REVIEW
Benchmarking AutoML algorithms on a collection of synthetic classification problems
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
Benchmarking AutoML algorithms on a collection of synthetic classification problems
read the original abstract
Automated machine learning (AutoML) algorithms have grown in popularity due to their high performance and flexibility to adapt to different problems and data sets. With the increasing number of AutoML algorithms, deciding which would best suit a given problem becomes increasingly more work. Therefore, it is essential to use complex and challenging benchmarks which would be able to differentiate the AutoML algorithms from each other. This paper compares the performance of four different AutoML algorithms: Tree-based Pipeline Optimization Tool (TPOT), Auto-Sklearn, Auto-Sklearn 2, and H2O AutoML. We use the Diverse and Generative ML benchmark (DIGEN), a diverse set of synthetic datasets derived from generative functions designed to highlight the strengths and weaknesses of the performance of common machine learning algorithms. We confirm that AutoML can identify pipelines that perform well on all included datasets. Most AutoML algorithms performed similarly; however, there were some differences depending on the specific dataset and metric used.
discussion (0)
Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.