Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36959245›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2023

An improved hyperparameter optimization framework for AutoML systems using evolutionary algorithms.

Amala Mary Vincent, P Jidesh

Full text read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

25 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Loss function influence on hyperparameter optimization for observational healthcare prediction models.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2026
    Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. A Guide to Bayesian Optimization in Bioprocess Engineering.Biotechnology and bioengineering · 2026
    Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Amala Mary VincentDepartment of Mathematical and Computational Sciences, National Institute of Technology Karnataka, Mangalore, 575025, India. amalamaryvincent@gmail.com.
P JideshDepartment of Mathematical and Computational Sciences, National Institute of Technology Karnataka, Mangalore, 575025, India.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

For any machine learning model, finding the optimal hyperparameter setting has a direct and significant impact on the model's performance. In this paper, we discuss different types of hyperparameter optimization techniques. We compare the performance of some of the hyperparameter optimization techniques on image classification datasets with the help of AutoML models. In particular, the paper studies Bayesian optimization in depth and proposes the use of genetic algorithm, differential evolution and covariance matrix adaptation-evolutionary strategy for acquisition function optimization. Moreover, we compare these variants of Bayesian optimization with conventional Bayesian optimization and observe that the use of covariance matrix adaptation-evolutionary strategy and differential evolution improves the performance of standard Bayesian optimization. We also notice that Bayesian optimization tends to perform poorly when genetic algorithm is used for acquisition function optimization.

Identifiers

PMID36959245
PMCPMC10036546

What OpenQuestion holds

Textfull text, public
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.