Skip to content

bartgras/XGBoost-Tensorflow-Wide-and-deep-comparison

Repository files navigation

Comparison of different models

  1. TFLearn based wide and deep model (code copied from https://www.tensorflow.org/tutorials/wide_and_deep and adapted to jupyter notebook format)

  2. TFLearn wide and deep re-implemented in Keras

  3. XGBoost based implementation

Results

  • TFLearn wide and deep model - similarly to results from TF tutorial has accuracy is 84.5%

  • XGBoost - best accuracy is 86.1%

  • TFLearn wide and deep re-implemented in Keras - best accuracy is 85.1%

Notes

  • If you want to test it by yourself, download the data using TFLearn notebook

  • Keras version skipped tf.contrib.layers.crossed_column features. Implementing them could further improve accuracy

Summary

  • This type of "tabular" based dataset is still easiest to implement using XGBoost

  • Keras version was implemented using one-hot encoddings and separately embeddings. Surprisingly the one-hot encoding version achieved better accuracy

  • Probably when given more data, with more options in categorical columns ("workclass", "education", "marital_status" etc.) both TFLearn wide and deep and Keras embedding versions would perform better than XGBoost version.

Check notebooks for details

About

Comparison how Tensorflow Wide and Deep model performs vs. XGBoost implementation

Resources

Stars

Watchers

Forks

Releases

No releases published

Packages

 
 
 

Contributors