How can Automated Machine Learning Help Business Data Science Teams?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Artificial intelligence and machine learning have attracted the attention of many commercial and non-profit organizations aiming to leverage advanced analytics, in order to provide a better service to their customers, increase their revenues through creating new or improving their existing internal processes, and better exploit their data by discovering complex hidden patterns. Such advanced solutions require data scientists with rare (and generally expensive) skill sets. Moreover, such solutions are often perceived as complex black boxes to decision-makers. Automated machine learning tools aim to reduce the expertise gap between the technical teams and stakeholders involved in business data science projects, by reducing the amount of time and specialized skills required to generate predictive models. We systematically benchmarked five automated machine learning tools against seven supervised learning problems of a business nature. Our results suggest that such tools, in fully automated mode, must be used cautiously, only where predictive models support low-impact decisions and do not need to be explainable, and only by data scientists capable to ensure that all phases of the data mining process have been performed adequately.
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 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 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".