Paper detail

On Taking Advantage of Opportunistic Meta-knowledge to Reduce Configuration Spaces for Automated Machine Learning

The automated machine learning (AutoML) process can require searching through complex configuration spaces of not only machine learning (ML) components and their hyperparameters but also ways of composing them together, i.e. forming ML pipelines. Optimisation efficiency and the model accuracy attainable for a fixed time budget suffer if this pipeline configuration space is excessively large. A key research question is whether it is both possible and practical to preemptively avoid costly evaluations of poorly performing ML pipelines by leveraging their historical performance for various ML tasks, i.e. meta-knowledge. The previous experience comes in the form of classifier/regressor accuracy rankings derived from either (1) a substantial but non-exhaustive number of pipeline evaluations made during historical AutoML runs, i.e. 'opportunistic' meta-knowledge, or (2) comprehensive cross-validated evaluations of classifiers/regressors with default hyperparameters, i.e. 'systematic' meta-knowledge. Numerous experiments with the AutoWeka4MCPS package suggest that (1) opportunistic/systematic meta-knowledge can improve ML outcomes, typically in line with how relevant that meta-knowledge is, and (2) configuration-space culling is optimal when it is neither too conservative nor too radical. However, the utility and impact of meta-knowledge depend critically on numerous facets of its generation and exploitation, warranting extensive analysis; these are often overlooked/underappreciated within AutoML and meta-learning literature. In particular, we observe strong sensitivity to the `challenge' of a dataset, i.e. whether specificity in choosing a predictor leads to significantly better performance. Ultimately, identifying `difficult' datasets, thus defined, is crucial to both generating informative meta-knowledge bases and understanding optimal search-space reduction strategies.

preprint2022arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access4 authors1 topic

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

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

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.