4.7 Article

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

期刊

MACHINE LEARNING
卷 107, 期 1, 页码 79-108

出版社

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

关键词

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

资金

  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]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

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.

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

4.7
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