REVIEW 2 cited by
AMLB: an AutoML Benchmark
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
read the original abstract
Comparing different AutoML frameworks is notoriously challenging and often done incorrectly. We introduce an open and extensible benchmark that follows best practices and avoids common mistakes when comparing AutoML frameworks. We conduct a thorough comparison of 9 well-known AutoML frameworks across 71 classification and 33 regression tasks. The differences between the AutoML frameworks are explored with a multi-faceted analysis, evaluating model accuracy, its trade-offs with inference time, and framework failures. We also use Bradley-Terry trees to discover subsets of tasks where the relative AutoML framework rankings differ. The benchmark comes with an open-source tool that integrates with many AutoML frameworks and automates the empirical evaluation process end-to-end: from framework installation and resource allocation to in-depth evaluation. The benchmark uses public data sets, can be easily extended with other AutoML frameworks and tasks, and has a website with up-to-date results.
Forward citations
Cited by 2 Pith papers
-
Towards Benchmarking Foundation Models for Tabular Data With Text
A new 13-dataset benchmark shows that adding text embeddings to tabular models usually improves accuracy, but no embedding or downsampling strategy dominates.
-
Real-TabPFN: Improving Tabular Foundation Models via Continued Pre-training With Real-World Data
Continuing the pre-training of TabPFN on 71 curated real-world tables raises its average normalized ROC-AUC from 0.954 to 0.976 on 29 AutoML Benchmark datasets.
Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.