Thread · HN Continuity

  XGBoost’s search optimized accuracy, and afterwards I also compare by area under the curve. Which means the “fourteen of fourteen on AUC” is against a boosting model that was not tuned for that metric. Tuning it for AUC would probably improve it there; I did not measure that.

So, not a fair test?

I also did not get why Xgboost had to count its training time for the inference. You only train once. I guess in some scenario, where someone says, "I need the best model now, you have five minutes on this singular dataset", but I have never been in that situation.

I would feel better if scripts were released, because I am fairly dubious. I take it as a given that a tabular model has been pre-trained on all of the public benchmark datasets, but that is what it is.

The slop was so meandering, I am not sure what is truth or not.