An Extensive Experimental Evaluation of Automated Machine Learning Methods for Recommending Classification Algorithms (Extended Version)
Authors:
Márcio P. Basgalupp,
Rodrigo C. Barros,
Alex G. C. de Sá,
Gisele L. Pappa,
Rafael G. Mantovani,
André C. P. L. F. de Carvalho,
Alex A. Freitas
Abstract:
This paper presents an experimental comparison among four Automated Machine Learning (AutoML) methods for recommending the best classification algorithm for a given input dataset. Three of these methods are based on Evolutionary Algorithms (EAs), and the other is Auto-WEKA, a well-known AutoML method based on the Combined Algorithm Selection and Hyper-parameter optimisation (CASH) approach. The EA…
▽ More
This paper presents an experimental comparison among four Automated Machine Learning (AutoML) methods for recommending the best classification algorithm for a given input dataset. Three of these methods are based on Evolutionary Algorithms (EAs), and the other is Auto-WEKA, a well-known AutoML method based on the Combined Algorithm Selection and Hyper-parameter optimisation (CASH) approach. The EA-based methods build classification algorithms from a single machine learning paradigm: either decision-tree induction, rule induction, or Bayesian network classification. Auto-WEKA combines algorithm selection and hyper-parameter optimisation to recommend classification algorithms from multiple paradigms. We performed controlled experiments where these four AutoML methods were given the same runtime limit for different values of this limit. In general, the difference in predictive accuracy of the three best AutoML methods was not statistically significant. However, the EA evolving decision-tree induction algorithms has the advantage of producing algorithms that generate interpretable classification models and that are more scalable to large datasets, by comparison with many algorithms from other learning paradigms that can be recommended by Auto-WEKA. We also observed that Auto-WEKA has shown meta-overfitting, a form of overfitting at the meta-learning level, rather than at the base-learning level.
△ Less
Submitted 15 September, 2020;
originally announced September 2020.
Generation of Consistent Sets of Multi-Label Classification Rules with a Multi-Objective Evolutionary Algorithm
Authors:
Thiago Zafalon Miranda,
Diorge Brognara Sardinha,
Márcio Porto Basgalupp,
Yaochu **,
Ricardo Cerri
Abstract:
Multi-label classification consists in classifying an instance into two or more classes simultaneously. It is a very challenging task present in many real-world applications, such as classification of biology, image, video, audio, and text. Recently, the interest in interpretable classification models has grown, partially as a consequence of regulations such as the General Data Protection Regulati…
▽ More
Multi-label classification consists in classifying an instance into two or more classes simultaneously. It is a very challenging task present in many real-world applications, such as classification of biology, image, video, audio, and text. Recently, the interest in interpretable classification models has grown, partially as a consequence of regulations such as the General Data Protection Regulation. In this context, we propose a multi-objective evolutionary algorithm that generates multiple rule-based multi-label classification models, allowing users to choose among models that offer different compromises between predictive power and interpretability. An important contribution of this work is that different from most algorithms, which usually generate models based on lists (ordered collections) of rules, our algorithm generates models based on sets (unordered collections) of rules, increasing interpretability. Also, by employing a conflict avoidance algorithm during the rule-creation, every rule within a given model is guaranteed to be consistent with every other rule in the same model. Thus, no conflict resolution strategy is required, evolving simpler models. We conducted experiments on synthetic and real-world datasets and compared our results with state-of-the-art algorithms in terms of predictive performance (F-Score) and interpretability (model size), and demonstrate that our best models had comparable F-Score and smaller model sizes.
△ Less
Submitted 27 March, 2020;
originally announced March 2020.
