学术文献库

The automated machine learning (AutoML) process can require searching through complex configuration spaces of not only machine learning (ML) components and their hyperparameters but also ways of composing them together, i.e. forming ML pipelines. Optimisation efficiency and the model accuracy attainable for a fixed time budget suffer if this pipeline configuration space is excessively large. A key research question is whether it is both possible and practical to preemptively avoid costly evaluations of poorly performing ML pipelines by leveraging their historical performance for various ML tasks, i.e. meta-knowledge. The previous experience comes in the form of classifier/regressor accuracy rankings derived from either (1) a substantial but non-exhaustive number of pipeline evaluations made during historical AutoML runs, i.e. 'opportunistic' meta-knowledge, or (2) comprehensive cross-validated evaluations of classifiers/regressors with default hyperparameters, i.e. 'systematic' meta-knowledge. Numerous experiments with the AutoWeka4MCPS package suggest that (1) opportunistic/systematic meta-knowledge can improve ML outcomes, typically in line with how relevant that meta-knowledge is, and (2) configuration-space culling is optimal when it is neither too conservative nor too radical. However, the utility and impact of meta-knowledge depend critically on numerous facets of its generation and exploitation, warranting extensive analysis; these are often overlooked/underappreciated within AutoML and meta-learning literature. In particular, we observe strong sensitivity to the `challenge' of a dataset, i.e. whether specificity in choosing a predictor leads to significantly better performance. Ultimately, identifying `difficult' datasets, thus defined, is crucial to both generating informative meta-knowledge bases and understanding optimal search-space reduction strategies.