Pith. sign in

REVIEW

SubStrat: A Subset-Based Strategy for Faster AutoML

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2206.03070 v1 pith:4SCWMU4P submitted 2022-06-07 cs.LG cs.DBcs.NE

classification cs.LGcs.DBcs.NE
keywords automldatasubstratdatasetframeworkspipelineaccuracyaverage
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

0 comments
read the original abstract

Automated machine learning (AutoML) frameworks have become important tools in the data scientists' arsenal, as they dramatically reduce the manual work devoted to the construction of ML pipelines. Such frameworks intelligently search among millions of possible ML pipelines - typically containing feature engineering, model selection and hyper parameters tuning steps - and finally output an optimal pipeline in terms of predictive accuracy. However, when the dataset is large, each individual configuration takes longer to execute, therefore the overall AutoML running times become increasingly high. To this end, we present SubStrat, an AutoML optimization strategy that tackles the data size, rather than configuration space. It wraps existing AutoML tools, and instead of executing them directly on the entire dataset, SubStrat uses a genetic-based algorithm to find a small yet representative data subset which preserves a particular characteristic of the full data. It then employs the AutoML tool on the small subset, and finally, it refines the resulted pipeline by executing a restricted, much shorter, AutoML process on the large dataset. Our experimental results, performed on two popular AutoML frameworks, Auto-Sklearn and TPOT, show that SubStrat reduces their running times by 79% (on average), with less than 2% average loss in the accuracy of the resulted ML pipeline.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Pith tools