Auto-WEKA: combined selection and hyperparameter optimization of classification algorithms
Abstract
Many different machine learning algorithms exist; taking into account each algorithm's hyperparameters, there is a staggeringly large number of possible alternatives overall. We consider the problem of simultaneously selecting a learning algorithm and setting its hyperparameters, going beyond previous work that attacks these issues separately. We show that this problem can be addressed by a fully automated approach, leveraging recent innovations in Bayesian optimization. Specifically, we consider a wide range of feature selection techniques (combining 3 search and 8 evaluator methods) and all classification approaches implemented in WEKA's standard distribution, spanning 2 ensemble methods, 10 meta-methods, 27 base classifiers, and hyperparameter settings for each classifier. On each of 21 popular datasets from the UCI repository, the KDD Cup 09, variants of the MNIST dataset and CIFAR-10, we show classification performance often much better than using standard selection and hyperparameter optimization methods. We hope that our approach will help non-expert users to more effectively identify machine learning algorithms and hyperparameter settings appropriate to their applications, and hence to achieve improved performance.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
AutoGOAL has been evaluated and compared to Auto-Weka, TPOT, Auto-Sklearn, and ML-Plan.
“AutoGOAL has been evaluated in different domains and compared to other AutoML tools, including Auto-Weka (Thornton et al., 2013), TPOT (Olson and Moore, 2016), Auto-Sklearn (Feurer et al., 2015), and ML-Plan (Mohr et al., 2018), see Table 1.”
From Demo Application for the AutoGOAL Framework (2020) · cites this paper as Thornton et al., 2013
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 36 · Cited by 1,359
- Authors
- Thornton, C., Hutter, F., Hoos, H. H., & Leyton-Brown, K.
- Affiliations
- University of British Columbia (CA)
- University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada
- Venue
- Proceedings of the 19th ACM SIGKDD international conference on Knowledge discovery and data mining
- Publisher
- ACM
- Published
- 2013-08-11
- Pages
- 847-855
- OpenAlex
- W2102539288
- Cited by
- 1,359
- References
- 36
- Citations by year
- 2026: 79 · 2025: 116 · 2024: 107 · 2023: 110 · 2022: 146 · 2021: 188 · 2020: 152 · 2019: 150 · 2018: 107 · 2017: 72 · 2016: 54 · 2015: 47 · 2014: 29 · 2013: 2
- FWCI
- 28.40
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining (KDD) (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Machine Learning and Data Classification
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Advanced Bandit Algorithms Research
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Evolutionary Algorithms and Applications
- Keywords
- algorithm selection, hyperparameter optimization, automated machine learning, Bayesian optimization, feature selection, WEKA, ensemble classifiers, meta-learner
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review