Still loading...

A | B | C | D | E | F | G | H | I | J | K | L | M | N | O | P | Q | R | S | T | U | V | W | X | Y | Z | AA | AB | AC | AD | AE | AF | AG | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

1 | Timestamp | Team name | Team Leader Name | Team Leader Address and phone number | Contact email | Other team members | Team website URL | Title of your contribution | Supplementary on-line material | General description | References | Feature extraction | Normalization | Dimensionality reduction | Base predictor | Loss function | Regularizer | Ensemble method | Model selection and transfer learning | Algorithmic complexity | Qualitative advantages | Comparison with other methods | Availability | Language | Details on software implementation | Platform | Memory | Parallelism | Code URL | Total human effort | Total machine effort | Challenge duration OK? | Final evaluation time (hours) |

2 | 4/25/2014 14:36:59 | Test | Isabelle | 898 werer aoube | toto@gmail.com | aosoasdasfaf | http://chalearn.org | sdfasdf | sdfadsf | asdfasdfasdfasfdafas sdasd | sdas vavads | 4. Trained feature extractors | 1. Feature standardization (for numerical variables), 3. Replacement of the missing values | 3. Clustering (e.g. K-means, hierarchical clustering) | 1. Decision tree, stub, or Random Forest, 4. Naïve Bayes | 1. Hinge loss (like in SVM), 3. Logistic loss or cross-entropy (like in logistic regression) | 3. None | 3. Other ensemble method, 5. Don't know | 1. Leaderboard performance on validation data used for model selection, 3. Virtual leave-one-out (close form estimations of LOO with a single classifier training), 8. Penalty-based method (non-Bayesian) | 2. Quadratic in number of features | 5. Self-contained (does not rely on third party libraries) | afdasfsafafafaf | 3. Freeware or shareware in house software , 5. Off-the-shelf third party freeware or shareware | 4. Python | adsfafasdfad | 1. Windows, 2. Linux | 1. <= 2 GB | 2. Run in parallel different algorithms on different machines | sdfaffafadfsasdfa | 3. 1-2 man weeks | 3. 1-2 weeks | 1. Yes | 33 |

3 | 4/26/2014 9:46:30 | a | c | ef | d | f | b | a | d | b | c | 4. Trained feature extractors | 3. Replacement of the missing values | 2. Non-linear dimensionality reduction (e.g. KPCA, MDS, LLE, Laplacian Eigenmaps, Kohonen maps) | 6. Neural Network (or Deep Learning Method) | 3. Logistic loss or cross-entropy (like in logistic regression) | 2. Two-norm (||w||^2, like in ridge regression and regular SVM) | 2. Bagging (check this if you use Random Forest) | 9. Bi-level optimization | 5. Quadratic in number of training examples | 4. Require little memory | asdf | 5. Off-the-shelf third party freeware or shareware | 2. Java or Weka | sadf | 2. Linux | 2. > 2GB but <= 8 GB | 2. Run in parallel different algorithms on different machines | asdfs | 2. A few man days | 2. A few days | 1. Yes | safsdf |

4 | 4/28/2014 9:21:25 | Team Bennett | bennek@rpi.edu | Testing challenge | 4. Trained feature extractors | 1. Feature standardization (for numerical variables) | 2. Non-linear dimensionality reduction (e.g. KPCA, MDS, LLE, Laplacian Eigenmaps, Kohonen maps) | random guessing | 5. None | 2. Two-norm (||w||^2, like in ridge regression and regular SVM) | 4. None | 6. Other cross-validation method | 5. Quadratic in number of training examples | 6. Require only freeware libraries | 5. Off-the-shelf third party freeware or shareware | 3. Matlab or Octave | 2. Linux | 3. > 8 GB but <= 32 GB | None | 4. > 2 man weeks | 1. A few hours | 2. No, but I cannot spend more time | 2 | ||||||||||

5 | 2/18/2015 0:19:38 | Research Group on Learning, Optimization, and Automated Algorithm Design (aad_freiburg) | Frank Hutter | Institut für Informatik Albert-Ludwigs-Universität Freiburg Sekretariat Nebel/GKI Georges-Köhler-Allee 052 79110 Freiburg, Germany +49 761 203-67740 | automl2015@informatik.uni-freiburg.de | Manuel Blum Katharina Eggensperger Stefan Falkner Matthias Feurer Aaron Klein Jost Tobias Springenberg Farooq Zuberi | aad.informatik.uni-freiburg.de | AutoSklearn | http://www.cs.ubc.ca/labs/beta/Projects/SMAC/ | Bayesian Optimization with Random Forests in SMAC [Hutter et al. 2011] applied to a flexible configuration space describing scikit-learn [Pedregosa et al. 2011] as done in Auto-WEKA [Thornton et al. 2013]. We initialized SMAC with Meta-Learning[Feurer et al. 2015] and constructed ensembles [unpublished] with CMA-ES.Bayesian Optimization with Random Forests applied to a flexible configuration space describing scikit-learn. | Hutter, F.; Hoos, H. H.; and Leyton-Brown, K. 2011. Sequential model-based optimization for general algorithm configuration. In Proc. of LION-5, 507–523 Feurer, M.; Springenberg, T and Hutter, F. 2015. Initializing Bayesian Hyperparameter Optimization via Meta-Learning. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Ninth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence Pedregosa, F.; Varoquaux, G.; Gramfort, A.; Michel, V.; Thirion, B.; Grisel, O.; Blondel, M.; Prettenhofer, P.; Weiss, R.; Dubourg, V.; Vanderplas, J.; Passos, A.; Cournapeau, D.; Brucher, M.; Perrot, M.; and Duchesnay, E. 2011. Scikit-learn: Machine learning in Python. JMLR 12:2825–2830 Chris Thornton, Frank Hutter, Holger Hoos, and Kevin Leyton-Brown. 2013. Auto-WEKA: Combined Selection and Hyperparameter Optimization of Classifiaction Algorithms. In Proc. of KDD 2013,. Hansen, N. and A. Ostermeier (1996). Adapting arbitrary normal mutation distributions in evolution strategies: The covariance matrix adaptation. In Proceedings of the 1996 IEEE International Conference on Evolutionary Computation, pp. 312-317; | 1. Application of random functions, 2. Application of filter banks | 1. Feature standardization (for numerical variables), 3. Replacement of the missing values, Feature-Wise Min/Max Scaling | 1. Linear manifold transformations (e.g. factor analysis, PCA, ICA), 5. Feature selection | 1. Decision tree, stub, or Random Forest, 2. Linear classifier (Fisher's discriminant, SVM, linear regression), 3. Non-linear kernel method (SVM, kernel ridge regression, kernel logistic regression), 10. Nearest neighbors, Gradient Boosting, ExtraTrees | 1. Hinge loss (like in SVM), 2. Square loss (like in ridge regression), 3. Logistic loss or cross-entropy (like in logistic regression), Deviance | 1. One-norm (sum of weight magnitudes, like in Lasso), 2. Two-norm (||w||^2, like in ridge regression and regular SVM), 3. None, Elastic-Net, Randomization | 1. Boosting , 2. Bagging (check this if you use Random Forest), 4. Other ensemble method | Train/validation split; with Bayesian Optimization; Meta-Learning | 11. Don't know; too difficult to evaluate | 7. Theoretically motivated, 8. Novel / original, AutoML searching through flexible space of machine learners. | We used an ensemble of many methods | Combination of BSD and AGPLv3 tools; tools will be uploaded later this week | 1. C/C++/C#, 2. Java or Weka, 4. Python | Collection of scripts using afore-mentioned packages. | 2. Linux | 3. > 8 GB but <= 32 GB | 1. Multi-processor machine | aad.informatik.uni-freiburg.de/downloads/automl_competition_2015_000.zip | 4. > 2 man weeks | 4. > 2 weeks | 1. Yes | 1.5h on a eight-core machine |

6 | 2/19/2015 8:59:18 | tadej | Tadej Štajner | Tadej Štajner Pražakova ulica 14 1000 Ljubljana Slovenia +38640504984 | tadej@tdj.si | http://tdj.si | AutoKit: pipeline selection and hyper-parameter optimization | https://github.com/tadejs/autokit/blob/master/DESCRIPTION.md | The method is based on the hyperopt and hyperopt-sklearn [1] packages to pose the automatic machine learning problem as a hyperparameter optimization problem. The approach that is used in this submission extends this model to include additional learning model selection that is able to determine admissible learning models given the problem description. It also includes different pre-processing approaches in the hyperparameter search space. This allows us to not only tune individual approaches, but also enrich the data with different representation, such as clustering to have a lower dimensional representation, or kernel approximation to cover non-linearities in the model. [1] Komer, Brent, James Bergstra, and Chris Eliasmith. "Hyperopt-sklearn: Automatic hyperparameter configuration for scikit-learn." ICML workshop on AutoML. 2014. | Besides the hyperopt-sklearn reference, no papers describe the particular method in this submission. URL to codebase: https://github.com/tadejs/autokit | union with features from dimensionality reduction | 1. Feature standardization (for numerical variables) | 2. Non-linear dimensionality reduction (e.g. KPCA, MDS, LLE, Laplacian Eigenmaps, Kohonen maps), 3. Clustering (e.g. K-means, hierarchical clustering) | 1. Decision tree, stub, or Random Forest, 2. Linear classifier (Fisher's discriminant, SVM, linear regression), 6. Naïve Bayes | 1. Hinge loss (like in SVM), 2. Square loss (like in ridge regression), 3. Logistic loss or cross-entropy (like in logistic regression) | 1. One-norm (sum of weight magnitudes, like in Lasso), 2. Two-norm (||w||^2, like in ridge regression and regular SVM) | 1. Boosting , 2. Bagging (check this if you use Random Forest) | 2. K-fold or leave-one-out cross-validation (using training data) | 1. Linear in number of features, 4. Linear in number of training examples, 7. Linear in number of test examples, Among others, we use Random forest, which is n log n, given n training examples. | 1. Simple method, 2. Easy to implement, 3. Easy to parallelize, 4. Require little memory, 6. Require only freeware libraries | Comparing to basic hyperopt-sklearn, the critical differences were searching across the space of preprocessing techniques. | 3. Freeware or shareware in house software , 5. Off-the-shelf third party freeware or shareware | 4. Python | Based on: Python 2.7 NumPy SciPy scikits-learn hyperopt hyperopt-sklearn AutoML example code The main contribution of the autokit implementation is defining the space preprocessing and learning models and their hyperparameter spaces that are subsequently sampled and evaluated via hyperopt. | 1. Windows, 2. Linux, 3. Mac OS | 1. <= 2 GB | 1. Multi-processor machine, 2. Run in parallel different algorithms on different machines, Distributed operation is possible in hyperopt, but currently not enabled. | https://github.com/tadejs/autokit | 2. A few man days | 2. A few days | 1. Yes | 1 | |

7 | 2/22/2015 14:12:18 | Ideal Intel Analytics | eugene.tuv@intel.com;igor.chikalov@intel.com | http://ideal.intel.com/ | boosted trees with soft dynamic feature selection | Gradient boosting of trees built on a random subspaces dynamically adjusted to reflect learned features relevance. Huber loss function is used, no pre-processing was done. | Borisov A., Eruhimov V. and Tuv, E. Tree-Based Ensembles with Dynamic Soft Feature Selection, In Feature Extraction Foundations and Applications Series: Studies in Fuzziness and Soft Computing , Vol. 207, Guyon, I.; Gunn, S.; Nikravesh, M.; Zadeh, L.A. (Eds.), Springer, 2006 | imbedded | none | imbedded | 1. Decision tree, stub, or Random Forest | Huber | 3. None | 1. Boosting | 1. Leaderboard performance on validation data used for model selection | NlogN | 5. Self-contained (does not rely on third party libraries) | 1. Proprietary in house software | 1. C/C++/C# | IDEAL is Intel's internal ML system | 1. Windows | 3. > 8 GB but <= 32 GB | 1. Multi-processor machine, multithreaded | 1. A few man hours | 1. A few hours | 1. Yes | a few hours | ||||||

8 | 2/23/2015 1:57:55 | jrl44 | James Lloyd | Trinity College Cambridge CB2 1TQ UK 00447890215148 | james.robert.lloyd@gmail.com | A quick implementation of Freeze-Thaw Bayesian Optimization | I quickly implemented the work described in Swersky, K., Snoek, J. & Adams, R. P. Freeze-Thaw Bayesian Optimization. arXiv preprint 1406.3896 (2014). at <http://arxiv.org/abs/1406.3896> to select between 4 variants of random forest and 4 variants of gradient boosting machines. | They should say I implemented a slightly simplified version of Swersky, K., Snoek, J. & Adams, R. P. Freeze-Thaw Bayesian Optimization. arXiv preprint 1406.3896 (2014). at <http://arxiv.org/abs/1406.3896> | Example code | Example code | Example code | 1. Decision tree, stub, or Random Forest | AUC | 4. Don't know | 1. Boosting , 2. Bagging (check this if you use Random Forest) | 2. K-fold or leave-one-out cross-validation (using training data), 7. Bayesian model selection, Bayesian optimisation of cross validation score | 11. Don't know; too difficult to evaluate | 6. Require only freeware libraries, 7. Theoretically motivated | 5. Off-the-shelf third party freeware or shareware | 4. Python | 2. Linux | 1. <= 2 GB | 3. None | https://github.com/jamesrobertlloyd/automl-phase-1 | 2. A few man days | 1. A few hours | 3. No, please extend or run another round | It runs until the time limit by design | |||||

9 | 2/23/2015 9:58:55 | abhishek4 | abhishek thakur | Office: Q2.431, Warburger Str. 100, 33098, Paderborn, Germany +4915254783954 | abhishek4@gmail.com | Phase0 | Since the dataset was known in phase0, I built separate models for each of them. Mainly used were GBM and SVM. For the digits dataset cross validation was performed to select appropriate number of PCA components | 5. Sparse coding | 1. Feature standardization (for numerical variables), 2. Sample normalization (for numerical variables), 4. Grouping modalities (for categorical variables) | 1. Linear manifold transformations (e.g. factor analysis, PCA, ICA) | 1. Decision tree, stub, or Random Forest, 2. Linear classifier (Fisher's discriminant, SVM, linear regression), 3. Non-linear kernel method (SVM, kernel ridge regression, kernel logistic regression) | 1. Hinge loss (like in SVM), 3. Logistic loss or cross-entropy (like in logistic regression) | 2. Two-norm (||w||^2, like in ridge regression and regular SVM) | 1. Boosting | 1. Leaderboard performance on validation data used for model selection, 2. K-fold or leave-one-out cross-validation (using training data) | 11. Don't know; too difficult to evaluate | 1. Simple method, 2. Easy to implement, 3. Easy to parallelize | 1. Proprietary in house software, 5. Off-the-shelf third party freeware or shareware | 4. Python | python + scikit-learn | 2. Linux | 2. > 2GB but <= 8 GB | 1. Multi-processor machine, 2. Run in parallel different algorithms on different machines | https://github.com/abhishekkrthakur/AutoML | 1. A few man hours | 1. A few hours | 1. Yes | NA | |||||

10 | 5/18/2015 15:45:17 | sjahandideh | RF-CLASSIFIER | not applicable | 2. Sample normalization (for numerical variables), LOG | 5. Feature selection | 1. Decision tree, stub, or Random Forest | 5. None | 3. None | 5. None | 1. Leaderboard performance on validation data used for model selection | 11. Don't know; too difficult to evaluate | 2. Easy to implement, 4. Require little memory | 1. Proprietary in house software | 5. R or S | 3. Mac OS | 2. > 2GB but <= 8 GB | 1. Multi-processor machine | 1. A few man hours | 1. A few hours | 1. Yes | 3 | |||||||||||

11 | 6/14/2015 21:34:55 | sjahandideh | Samad Jahandideh | Sanford-Burnham Medical Research Institute, La Jolla, California 8586463100 Ext. 4047 | samad_jahandideh@yahoo.com | Single Member | Method developer | Briefly, I have used a random-forest-based method for classification. Also, I have used gini index for feature selection. | Improving the chances of successful protein structure determination with a random forest classifier S Jahandideh, L Jaroszewski, A Godzik Acta Crystallographica Section D: Biological Crystallography 70 (3), 627-635 | 4. Trained feature extractors | 2. Sample normalization (for numerical variables) | 5. Feature selection | 1. Decision tree, stub, or Random Forest | 5. None | 3. None | 2. Bagging (check this if you use Random Forest) | 2. K-fold or leave-one-out cross-validation (using training data) | 11. Don't know; too difficult to evaluate | 2. Easy to implement, 4. Require little memory | 6. Not ready yet, but may share later | 3. Matlab or Octave, 5. R or S | 3. Mac OS | 2. > 2GB but <= 8 GB | 1. Multi-processor machine | 1. A few man hours | 1. A few hours | 1. Yes | <1 | |||||

12 | 9/11/2015 7:46:52 | asml.intel.com | asml.intel.com | I used classical GBT technique with prior feature selection step. | no | no | 5. Feature selection | 1. Decision tree, stub, or Random Forest | 2. Square loss (like in ridge regression) | 3. None | 1. Boosting , 2. Bagging (check this if you use Random Forest) | 1. Leaderboard performance on validation data used for model selection, 2. K-fold or leave-one-out cross-validation (using training data), 4. Out-of-bag estimation (for bagging methods such as Random Forest) | 11. Don't know; too difficult to evaluate | 1. Simple method, 2. Easy to implement, 6. Require only freeware libraries | 3. Freeware or shareware in house software | 4. Python | 1. Windows, 2. Linux | 3. > 8 GB but <= 32 GB | 1. Multi-processor machine, 2. Run in parallel different algorithms on different machines | https://github.com/vkocheganov/AutoML_Phase1 | 2. A few man days | 2. A few days | 1. Yes | 8 | |||||||||

13 | 9/15/2015 6:04:54 | backstreet.bayes | James Lloyd | 111 York Street, Cambridge, CB1 2PZ UK 00447890215148 | james.robert.lloyd@gmail.com | Emma Smith Rowan McAllister Natasha Latysheva Alex Davies | Rational allocation of computational resources for ensemble construction via stacking | https://github.com/jamesrobertlloyd/automl-phase-2 | I modified the freeze thaw Bayesian optimisation algorithm (http://arxiv.org/abs/1406.3896) to be applicable to ensemble construction. Several algorithms are run, an ensemble is formed by stacking, and then various probabilistic models are used to predict which computational action will most improve the performance of the ensemble. | Work not yet published. Cite github for the moment (https://github.com/jamesrobertlloyd/automl-phase-2). | Sample code | Sample code | Sample code | 1. Decision tree, stub, or Random Forest, 2. Linear classifier (Fisher's discriminant, SVM, linear regression), 3. Non-linear kernel method (SVM, kernel ridge regression, kernel logistic regression), 6. Naïve Bayes, 10. Nearest neighbors, Gradient boosting machines | 3. Logistic loss or cross-entropy (like in logistic regression) | 1. One-norm (sum of weight magnitudes, like in Lasso), 2. Two-norm (||w||^2, like in ridge regression and regular SVM) | 1. Boosting , 2. Bagging (check this if you use Random Forest), Stacking | 2. K-fold or leave-one-out cross-validation (using training data), 4. Out-of-bag estimation (for bagging methods such as Random Forest) | 10. Adaptive algorithmic complexity | 7. Theoretically motivated, 8. Novel / original | Reasoning about benefits of different computational steps very helpful when constrained by time. Ensembles are always a good idea. | 3. Freeware or shareware in house software | 4. Python | 2. Linux | 3. > 8 GB but <= 32 GB | 1. Multi-processor machine | https://github.com/jamesrobertlloyd/automl-phase-2 | 4. > 2 man weeks | 1. A few hours | 2. No, but I cannot spend more time | However long I was given. Similarly for memory usage - it uses as much as it is allowed to! | ||

14 | 9/17/2015 9:12:39 | AAD Freiburg | Frank Hutter | Georges-Köhler-Allee 52 Sekretariat Nebel/GKI 79110 Freiburg Germany | The @data declaration is a single line denoting the start of the data segment in the file. | Matthias Feurer Aaron Klein Katharina Eggensperger Jost Tobias Springenberg Manuel Blum | auto-sklearn | http://aad.informatik.uni-freiburg.de/papers/15-AUTOML-AutoML.pdf | We used a predecessor of auto-sklearn. auto-sklearn combines the machine learning library scikit-learn with the state-of-the-art SMBO method SMAC to find suitable machine learning pipelines for a dataset at hand. This is basically a reimplementation of Auto-WEKA. To speed up the optimization process we employ a meta-learning technique which starts SMAC from promising configurations of scikit-learn. Furthermore, we use the outputs of all models and combine these into ensemble using ensemble selection. | @INPROCEEDINGS{feurer-automl15a, author = {M. Feurer and A. Klein and K. Eggensperger and J. Springenberg and M. Blum and F. Hutter}, title = {Methods for Improving Bayesian Optimization for AutoML}, booktitle = {ICML 2015 AutoML Workshop}, year = {2015}, month = jul, } Other relevant references are given in the paper. | 1. Application of random functions, Kernel Approximation | 1. Feature standardization (for numerical variables), 2. Sample normalization (for numerical variables), 3. Replacement of the missing values, One-out-of-k Encoding; | 1. Linear manifold transformations (e.g. factor analysis, PCA, ICA), 3. Clustering (e.g. K-means, hierarchical clustering), 5. Feature selection | 1. Decision tree, stub, or Random Forest, 2. Linear classifier (Fisher's discriminant, SVM, linear regression), 3. Non-linear kernel method (SVM, kernel ridge regression, kernel logistic regression), 6. Naïve Bayes, 10. Nearest neighbors, Quadratic classifiers | 1. Hinge loss (like in SVM), 2. Square loss (like in ridge regression), 3. Logistic loss or cross-entropy (like in logistic regression), 4. Exponential loss (like in boosting), 5. None, 6. Don't know | 1. One-norm (sum of weight magnitudes, like in Lasso), 2. Two-norm (||w||^2, like in ridge regression and regular SVM) | 1. Boosting , 2. Bagging (check this if you use Random Forest), 4. Other ensemble method, Ensemble Selection | 2. K-fold or leave-one-out cross-validation (using training data) | 11. Don't know; too difficult to evaluate | 6. Require only freeware libraries | We did not try any other method | 3. Freeware or shareware in house software , 5. Off-the-shelf third party freeware or shareware | 1. C/C++/C#, 2. Java or Weka, 4. Python, Cython | Mostly python; uses externool tools SMAC (in Java) and runsolver (C++). | 2. Linux | 4. > 32 GB | 1. Multi-processor machine | http://aad.informatik.uni-freiburg.de/downloads/automl_competition_2015_001.zip | 4. > 2 man weeks | 4. > 2 weeks | 1. Yes | Tweakathon: ca 9600; Auto: ? | |

15 | 11/25/2015 8:03:46 | AAD Freiburg | Frank Hutter | Frank Hutter Arbeitsgruppe für Lernen, Optimierung, und Automatisches Algorithmendesign c.o. Sekretariat Nebel/GKI Institut für Informatik Albert-Ludwigs-Universität Freiburg Georges-Köhler-Allee 52 79110 Freiburg im Breisgau Germany +49 761 203-67740 | automl2015@informatik.uni-freiburg.de | Matthias Feurer Katharina Eggensperger Aaron Klein Stefan Falkner Marius Lindauer Manuel Blum Jost Tobias Springenberg | http://aad.informatik.uni-freiburg.de/ | 3rd place in Phase Final 2 | http://aad.informatik.uni-freiburg.de/papers/15-NIPS-auto-sklearn-preprint.pdf | We use auto-sklearn together with ensemble selection (but no meta-learning) as described in Section 6 of the paper reference below. Instead of a simple holdout split we used 5-fold cross validation. | @inproceedings{feurer-nips2015, booktitle = {Proceedings of the Neural Information Processing Systems Conference (NIPS)}, month = {December}, title = {Efficient and Robust Automated Machine Leraning}, author = {M. Feurer and A. Klein and K. Eggensperger and J. Springenberg and M. Blum and F. Hutter}, year = {2015}, pages = {}, } | 1. Application of random functions, Kernel Approximation | 1. Feature standardization (for numerical variables), 2. Sample normalization (for numerical variables), 3. Replacement of the missing values, Min/Max Scaling | 1. Linear manifold transformations (e.g. factor analysis, PCA, ICA), 5. Feature selection, We had KPCA and hierarchical clustering in the hypothesis space, but model selection told not to use | 1. Decision tree, stub, or Random Forest, 2. Linear classifier (Fisher's discriminant, SVM, linear regression), 3. Non-linear kernel method (SVM, kernel ridge regression, kernel logistic regression), Other tree-based ensemble methods | 1. Hinge loss (like in SVM), 3. Logistic loss or cross-entropy (like in logistic regression), 5. None | 2. Two-norm (||w||^2, like in ridge regression and regular SVM), elastic net | 2. Bagging (check this if you use Random Forest), 4. Other ensemble method | 2. K-fold or leave-one-out cross-validation (using training data) | 11. Don't know; too difficult to evaluate | 1. Simple method, 2. Easy to implement, 3. Easy to parallelize, 6. Require only freeware libraries | We chose a method which encompasses a lot of 'base' methods. In the reference which describes our method, one can find a comparison of our method to the 'base' methods. | 5. Off-the-shelf third party freeware or shareware | 2. Java or Weka, 4. Python | 2. Linux | 2. > 2GB but <= 8 GB | Model-parallel, can be on different machines, but can also run on a single machine | https://github.com/automl/ChaLearn_Automatic_Machine_Learning_Challenge_2015 | 2. A few man days | 4. > 2 weeks | 1. Yes | ~10000 | |

16 | 11/28/2015 4:24:43 | djajetic | Damir Jajetić | Sveta Nedelja, Croatia | https://github.com/djajetic | djajetic | https://github.com/djajetic/AutoML2 | 1. Application of random functions | 3. Replacement of the missing values | 5. Feature selection | 1. Decision tree, stub, or Random Forest | 3. Logistic loss or cross-entropy (like in logistic regression) | 1. One-norm (sum of weight magnitudes, like in Lasso) | 1. Boosting , 2. Bagging (check this if you use Random Forest) | 1. Leaderboard performance on validation data used for model selection, 11. Knowledge transfer from the development data of past phases | 1. Linear in number of features, 4. Linear in number of training examples, 7. Linear in number of test examples | 1. Simple method, 2. Easy to implement, 3. Easy to parallelize, 6. Require only freeware libraries | 5. Off-the-shelf third party freeware or shareware | 4. Python | 2. Linux | 3. > 8 GB but <= 32 GB | 1. Multi-processor machine | https://github.com/djajetic/AutoML2 | 3. 1-2 man weeks | 3. 1-2 weeks | 1. Yes | 6 | ||||||

17 | 11/28/2015 4:37:19 | djajetic | Damir Jajetić | Sveta Nedelja, Croatia | https://github.com/djajetic | djajetic AutoML3 | https://github.com/djajetic/AutoML3 | 1. Application of random functions | 1. Feature standardization (for numerical variables), 2. Sample normalization (for numerical variables), 3. Replacement of the missing values | 1. Linear manifold transformations (e.g. factor analysis, PCA, ICA), 5. Feature selection | 1. Decision tree, stub, or Random Forest, 2. Linear classifier (Fisher's discriminant, SVM, linear regression), 3. Non-linear kernel method (SVM, kernel ridge regression, kernel logistic regression), 6. Naïve Bayes, 10. Nearest neighbors | 1. Hinge loss (like in SVM), 2. Square loss (like in ridge regression), 3. Logistic loss or cross-entropy (like in logistic regression), 4. Exponential loss (like in boosting) | 1. One-norm (sum of weight magnitudes, like in Lasso), 2. Two-norm (||w||^2, like in ridge regression and regular SVM), 4. Don't know | 1. Boosting , 2. Bagging (check this if you use Random Forest), 4. Other ensemble method | 4. Out-of-bag estimation (for bagging methods such as Random Forest), 5. Bootstrap estimation (other than out-of-bag) | 11. Don't know; too difficult to evaluate | 3. Easy to parallelize, 6. Require only freeware libraries | 3. Freeware or shareware in house software | 4. Python | 2. Linux | 3. > 8 GB but <= 32 GB | 1. Multi-processor machine | https://github.com/djajetic/AutoML3 | 4. > 2 man weeks | 4. > 2 weeks | 1. Yes | 1.5 | ||||||

18 | 2/26/2016 0:27:10 | AAD Freiburg | Frank Hutter | Arbeitsgruppe Machine Learning for Automated Algorithm Design Institut für Informatik Albert-Ludwigs-Universität Freiburg Georges-Köhler-Allee 52 79110 Freiburg im Breisgau Germany | automl2015@informatik.uni-freiburg.de | Matthias Feurer Jost Tobias Springenberg Katharina Eggensperger Aaron Klein Marius Lindauer Manuel Blum Stefan Falkner | http://aad.informatik.uni-freiburg.de/ | 1st place final 3; 1st place auto4 | https://github.com/automl/auto-sklearn | We use auto-sklearn (https://github.com/automl/auto-sklearn) with a new python version of SMAC (http://www.cs.ubc.ca/labs/beta/Projects/SMAC/) for the auto phase. We used auto-sklearn with the Java version of SMAC for the tweakathon to tune auto-sklearn and deep neural networks implemented in Lasagne/Theano. For the tweakathon we used the following setting: * alexis: ? * dionis: 25 jobs; one day each; 8GB RAM; 5fold CV * grigoris: 25 jobs; one day each; 8GB RAM; 5 fold CV * jannis: 25 jobs; one day each; 4 GB RAM; 5 fold CV * wallis: 25 jobs; one day each; 4 GB RAM; 5 fold CV | Feurer, M. and Klein, A. and Eggensperger, K. and Springenberg, J. and Blum, M. and Hutter, F. Efficient and Robust Automated Machine Leraning In: Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 28 | 1. Application of random functions, 4. Trained feature extractors | 1. Feature standardization (for numerical variables), 2. Sample normalization (for numerical variables), 3. Replacement of the missing values, Min/Max Scaling; None | 1. Linear manifold transformations (e.g. factor analysis, PCA, ICA), 2. Non-linear dimensionality reduction (e.g. KPCA, MDS, LLE, Laplacian Eigenmaps, Kohonen maps), 3. Clustering (e.g. K-means, hierarchical clustering), 4. Deep Learning (e.g. stacks of auto-encoders, stacks of RBMs), 5. Feature selection | 1. Decision tree, stub, or Random Forest, 2. Linear classifier (Fisher's discriminant, SVM, linear regression), 3. Non-linear kernel method (SVM, kernel ridge regression, kernel logistic regression), 8. Neural Network (or Deep Learning Method), 10. Nearest neighbors, Quadratic classifiers | 1. Hinge loss (like in SVM), 2. Square loss (like in ridge regression), 3. Logistic loss or cross-entropy (like in logistic regression), 4. Exponential loss (like in boosting) | 1. One-norm (sum of weight magnitudes, like in Lasso), 2. Two-norm (||w||^2, like in ridge regression and regular SVM), 3. None | 1. Boosting , 2. Bagging (check this if you use Random Forest), 4. Other ensemble method | 2. K-fold or leave-one-out cross-validation (using training data), auto-track: knowledge transfer from data generated offline | 11. Don't know; too difficult to evaluate | 1. Simple method, 2. Easy to implement, 3. Easy to parallelize, 6. Require only freeware libraries | auto-sklearn freely available; python smac will be freely available by the 4th of March | 1. C/C++/C#, 2. Java or Weka, 4. Python | 1. Windows | 3. > 8 GB but <= 32 GB | 1. Multi-processor machine, 2. Run in parallel different algorithms on different machines | https://github.com/automl/auto-sklearn | 4. > 2 man weeks | 4. > 2 weeks | 1. Yes | > 2500 | ||

19 | 2/28/2016 13:28:57 | djajetic | Damir Jajetić | Croatia | https://github.com/djajetic | djajetic Final3 | 1. Application of random functions | None | None | 1. Decision tree, stub, or Random Forest | 4. Exponential loss (like in boosting) | 1. Boosting , 2. Bagging (check this if you use Random Forest) | 1. Leaderboard performance on validation data used for model selection, 4. Out-of-bag estimation (for bagging methods such as Random Forest) | 2. Quadratic in number of features, 5. Quadratic in number of training examples | 1. Simple method, 2. Easy to implement | 3. Freeware or shareware in house software | 4. Python | 2. Linux | 4. > 32 GB | 1. Multi-processor machine | https://github.com/djajetic/AutoML3Final | 3. 1-2 man weeks | 3. 1-2 weeks | 1. Yes | 4 | ||||||||

20 | 2/28/2016 13:34:00 | djajetic | Damir Jajetić | https://github.com/djajetic | djajetic AutoML4 | None | 3. Replacement of the missing values | None | 1. Decision tree, stub, or Random Forest, 2. Linear classifier (Fisher's discriminant, SVM, linear regression), 6. Naïve Bayes, 10. Nearest neighbors | 2. Square loss (like in ridge regression), 3. Logistic loss or cross-entropy (like in logistic regression), 4. Exponential loss (like in boosting) | 4. Don't know | 1. Boosting , 2. Bagging (check this if you use Random Forest), 4. Other ensemble method | 4. Out-of-bag estimation (for bagging methods such as Random Forest) | 11. Don't know; too difficult to evaluate | 2. Easy to implement, 3. Easy to parallelize, 6. Require only freeware libraries | 3. Freeware or shareware in house software | 4. Python | 2. Linux | 4. > 32 GB | 1. Multi-processor machine | https://github.com/djajetic/AutoML4 | 4. > 2 man weeks | 4. > 2 weeks | 1. Yes | 1.5 | ||||||||

21 | 4/14/2016 8:29:45 | aad_freiburg_gpu | Frank Hutter | Institut für Informatik Albert-Ludwigs-Universität Freiburg Sekretariat Nebel/GKI Georges-Köhler-Allee 052 79110 Freiburg, Germany +49 761 203-67740 | automl2015@informatik.uni-freiburg.de | Hector Mendoza Aaron Klein Matthias Feurer | aad.informatik.uni-freiburg.de | Autonet | Autosklearn with Neural Networks instead of scikit-learn | Not published yet | Nothing | 1. Feature standardization (for numerical variables), 2. Sample normalization (for numerical variables), 3. Replacement of the missing values, 4. Grouping modalities (for categorical variables), Nothing | Nothing | 2. Linear classifier (Fisher's discriminant, SVM, linear regression), 8. Neural Network (or Deep Learning Method) | 1. Hinge loss (like in SVM), 2. Square loss (like in ridge regression), 3. Logistic loss or cross-entropy (like in logistic regression) | 2. Two-norm (||w||^2, like in ridge regression and regular SVM) | 4. Other ensemble method | 2. K-fold or leave-one-out cross-validation (using training data), 9. Bi-level optimization | 4. Linear in number of training examples, 11. Don't know; too difficult to evaluate | Nothing | 3. Freeware or shareware in house software , 5. Off-the-shelf third party freeware or shareware | 1. C/C++/C#, 4. Python | 2. Linux | 3. > 8 GB but <= 32 GB | 3. None | 4. > 2 man weeks | 4. > 2 weeks | 2. No, but I cannot spend more time | 1.67 hours | ||||

22 | 4/14/2016 13:17:59 | agrigorev_GPU | Alexey Grigorev | Langhansstr 70 13086 Berin Germany 48 177 490 5706 | alexey.s.grigoriev@gmail.com | agrigorev_GPU | neural networks using keras | none | 1. Feature standardization (for numerical variables) | 1. Linear manifold transformations (e.g. factor analysis, PCA, ICA), 4. Deep Learning (e.g. stacks of auto-encoders, stacks of RBMs) | 8. Neural Network (or Deep Learning Method) | 2. Square loss (like in ridge regression), 3. Logistic loss or cross-entropy (like in logistic regression) | 5. None | 1. Leaderboard performance on validation data used for model selection, 2. K-fold or leave-one-out cross-validation (using training data) | 11. Don't know; too difficult to evaluate | 1. Simple method | 3. Freeware or shareware in house software | 4. Python | keras + theano | 2. Linux | 3. > 8 GB but <= 32 GB | 1. Multi-processor machine | 3. 1-2 man weeks | 1. A few hours | 1. Yes | 0 | |||||||

23 | 5/3/2016 1:35:15 | aad_freiburg-GPU | Dr. Frank Hutter | Institut für Informatik Albert-Ludwigs-Universität Freiburg Sekretariat Nebel/GKI Georges-Köhler-Allee 052 79110 Freiburg, Germany +49 761 203-67740 | aad_freiburg@fhutter.de | Hector Mendoza Matthias Feurer Aaron Klein | http://aad.informatik.uni-freiburg.de/ | Automated Configuration of Neural Networks | https://papers.nips.cc/paper/5872-efficient-and-robust-automated-machine-learning.pdf | We use Bayesian Optimization to find a good configuration (instance) for hyper-parameters (learning rate, regularization factor, etc.) used by a Neural Network. | Efficient and Robust Automated Machine Learning - Feurer, M. and Klein, A. and Eggensperger, K. and Springenberg, J. and Blum, M. and Hutter, F | no feature extraction | 1. Feature standardization (for numerical variables), 2. Sample normalization (for numerical variables), 3. Replacement of the missing values, 4. Grouping modalities (for categorical variables), 5. Discretization (for numerical variables) | 1. Linear manifold transformations (e.g. factor analysis, PCA, ICA), 5. Feature selection | 8. Neural Network (or Deep Learning Method) | 2. Square loss (like in ridge regression), 3. Logistic loss or cross-entropy (like in logistic regression) | 2. Two-norm (||w||^2, like in ridge regression and regular SVM) | 4. Other ensemble method | 2. K-fold or leave-one-out cross-validation (using training data) | 11. Don't know; too difficult to evaluate | 1. Simple method, 2. Easy to implement, 3. Easy to parallelize, 6. Require only freeware libraries | 3. Freeware or shareware in house software , 6. Not ready yet, but may share later | 1. C/C++/C#, 4. Python | Uses standard theano and lasagne code for deep networks, with in house wrapper to use it with the automatic configuration machinery | 2. Linux | 4. > 32 GB | 1. Multi-processor machine, 2. Run in parallel different algorithms on different machines | 3. 1-2 man weeks | 4. > 2 weeks | 1. Yes | 1.67 | ||

24 | 5/3/2016 11:56:59 | djajetic_GPU | Damir Jajetic | GPU Final4 | GPU Neural network based model on Lasagne and Theano libraries. Very simple and self-explanatory source code is available at https://github.com/djajetic/GPU_djajetic | 3. Hand-crafted features | 1. Feature standardization (for numerical variables), 2. Sample normalization (for numerical variables), 3. Replacement of the missing values | 1. Linear manifold transformations (e.g. factor analysis, PCA, ICA) | 8. Neural Network (or Deep Learning Method) | 2. Square loss (like in ridge regression), 3. Logistic loss or cross-entropy (like in logistic regression) | Early stopping | 5. None | 1. Leaderboard performance on validation data used for model selection, 2. K-fold or leave-one-out cross-validation (using training data) | 11. Don't know; too difficult to evaluate | 1. Simple method, 6. Require only freeware libraries | 3. Freeware or shareware in house software | 4. Python | 2. Linux | 3. > 8 GB but <= 32 GB | GPU | https://github.com/djajetic/GPU_djajetic | 3. 1-2 man weeks | 2. A few days | 1. Yes | 1 | ||||||||

25 | 5/5/2016 13:50:22 | djajetic | AutoML5 | Software is simple and based of ensembled unsynchronized local search models without any communication between models (let’s call it particles, although not PSO, just for easy reading) or exploiting any properties that could be obtained by swarm intelligence and is consequently insensitive of swarm false believes in non-convex search spaces. | 1. Application of random functions, 4. Trained feature extractors | 1. Feature standardization (for numerical variables), 3. Replacement of the missing values | 1. Linear manifold transformations (e.g. factor analysis, PCA, ICA) | 1. Decision tree, stub, or Random Forest, 2. Linear classifier (Fisher's discriminant, SVM, linear regression), 6. Naïve Bayes, 10. Nearest neighbors | 2. Square loss (like in ridge regression), 3. Logistic loss or cross-entropy (like in logistic regression), 4. Exponential loss (like in boosting) | 1. Boosting , 2. Bagging (check this if you use Random Forest), 4. Other ensemble method | 2. K-fold or leave-one-out cross-validation (using training data) | 11. Don't know; too difficult to evaluate | 1. Simple method, 3. Easy to parallelize, 6. Require only freeware libraries | 3. Freeware or shareware in house software | 4. Python | 2. Linux | 4. > 32 GB | 1. Multi-processor machine | https://github.com/djajetic/AutoML5 | 4. > 2 man weeks | 4. > 2 weeks | 1. Yes | 1.5 | ||||||||||

26 | 5/5/2016 23:51:44 | abhishek4 | Abhishek Thakur | Habersaathstr. 26, 10115, Berlin, Germany | abhishek4@gmail.com | AutoCompete Again : Better selection of Algorithms | NONE | 1. Feature standardization (for numerical variables), 2. Sample normalization (for numerical variables) | SVD | 1. Decision tree, stub, or Random Forest, 8. Neural Network (or Deep Learning Method) | 3. None | 1. Boosting | 2. K-fold or leave-one-out cross-validation (using training data) | 11. Don't know; too difficult to evaluate | 1. Simple method, 2. Easy to implement, 3. Easy to parallelize | 6. Not ready yet, but may share later | 4. Python | 2. Linux | 3. > 8 GB but <= 32 GB | 1. Multi-processor machine, 2. Run in parallel different algorithms on different machines | https://github.com/abhishekkrthakur/AutoML | 1. A few man hours | 1. A few hours | 1. Yes | 2 | ||||||||

27 | 5/5/2016 23:54:56 | abhhishek-GPU | Abhishek Thakur | abhishek4@gmail.com | AutoCompete Again : Better selection of Algorithms | none | 1. Feature standardization (for numerical variables), 2. Sample normalization (for numerical variables) | svd | 8. Neural Network (or Deep Learning Method) | Dropout | Simple Averaging | 2. K-fold or leave-one-out cross-validation (using training data) | 11. Don't know; too difficult to evaluate | 2. Easy to implement, 3. Easy to parallelize | 6. Not ready yet, but may share later | 4. Python | 2. Linux | 3. > 8 GB but <= 32 GB | 1. Multi-processor machine, GPU Machine | https://github.com/abhishekkrthakur/automl_gpu | 1. A few man hours | 1. A few hours | 1. Yes | 3 | |||||||||

28 | 5/6/2016 0:24:15 | AAD Freiburg | Frank Hutter | Institut für Informatik Albert-Ludwigs-Universität Freiburg Sekretariat Nebel/GKI Georges-Köhler-Allee 052 79110 Freiburg, Germany Phone +49 761 203-67740 | automl2015@informatik.uni-freiburg.de | Matthias Feurer Katharina Eggensperger Aaron Klein Hector D. Mendoza Jost Tobias Springenberg Manuel Blum Marius Lindauer Frank Hutter | http://aad.informatik.uni-freiburg.de/ | 1st place Final 4 & AutoML5 | https://papers.nips.cc/paper/5872-efficient-and-robust-automated-machine-learning.pdf | Search space and ensembling properties for each individual particle is defined in separate python script and in this form can be defined dynamically . As particles are created they are unaware of any other outside information except 2 stop signals yielding best results they can on dataset and reporting precision on training subset. | [1] M. Feurer, A. Klein, K. Eggensperger, J. Springenberg, M. Blum, and F. Hutter, “Efficient and Robust Automated Machine Learning,” in Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 2015, pp. 2944–2952. [2]J. Snoek, H. Larochelle, and R. P. Adams, “Practical Bayesian Optimization of Machine Learning Algorithms,” in Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 25: 26th Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems 2012, 2012, pp. 2951–2959. [3]F. Hutter, H. H. Hoos, and K. Leyton-Brown, “Sequential Model-Based Optimization for General Algorithm Configuration,” in Proceedings of the conference on Learning and Intelligent OptimizatioN, 2011, vol. 6683, pp. 507–523. | 1. Application of random functions, Kernel Approximation | 1. Feature standardization (for numerical variables), 2. Sample normalization (for numerical variables), 3. Replacement of the missing values, 4. Grouping modalities (for categorical variables) | 1. Linear manifold transformations (e.g. factor analysis, PCA, ICA), 2. Non-linear dimensionality reduction (e.g. KPCA, MDS, LLE, Laplacian Eigenmaps, Kohonen maps), 5. Feature selection, hierarchical clustering, univariate feature selection, feature selection by training models and using their weights/feature importances | 1. Decision tree, stub, or Random Forest, 2. Linear classifier (Fisher's discriminant, SVM, linear regression), 3. Non-linear kernel method (SVM, kernel ridge regression, kernel logistic regression), 4. Gaussian Process, 6. Naïve Bayes, 8. Neural Network (or Deep Learning Method), 10. Nearest neighbors | 1. Hinge loss (like in SVM), 2. Square loss (like in ridge regression), 3. Logistic loss or cross-entropy (like in logistic regression), 4. Exponential loss (like in boosting), 5. None, 6. Don't know, Huber | 1. One-norm (sum of weight magnitudes, like in Lasso), 2. Two-norm (||w||^2, like in ridge regression and regular SVM), 3. None, 4. Don't know, elastic net | 1. Boosting , 2. Bagging (check this if you use Random Forest), 5. None , Ensemble selection | 2. K-fold or leave-one-out cross-validation (using training data), 9. Bi-level optimization | 11. Don't know; too difficult to evaluate | 2. Easy to implement, 3. Easy to parallelize, 6. Require only freeware libraries | 3. Freeware or shareware in house software | 1. C/C++/C#, 4. Python | Software freely available at github.com/automl/auto-sklearn | 2. Linux | 2. > 2GB but <= 8 GB | 1. Multi-processor machine, 2. Run in parallel different algorithms on different machines | https://github.com/automl/auto-sklearn | 4. > 2 man weeks | 4. > 2 weeks | 1. Yes | Bi-level optimization: > 250 CPU days; training models found by bi-level optimization: ~1 CPU day | |

29 | 5/6/2016 5:29:36 | postech.mlg_exbrain | Jungtaek Kim | Machine Learning Group, Department of Computer Science and Engineering, POSTECH, 77 Cheongam-ro, Nam-gu, Pohang-si 37673, Gyungsangbuk-do, Republic of Korea | jtkim@postech.ac.kr | Jongheon Jeong | https://github.com/postech-mlg-exbrain/AutoML-Challenge | Automated Machine Learning Framework Using Random Space Partitioning Optimizer | F. Hutter, H. H. Hoos, and K. Leyton-Brown. Sequential model-based optimization for gen- eral algorithm configuration (extended version). Technical Report 10-TR-SMAC, UBC, 2010. B. Lakshminarayanan, D. M. Roy, and Y. W. Teh. Mondrian forests for large-scale regression when uncertainty matters. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics (AISTATS), 2016. M. Feurer, A. Klein, K. Eggensperger, J. Springenberg, M. Blum, and F. Hutter. Efficient and robust automated machine learning. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NIPS), volume 28, 2015. C. Thornton, F. Hutter, H. H. Hoos, and K. Leyton-Brown. Auto-WEKA: Combined selection and hyperparameter optimization of classification algorithms. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining (KDD), pages 847–855, 2013. | 1. Application of random functions | 3. Replacement of the missing values, 4. Grouping modalities (for categorical variables) | 1. Linear manifold transformations (e.g. factor analysis, PCA, ICA), 2. Non-linear dimensionality reduction (e.g. KPCA, MDS, LLE, Laplacian Eigenmaps, Kohonen maps) | 1. Decision tree, stub, or Random Forest, 2. Linear classifier (Fisher's discriminant, SVM, linear regression), 3. Non-linear kernel method (SVM, kernel ridge regression, kernel logistic regression), 6. Naïve Bayes, 10. Nearest neighbors | 1. Hinge loss (like in SVM), 2. Square loss (like in ridge regression), 3. Logistic loss or cross-entropy (like in logistic regression), 4. Exponential loss (like in boosting) | 3. None | 5. None | 2. K-fold or leave-one-out cross-validation (using training data) | 11. Don't know; too difficult to evaluate | 2. Easy to implement, 3. Easy to parallelize, 7. Theoretically motivated | 6. Not ready yet, but may share later | 4. Python | 2. Linux | 3. > 8 GB but <= 32 GB | 1. Multi-processor machine | https://github.com/postech-mlg-exbrain/AutoML-Challenge | 3. 1-2 man weeks | 1. A few hours | 1. Yes | 20 | ||||

30 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

31 | Ensembling module will use only N best modes from particles based on reported precision and only M best models from each model group (that is defined in “model definition script” by assigning similar models in same group). That makes parallelization almost linear with constraint that particle should have ability to handle creating model and producing results on test datasets by itself to be included in ensemble. As there is no feasibility heuristic except if one include it in model definition script, all unfinished models are (only) wasted computing time. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

32 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

33 | Some things must be slightly changed for parallelization with infinite scalability (ie. current implementation works only on single machine, ensembling module should have ie. pruning submodule etc.) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

34 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

35 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

36 | Software will start to produce output immediately after starting and will stop in task defined time. For challenge purposes, there is some hardcoded memory usage limitation, and to ensure output, some particles that will use subsample of data and subsample of features. No other preprocessing is done, but can be created as pipeline models in model definition script. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

37 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

38 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

39 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

40 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

41 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

42 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

43 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

44 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

45 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

46 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

47 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

48 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

49 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

50 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

51 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

52 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

53 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

54 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

55 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

56 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

57 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

58 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

59 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

60 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

61 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

62 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

63 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

64 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

65 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

66 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

67 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

68 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

69 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

70 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

71 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

72 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

73 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

74 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

75 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

76 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

77 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

78 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

79 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

80 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

81 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

82 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

83 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

84 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

85 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

86 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

87 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

88 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

89 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

90 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

91 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

92 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

93 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

94 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

95 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

96 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

97 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

98 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

99 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

100 |

Loading...