AutoFolio: Algorithm Configuration for Algorithm Selection.
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Algorithm selection (AS) techniques — which involve choosing from a set of algorithms the one expected to solve a given problem instance most efficiently — have substantially improved the state-of-the-art in solving many prominent AI problems, such as SAT, CSP, ASP, MAXSAT, and QBF.Although several AS procedures have been introduced,not too surprisingly, none of them dominates all others across all AS scenarios.Furthermore, these procedures have parameters whose optimal values vary across AS scenarios.This holds specifically for the machine learning techniques that form the core of current AS proceduresand for their hyperparameters. Therefore, to successfully apply AS to new problems, algorithms and benchmark sets, two questions need to be answered:(i) how to select an AS approach and (ii) how to set its parameters effectively.We address both of these problems simultaneously by using automated algorithm configuration.Specifically, we demonstrate that we can use algorithm configurators to automatically configure clasp folio 2,which implements a large variety of different AS approaches and their respective parameters in a single highly parameterized algorithm framework.We demonstrate that this approach, dubbed auto folio, can significantly improve the performance of clasp folio 2 on 11 out of the 12 scenarios from the Algorithm Selection Library and leads to new state-of-the-art algorithm selectors for 8 of these scenarios.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
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 it