adaptive VS xgboost

Imagine you have a drawing with lots of hills and valleys, and you want to understand the shape of the landscape. Instead of measuring the height at every single point, Adaptive helps you measure the height at the most important points. It focuses on areas where the hills and valleys change a lot, so you can understand the drawing with fewer measurements.

Yes! Check it out at https://github.com/python-adaptive/adaptive/

Explore and star ⭐️ the repo on github.com/python-adaptive/adaptive, and check out the documentation at adaptive.readthedocs.io.

Also, Quatro will require a YAML annotation at the top of the file that will always be visible, e.g., a notebook on GitHub: https://github.com/python-adaptive/adaptive/blob/main/docs/source/tutorial/tutorial.DataSaver.md

Getting Python to calculate the equation for you shouldn't be a problem. The problem is that it may be having trouble figuring out which points to sample from. Using a uniformly spaced set of points won't necessarily result in the best looking curve, especially after interpolation. There is the adaptive package which does smart sampling of expensive functions. The idea is you give the function, and the adaptive library will learn the best x values to use and also return f(x).

Finally, when it comes to building models and making predictions, Python and R have a plethora of options available. Libraries like scikit-learn, statsmodels, and TensorFlowin Python, or caret, randomForest, and xgboostin R, provide powerful machine learning algorithms and statistical models that can be applied to a wide range of problems. What's more, these libraries are open-source and have extensive documentation and community support, making it easy to learn and apply new techniques without needing specialized training or expensive software licenses.

You can find the problem outlined here: https://github.com/dmlc/xgboost/issues/5826. u/hcho3 diagnosed the problem and corrected it as of XGB version 1.2.0.

Reference: https://github.com/dmlc/xgboost/issues/2031

By the way, most of the time XGBoost works just as well for projects, would not recommend applying deep learning to every single problem you come across, it's something Stanford CS really likes to showcase when it's well known (1) that sometimes "smaller"/less complex models can perform just as well or have their own interpretive advantages and (2) it is well known within ML and DS communities that deep learning does not perform as well with tabular datasets and using deep learning as a default to every problem is just poor practice. However, if you do (god forbid) get language, speech/audio, vision/imaging, or even time series models then deep learning as a baseline is not the worst idea.