Searcharxiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2106.03954

Evaluating Meta-Feature Selection for the Algorithm Recommendation Problem

Geand Trindade Pereira·Moises Rocha dos Santos·Andre Carlos Ponce de Leon Ferreira de Carvalho
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

With the popularity of Machine Learning (ML) solutions, algorithms and data have been released faster than the capacity of processing them. In this context, the problem of Algorithm Recommendation (AR) is receiving a significant deal of attention recently. This problem has been addressed in the literature as a learning task, often as a Meta-Learning problem where the aim is to recommend the best alternative for a specific dataset. For such, datasets encoded by meta-features are explored by ML algorithms that try to learn the mapping between meta-representations and the best technique to be used. One of the challenges for the successful use of ML is to define which features are the most valuable for a specific dataset since several meta-features can be used, which increases the meta-feature dimension. This paper presents an empirical analysis of Feature Selection and Feature Extraction in the meta-level for the AR problem. The present study was focused on three criteria: predictive performance, dimensionality reduction, and pipeline runtime. As we verified, applying Dimensionality Reduction (DR) methods did not improve predictive performances in general. However, DR solutions reduced about 80% of the meta-features, obtaining pretty much the same performance as the original setup but with lower runtimes. The only exception was PCA, which presented about the same runtime as the original meta-features. Experimental results also showed that various datasets have many non-informative meta-features and that it is possible to obtain high predictive performance using around 20% of the original meta-features. Therefore, due to their natural trend for high dimensionality, DR methods should be used for Meta-Feature Selection and Meta-Feature Extraction.

Explore related subjects

cs.LGcs.AIcs.IR

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

Geand Trindade Pereira, Moises Rocha dos Santos, Andre Carlos Ponce de Leon Ferreira de Carvalho. 2021-06-07. Evaluating Meta-Feature Selection for the Algorithm Recommendation Problem. https://arxiv.org/abs/2106.03954

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

AUC Maximization from Biased Positive-unlabeled Data with Confidence

Maximizing the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) is a standard approach to imbalanced binary classification. Although positive and negative data are required for maximizing the AUC, negative data are often difficult to collect in some real-world applications due to privacy concerns or the need for specialized expertise to annotate them. Thus, AUC maximization from positive and unlabeled (PU) data has been attracting attention. Existing methods assume that labeled positive data are unbiased samples from the true positive distribution. However, this ideal assumption is often violated in practice. In this paper, we propose a method to maximize the AUC from biased PU data. To address the bias, our key idea is to exploit {\it confidence}, i.e., the probability that an instance is positive, associated with the small number of labeled positive data. We derive an estimator of the AUC risk using biased PU data with confidence, enabling AUC maximization under such bias. We further show that the rewritten AUC risk induces a Bayes-optimal AUC ranking even when the available confidence is any strictly increasing transformation of the true posterior probability. We experimentally show the effectiveness of our method on eight real-world datasets.

cs.LG↗
arXiv2026

Measuring the Value of World-Model Updates: A Counterfactual Utility Protocol for Continual Adaptation

Continual world models must decide whether new data justify changing the model. Fixed replay schedules and prediction-error triggers specify when to update, but neither reveals the value of an individual update: one deployment run cannot show how the same model would have performed at that moment had it held its parameters. We introduce the fork ledger, which branches a deployment stream at pre-registered decision points into matched update and hold continuations under common random numbers. It evaluates both continuations on the same episodes and records $\Delta R = R_{\mathrm{update}} - R_{\mathrm{hold}}$. Always applying one fixed update mechanism lowers return on all three simulated control tasks: CartPole ($-144.0$; checkpoint-bootstrap $95\%$ CI $[-185.4,-116.1]$, against a converged return near $650$), Walker ($-82.8$; $[-101.1,-61.7]$) and Cheetah ($-18.6$; $[-29.0,-6.6]$). Divergence is an outcome of applying the update, so the estimand counts every attempted fork; restricted to the $693$ of $720$ that did not collapse, CartPole and Walker are unchanged in sign ($-113.4$ and $-82.1$) and Cheetah becomes unresolved ($-3.9$; $[-17.5,+13.0]$). The task is the unit of inference: each contributes $240$ attempted forks over five pretrained checkpoints crossed with two drift directions. The ledger makes counterfactual utility observable for a fixed mechanism, allowing triggers to be judged by the updates they select rather than by surprise detection alone.

cs.LG↗
arXiv2026

When More Is Not Better: Component Anti-Synergy in a P300 Speller

P300 brain-computer interface (BCI) spellers can provide hands-free communication for people with severe motor impairments. Modern pipelines combine multiple individually promising components, often assuming that 'more-is-better'. We tested this assumption using a four-component full-factorial experiment varying the inclusion of Euclidean Alignment (EA), xDAWN spatial filtering, subject calibration, and language model priors on a public P300 dataset. Performance was evaluated using accuracy, repetitions, and information transfer rate (ITR) with mixed-effects models. Results show that the value of components is conditional rather than additive. Calibration was the strongest singular contributor, while EA compensated for its absence in zero-calibration settings. Adding independently useful components could also reduce performance, revealing component anti-synergy. Contrary to conventional wisdom, LM support was not universally beneficial: its effect depends strongly on the strength of the underlying EEG pipeline, while results from a larger LM showed a similar pattern. Together, these findings challenge maximal 'all-on' pipeline design and highlight the value of selecting spatial and language-support components according to the quality of available EEG evidence.

cs.LG↗