MLflow VS xgboost

Platforms such as MLflow monitor the development stages of machine learning models. In parallel, Data Version Control (DVC) brings version control system-like functions to the realm of data sets and models.

MLFlow - http://mlflow.org

MLflow:

In search for a tool that needs comparable configuration I looked into mlflow and found this. https://github.com/mlflow/mlflow/blob/master/mlflow/environment_variables.py There they define a class _EnvironmentVariable and create many objects out of it, for any variable they need. The get method of this class is in principle a decorated os.getenv. Maybe that is something I can take as orientation.

I have been using DVC and MLflow since then DVC had only data tracking and MLflow only model tracking. I can say both are awesome now and maybe the only factor I would like to mention is that IMO, MLflow is a bit harder to learn while DVC is just a git practically.

Hi, you should have a look at ML flow https://mlflow.org or weight and biases https://wandb.ai/site

Dumb question, how does this lib compare to other libs like MLFlow, https://mlflow.org/?

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.