← Back to all news
arXiv Machine Learning

Scaling Laws for Classical Machine Learning on Tabular Data: A Benchmark Study

arXiv:2607. 21866v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Prior classical-ML learning-curve work fits power laws to tree, linear, and kernel models on tabular data, but at small scale: typically one curve, one team, a handful of cells.

Related stories

arXiv Machine Learning
Sep 23

Practical Scaling Laws: Converting Compute into Performance in a Data-Constrained World

The paper introduces a new closed‑form scaling law that extends Chinchilla’s original formula to handle data‑constrained regimes. It decomposes loss into undercapacity, undertraining, and overfitting components, saturating between an irreducible loss and an uninformed baseline. The authors validate the model on diverse architectures and domains, achieving state‑of‑the‑art RMSE across multiple LLM scaling‑law grids and enabling cost‑aware training allocations.

By Christopher M. Bryant, Hao Liu
llmsbenchmarks
More like this →
arXiv AI
Oct 7

Toward Alignment Scaling Laws: A Framework and First Preregistered Measurements

The paper proposes a framework for studying how alignment difficulty scales with model size, treating alignment as a family of measurable scaling relations for different risk categories. It introduces operational definitions of burden, distinguishes observed, audited, and true alignment, and proves that the largest exponent among corrected risks determines long‑run behavior. The authors preregistered and applied the protocol to public data, finding scaling exponents for attack success, truthfulness, dispositions, sycophancy, and a backdoor, and released interactive browser games to illustrate the laws.

By Jeremy Canale
safety
More like this →
Hugging Face Trending Papers
Oct 13

A Controlled Evaluation of Curvature Inspired Scalar Feature Scaling for Domain Generalization

The paper evaluates a narrow implementation of domain‑specific curvature called HyperDG, which rescales Euclidean encoder features during training with learned positive scalars and uses a standard linear classifier at inference. Across six conditions on four benchmark datasets (PACS, VLCS, Office Home, TerraIncognita) and 384 runs, the method’s macro performance is 1.61 percentage points below native DomainBed ERM, with no statistically significant difference after adjustment. The study concludes that this scalar‑scaling approach does not provide evidence of improvement over ERM and offers a bounded negative result for this specific training package.

More like this →
arXiv Machine Learning
Oct 5

Below what training size do deep tabular generators stop beating trivial baselines? A preregistered benchmark on a size ladder of clinical and standard datasets

The study benchmarks seven deep tabular generative models against trivial baselines across a size ladder of 8 public datasets (200–20,000 rows) and 4 small clinical datasets, totaling 2,220 runs. Using AUROC of classifiers trained on synthetic data and tested on real data, it finds that in 23 of 24 model–dataset pairs no deep model surpasses the best trivial baseline beyond seed noise, and the best baseline wins 40 of 49 evaluated cells. Rankings of deep models are relatively stable below 5,000 rows, but the top two methods often differ by less than seed variation, and rankings on small clinical datasets only moderately align with those on subsampled large datasets.

By Shivam Shrivastava
benchmarks
More like this →