Surrogate benchmarks for hyperparameter optimization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. Since hyperparameter optimization is crucial for achiev-ing peak performance with many machine learning algorithms, an active research community has formed around this problem in the last few years. The evaluation of new hyperparameter optimization techniques against the state of the art requires a set of benchmarks. Because such evaluations can be very expensive, early experiments are often performed using synthetic test functions rather than using real-world hyperparameter optimization problems. However, there can be a wide gap between the two kinds of problems. In this work, we introduce another option: cheap-to-evaluate surrogates of real hyperparameter optimization benchmarks that share the same hyper-parameter spaces and feature similar response surfaces. Specifically, we train regression models on data describing a machine learning algorithm’s performance under a wide range of hyperparameter con-figurations, and then cheaply evaluate hyperparameter optimization methods using the model’s performance predictions in lieu of the real algorithm. We evaluate the effectiveness for using a wide range of regression techniques to build these surrogate benchmarks, both in terms of how well they predict the performance of new configurations and of how much they affect the overall performance of hyperparame-ter optimizers. Overall, we found that surrogate benchmarks based on random forests performed best: for benchmarks with few hyperparam-eters they yielded almost perfect surrogates, and for benchmarks with more complex hyperparameter spaces they still yielded surrogates that were qualitatively similar to the real benchmarks they model. 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 | 0.007 | 0.037 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".