Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many different machine learning algorithms exist; taking into account each algorithm's hyperparameters, there is a staggeringly large number of possible alternatives overall. We consider the problem of simultaneously selecting a learning algorithm and setting its hyperparameters, going beyond previous work that attacks these issues separately. We show that this problem can be addressed by a fully automated approach, leveraging recent innovations in Bayesian optimization. Specifically, we consider a wide range of feature selection techniques (combining 3 search and 8 evaluator methods) and all classification approaches implemented in WEKA's standard distribution, spanning 2 ensemble methods, 10 meta-methods, 27 base classifiers, and hyperparameter settings for each classifier. On each of 21 popular datasets from the UCI repository, the KDD Cup 09, variants of the MNIST dataset and CIFAR-10, we show classification performance often much better than using standard selection and hyperparameter optimization methods. We hope that our approach will help non-expert users to more effectively identify machine learning algorithms and hyperparameter settings appropriate to their applications, and hence to achieve improved performance.
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 | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.039 | 0.052 |
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".