Revealing the Hidden Impact of Top-N Metrics on Optimization in Recommender Systems

The hyperparameters of recommender systems for top-n predictions are typically optimized to enhance the predictive performance of algorithms. Thereby, the optimization algorithm, e.g., grid search or random search, searches for the best hyperparameter configuration according to an optimization-target metric, like nDCG or Precision. In contrast, the optimized algorithm, internally optimizes a different loss function during training, like squared error or cross-entropy. To tackle this discrepancy, recent work focused on generating loss functions better suited for recommender systems. Yet, when evaluating an algorithm using a top-n metric during optimization, another discrepancy between the optimization-target metric and the training loss has so far been ignored. During optimization, the top-n items are selected for computing a top-n metric; ignoring that the top-n items are selected from the recommendations of a model trained with an entirely different loss function. Item recommendations suitable for optimization-target metrics could be outside the top-n recommended items; hiddenly impacting the optimization performance. Therefore, we were motivated to analyze whether the top-n items are optimal for optimization-target top-n metrics. In pursuit of an answer, we exhaustively evaluate the predictive performance of 250 selection strategies besides selecting the top-n. We extensively evaluate each selection strategy over twelve implicit feedback and eight explicit feedback data sets with eleven recommender systems algorithms. Our results show that there exist selection strategies other than top-n that increase predictive performance for various algorithms and recommendation domains. However, the performance of the top ~43% of selection strategies is not significantly different. We discuss the impact of our findings on optimization and re-ranking in recommender systems and feasible solutions.

Q(D)O-ES: Population-based Quality (Diversity) Optimisation for Post Hoc Ensemble Selection in AutoML

Automated machine learning (AutoML) systems commonly ensemble models post hoc to improve predictive performance, typically via greedy ensemble selection (GES). However, we believe that GES may not always be optimal, as it performs a simple deterministic greedy search. In this work, we introduce two novel population-based ensemble selection methods, QO-ES and QDO-ES, and compare them to GES. While QO-ES optimises solely for predictive performance, QDO-ES also considers the diversity of ensembles within the population, maintaining a diverse set of well-performing ensembles during optimisation based on ideas of quality diversity optimisation. The methods are evaluated using 71 classification datasets from the AutoML benchmark, demonstrating that QO-ES and QDO-ES often outrank GES, albeit only statistically significant on validation data. Our results further suggest that diversity can be beneficial for post hoc ensembling but also increases the risk of overfitting.

CMA-ES for Post Hoc Ensembling in AutoML: A Great Success and Salvageable Failure

Many state-of-the-art automated machine learning (AutoML) systems use greedy ensemble selection (GES) by Caruana et al. (2004) to ensemble models found during model selection post hoc. Thereby, boosting predictive performance and likely following Auto-Sklearn 1's insight that alternatives, like stacking or gradient-free numerical optimization, overfit. Overfitting in Auto-Sklearn 1 is much more likely than in other AutoML systems because it uses only low-quality validation data for post hoc ensembling. Therefore, we were motivated to analyze whether Auto-Sklearn 1's insight holds true for systems with higher-quality validation data. Consequently, we compared the performance of covariance matrix adaptation evolution strategy (CMA-ES), state-of-the-art gradient-free numerical optimization, to GES on the 71 classification datasets from the AutoML benchmark for AutoGluon. We found that Auto-Sklearn's insight depends on the chosen metric. For the metric ROC AUC, CMA-ES overfits drastically and is outperformed by GES -- statistically significantly for multi-class classification. For the metric balanced accuracy, CMA-ES does not overfit and outperforms GES significantly. Motivated by the successful application of CMA-ES for balanced accuracy, we explored methods to stop CMA-ES from overfitting for ROC AUC. We propose a method to normalize the weights produced by CMA-ES, inspired by GES, that avoids overfitting for CMA-ES and makes CMA-ES perform better than or similar to GES for ROC AUC.

Assembled-OpenML: Creating Efficient Benchmarks for Ensembles in AutoML with OpenML

Automated Machine Learning (AutoML) frameworks regularly use ensembles. Developers need to compare different ensemble techniques to select appropriate techniques for an AutoML framework from the many potential techniques. So far, the comparison of ensemble techniques is often computationally expensive, because many base models must be trained and evaluated one or multiple times. Therefore, we present Assembled-OpenML. Assembled-OpenML is a Python tool, which builds meta-datasets for ensembles using OpenML. A meta-dataset, called Metatask, consists of the data of an OpenML task, the task's dataset, and prediction data from model evaluations for the task. We can make the comparison of ensemble techniques computationally cheaper by using the predictions stored in a metatask instead of training and evaluating base models. To introduce Assembled-OpenML, we describe the first version of our tool. Moreover, we present an example of using Assembled-OpenML to compare a set of ensemble techniques. For this example comparison, we built a benchmark using Assembled-OpenML and implemented ensemble techniques expecting predictions instead of base models as input. In our example comparison, we gathered the prediction data of $1523$ base models for $31$ datasets. Obtaining the prediction data for all base models using Assembled-OpenML took ${\sim} 1$ hour in total. In comparison, obtaining the prediction data by training and evaluating just one base model on the most computationally expensive dataset took ${\sim} 37$ minutes.