PIPES: A Meta-dataset of Machine Learning Pipelines

Solutions to the Algorithm Selection Problem (ASP) in machine learning face the challenge of high computational costs associated with evaluating various algorithms' performances on a given dataset. To mitigate this cost, the meta-learning field can leverage previously executed experiments shared in online repositories such as OpenML. OpenML provides an extensive collection of machine learning experiments. However, an analysis of OpenML's records reveals limitations. It lacks diversity in pipelines, specifically when exploring data preprocessing steps/blocks, such as scaling or imputation, resulting in limited representation. Its experiments are often focused on a few popular techniques within each pipeline block, leading to an imbalanced sample. To overcome the observed limitations of OpenML, we propose PIPES, a collection of experiments involving multiple pipelines designed to represent all combinations of the selected sets of techniques, aiming at diversity and completeness. PIPES stores the results of experiments performed applying 9,408 pipelines to 300 datasets. It includes detailed information on the pipeline blocks, training and testing times, predictions, performances, and the eventual error messages. This comprehensive collection of results allows researchers to perform analyses across diverse and representative pipelines and datasets. PIPES also offers potential for expansion, as additional data and experiments can be incorporated to support the meta-learning community further. The data, code, supplementary material, and all experiments can be found at https://github.com/cynthiamaia/PIPES.git.

The choice of scaling technique matters for classification performance

Dataset scaling, also known as normalization, is an essential preprocessing step in a machine learning pipeline. It is aimed at adjusting attributes scales in a way that they all vary within the same range. This transformation is known to improve the performance of classification models, but there are several scaling techniques to choose from, and this choice is not generally done carefully. In this paper, we execute a broad experiment comparing the impact of 5 scaling techniques on the performances of 20 classification algorithms among monolithic and ensemble models, applying them to 82 publicly available datasets with varying imbalance ratios. Results show that the choice of scaling technique matters for classification performance, and the performance difference between the best and the worst scaling technique is relevant and statistically significant in most cases. They also indicate that choosing an inadequate technique can be more detrimental to classification performance than not scaling the data at all. We also show how the performance variation of an ensemble model, considering different scaling techniques, tends to be dictated by that of its base model. Finally, we discuss the relationship between a model's sensitivity to the choice of scaling technique and its performance and provide insights into its applicability on different model deployment scenarios. Full results and source code for the experiments in this paper are available in a GitHub repository.\footnote{https://github.com/amorimlb/scaling\_matters}