REVIEW 4 cited by
OpenML: networked science in machine learning
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
Signed reviews
read the original abstract
Many sciences have made significant breakthroughs by adopting online tools that help organize, structure and mine information that is too detailed to be printed in journals. In this paper, we introduce OpenML, a place for machine learning researchers to share and organize data in fine detail, so that they can work more effectively, be more visible, and collaborate with others to tackle harder problems. We discuss how OpenML relates to other examples of networked science and what benefits it brings for machine learning research, individual scientists, as well as students and practitioners.
Forward citations
Cited by 4 Pith papers
-
BOASF: A Unified Framework for Speeding up Automatic Machine Learning via Adaptive Successive Filtering
BOASF combines Bayesian optimization with adaptive successive filtering and softmax resource allocation to speed up model selection and hyperparameter optimization in automatic machine learning.
-
VisTabNet: Adapting Vision Transformers for Tabular Data
A pre-trained image ViT encoder, fed with learned projections of tabular rows, beats tree ensembles and tabular deep learning baselines on average across 23 small datasets.
-
Bag of Tricks for Multimodal AutoML with Image, Text, and Tabular Data
A 22-dataset benchmark compares existing multimodal AutoML tricks, and an automatic ensemble of those tricks achieves the most robust performance.
-
Position: AI Competitions Provide the Gold Standard for Empirical Rigor in GenAI Evaluation
The authors argue that time-bound AI competitions with hidden test data are the gold standard for generative AI evaluation, and that public static benchmarks should be considered contaminated once published.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.