Pith. sign in

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

arxiv 2212.02704 v3 pith:76JGKXUO submitted 2022-12-06 cs.LG

Benchmarking AutoML algorithms on a collection of synthetic classification problems

classification cs.LG
keywords automlalgorithmsperformanceauto-sklearndatasetsdifferentdiversegenerative
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
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.