User Tools
students:phd_mlws
Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
| Both sides previous revision Previous revision Next revision | Previous revision Next revision Both sides next revision | ||
|
students:phd_mlws [2017/05/23 22:21] blay [Machine Learning Workflow System] |
students:phd_mlws [2017/05/28 19:39] blay [Objectives] |
||
|---|---|---|---|
| Line 25: | Line 25: | ||
| The thesis must address the following challenges: Relevance and quality of predictions and Scalability to manage the huge mass of ML workflows. | The thesis must address the following challenges: Relevance and quality of predictions and Scalability to manage the huge mass of ML workflows. | ||
| To meet these challenges, attention should be paid to the following aspects: | To meet these challenges, attention should be paid to the following aspects: | ||
| - | * //Handling Variabilities: // Variability of compositions (e.g. identifying dominated workflows, managing requirements between WF components); Variability of performance metrics (e.g. dependencies among metrics); Variability of Data Sets (e.g. images, text) and consequently how we represent them (meta features); Variability of platforms; Variability of algorithms and preprocessing algorithms (i.e. characterization to distinguish and automate the compositions); Variability of hyper-parameter tuning strategies (i.e. dependency with workflows); etc. | + | * //Handling Variabilities: // Variability of compositions (e.g. identifying dominated workflows, managing requirements between WF components); Variability of performance metrics (e.g. dependencies among metrics); Variability of Data Sets (e.g. images, text) and consequently how we represent them (meta features); Variability of platforms; Variability of algorithms and preprocessing algorithms (i.e. characterization to distinguish and automate the compositions (Salvador et al, 2016)); Variability of hyper-parameter tuning strategies (i.e. dependency with workflows); etc. |
| *// Architecture of the portfolio : // automatically manage (1) experiment running, (2) collecting of experiment results, (3) analyzis of results, (4) evolution of algorithm base. It must support the management of execution errors, incremental analyzes, identifying context of experiments. | *// Architecture of the portfolio : // automatically manage (1) experiment running, (2) collecting of experiment results, (3) analyzis of results, (4) evolution of algorithm base. It must support the management of execution errors, incremental analyzes, identifying context of experiments. | ||
| * //Handling Scalability of the Portfolio: //Selecting discriminating data sets; Detecting “deprecated” algorithms and WF from experiments and literature revues; Dealing with information from scientific literature without deteriorating portfolio computed knowledge. | * //Handling Scalability of the Portfolio: //Selecting discriminating data sets; Detecting “deprecated” algorithms and WF from experiments and literature revues; Dealing with information from scientific literature without deteriorating portfolio computed knowledge. | ||
| Line 66: | Line 66: | ||
| Rice JR (1976) The Algorithm Selection Problem. Adv Comput 15:65–118. | Rice JR (1976) The Algorithm Selection Problem. Adv Comput 15:65–118. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Martin Salvador M, Budka M, Gabrys B (2016) Towards automatic composition of multicomponent predictive systems. Lect Notes Comput Sci (including Subser Lect Notes Artif Intell Lect Notes Bioinformatics). doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-32034-2_3 | ||
| Wolpert D (1996) The lack of a priori distinctions between learning algorithms. Neural Computation 8(7):1341–1390 | Wolpert D (1996) The lack of a priori distinctions between learning algorithms. Neural Computation 8(7):1341–1390 | ||
students/phd_mlws.txt · Last modified: 2017/05/28 20:03 by blay
Page Tools
Except where otherwise noted, content on this wiki is licensed under the following license: CC Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 4.0 International
