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

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2607.21866 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2607.21866/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 10 of its 19 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 23 Jul 2026.

## Builds on (most cited first, 10 of 10)

- [Scaling Laws for Neural Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2001.08361/) (2020)
- [XGBoost: A Scalable Tree Boosting System](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1603.02754/) (2016)
- [Training Compute-Optimal Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2203.15556/) (2022)
- [Deep Learning Scaling is Predictable, Empirically](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1712.00409/) (2017)
- [Tabular Data: Deep Learning is Not All You Need](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2106.03253/) (2021)
- [Improving Reproducibility in Machine Learning Research (A Report from the NeurIPS 2019 Reproducibility Program)](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2003.12206/) (2020)
- [A Constructive Prediction of the Generalization Error Across Scales](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1909.12673/) (2019)
- [Iterative Causal Segmentation: Filling the Gap between Market Segmentation and Marketing Strategy](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2405.14743/) (2024)
- [Variance-Bounded Evaluation of Entity-Centric AI Systems Without Ground Truth: Theory and Measurement](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2509.22751/) (2025)
- [When LLMs Agree, Are They Right? Auditing Self-Consistency and Cross-Model Agreement as Confidence Signals](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2607.08065/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

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. We present a distributed classroom-scale replication: 127 graduate students each ran a fixed protocol on 3 assigned datasets, drawn from 18 tabular classification and regression datasets and 6 model families (Boosting, Random Forest, SVM, Linear/Logistic, Ridge, Lasso), yielding 11,536 training runs and 1,648 fitted power-law curves of the form error(N) = a N^(-b) + c. Three findings. (1) Power laws fit: R^2 > 0.8 on 77.7% of cells, with tree ensembles dominating at full data (Boosting 50% of datasets, RandomForest 33%; linear models underperform on classification). (2) Approximate shared exponents within a model family: for 5 of 6 families, a single family-level exponent predicts each family's cross-dataset curves nearly as well as per-dataset exponents (R^2 gap < 0.011), though AIC favors the unconstrained fit and curve collapse is partial (32-58% of points within +/-0.5 dex). We frame this as approximate predictive compressibility, not dataset-independent universality; Lasso fails outright (negative control) and Ridge is fragile under leave-one-dataset-out. (3) Replicator-implementation variance: with random_state=42 fixed, independent re-implementations of the same protocol still differ by mean CV(b) = 0.144 on the fitted exponent -- not seed variance, but the spread induced by unconstrained parts of the protocol (preprocessing, encoding, missing-value handling). We release the aggregated curves, per-cell fits, and a practical data-requirement table for N* to reach target error 0.15.