gaël Varoquaux delve into this topic by conducting a comprehensive analysis using a diverse set of 45 datasets from various domains. Their study not only sheds light on the factors contributing to this performance gap but also provides valuable insights for future research directions in developing specialized neural network architectures for tabular data.

Benchmarking Methodology

To compare the performance of deep learning models with tree-based models on tabular data, the authors utilized a benchmarking methodology that accounted for both model fitting and hyperparameter optimization across different dataset sizes and complexities. The benchmarking was conducted on 45 datasets specifically chosen for their tabular characteristics. The results were surprising as they revealed that even without considering their superior computational efficiency, tree-based models continued to outperform deep learning models on medium-sized datasets containing approximately 10,000 samples. This highlights the need for further investigation into the inherent biases of these two types of models.

Empirical Investigation

To gain insights into why tree-based models perform better than deep learning approaches on tabular data, the authors conducted an empirical investigation comparing their inherent biases. They identified three key challenges that researchers should consider when designing neural networks tailored for tabular data: 1) Robustness against uninformative features: Tree-based models are inherently robust against uninformative features, as they can easily ignore them during the splitting process. On the other hand, deep learning models tend to overfit on these features, leading to a decrease in performance. 2) Preservation of data orientation: Tabular data often contains information about the relationships between features and their order. Tree-based models can capture this information through their hierarchical structure, while deep learning models struggle to preserve this orientation. 3) Ability to learn irregular functions: Tree-based models are capable of handling non-linear relationships between features and target variables by creating decision boundaries at different levels of the tree. Deep learning models may struggle with this task if not designed specifically for tabular data.

Standardized Benchmark

To encourage further research in developing specialized neural network architectures for tabular data, the authors provided a standardized benchmark along with raw data from an extensive 20,000 compute hours hyperparameter search for each learner. This will enable researchers to compare their proposed approaches with existing methods and track progress in this field.

Conclusion

In conclusion, Grinsztajn et al.'s study sheds light on the factors contributing to the continued dominance of tree-based models over deep learning approaches in handling tabular data. Their findings highlight key challenges that need to be addressed when designing neural networks tailored for tabular data and provide valuable insights for future research directions in this field. The standardized benchmark provided by the authors will also aid in advancing research efforts towards developing more effective deep learning techniques for tabular datasets.

Created on 05 Mar. 2024

Assess the quality of the AI-generated content by voting

Score: 0

The previous summary was created more than a year ago and can be re-run (if necessary) by clicking on the Run button below.

⚠The license of this specific paper does not allow us to build upon its content and the summarizing tools will be run using the paper metadata rather than the full article. However, it still does a good job, and you can also try our tools on papers with more open licenses.

Look for similar papers (in beta version)

By clicking on the button above, our algorithm will scan all papers in our database to find the closest based on the contents of the full papers and not just on metadata. Please note that it only works for papers that we have generated summaries for and you can rerun it from time to time to get a more accurate result while our database grows.

Disclaimer: The AI-based summarization tool and virtual assistant provided on this website may not always provide accurate and complete summaries or responses. We encourage you to carefully review and evaluate the generated content to ensure its quality and relevance to your needs.