Bibliographic record
Abstract
As interest in machine learning and its applications becomes more widespread, how to choose the best models and hyper-parameter settings becomes more important. This problem is known to be challenging for human experts, and consequently, a growing number of methods have been proposed for solving it, giving rise to the area of automated machine learning (AutoML). Many of the most popular AutoML methods are based on Bayesian optimization, which makes only weak assumptions about how modifying hyper-parameters effects the loss of a model. This is a safe assumption that yields robust methods, as the AutoML loss landscapes that relate hyper-parameter settings to loss are poorly understood. We build on recent work on the study of one-dimensional slices of algorithm configuration landscapes by introducing new methods that test n -dimensional landscapes for statistical deviations from uni-modality and convexity, and we use them to show that a diverse set of AutoML loss landscapes are highly structured. We introduce a method for assessing the significance of hyper-parameter partial derivatives, which reveals that most (but not all) AutoML loss landscapes only have a small number of hyper-parameters that interact strongly. To further assess hyper-parameter interactions, we introduce a simplistic optimization procedure that assumes each hyper-parameter can be optimized independently, a single time in sequence, and we show that it obtains configurations that are statistically tied with optimal in all of the n -dimensional AutoML loss landscapes that we studied. Our results suggest many possible new directions for substantially improving the state of the art in AutoML.
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 | 0.008 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".