Source author record

Rinchin Damdinov

Rinchin Damdinov appears in the imported research catalog. Authorship, coauthor and topic links are available while profile ownership is still unclaimed.

ResearcherUnclaimed source record

Catalog footprint

What is connected

2works
2topics
4close collaborators

Actions

Connect this record

Log in to claim

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent papers, topics, institutions and collaborators without losing the researcher page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Published work

2 published item(s)

preprint2022arXiv

LightAutoML: AutoML Solution for a Large Financial Services Ecosystem

We present an AutoML system called LightAutoML developed for a large European financial services company and its ecosystem satisfying the set of idiosyncratic requirements that this ecosystem has for AutoML solutions. Our framework was piloted and deployed in numerous applications and performed at the level of the experienced data scientists while building high-quality ML models significantly faster than these data scientists. We also compare the performance of our system with various general-purpose open source AutoML solutions and show that it performs better for most of the ecosystem and OpenML problems. We also present the lessons that we learned while developing the AutoML system and moving it into production.

preprint2022arXiv

Quality Metrics in Recommender Systems: Do We Calculate Metrics Consistently?

Offline evaluation is a popular approach to determine the best algorithm in terms of the chosen quality metric. However, if the chosen metric calculates something unexpected, this miscommunication can lead to poor decisions and wrong conclusions. In this paper, we thoroughly investigate quality metrics used for recommender systems evaluation. We look at the practical aspect of implementations found in modern RecSys libraries and at the theoretical aspect of definitions in academic papers. We find that Precision is the only metric universally understood among papers and libraries, while other metrics may have different interpretations. Metrics implemented in different libraries sometimes have the same name but measure different things, which leads to different results given the same input. When defining metrics in an academic paper, authors sometimes omit explicit formulations or give references that do not contain explanations either. In 47% of cases, we cannot easily know how the metric is defined because the definition is not clear or absent. These findings highlight yet another difficulty in recommender system evaluation and call for a more detailed description of evaluation protocols.