4.7 Article

Speeding up algorithm selection using average ranking and active testing by introducing runtime

Journal

MACHINE LEARNING
Volume 107, Issue 1, Pages 79-108

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10994-017-5687-8

Keywords

Algorithm selection; Meta-learning; Ranking of algorithms; Average ranking; Active testing; Loss curves; Mean interval loss

Funding

  1. Federal Government of Nigeria Tertiary Education Trust Fund under the TETFund AST$D Intervention for Kano University of Science and Technology, Wudil, Kano State, Nigeria
  2. FCT/MEC through PIDDAC
  3. ERDF/ON2 [NORTE-07-0124-FEDER-000059]
  4. COMPETE Programme (operational programme for competitiveness)
  5. FCT Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology [FCOMP-01-0124-FEDER-037281]
  6. Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO) [612:001:206]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Algorithm selection methods can be speeded-up substantially by incorporating multi-objective measures that give preference to algorithms that are both promising and fast to evaluate. In this paper, we introduce such a measure, A3R, and incorporate it into two algorithm selection techniques: average ranking and active testing. Average ranking combines algorithm rankings observed on prior datasets to identify the best algorithms for a new dataset. The aim of the second method is to iteratively select algorithms to be tested on the new dataset, learning from each new evaluation to intelligently select the next best candidate. We show how both methods can be upgraded to incorporate a multi-objective measure A3R that combines accuracy and runtime. It is necessary to establish the correct balance between accuracy and runtime, as otherwise time will be wasted by conducting less informative tests. The correct balance can be set by an appropriate parameter setting within function A3R that trades off accuracy and runtime. Our results demonstrate that the upgraded versions of Average Ranking and Active Testing lead to much better mean interval loss values than their accuracy-based counterparts.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available