Efficient Parameter Importance Analysis via Ablation with Surrogates
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To achieve peak performance, it is often necessary to adjust the parameters of a given algorithm to the class of problem instances to be solved; this is known to be the case for popular solvers for a broad range of AI problems, including AI planning, propositional satisfiability (SAT) and answer set programming (ASP). To avoid tedious and often highly sub-optimal manual tuning of such parameters by means of ad-hoc methods, general-purpose algorithm configuration procedures can be used to automatically find performance-optimizing parameter settings. While impressive performance gains are often achieved in this manner, additional, potentially costly parameter importance analysis is required to gain insights into what parameter changes are most responsible for those improvements. Here, we show how the running time cost of ablation analysis, a well-known general-purpose approach for assessing parameter importance, can be reduced substantially by using regression models of algorithm performance constructed from data collected during the configuration process. In our experiments, we demonstrate speed-up factors between 33 and 14 727 for ablation analysis on various configuration scenarios from AI planning, SAT, ASP and mixed integer programming (MIP).
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 | 0.047 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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".