4.5 Article

Structure-based hyperparameter selection with Bayesian optimization in multidimensional scaling

期刊

STATISTICS AND COMPUTING
卷 33, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11222-022-10197-w

关键词

Exploratory data analysis; Data visualization; Manifold learning; Nonlinear dimension reduction; Ordination

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this paper, the authors introduce the structure optimized proximity scaling (STOPS) framework for hyperparameter selection in parametrized multidimensional scaling and extensions (proximity scaling; PS). By combining c-structuredness indices with the PS badness-of-fit measure, a multi-objective scalarization approach called Stoploss objective is proposed. A profile-type algorithm is suggested for the computational implementation, and Bayesian optimization with treed Gaussian processes is recommended for outer hyperparameter optimization. The STOPS framework is demonstrated with three data examples.
We introduce the structure optimized proximity scaling (STOPS) framework for hyperparameter selection in parametrized multidimensional scaling and extensions (proximity scaling; PS). The selection process for hyperparameters is based on the idea that we want the configuration to show a certain structural quality (c-structuredness). A number of structures and how to measure them are discussed. We combine the structural quality by means of c-structuredness indices with the PS badness-of-fit measure in a multi-objective scalarization approach, yielding the Stoploss objective. Computationally we suggest a profile-type algorithm that first solves the PS problem and then uses Stoploss in an outer step to optimize over the hyperparameters. Bayesian optimization with treed Gaussian processes as a an apt and efficient strategy for carrying out the outer optimization is recommended. This way, hyperparameter tuning for many instances of PS is covered in a single conceptual framework. We illustrate the use of the STOPS framework with three data examples.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据