4.8 Article

AutoML for Multi-Label Classification: Overview and Empirical Evaluation

Journal

Publisher

IEEE COMPUTER SOC
DOI: 10.1109/TPAMI.2021.3051276

Keywords

Tools; Pipelines; Machine learning; Loss measurement; Search problems; Complexity theory; Training; Automated machine learning; multi-label classification; hierarchical planning; Bayesian optimization

Funding

  1. German Research Foundation (DFG) within the Collaborative Research Center On-The-Fly Computing [SFB 901/3, 160364472]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Automated machine learning (AutoML) enables the automatic construction and customization of machine learning algorithms for supervised learning tasks, showing impressive results in the realm of single-label classification (SLC). When extending AutoML approaches to multi-label classification (MLC), the complexity of the search space increases and requires more efficient optimizers to handle the higher complexity.
Automated machine learning (AutoML) supports the algorithmic construction and data-specific customization of machine learning pipelines, including the selection, combination, and parametrization of machine learning algorithms as main constituents. Generally speaking, AutoML approaches comprise two major components: a search space model and an optimizer for traversing the space. Recent approaches have shown impressive results in the realm of supervised learning, most notably (single-label) classification (SLC). Moreover, first attempts at extending these approaches towards multi-label classification (MLC) have been made. While the space of candidate pipelines is already huge in SLC, the complexity of the search space is raised to an even higher power in MLC. One may wonder, therefore, whether and to what extent optimizers established for SLC can scale to this increased complexity, and how they compare to each other. This paper makes the following contributions: First, we survey existing approaches to AutoML for MLC. Second, we augment these approaches with optimizers not previously tried for MLC. Third, we propose a benchmarking framework that supports a fair and systematic comparison. Fourth, we conduct an extensive experimental study, evaluating the methods on a suite of MLC problems. We find a grammar-based best-first search to compare favorably to other optimizers.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available