# Selecting Hyperparameters for Tree-Boosting

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2602.05786 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2602.05786/

## Key facts

- Cited by 1 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 13 of its 30 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 5 Feb 2026.

## Builds on (most cited first, 13 of 13)

- [A Unified Approach to Interpreting Model Predictions](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1705.07874/) (2017)
- [Optuna: A Next-generation Hyperparameter Optimization Framework](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1907.10902/) (2019)
- [Hyperband: A Novel Bandit-Based Approach to Hyperparameter Optimization](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1603.06560/) (2016)
- [Tabular Data: Deep Learning is Not All You Need](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2106.03253/) (2021)
- [BOHB: Robust and Efficient Hyperparameter Optimization at Scale](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1807.01774/) (2018)
- [SMAC3: A Versatile Bayesian Optimization Package for Hyperparameter Optimization](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2109.09831/) (2021)
- [When Do Neural Nets Outperform Boosted Trees on Tabular Data?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.02997/) (2023)
- [Why do tree-based models still outperform deep learning on tabular data?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2207.08815/) (2022)
- [Tunability: Importance of Hyperparameters of Machine Learning Algorithms](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1802.09596/) (2018)
- [Hyperparameter Importance Across Datasets](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1710.04725/) (2017)
- [YAHPO Gym -- An Efficient Multi-Objective Multi-Fidelity Benchmark for Hyperparameter Optimization](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2109.03670/) (2021)
- [Gaussian Process Boosting](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2004.02653/) (2020)
- [Gradient and Newton Boosting for Classification and Regression](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1808.03064/) (2018)

## Built on by (most cited first, 1 of 1)

- [Localized TabICLv2: Scaling Tabular In-Context Learning through k-NN](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2608.16429/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Tree-boosting is a widely used machine learning technique for tabular data. However, its out-of-sample accuracy is critically dependent on multiple hyperparameters. In this article, we empirically compare several popular methods for hyperparameter optimization for tree-boosting including random grid search, the tree-structured Parzen estimator (TPE), Gaussian-process-based Bayesian optimization (GP-BO), Hyperband, the sequential model-based algorithm configuration (SMAC) method, and deterministic full grid search using 59 regression and binary classification data sets. We find that the SMAC method clearly outperforms all the other considered methods on average, and it gives stable performance across a diverse collection of tabular data sets under a fixed tuning budget, which is relevant for users who cannot afford extensive manual trial-and-error tuning. We further observe that (i) a relatively large number of trials larger than 100 is typically required for accurate tuning, (ii) using default values for hyperparameters or a full search over a small grid often yields very inaccurate models, (iii) all considered hyperparameters can have a material effect on the accuracy of tree-boosting, i.e., there is no small set of hyperparameters that is more important than others, and (iv) choosing the number of boosting iterations using early stopping yields more accurate results compared to including it in the search space for regression tasks.