Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Flaml meets DoubleML - Comparing AutoML tuning #198

Closed
wants to merge 4 commits into from

Conversation

sauravbania
Copy link
Contributor

In this notebook, we compare AutoML tuning methods using the FLAML library. We generate synthetic data with the make_plr_CCDDHNR2018 function. The analysis includes:

1.	AutoML Manual Tuning: Hyperparameters are manually set for tuning.
2.	AutoML API Tuning: The FLAML API automatically optimizes hyperparameters.
3.	Dummy Models: Simple mean-based models as a baseline.

We assess model performance using the DoubleML framework, focusing on metrics like Mean Squared Error (MSE) and coefficients with confidence intervals. Results are saved and visualized to compare the effectiveness of each tuning approach.

sauravbania and others added 4 commits July 16, 2024 12:32
I have used FLAMLRegressor and FLAMLclassifier, the plot for comparison of coefficients and the comparison for MSE scores for the untuned, tuned and dummy models.
I have changed the bar plots and added some explanations.
@PhilippBach PhilippBach mentioned this pull request Sep 18, 2024
OliverSchacht added a commit that referenced this pull request Oct 21, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants