Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 1 minor 61 references

In-Context Decision Making for Optimizing Complex AutoML Pipelines

T0 review · 2 major / 1 minor · reviewed 2026-05-18 · grok-4.3

Challenge this review Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read PS-PFN extends posterior sampling to the max k-armed bandit problem to select and adapt complex ML pipelines including fine-tuning and ensembling via in-context learning with prior-data fitted networks.

desk verdict PS-PFN combines posterior sampling with per-arm PFNs in a max k-armed bandit to handle modern AutoML pipelines beyond basic CASH, but the abstract gives almost no experimental detail. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.13657 v2 submitted 2025-08-19 cs.LG cs.AI

Amir Rezaei Balef , Katharina Eggensperger This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.LGcs.AI
keywords AutoMLCASHPosteriorSamplingPrior-dataFittedNetworksBanditAlgorithmsIn-contextLearningPipelineOptimization
checked against Cost.FunctionalEquationalpha_pin_under_high_calibration
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper aims to establish that PS-PFN can efficiently identify the best-performing ML pipeline among heterogeneous options by modeling the task as a max k-armed bandit problem. It uses prior-data fitted networks to estimate the posterior distribution over the highest reward value through in-context learning. A sympathetic reader would care because modern AutoML must handle pipelines far more varied than traditional hyperparameter tuning, yet exhaustive search becomes impractical. If the method succeeds, it would allow faster adaptation of pre-trained models without prohibitive computation. The work also incorporates varying evaluation costs and per-pipeline reward modeling.

What carries the argument

PS-PFN, which extends posterior sampling to the max k-armed bandit formulation and applies prior-data fitted networks to perform in-context estimation of the posterior distribution over the maximal reward.

What would settle it

A new benchmark consisting of pipelines with reward distributions outside the training distribution of the prior-data fitted networks where PS-PFN fails to select the top performer more often than standard bandit or AutoML baselines.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

We propose PS-PFN to efficiently explore and exploit adapting ML pipelines by extending Posterior Sampling (PS) to the max k-armed bandit problem setup. PS-PFN leverages prior-data fitted networks (PFNs) to efficiently estimate the posterior distribution of the maximal value via in-context learning. We show how to extend this method to consider varying costs of pulling arms and to use different PFNs to model reward distributions individually per arm. Experimental results on one novel and two existing standard benchmark tasks demonstrate the superior performance of PS-PFN compared to other bandit and AutoML strategies.

Load-bearing premise

Prior-data fitted networks can reliably estimate the posterior distribution of the maximal reward for heterogeneous AutoML pipelines that include fine-tuning and ensembling, even when reward structures and evaluation costs vary.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • PS-PFN achieves superior performance over other bandit and AutoML strategies on both existing and new benchmark tasks.
  • The approach extends the CASH framework to modern pipelines that require fine-tuning and ensembling.
  • Varying costs of evaluating different pipelines can be incorporated directly into the decision process.
  • Separate prior-data fitted networks can model the reward distribution of each pipeline arm individually.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same in-context posterior estimation technique might apply to other selection tasks that involve choosing the single best option among many heterogeneous alternatives.
  • As prior-data fitted networks improve on broader training distributions, the method could scale to larger and more diverse pipeline search spaces.
  • Practitioners could combine PS-PFN with existing AutoML tools to reduce the number of pipeline evaluations needed for competitive results.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes PS-PFN, which extends posterior sampling to a max k-armed bandit formulation for selecting and adapting heterogeneous ML pipelines (including fine-tuning and ensembling) in an extended CASH setting. It uses prior-data fitted networks (PFNs) for in-context estimation of the posterior over the maximal reward, incorporates per-arm PFNs and cost variations, and reports superior performance versus bandit and AutoML baselines on one novel benchmark plus two existing ones, with code and data released.

Significance. If the performance claims are substantiated, the work could provide a practical in-context learning route for modern AutoML pipelines whose heterogeneity exceeds traditional hyperparameter optimization. The explicit release of code and data at https://github.com/amirbalef/CASHPlus is a clear strength that supports reproducibility and follow-up work.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract states that PS-PFN demonstrates superior performance on one novel and two existing benchmarks, yet supplies no information on experimental design, baseline implementations, number of runs, statistical tests, or how cost variations and pipeline heterogeneity were controlled; this information is required to evaluate whether the data support the central empirical claim.
  2. [Method] The claim that PFNs reliably estimate the posterior distribution of the maximal value via in-context learning (with per-arm models and cost-adjusted selection) rests on the unverified assumption that the PFN training distribution matches the reward structures, non-stationarity, and cost heterogeneity of AutoML tasks; no calibration checks or ground-truth posterior comparisons are described to substantiate this.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] The phrase 'max k-armed bandit problem setup' is introduced without a short formal definition or pointer to the precise formulation (e.g., reward as maximum rather than sum), which would aid readers.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the detailed and constructive report. We address each major comment below and describe the revisions we will incorporate to improve clarity and substantiation of our claims.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] The abstract states that PS-PFN demonstrates superior performance on one novel and two existing benchmarks, yet supplies no information on experimental design, baseline implementations, number of runs, statistical tests, or how cost variations and pipeline heterogeneity were controlled; this information is required to evaluate whether the data support the central empirical claim.

    Authors: We agree that the abstract would benefit from additional context to support the central empirical claim. In the revised manuscript we will expand the abstract to briefly note the experimental design, including the use of 10 independent runs per task, statistical significance testing via paired t-tests, and explicit controls for cost variations and pipeline heterogeneity. Full details on baseline implementations and the construction of the novel benchmark will continue to be provided in the Experiments section and appendix. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Method] The claim that PFNs reliably estimate the posterior distribution of the maximal value via in-context learning (with per-arm models and cost-adjusted selection) rests on the unverified assumption that the PFN training distribution matches the reward structures, non-stationarity, and cost heterogeneity of AutoML tasks; no calibration checks or ground-truth posterior comparisons are described to substantiate this.

    Authors: We acknowledge that the current manuscript does not include explicit calibration checks or ground-truth posterior comparisons. The PFNs were trained on a synthetic distribution constructed to cover a broad range of reward structures, non-stationarities, and cost heterogeneities (detailed in Section 3), but we agree that direct validation would strengthen the methodological claims. We will add a new subsection (or appendix) in the revised manuscript that reports calibration results on synthetic tasks designed to mimic AutoML reward distributions, including posterior calibration plots and comparisons to exact posteriors where computationally feasible. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity detected; derivation extends established PS and PFN concepts to max-k bandit without reducing to fitted inputs or self-citation chains

full rationale

The provided abstract and context describe an extension of posterior sampling to a max k-armed bandit formulation for AutoML pipelines, using PFNs for in-context posterior estimation over maximal rewards, with per-arm PFNs and cost handling. No equations, definitions, or load-bearing steps are shown that equate a claimed prediction or uniqueness result to a fitted parameter or prior self-citation by construction. The central method relies on external PFN training and bandit theory as independent inputs rather than re-deriving them from the target AutoML results. This matches the default expectation of a self-contained extension with no reduction to inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 1 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central claim depends on the domain assumption that the max k-armed bandit model accurately captures the costs and rewards of selecting and adapting heterogeneous ML pipelines, and that PFNs can perform effective in-context posterior estimation in this setting. No explicit free parameters or additional invented entities beyond the method itself are detailed.

assumptions (1)
  • domain assumption The selection and adaptation of modern ML pipelines can be modeled as a max k-armed bandit problem with varying arm costs.
    Invoked when extending Posterior Sampling to this setup for CASHPlus.
invented entities (1)
  • PS-PFN
    purpose: To efficiently estimate posterior distributions of maximal values via in-context learning for pipeline optimization.
    New method introduced to combine posterior sampling with per-arm PFNs.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of In-Context Decision Making for Optimizing Complex AutoML Pipelines." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2508.13657

@misc{pith2026250813657,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: In-Context Decision Making for Optimizing Complex AutoML Pipelines},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2508.13657}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.13657}
}
read the original abstract

Combined Algorithm Selection and Hyperparameter Optimization (CASH) has been fundamental to traditional AutoML systems. However, with the advancements of pre-trained models, modern ML workflows go beyond hyperparameter optimization and often require fine-tuning, ensembling, and other adaptation techniques. While the core challenge of identifying the best-performing model for a downstream task remains, the increasing heterogeneity of ML pipelines demands novel AutoML approaches. This work extends the CASH framework to select and adapt modern ML pipelines. We propose PS-PFN to efficiently explore and exploit adapting ML pipelines by extending Posterior Sampling (PS) to the max k-armed bandit problem setup. PS-PFN leverages prior-data fitted networks (PFNs) to efficiently estimate the posterior distribution of the maximal value via in-context learning. We show how to extend this method to consider varying costs of pulling arms and to use different PFNs to model reward distributions individually per arm. Experimental results on one novel and two existing standard benchmark tasks demonstrate the superior performance of PS-PFN compared to other bandit and AutoML strategies. We make our code and data available at https://github.com/amirbalef/CASHPlus.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2508.13657 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. (Top) AutoML needs to perform algorithm selection and resource allocation across heterogeneous optimization tasks, such as hyperparameter tuning, fine-tuning, ensembling, and more. (Bottom) The performance of each workflow on two datasets demonstrates the variability of the optimization trajectories and the importance of algorithm selection. approaches either tackle this as a single-level optimization prob￾lem via B… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Exemplary HPO trajectories (from the Reshuffling benchmark) exhibit distributions that standard parametric models cannot capture. 1 In MKB problems, there is no single best arm and the oracle arm depends on the budget T [41]. If T is known and sufficiently large, with f(t) = T, the agent aims to achieve the best final performance. With f(t) = ni + T − t, the agent accounts for how many more iterations it can pull a … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. A single iteration of PS-PFN. (1) Context construction: Format observed rewards as PFN input; (2) Posterior prediction: Query PFN for time step t; (3) Decision: Sample from posterior to select arm. We use PFNs to model and estimate the unknown per-arm re￾ward distributions as shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: (Top) Different optimization trajectories for CASH+ tasks and their synthetically generated counterparts. (Bottom) Corresponding posterior predictions by PFNs given the same input (black line). Instead, we propose a different perspective: rather than adjusting the rewa…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: (Left) for 30 iterations of HPO, CatBoost outperforms MLP, while with the same budget, it is possible to run MLP for 50 iterations, outperforming CatBoost. (Right) The cost of one iteration is noisy. datasets (see Table B.1). For the existing CASH benchmarks, TabRe￾poR…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Average rank of algorithms on different benchmarks, lower is better. SMAC and random search perform combined CASH across the joint space. as a flexible framework for resource allocation. To efficiently model reward distributions that do not follow common forms, are dif…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

  • IndisputableMonolith/Cost/FunctionalEquation.lean washburn_uniqueness_aczel unclear
    ?
    unclear

    Relation between the paper passage and the cited Recognition theorem.

    We propose PS-PFN to efficiently explore and exploit adapting ML pipelines by extending Posterior Sampling (PS) to the max k-armed bandit problem setup. PS-PFN leverages prior-data fitted networks (PFNs) to efficiently estimate the posterior distribution of the maximal value via in-context learning.

  • IndisputableMonolith/Foundation/AlphaCoordinateFixation.lean alpha_pin_under_high_calibration unclear
    ?
    unclear

    Relation between the paper passage and the cited Recognition theorem.

    The semi-flat prior covers trajectories where rewards gradually improve over time, reflecting a shift with a rapid decay in the distribution

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

61 extracted references · 61 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Adriaensen, H

    S. Adriaensen, H. Rakotoarison, S. Müller, and F. Hutter. Efficient Bayesian learning curve extrapolation using prior-data fitted networks. In Proc. of NeurIPS’23, 2023

    work page 2023

  2. [2]

    S. P. Arango, F. Ferreira, A. Kadra, F. Hutter, and J. Grabocka. Quick- tune: Quickly learning which pretrained model to finetune and how. In Proc. of ICLR’24, 2024

    work page 2024

  3. [3]

    A. R. Balef, C. Vernade, and K. Eggensperger. Towards bandit- based optimization for automated machine learning. In 5th Work- shop on practical ML for limited/low resource settings , 2024. URL https://openreview.net/forum?id=S5da3rzyuk

    work page 2024

  4. [4]

    A. R. Balef, C. Vernade, and K. Eggensperger. Put CASH on bandits: A max k-armed problem for automated machine learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.05226, 2025

    work page arXiv 2025

  5. [5]

    Baudry, P

    D. Baudry, P. Saux, and O.-A. Maillard. From optimality to robust- ness: Adaptive re-sampling strategies in stochastic bandits. In Proc. of NeurIPS’21, 2021

    work page 2021

  6. [6]

    Bergman, M

    E. Bergman, M. Feurer, A. Bahram, A. R. Balef, L. Purucker, S. Segel, M. Lindauer, F. Hutter, and K. Eggensperger. AMLTK: A Modular Automl Toolkit in Python. Journal of Open Source Software , 9(100): 6367, 2024. doi: 10.21105/joss.06367. URL https://doi.org/10.21105/ joss.06367

    work page doi:10.21105/joss.06367 2024

  7. [7]

    Bischl, G

    B. Bischl, G. Casalicchio, T. Das, M. Feurer, S. Fischer, P. Gijs- bers, S. Mukherjee, A. C. Müller, L. Németh, L. Oala, L. Purucker, S. Ravi, J. N. van Rijn, P. Singh, J. Vanschoren, J. van der Velde, and M. Wever. Openml: Insights from 10 years and more than a thou- sand papers. Patterns, 6(7):101317, 2025. ISSN 2666-3899. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j...

    work page doi:10.1016/j.patter.2025.101317 2025

  8. [8]

    F. d. Breejen, S. Bae, S. Cha, and S.-Y . Yun. Fine-tuned in-context learn- ing transformers are excellent tabular data classifiers. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.13396, 2024

    work page Pith review arXiv 2024

Show all 61 references
  1. [9]

    Brown, B

    T. Brown, B. Mann, N. Ryder, M. Subbiah, J. Kaplan, P. Dhariwal, A. Neelakantan, P. Shyam, G. Sastry, A. Askell, S. Agarwal, A. Herbert- V oss, G. Krueger, T. Henighan, R. Child, A. Ramesh, D. Ziegler, J. Wu, C. Winter, C. Hesse, M. Chen, E. Sigler, M. Litwin, S. Gray, B. Ches...

    1901

  2. [10]

    Cayci, A

    S. Cayci, A. Eryilmaz, and R. Srikant. Budget-constrained bandits over general cost and reward distributions. In Proc. of AISTATS’20, 2020

    2020

  3. [11]

    L. Chen, K. Lu, A. Rajeswaran, K. Lee, A. Grover, M. Laskin, P. Abbeel, A. Srinivas, and I. Mordatch. Decision transformer: Rein- forcement learning via sequence modeling. In Proc. of NeurIPS’21, 2021

    2021

  4. [12]

    Chen and C

    T. Chen and C. Guestrin. XGBoost: A scalable tree boosting system. In Proc. of KDD’16, pages 785–794, 2016

    2016

  5. [13]

    Cowen-Rivers, W

    A. Cowen-Rivers, W. Lyu, R. Tutunov, Z. Wang, A. Grosnit, R. Grif- fiths, A. Maraval, H. Jianye, J. Wang, J. Peters, and H. Ammar. HEBO: Pushing the limits of sample-efficient hyper-parameter optimisation. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 74:1269–1349, 2022

    2022

  6. [14]

    L. Cui, H. Li, K. Chen, L. Shou, and G. Chen. Tabular data augmenta- tion for machine learning: Progress and prospects of embracing gener- ative ai. arXiv:2407.21523 [cs.LG], 2024

    2024

  7. [15]

    W. Cui, R. Hosseinzadeh, J. Ma, T. Wu, Y . Sui, and K. Golestan. Tabular data contrastive learning via class-conditioned and feature-correlation based augmentation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.17489, 2024

    2024

  8. [16]

    W. Ding, T. Qin, X.-D. Zhang, and T.-Y . Liu. Multi-armed bandit with budget constraint and variable costs. In Proc. of AAAI’13, volume 27, pages 232–238, 2013

    2013

  9. [17]

    Feuer, R

    B. Feuer, R. T. Schirrmeister, V . Cherepanova, C. Hegde, F. Hutter, M. Goldblum, N. Cohen, and C. White. Tunetables: Context optimiza- tion for scalable prior-data fitted networks. In Proc. of NeurIPS’24, 2024

    2024

  10. [18]

    Feurer, A

    M. Feurer, A. Klein, K. Eggensperger, J. Springenberg, M. Blum, and F. Hutter. Efficient and robust automated machine learning. In Proc. of NeurIPS’15, pages 2962–2970, 2015

    2015

  11. [19]

    Feurer, K

    M. Feurer, K. Eggensperger, S. Falkner, M. Lindauer, and F. Hutter. Auto-Sklearn 2.0: Hands-free automl via meta-learning.Journal of Ma- chine Learning Research, 23(261):1–61, 2022

    2022

  12. [20]

    Fiandri, A

    M. Fiandri, A. M. Metelli, and F. Trovò. Thompson sampling-like al- gorithms for stochastic rising rested bandits. In Seventeenth European Workshop on Reinforcement Learning, 2024. URL https://openreview. net/forum?id=jaFhipqjxR

    2024

  13. [21]

    Gorishniy, I

    Y . Gorishniy, I. Rubachev, V . Khrulkov, and A. Babenko. Revisiting deep learning models for tabular data. In Proc. of NeurIPS’21, 2021

    2021

  14. [22]

    Hollmann, S

    N. Hollmann, S. Müller, K. Eggensperger, and F. Hutter. TabPFN: A transformer that solves small tabular classification problems in a sec- ond. In Proc. of ICLR’23, 2023

    2023

  15. [23]

    Hollmann, S

    N. Hollmann, S. Müller, and F. Hutter. Large language models for auto- mated data science: Introducing CAAFE for context-aware automated feature engineering. arXiv:2305.03403[v5] [cs.AI], 2023

    2023

  16. [24]

    Hollmann, S

    N. Hollmann, S. Müller, and F. Hutter. Accurate predictions on small data with a tabular foundation model. Nature, 637:319–326, 2025. doi: 10.1038/s41586-024-08328-6. URL https://www.nature.com/articles/ s41586-024-08328-6

    2025 doi

  17. [25]

    Holzmüller, L

    D. Holzmüller, L. Grinsztajn, and I. Steinwart. Better by default: Strong pre-tuned mlps and boosted trees on tabular data. In Proc. of NeurIPS’24, 2024

    2024

  18. [26]

    Y . Hu, X. Liu, and S. L. Y . Yu. Cascaded algorithm selection with extreme-region UCB bandit. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 44(10):6782–6794, 2021

    2021

  19. [27]

    Kingma and J

    D. Kingma and J. Ba. Adam: A method for stochastic optimization. In Proc. of ICLR’15, 2015

    2015

  20. [28]

    Komer, J

    B. Komer, J. Bergstra, and C. Eliasmith. Hyperopt-sklearn: Automatic hyperparameter configuration for scikit-learn. In ICML Workshop on AutoML, 2014

    2014

  21. [29]

    Kotthoff, C

    L. Kotthoff, C. Thornton, H. H. Hoos, F. Hutter, and K. Leyton-Brown. Auto-WEKA 2.0: Automatic model selection and hyperparameter op- timization in WEKA. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 18(25): 1–5, 2017

    2017

  22. [30]

    Kveton, B

    B. Kveton, B. Oreshkin, Y . Park, A. A. Deshmukh, and R. Song. Online posterior sampling with a diffusion prior. InProc. of NeurIPS’24, 2024

    2024

  23. [31]

    Lattimore and C

    T. Lattimore and C. Szepesvári. Bandit Algorithms. Cambridge Univer- sity Press, 2020

    2020

  24. [32]

    E. H. Lee, V . Perrone, C. Archambeau, and M. Seeger. Cost-aware bayesian optimization. In Proc. of UAI’20, 2020

    2020

  25. [33]

    J. Lee, A. Xie, A. Pacchiano, Y . Chandak, C. Finn, O. Nachum, and E. Brunskill. Supervised pretraining can learn in-context reinforcement learning. In Proc. of NeurIPS’23, 2023

    2023

  26. [34]

    Y . Li, J. Jiang, J. Gao, Y . Shao, C. Zhang, and B. Cui. Efficient auto- matic CASH via rising bandits. In Proc. of AAAI’20, pages 4763–4771, 2020

    2020

  27. [35]

    L. Lin, Y . Bai, and S. Mei. Transformers as decision makers: Provable in-context reinforcement learning via supervised pretraining. In Proc. of ICLR’24, 2024

    2024

  28. [36]

    Y . Liu, B. Van Roy, and K. Xu. Nonstationary bandit learning via pre- dictive sampling. In Proc. of AISTATS’23, 2023

    2023

  29. [37]

    Loshchilov and F

    I. Loshchilov and F. Hutter. SGDR: Stochastic gradient descent with warm restarts. In Proc. of ICLR’17, 2017

    2017

  30. [38]

    Müller, N

    S. Müller, N. Hollmann, S. Arango, J. Grabocka, and F. Hutter. Trans- formers can do Bayesian inference. In Proc. of ICLR’22, 2022

    2022

  31. [39]

    S. G. Müller, M. Feurer, N. Hollmann, and F. Hutter. PFNs4BO: In- context learning for bayesian optimization. In Proc. of ICML’23, 2023

    2023

  32. [40]

    Nagler, L

    T. Nagler, L. Schneider, B. Bischl, and M. Feurer. Reshuffling resam- pling splits can improve generalization of hyperparameter optimization. 2024

    2024

  33. [41]

    Nishihara, D

    R. Nishihara, D. Lopez-Paz, and L. Bottou. No regret bound for extreme bandits. In Proc. of AISTATS’16, 2016

    2016

  34. [42]

    Pfisterer, L

    F. Pfisterer, L. Schneider, J. Moosbauer, M. Binder, and B. Bischl. Y AHPO Gym – an efficient multi-objective multi-fidelity benchmark for hyperparameter optimization. In Proc. of AutoML Conf’22. PMLR, 2022

    2022

  35. [43]

    M. Phan, Y . Abbasi Yadkori, and J. Domke. Thompson sampling and approximate inference. In Proc. of NeurIPS’19, 2019

    2019

  36. [44]

    Prokhorenkova, G

    L. Prokhorenkova, G. Gusev, A. V orobev, A. Dorogush, and A. Gulin. Catboost: Unbiased boosting with categorical features. In Proc. of NeurIPS’18, page 6639–6649, 2018

    2018

  37. [45]

    Pushak and H

    Y . Pushak and H. Hoos. Automl loss landscapes. ACM Transactions on Evolutionary Learning and Optimization, 2(3):1–30, 2022

    2022

  38. [46]

    Russo and B

    D. Russo and B. Van Roy. Learning to optimize via posterior sampling. Mathematics of Operations Research, 39(4):1221–1243, 2014

    2014

  39. [47]

    Salinas and N

    D. Salinas and N. Erickson. TabRepo: A large scale repository of tabular model evaluations and its AutoML applications. In Proc. of AutoML Conf’24. PMLR, 2024

    2024

  40. [48]

    C. Shen, X. Zhang, W. Wei, and J. Xu. Hyperbandit: Contextual ban- dit with hypernewtork for time-varying user preferences in streaming recommendation. In Proc. of CIKM’23, 2023

    2023

  41. [49]

    Snoek, H

    J. Snoek, H. Larochelle, and R. P. Adams. Practical Bayesian optimiza- tion of machine learning algorithms. In Proc. of NeurIPS’12, 2012

    2012

  42. [50]

    W. R. Thompson. On the likelihood that one unknown probability ex- ceeds another in view of the evidence of two samples. Biometrika, 25 (3-4):285–294, 1933

    1933

  43. [51]

    Thornton, F

    C. Thornton, F. Hutter, H. Hoos, and K. Leyton-Brown. Auto-WEKA: combined selection and Hyperparameter Optimization of classification algorithms. In Proc. of KDD’13, pages 847–855, 2013

    2013

  44. [52]

    van den Nieuwenhuijzen, C

    M. van den Nieuwenhuijzen, C. Doerr, J. N. van Rijn, and H. Gouk. Se- lecting pre-trained models for transfer learning with data-centric meta- features. In AutoML Conference 2024 (Workshop Track), 2024

    2024

  45. [53]

    Vaswani, N

    A. Vaswani, N. Shazeer, N. Parmar, J. Uszkoreit, L. Jones, A. Gomez, L. Kaiser, and I. Polosukhin. Attention is all you need. In Proc. of NeurIPS’17. Curran Associates, Inc., 2017

    2017

  46. [54]

    C. Wang, Q. Wu, M. Weimer, and E. Zhu. Flaml: A fast and lightweight automl library. In Proc. of MLSys’21, pages 434–447, 2021

    2021

  47. [55]

    Y . Xia, H. Li, T. Qin, N. Yu, and T.-Y . Liu. Thompson sampling for budgeted multi-armed bandits. In Proc. of IJCAI’15, 2015

    2015

  48. [56]

    Y . Xia, H. Li, T. Qin, N. Yu, and T.-Y . Liu. Thompson sampling for budgeted multi-armed bandits. arXiv preprint arXiv:1505.00146, 2015

    2015 arXiv

  49. [57]

    Y . Xia, W. Ding, X.-D. Zhang, N. Yu, and T. Qin. Budgeted bandit problems with continuous random costs. In Proc. of ACML’16, 2016

    2016

  50. [58]

    Q. Xie, R. Astudillo, P. Frazier, Z. Scully, and A. Terenin. Cost-aware bayesian optimization via the pandora’s box gittins index. In Proc. of NeurIPS’24, 2024

    2024

  51. [59]

    B. Zhu, X. Shi, N. Erickson, M. Li, G. Karypis, and M. Shoaran. Xtab: Cross-table pretraining for tabular transformers. In Proc. of ICML’23, 2023. Table of Contents for the Appendices • Appendix A: Preliminaries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....

    2023

  52. [60]

    Draw U ∼ Uniform(0, 1)

  53. [61]

    Convergence Analysis

    Solve Fmax(x) = U: [F (x)]t = U =⇒ F (x) = U 1/t =⇒ x = F −1(U 1/t) Thus, max(r1:t) = F −1(U 1/t) follows the correct distribution. Convergence Analysis. For the convergence analysis, let Fn(x) denote the empirical CDF estimated from n i.i.d. samples. Using the Dvoretzky-Kiefe...

    2000

Pith tools

Reviewed May 18, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.