Cited by 1,359Machine Learning and Data ClassificationAdvanced Bandit Algorithms ResearchEvolutionary Algorithms and Applications

Auto-WEKA: combined selection and hyperparameter optimization of classification algorithms

Thornton, Chris, Hutter, Frank, Hoos, Holger H., Leyton-Brown, Kevin·2013·Proceedings of the 19th ACM SIGKDD international conference on Knowledge discovery and data mining

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

Crossref · 10.1145/2487575.2487629

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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