The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
PMLB: a large benchmark suite for machine learning evaluation and comparison
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: The selection, development, or comparison of machine learning methods in data mining can be a difficult task based on the target problem and goals of a particular study. Numerous publicly available real-world and simulated benchmark datasets have emerged from different sources, but their organization and adoption as standards have been inconsistent. As such, selecting and curating specific benchmarks remains an unnecessary burden on machine learning practitioners and data scientists. RESULTS: The present study introduces an accessible, curated, and developing public benchmark resource to facilitate identification of the strengths and weaknesses of different machine learning methodologies. We compare meta-features among the current set of benchmark datasets in this resource to characterize the diversity of available data. Finally, we apply a number of established machine learning methods to the entire benchmark suite and analyze how datasets and algorithms cluster in terms of performance. From this study, we find that existing benchmarks lack the diversity to properly benchmark machine learning algorithms, and there are several gaps in benchmarking problems that still need to be considered. CONCLUSIONS: This work represents another important step towards understanding the limitations of popular benchmarking suites and developing a resource that connects existing benchmarking standards to more diverse and efficient standards in the future.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
The Elements of Statistical Learning
Hastie, T., Tibshirani, R., & Friedman, J. (2009) · Springer Series in Statistics · doi:10.1007/978-0-387-84858-7 · Cited by 25,970
Noise-tolerant learning, the parity problem, and the statistical query model
Blum, A., Kalai, A., & Wasserman, H. (2003) · Journal of the ACM · doi:10.1145/792538.792543 · Cited by 598
Creating and benchmarking a new dataset for physical activity monitoring
Reiss, A., & Stricker, D. (2012) · Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on PErvasive Technologies Related to Assistive Environments · doi:10.1145/2413097.2413148 · Cited by 295
Open issues in genetic programming
O’Neill, M., Vanneschi, L., Gustafson, S., & Banzhaf, W. (2010) · Genetic Programming and Evolvable Machines · doi:10.1007/s10710-010-9113-2 · Cited by 224
Cited by
Relief-based feature selection: Introduction and review
Urbanowicz, R. J., Meeker, M., La Cava, W., Olson, R. S., & Moore, J. H. (2018) · Journal of Biomedical Informatics · doi:10.1016/j.jbi.2018.07.014 · Cited by 1,311
Self-citationMachine learning and integrative analysis of biomedical big data
Mirza, B., Wang, W., Wang, J., Choi, H., Chung, N. C., & Ping, P. (2019) · Genes · doi:10.3390/genes10020087 · Cited by 380
Data-driven advice for applying machine learning to bioinformatics problems
Olson, R. S., Cava, W. L., Mustahsan, Z., Varik, A., & Moore, J. H. (2018) · Biocomputing 2018 · doi:10.1142/9789813235533_0018 · Cited by 287
Self-citationVerkhivker, G. M., Agajanian, S., Hu, G., & Tao, P. (2020) · Frontiers in Molecular Biosciences · doi:10.3389/fmolb.2020.00136 · Cited by 76
iMLBench: A Machine Learning Benchmark Suite for CPU-GPU Integrated Architectures
Zhang, C., Zhang, F., Guo, X., He, B., Zhang, X., & Du, X. (2021) · IEEE Transactions on Parallel and Distributed Systems · doi:10.1109/tpds.2020.3046870 · Cited by 27
Villanueva Zacarias, A. G., Reimann, P., & Mitschang, B. (2018) · Procedia CIRP · doi:10.1016/j.procir.2018.03.215 · Cited by 26
Metadata
- Authors
- Olson, R. S., La Cava, W., Orzechowski, P., Urbanowicz, R. J., & Moore, J. H.
- Venue
- BioData Mining
- Published
- 2017-12
- Volume
- 10
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 36-36
- ISSN
- 1756-0381 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2593649365
- Cited by
- 365
- References
- 4
- FWCI
- 16.07
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
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
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.