arXiv:2608.07303v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: Comparisons between AutoML systems at short time budgets — tens of seconds rather than hours — are common in tool READMEs and workshop papers, and they are easy to get wrong. We report a case study in which a simple AutoML engine, Orcetra, appeared to beat FLAML and AutoGluon on 513 OpenML datasets, winning 57.1% of them at a nominal 60-second budget and 78.4% of datasets against FLAML alone at 30 seconds. Both margins came from protocol defects that a results table cannot show. The search loop scored every candidate on the test split and reported the best, making the headline metric a maximum over dozens of noisy estimates while the baselines selected on training data and touched the test set once; and the budget was checked before launching a candidate but never enforced during one, so the system consumed a median of 120 s against a 60-second budget, 2.24x the wall-clock AutoGluon used. Re-running with selection moved to a validation split, the deadline enforced externally and every framework pinned to an equal share of the machine, Orcetra's win rate on the re-run subset falls from 59.4% to 34.3% and no pairwise difference against either competitor remains significant. Recording both estimands inside a single search lets us attribute the collapse: the selection rule accounts for 4.8 percentage points and unequal compute for most of the rest. The same traces give the selection bias as a function of budget, measured rather than assumed: it grows with $K$ but reaches only 0.27 accuracy points, about five times below the $\sigma\sqrt{2\ln K}$ bound a marginal-standard-error argument predicts, because candidates scored on shared test rows cancel most of the noise. We close with a checklist for short-budget comparisons. Code, per-dataset results and the scripts that regenerate every number and figure in the paper are released with it.
Abstract: Comparisons between AutoML systems at short time budgets — tens of seconds rather than hours — are common in tool READMEs and workshop papers, and they are easy to get wrong. We report a case study in which a simple AutoML engine, Orcetra, appeared to beat FLAML and AutoGluon on 513 OpenML datasets, winning 57.1% of them at a nominal 60-second budget and 78.4% of datasets against FLAML alone at 30 seconds. Both margins came from protocol defects that a results table cannot show. The search loop scored every candidate on the test split and reported the best, making the headline metric a maximum over dozens of noisy estimates while the baselines selected on training data and touched the test set once; and the budget was checked before launching a candidate but never enforced during one, so the system consumed a median of 120 s against a 60-second budget, 2.24x the wall-clock AutoGluon used. Re-running with selection moved to a validation split, the deadline enforced externally and every framework pinned to an equal share of the machine, Orcetra's win rate on the re-run subset falls from 59.4% to 34.3% and no pairwise difference against either competitor remains significant. Recording both estimands inside a single search lets us attribute the collapse: the selection rule accounts for 4.8 percentage points and unequal compute for most of the rest. The same traces give the selection bias as a function of budget, measured rather than assumed: it grows with $K$ but reaches only 0.27 accuracy points, about five times below the $\sigma\sqrt{2\ln K}$ bound a marginal-standard-error argument predicts, because candidates scored on shared test rows cancel most of the noise. We close with a checklist for short-budget comparisons. Code, per-dataset results and the scripts that regenerate every number and figure in the paper are released with it.
This article has been indexed from cs.AI updates on arXiv.org
Read the original article: