An Efficient Approach for Assessing Hyperparameter Importance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The performance of many machine learning meth-ods depends critically on hyperparameter set-tings. Sophisticated Bayesian optimization meth-ods have recently achieved considerable successes in optimizing these hyperparameters, in several cases surpassing the performance of human ex-perts. However, blind reliance on such methods can leave end users without insight into the rela-tive importance of different hyperparameters and their interactions. This paper describes efficient methods that can be used to gain such insight, leveraging random forest models fit on the data already gathered by Bayesian optimization. We first introduce a novel, linear-time algorithm for computing marginals of random forest predictions and then show how to leverage these predictions within a functional ANOVA framework, to quan-tify the importance of both single hyperparame-ters and of interactions between hyperparameters. We conducted experiments with prominent ma-chine learning frameworks and state-of-the-art solvers for combinatorial problems. We show that our methods provide insight into the relation-ship between hyperparameter settings and perfor-mance, and demonstrate that—even in very high-dimensional cases—most performance variation is attributable to just a few hyperparameters. 1.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.089 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".