In recent years, an active field of research has developed around automated machine learning (AutoML). Unfortunately, comparing different AutoML systems is hard and often done incorrectly. We introduce an open, ongoing, and extensible benchmark framework which follows best practices and avoids common mistakes. The framework is open-source, uses public datasets and has a website with up-to-date results. We use the framework to conduct a thorough comparison of 4 AutoML systems across 39 datasets and analyze the results.
AutoML serves as the bridge between varying levels of expertise when designing machine learning systems and expedites the data science process. A wide range of techniques is taken to address this, however there does not exist an objective comparison of these techniques. We present a benchmark of current open source AutoML solutions using open source datasets. We test auto-sklearn, TPOT, auto_ml, and H2O's AutoML solution against a compiled set of regression and classification datasets sourced from OpenML and find that auto-sklearn performs the best across classification datasets and TPOT performs the best across regression datasets.
The continuing rise in the number of problems amenable to machine learning solutions, coupled with simultaneous growth in both computing power and variety of machine learning techniques has led to an explosion of interest in automated machine learning (AutoML). This paper presents Ensemble Squared (Ensemble$^2$), a "meta" AutoML system that ensembles at the level of AutoML systems. Ensemble$^2$ exploits the diversity of existing, competing AutoML systems by ensembling the top-performing models simultaneously generated by a set of them. Our work shows that diversity in AutoML systems is sufficient to justify ensembling at the AutoML system level. In demonstrating this, we also establish a new state of the art AutoML result on the OpenML classification challenge.
--There has been considerable growth and interest in industrial applications of machine learning (ML) in recent years. ML engineers, as a consequence, are in high demand across the industry, yet improving the efficiency of ML engineers remains a fundamental challenge. Automated machine learning (AutoML) has emerged as a way to save time and effort on repetitive tasks in ML pipelines, such as data pre-processing, feature engineering, model selection, hyperparameter optimization, and prediction result analysis. In this paper, we investigate the current state of AutoML tools aiming to automate these tasks. We conduct various evaluations of the tools on many datasets, in different data segments, to examine their performance, and compare their advantages and disadvantages on different test cases. Automated Machine Learning (AutoML) promises major productivity boosts for data scientists, ML engineers and ML researchers by reducing repetitive tasks in machine learning pipelines. There are currently a number of different tools and platforms (both open-source and commercially available solutions) that try to automate these tasks. The goal of this paper is to address the following questions: (i) what are the available ML functionalities provided by the tools; (ii) how the tools perform when facing a wide spectrum of real world datasets; (iii) find the tradeoff between optimization speed and accuracy of the results; and (iv) the reproducibility of the results (a.k.a.
We introduce AutoGluon-Tabular, an open-source AutoML framework that requires only a single line of Python to train highly accurate machine learning models on an unprocessed tabular dataset such as a CSV file. Unlike existing AutoML frameworks that primarily focus on model/hyperparameter selection, AutoGluon-Tabular succeeds by ensembling multiple models and stacking them in multiple layers. Experiments reveal that our multi-layer combination of many models offers better use of allocated training time than seeking out the best. A second contribution is an extensive evaluation of public and commercial AutoML platforms including TPOT, H2O, AutoWEKA, auto-sklearn, AutoGluon, and Google AutoML Tables. Tests on a suite of 50 classification and regression tasks from Kaggle and the OpenML AutoML Benchmark reveal that AutoGluon is faster, more robust, and much more accurate. We find that AutoGluon often even outperforms the best-in-hindsight combination of all of its competitors. In two popular Kaggle competitions, AutoGluon beat 99% of the participating data scientists after merely 4h of training on the raw data.