Assisted design of data science pipelines
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract When designing data science (DS) pipelines, end-users can get overwhelmed by the large and growing set of available data preprocessing and modeling techniques. Intelligent discovery assistants (IDAs) and automated machine learning (AutoML) solutions aim to facilitate end-users by (semi-)automating the process. However, they are expensive to compute and yield limited applicability for a wide range of real-world use cases and application domains. This is due to (a) their need to execute thousands of pipelines to get the optimal one, (b) their limited support of DS tasks, e.g., supervised classification or regression only, and a small, static set of available data preprocessing and ML algorithms; and (c) their restriction to quantifiable evaluation processes and metrics, e.g., tenfold cross-validation using the ROC AUC score for classification. To overcome these limitations, we propose a human-in-the-loop approach for theassisteddesignofdatasciencepipelinesusing previously executed pipelines. Based on a user query, i.e., data and a DS task, our framework outputs a ranked list of pipeline candidates from which the user can choose to execute or modify in real time. To recommend pipelines, it first identifies relevant datasets and pipelines utilizing efficient similarity search. It then ranks the candidate pipelines using multi-objective sorting and takes user interactions into account to improve suggestions over time. In our experimental evaluation, the proposed framework significantly outperforms the state-of-the-art IDA tool and achieves similar predictive performance with state-of-the-art long-running AutoML solutions while being real-time, generic to any evaluation processes and DS tasks, and extensible to new operators.
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 | 0.006 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.003 |
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".