Quickly Tuning Foundation Models for Image Segmentation

Breenda Das; Frank Hutter; Lennart Purucker; Timur Carstensen

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 25 references

Quickly Tuning Foundation Models for Image Segmentation

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read QTT-SEG uses meta-learned performance and cost predictors to fine-tune SAM for image segmentation, and the paper reports that this automated tuning consistently beats SAM's zero-shot performance across 13 datasets, reaching 97.3% of its fin

desk verdict The AutoGluon comparison is compromised by oracle bounding-box prompts from ground-truth masks, so the headline numbers are not apples-to-apples; the meta-learning extension itself is a credible engineering contribution that deserves referee attention once the evaluation protocol is fixed. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.17283 v1 pith:FIWRFV4X submitted 2025-08-24 cs.CV cs.LG

Breenda Das , Lennart Purucker , Timur Carstensen , Frank Hutter This is my paper

classification cs.CVcs.LG

keywords meta-learninghyperparameteroptimizationSAMfine-tuningsemanticsegmentationAutoMLBayesianLoRAtransferlearning

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 is trying to establish that adapting a segmentation foundation model to a specialized dataset can be automated and accelerated with meta-learning, removing the need for a human expert to tune hyperparameters by hand. It introduces QTT-SEG, a configuration-search method that predicts both accuracy and training cost for candidate SAM fine-tuning settings, and it reports that this predictor-guided search consistently improves over SAM's zero-shot performance on 13 datasets. Across all datasets, average IoU rises 76.47% over zero-shot at a 180-second budget, and QTT-SEG reaches 97.3% of its final accuracy within 60 seconds. The reason to care: if true, deploying SAM to a new medical, agricultural, material-science, or geospatial segmentation problem becomes a one-to-three-minute automated job on a single GPU rather than a manual, expert-driven tuning process.

What carries the argument

The carrier of the argument is the pair of meta-learned predictors inside Quick-Tune: a probabilistic performance predictor (a deep-kernel Gaussian process) and a cost predictor (an MLP), trained on learning curves and wall-clock costs from 2,000 configuration–dataset pairs. Together they implement Multi-fidelity Expected Improvement, an acquisition function that scores a candidate configuration by predicted accuracy per unit of predicted training time, letting the optimizer compare thousands of configurations without fine-tuning each one fully. The search space it navigates is defined by LoRA application, rank, and dropout; AdamW learning rate; binary flips and rotations; BCE+Dice loss; and

What would settle it

Run QTT-SEG on a segmentation dataset drawn from a domain absent from the 13 benchmark datasets (e.g., satellite imagery, histopathology, or aerial crops) and compare its selected configurations against random sampling from the same 200-million-configuration search space under equal time budgets. If mean IoU does not exceed random search, the meta-learned predictors are not transferring. A cheaper internal test: disable the meta-learned predictors and replace the acquisition function with random sampling on the current 8 binary datasets; if the average-IoU gain over zero-shot collapses, the re

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

QTT-SEG extends the Quick-Tune hyperparameter optimizer to semantic segmentation. In a pre-training phase it samples 2,000 configuration–dataset pairs across eight binary and five multiclass datasets, fine-tunes each for 10 epochs, and records per-epoch IoU and training cost. Those traces train a deep-kernel Gaussian process performance predictor and an MLP cost predictor, keyed to four dataset meta-features (number of classes, number of channels, number of samples, default resolution). At deployment on a new dataset, the predictors score configurations from a search space of over 200 million combinations — LoRA rank and placement, learning rate, augmentation, loss, and scheduler choices — a

Load-bearing premise

The meta-learned performance and cost predictors, trained only on the 13 curated segmentation datasets and four numeric meta-features, transfer to any new segmentation dataset; otherwise QTT-SEG reduces to random configuration sampling and loses its core automation advantage.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

A new segmentation dataset can be handled by running QTT-SEG for one to three minutes on a single GPU, with no manual expert tuning; the predictor replaces the usual trial-and-error search.
SAM fine-tuning under tight budgets becomes a practical recipe for medical imaging and other specialized domains where the zero-shot model alone is insufficient.
The same meta-learned predictor mechanism transfers from classification and language fine-tuning to segmentation, supporting the view that Quick-Tune is a task-agnostic AutoML layer for foundation models.
On multiclass datasets the average gain over zero-shot is 85.28% at 180 seconds, so the method is not limited to binary foreground/background problems.

Reading between the lines

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

Beyond the paper: if transfer holds outside the 13 benchmark datasets, the obvious next step is replacing the SAM-specific search space with a module for other foundation backbones; the predictor stack is backbone-agnostic as long as traces can be generated.
Beyond the paper: the four dataset meta-features are very coarse; augmenting them with cheap dataset descriptors such as mask statistics or embedding statistics would likely sharpen transfer and could close the two binary datasets where AutoGluon wins.
Beyond the paper: the paper's held-out evaluation excludes the target dataset's traces but samples target datasets from the same benchmark pool, so the cleanest test of the transfer claim is a deployment study on a genuinely external domain; until then the evidence shows transfer within this curated family.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

One thing to know: the headline comparison to AutoGluon is not apples-to-apples, because QTT-SEG and the zero-shot SAM baseline are prompted with bounding boxes extracted from the ground-truth masks (with jitter), while AutoGluon gets only the raw images. That makes the "6 of 8 binary datasets" claim about tuning superiority unreliable, and the real-world automation pitch is weak because at deployment you won't have those boxes.

That said, the paper does something real: it takes the Quick-Tune meta-learning framework, builds a 200M-configuration search space for SAM fine-tuning with LoRA and schedulers, and evaluates it with a proper leave-one-dataset-out protocol on 13 benchmarks. The meta-training on 12 datasets and test on the 13th is honest. The result that QTT-SEG beats zero-shot SAM on every dataset under box-prompting is credible, and the 60-second-to-97% accuracy remark is a nice practical datapoint for anyone doing rapid adaptation.

The soft spots are mostly about the evaluation envelope. The missing default-SAM-fine-tuning baseline means we can't isolate whether meta-learning helps beyond just running a standard tuning loop with the same search space. Using 100 images per dataset and no significance tests is borderline for the average IoU comparisons across seeds. The four meta-features (num classes, channels, samples, resolution) are thin; transferred predictors could easily be near-random on a genuinely novel domain, and the paper doesn't test that. The "robust to local optima" claim is speculative, though the authors do hedge it. Also, the checklist claims limitations are described, but there is no limitations section.

The oracle-box issue is the load-bearing one. If the evaluation protocol uses ground-truth boxes at test time for all SAM runs, then the absolute IoU numbers are inflated relative to any real deployment, and the AutoGluon comparison is unfair. The fix is straightforward: either evaluate SAM variants with a box proposal model or without boxes, and rerun AutoGluon under the same prompt conditions if possible. Until that's done, I'd treat the numbers as suggestive, not definitive.

For a workshop paper, this is a solid start with a clear evaluation flaw. I'd send it to peer review because the method is concrete, the code is promised, and the flaw is fixable. But I wouldn't cite the results yet.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes QTT-SEG, an AutoML/meta-learning system for rapidly fine-tuning the Segment Anything Model (SAM) for image segmentation under tight time budgets (60–180 s). It extends Quick-Tune by pre-training performance and cost predictors on dataset meta-features and learning curves, then uses these predictors to guide Bayesian optimization over a search space of LoRA, augmentation, optimizer, and learning-rate scheduler choices. The method is evaluated on 8 binary and 5 multiclass segmentation datasets, with leave-one-dataset-out meta-training, and is compared against zero-shot SAM and AutoGluon Multimodal. The authors report consistent improvements over zero-shot SAM and superior average performance over AutoGluon on most binary tasks.

Significance. If the central claims are valid, this is a useful contribution: it demonstrates a meta-learning-driven AutoML pipeline for SAM adaptation that works within minutes on a single GPU, with a leave-one-dataset-out evaluation protocol and open-source code. The paper also highlights a practically important problem—fast, automated adaptation of foundation models to specialized domains. The empirical protocol is largely reproducible in spirit, and the 13-dataset evaluation is a reasonable start. However, the comparison against AutoGluon is currently undermined by an asymmetric evaluation protocol in which SAM-based methods receive ground-truth box prompts, and the generalization claim is stronger than the evidence from a same-pool leave-one-out evaluation. These issues must be resolved before the headline performance claims can be accepted.

major comments (3)

[§3, Experimental Setup] The paper states: 'We prompt SAM with bounding boxes extracted from ground truth masks, adding random perturbations to simulate noisy prompts.' This protocol applies to all SAM runs, including the zero-shot baseline and QTT-SEG, while AutoGluon Multimodal receives only images. The comparison in Table 1 is therefore not a like-for-like AutoML comparison: QTT-SEG and zero-shot SAM are given oracle box information at inference, whereas AutoGluon must predict masks unconditionally. The claim that QTT-SEG 'surpasses AutoGluon Multimodal' on 6 of 8 binary datasets is not supported as a fair comparison, and the real-world automation claim is overstated because a deployed system would not have ground-truth boxes. Please either evaluate all methods with the same automatic prompt/box proposal mechanism (e.g., SAM's automatic mask generator or a detector-based box proposal), or clearly separate 'bo
[§4, Experimental Setup] The leave-one-dataset-out meta-training is conducted within a pool of 13 curated datasets, and the meta-features are only four scalar statistics (num classes, num channels, num samples, default resolution). The phrase 'hence enabling generalization to unseen data' is therefore stronger than the evidence. The held-out datasets come from the same benchmark family as the meta-training data, so the transfer claim is not tested on a genuinely external or differently distributed dataset. Please either add an external dataset experiment, or explicitly scope the claim to 'unseen datasets from the same benchmark distribution' and discuss the limitations of the current meta-feature set for broader transfer.
[§5, Submission Checklist] The checklist states 'Did you describe the limitations of your work? [Yes]' and 'Did you run ablation studies... [Yes]', but the manuscript contains no limitations section and no ablation study reporting the contribution of the meta-learned predictors, cost model, or search-space components. This is a reporting inconsistency that should be corrected. If the authors consider the checklist responses to be aspirational, they should revise them; if limitations and ablations exist, they should be included in the paper.

minor comments (5)

[Table 1/2] The table formatting is hard to read: values such as '0.4950.006' should use an explicit subscript or separator, and the column headers under each time budget ('AG QTT-SEG') are ambiguous. Please clarify which columns correspond to which method.
[§4, Results] The claim that QTT-SEG 'consistently outperforms zero-shot baselines across all datasets' would be stronger with a significance test or confidence intervals across the five seeds. The current standard deviations are reported but no statistical comparison is provided; the checklist item for significance is marked 'N/A', which seems inconsistent with such a claim.
[§1/Abstract] The code link in the full text appears as 'Link' rather than the actual URL. Please include the complete URL.
[Appendix A] The text references 'Table Table 3' and elsewhere 'Table Table 2'; these should be corrected to 'Table 3' and 'Table 2'.
[§4, Experimental Setup] The description of the time budget and configuration count (128 configurations) is clear, but the relationship between the 2,000 meta-training configuration–dataset pairs and the 128 configurations used per target dataset is not fully specified. Please clarify whether the 128 is per seed and how the time budget is allocated across epochs and configurations.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the meta-learning evaluation is a genuine leave-one-out prediction, and no claim reduces to its input by construction.

full rationale

I walked the paper's claimed derivation chain. QTT-SEG is an empirical AutoML system, not a theorem derivation. The core mechanism is that performance/cost predictors are pre-trained on configuration--dataset traces, then used to select configurations for a held-out dataset. Section 4 states: 'For each run, we exclude the target dataset's learning curves from metadata, ensuring the predictors are trained only on other datasets.' That is a fair leave-one-out protocol, and the reported IoU numbers are measured after tuning, not read off the predictor. No equation defines the reported IoU as the predictor's own output; no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The search-space and predictor steps are external to the evaluated metric. Self-citations to Quick-Tune (Arango et al., 2023) and its language-domain extension (Strangmann et al., 2024) are normal prior-work citations and are not used to forbid alternatives or to justify the empirical results; the experimental comparison carries the claims. Two non-circularity concerns are worth flagging: (1) Section 3 says 'We prompt SAM with bounding boxes extracted from ground truth masks, adding random perturbations to simulate noisy prompts.' Because this protocol applies to SAM zero-shot and QTT-SEG but not to AutoGluon MultiModal, the 'surpasses AutoGluon' claim is an evaluation-validity threat, not a circular-derivation threat. (2) The checklist answers 'Did you describe the limitations of your work? [Yes]' but no limitations section appears in the manuscript; this is a reporting/omission issue, not circularity. Neither issue makes the derivation equivalent to its inputs, so the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The method uses conventional components (SAM, LoRA, Bayesian optimization, learning-curve predictors). It contributes a new configuration space and a meta-dataset, but no new entity is introduced beyond the QTT-SEG system itself.

free parameters (3)

Configuration search space choices = e.g., LoRA rank {4,8,16}, learning rate over 27 grid values, scheduler choice
These hyperparameters and their ranges are hand-designed, but they represent the search space, not fitted values. They are inputs to the optimization and not fitted to the test sets. I do not count them as free parameters because they are not fitted constants.
Meta-features (Num Classes, Num Channels, Num Samples, Default Resolution) = value depends on each dataset at run time
These are descriptive inputs, not free parameters; however, they are the only information used to transfer to new datasets.
Number of epochs for meta-training (10) = 10 epochs
Chosen by hand as the budget for generating meta-data, but this is an experimental design choice, not a fitted constant of the resulting model.

assumptions (3)

domain assumption SAM (SAM 2) is a strong zero-shot segmentation model that can be fine-tuned with LoRA
The method centers on adapting SAM (Ravi et al., 2024), and the paper does not motivate this choice beyond the abstract and related work.
domain assumption Performance is measured by IoU.
The paper uses IoU as the metric in all tables and figures, without justification.
domain assumption The 13 curated datasets form a learnable meta-distribution.
The central transfer claim relies on the assumption that performance on new datasets can be predicted from these 13 datasets using only 4 meta-features. The paper presents no evidence of learnability beyond the held-one-out results on the same 13 datasets.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Quickly Tuning Foundation Models for Image Segmentation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/FIWRFV4X

@misc{pith2026250817283,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Quickly Tuning Foundation Models for Image Segmentation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/FIWRFV4X}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.17283}
}

read the original abstract

Foundation models like SAM (Segment Anything Model) exhibit strong zero-shot image segmentation performance, but often fall short on domain-specific tasks. Fine-tuning these models typically requires significant manual effort and domain expertise. In this work, we introduce QTT-SEG, a meta-learning-driven approach for automating and accelerating the fine-tuning of SAM for image segmentation. Built on the Quick-Tune hyperparameter optimization framework, QTT-SEG predicts high-performing configurations using meta-learned cost and performance models, efficiently navigating a search space of over 200 million possibilities. We evaluate QTT-SEG on eight binary and five multiclass segmentation datasets under tight time constraints. Our results show that QTT-SEG consistently improves upon SAM's zero-shot performance and surpasses AutoGluon Multimodal, a strong AutoML baseline, on most binary tasks within three minutes. On multiclass datasets, QTT-SEG delivers consistent gains as well. These findings highlight the promise of meta-learning in automating model adaptation for specialized segmentation tasks. Code available at: https://github.com/ds-brx/QTT-SEG/

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2508.17283 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** Overview of QTT-SEG: It first pre-trains performance and cost predictors using dataset meta-features, performance and cost traces from multiple configurations. These predictors are then used to guide efficient pipeline selection and fine-tuning on new datasets. 60 120 180 TIME BUDGET (s) 0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 AVG IOU Zero-shot AutoGluon QTT-SEG (a) Binary Segmentation 60 120 180 TIME BUDGET (s) 0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 AVG… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Performance over Time Budgets: Mean IoU (bars) and standard deviation (error bars) of Zero-shot, AG(Autogluon-Multimodal), and QTT-SEG across all binary and multiclass segmentation tasks. QTT-SEG shows consistent gains with longer budgets. Note: AG is evaluated only on binary tasks due to missing out-of-the-box multiclass support. been extended to LLMs (Strangmann et al., 2024) and released as an open-source tool Qu… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Comparison of segmentation results across five datasets: polyp, leaf, eyes, chest, golf at 60 seconds. The figure highlights the performance consistency of QTT-SEG across diverse domains. All labels are white and background is black. across all datasets. On average, QTT-SEG achieves a 76.47% improvement in IoU over zero-shot baselines across all datasets at 180 seconds. (ii) QTT-SEG is a compute-efficient alternativ… view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (2 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Comparison of segmentation results across Multiclass datasets: QTT-SEG demonstrates efficient domain generalization under 60 seconds of tuning. All labels are white and the background is black. Order top to bottom: US, human_parsing, golf, terrain, cholec. 11 [PITH_FU…

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Comparison of segmentation results across binary datasets: QTT-SEG demonstrates efficient domain generalization under 60 seconds of tuning. All labels are white and the background is black. Order from top to bottom: polyp, lesion, leaf, covid, eyes, fiber, cardiac, ch…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

25 extracted references · 20 canonical work pages

[1]

Quick-Tune: Quickly Learning Which Pretrained Model to Finetune and How

Arango, S. P., Ferreira, F., Kadra, A., Hutter, F., and Grabocka, J. (2023). Quick-tune: Quickly learning which pretrained model to finetune and how. arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.03828

work page Pith review arXiv 2023
[2]

E., and Gabbouj, M

Degerli, A., Kiranyaz, S., Chowdhury, M. E., and Gabbouj, M. (2022). Osegnet: Operational segmentation network for covid-19 detection using chest x-ray images. In 2022 IEEE International Conference on Image Processing (ICIP) , pages 2306--2310. IEEE

work page 2022
[3]

J., Shen, Y., Wallis, P., Allen-Zhu, Z., Li, Y., Wang, S., Wang, L., Chen, W., et al

Hu, E. J., Shen, Y., Wallis, P., Allen-Zhu, Z., Li, Y., Wang, S., Wang, L., Chen, W., et al. (2022). Lora: Low-rank adaptation of large language models. ICLR , 1(2):3

work page 2022
[4]

u cke, J., and Schmidt-Thieme, L. (2015). Beyond manual tuning of hyperparameters. KI-K \

Hutter, F., L \"u cke, J., and Schmidt-Thieme, L. (2015). Beyond manual tuning of hyperparameters. KI-K \"u nstliche Intelligenz , 29:329--337

work page 2015
[5]

Jin, H., Song, Q., and Hu, X. (2019). Auto-keras: An efficient neural architecture search system. In Proceedings of the 25th ACM SIGKDD international conference on knowledge discovery & data mining , pages 1946--1956

work page 2019
[6]

Kato, S., Mitsuoka, H., and Hotta, K. (2024). Generalized sam: Efficient fine-tuning of sam for variable input image sizes. arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.12406

work page Pith review arXiv 2024
[7]

Kingma, D. P. and Ba, J. (2014). Adam: A method for stochastic optimization. arXiv preprint arXiv:1412.6980

arXiv 2014
[8]

and Hutter, F

Loshchilov, I. and Hutter, F. (2016). Sgdr: Stochastic gradient descent with warm restarts. arXiv preprint arXiv:1608.03983

arXiv 2016

Show all 25 references

[9]

Mallik, N., Bergman, E., Hvarfner, C., Stoll, D., Janowski, M., Lindauer, M., Nardi, L., and Hutter, F. (2023). Priorband: Practical hyperparameter optimization in the age of deep learning. In Thirty-seventh Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS 2023)

2023
[10]

O., Maskeli \=u nas, R., and Dama s evi c ius, R

Ogundokun, R. O., Maskeli \=u nas, R., and Dama s evi c ius, R. (2022). Human posture detection using image augmentation and hyperparameter-optimized transfer learning algorithms. Applied Sciences , 12(19):10156

2022
[11]

\"O zt \"u rk, E., Ferreira, F., Jomaa, H., Schmidt-Thieme, L., Grabocka, J., and Hutter, F. (2022). Zero-shot automl with pretrained models. In International Conference on Machine Learning , pages 17138--17155. PMLR

2022
[12]

Paszke, A. (2019). Pytorch: An imperative style, high-performance deep learning library. arXiv preprint arXiv:1912.01703

2019 arXiv
[13]

Peng, Z., Xu, Z., Zeng, Z., Yang, X., and Shen, W. (2024). Sam-parser: fine-tuning sam efficiently by parameter space reconstruction. In Proceedings of the Thirty-Eighth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Thirty-Sixth Conference on Innovative Applications of Artifi...

2024
[14]

Quinton, F., Presles, B., Leclerc, S., Nodari, G., Lopez, O., Chevallier, O., Pellegrinelli, J., Vrigneaud, J.-M., Popoff, R., Meriaudeau, F., et al. (2024). Navigating the nuances: comparative analysis and hyperparameter optimisation of neural architectures on contrast-enhanc...

2024
[15]

P., Kadra, A., Grabocka, J., and Hutter, F

Rapant, I., Purucker, L., Ferreira, F., Arango, S. P., Kadra, A., Grabocka, J., and Hutter, F. (2024). Quick-tune-tool: A practical tool and its user guide for automatically finetuning pretrained models. In AutoML Conference 2024 (Workshop Track)

2024
[16]

Ravi, N., Gabeur, V., Hu, Y.-T., Hu, R., Ryali, C., Ma, T., Khedr, H., R \"a dle, R., Rolland, C., Gustafson, L., et al. (2024). Sam 2: Segment anything in images and videos. arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.00714

2024 arXiv
[17]

N., Hutter, F., and M \"u ller, A

Sharma, A., van Rijn, J. N., Hutter, F., and M \"u ller, A. (2019). Hyperparameter importance for image classification by residual neural networks. In Discovery Science: 22nd International Conference, DS 2019, Split, Croatia, October 28--30, 2019, Proceedings 22 , pages 112--1...

2019
[18]

Smith, L. N. and Topin, N. (2019). Super-convergence: Very fast training of neural networks using large learning rates. In Artificial intelligence and machine learning for multi-domain operations applications , volume 11006, pages 369--386. SPIE

2019
[19]

K., Rapant, I., Ferreira, F., and Hutter, F

Strangmann, T., Purucker, L., Franke, J. K., Rapant, I., Ferreira, F., and Hutter, F. (2024). Transfer learning for finetuning large language models. In Adaptive Foundation Models: Evolving AI for Personalized and Efficient Learning

2024
[20]

H., Li, W., Vercauteren, T., Ourselin, S., and Jorge Cardoso, M

Sudre, C. H., Li, W., Vercauteren, T., Ourselin, S., and Jorge Cardoso, M. (2017). Generalised dice overlap as a deep learning loss function for highly unbalanced segmentations. In Deep Learning in Medical Image Analysis and Multimodal Learning for Clinical Decision Support: T...

2017
[21]

Tang, Z., Fang, H., Zhou, S., Yang, T., Zhong, Z., Hu, T., Kirchhoff, K., and Karypis, G. (2024). Autogluon-multimodal (automm): Supercharging multimodal automl with foundation models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.16233

2024 arXiv
[22]

Wagner, F. (2023). Fiber segmentation dataset

2023
[23]

Wistuba, M., Kadra, A., and Grabocka, J. (2022). Supervising the multi-fidelity race of hyperparameter configurations. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , 35:13470--13484

2022
[24]

Xie, B., Tang, H., Duan, B., Cai, D., and Yan, Y. (2024). Masksam: Towards auto-prompt sam with mask classification for medical image segmentation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.14103

2024 arXiv
[25]

Zimmer, L., Lindauer, M., and Hutter, F. (2021). Auto-pytorch: Multi-fidelity metalearning for efficient and robust autodl. IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence , 43(9):3079--3090

2021

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Quick-Tune: Quickly Learning Which Pretrained Model to Finetune and How

Arango, S. P., Ferreira, F., Kadra, A., Hutter, F., and Grabocka, J. (2023). Quick-tune: Quickly learning which pretrained model to finetune and how. arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.03828

work page Pith review arXiv 2023

[2] [2]

E., and Gabbouj, M

Degerli, A., Kiranyaz, S., Chowdhury, M. E., and Gabbouj, M. (2022). Osegnet: Operational segmentation network for covid-19 detection using chest x-ray images. In 2022 IEEE International Conference on Image Processing (ICIP) , pages 2306--2310. IEEE

work page 2022

[3] [3]

J., Shen, Y., Wallis, P., Allen-Zhu, Z., Li, Y., Wang, S., Wang, L., Chen, W., et al

Hu, E. J., Shen, Y., Wallis, P., Allen-Zhu, Z., Li, Y., Wang, S., Wang, L., Chen, W., et al. (2022). Lora: Low-rank adaptation of large language models. ICLR , 1(2):3

work page 2022

[4] [4]

u cke, J., and Schmidt-Thieme, L. (2015). Beyond manual tuning of hyperparameters. KI-K \

Hutter, F., L \"u cke, J., and Schmidt-Thieme, L. (2015). Beyond manual tuning of hyperparameters. KI-K \"u nstliche Intelligenz , 29:329--337

work page 2015

[5] [5]

Jin, H., Song, Q., and Hu, X. (2019). Auto-keras: An efficient neural architecture search system. In Proceedings of the 25th ACM SIGKDD international conference on knowledge discovery & data mining , pages 1946--1956

work page 2019

[6] [6]

Kato, S., Mitsuoka, H., and Hotta, K. (2024). Generalized sam: Efficient fine-tuning of sam for variable input image sizes. arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.12406

work page Pith review arXiv 2024

[7] [7]

Kingma, D. P. and Ba, J. (2014). Adam: A method for stochastic optimization. arXiv preprint arXiv:1412.6980

arXiv 2014

[8] [8]

and Hutter, F

Loshchilov, I. and Hutter, F. (2016). Sgdr: Stochastic gradient descent with warm restarts. arXiv preprint arXiv:1608.03983

arXiv 2016