NiaAutoARM: Automated generation and evaluation of Association Rule Mining pipelines

Iztok Fister; Iztok Fister Jr.; Uro\v{s} Mlakar

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 25 references

NiaAutoARM: Automated generation and evaluation of Association Rule Mining pipelines

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read NiaAutoARM claims to be the first AutoML system for association rule mining pipelines, encoding the inner algorithm, hyperparameters, preprocessing steps, and metric weights into one continuous vector that a meta-heuristic optimizes.

desk verdict A credible AutoML wrapper for numerical ARM that needs a tighter experimental and specification story, especially for multi-preprocessing pipelines. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.00138 v1 pith:3TJ45DFJ submitted 2024-12-30 cs.NE cs.AI

Uroš Mlakar , Iztok Fister Jr. , Iztok Fister This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.NEcs.AI

keywords AutoMLAssociationRuleMiningNumericalPipelinesNiaARMMetaheuristicsDifferentialEvolutionParticleSwarmOptimization

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper proposes NiaAutoARM, an automated machine learning method that builds complete numerical association rule mining (NARM) pipelines without manual intervention. Its central claim is that pipeline construction can be cast as a continuous optimization problem, giving the first AutoML solution for association rule mining. A practical reader would care because NARM normally requires an expert to choose preprocessing, mining algorithm, hyperparameters, and evaluation metrics; NiaAutoARM replaces that manual stage with a meta-heuristic search. Experiments on ten UCI datasets indicate that the automatically constructed pipelines match or exceed the quality of rules found by the state-of-the-art VARDE algorithm on several datasets.

What carries the argument

The carrying mechanism is the genotype-phenotype mapping of Eq. (1): a single real vector $\mathbf{x}_i = (x_{i,1}, y_{i,1}, y_{i,2}, p_{i,1},\dots,p_{i,P}, z_{i,1},\dots,z_{i,M}, w_{i,1},\dots,w_{i,M})$ with all values in $[0,1]$, decoded by a mapping $\Gamma$ into algorithm choice, hyperparameters $NP$ and $MAXFES$, active preprocessing methods, metric selection, and metric weights. The outer meta-heuristic optimizes this vector; for each candidate, the inner algorithm mines rules whose fitness is a weighted sum of the selected metrics, while the outer fitness $\alpha\cdot\mathrm{supp} + \beta\cdot\mathrm{conf}$ over $\alpha+\beta$ scores the pipeline itself. This two-layer search is what converts AutoML for ARM from a discrete architecture selection problem into a continuous optimization problem.

What would settle it

Take a P > 1 pipeline found by NiaAutoARM that selects, for example, both min-max normalization and k-means discretization, run the same inner algorithm with the same hyperparameters on the same data applying the two preprocessing methods in each possible order, and compare the mined rules and fitness values. If the two orders yield different results, then the genotype does not uniquely define the pipeline, contradicting the method's claim to construct well-defined pipelines when P > 1.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that a complete association rule mining pipeline has a fixed-length real-vector encoding: one component selects the inner mining algorithm from a pool (DE, PSO, GA, LSHADE, iLSHADE, jDE), two components set its population size and evaluation budget, P components toggle preprocessing methods on or off, M components choose which rule-quality metrics enter the fitness, and M components weight those metrics. The outer meta-heuristic (DE or PSO in the experiments) searches this continuous space, decoding each candidate into a concrete pipeline, running the inner algorithm, and scoring the resulting rules with a support-confidence fitness. The paper reports that this procedure finds high-quality pipelines across ten UCI datasets and that, in the comparison experiments, the pipelines it selects outperform VARDE with statistical significance in some instances.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that a pipeline is fully described by a fixed-length real vector with independent binary preprocessing switches; in particular, when more than one preprocessing method is selected, the encoding does not state their execution order, so such pipelines are only well-defined if order does not affect the outcome or a fixed default order is assumed.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Non-experts can apply numerical association rule mining to mixed categorical and numerical data without manually choosing preprocessing, algorithm, hyperparameters, or fitness metrics.
Because the genotype is agnostic to the specific optimizer, any population-based meta-heuristic compatible with the underlying algorithm library can serve as the outer pipeline searcher.
Metric weights become part of the search space, so the fitness function itself adapts to each dataset rather than being fixed in advance.
Allowing multiple preprocessing methods (P > 1) can improve pipeline quality at the cost of a larger search space and longer running times.
Dataset-specific pipelines found by the automatic search can beat a single hand-designed state-of-the-art ARM algorithm, supporting the No Free Lunch motivation for per-dataset search.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

The paper leaves implicit that its outer fitness in Eq. (3) only rewards support and confidence, while the inner search can use up to six weighted metrics; a user who cares about comprehensibility or coverage should change the outer fitness, not the inner weights, because only the outer fitness decides which pipeline wins.
Because the preprocessing part of the genotype is a set of independent binary switches, a natural unstated extension is to encode the order of preprocessing methods explicitly, or to use a variable-length genotype; that would make the P > 1 pipelines fully deterministic and testable.
The two-layer design is not tied to association rule mining; the same encoding trick could be applied to other pipeline-based data mining tasks, such as subgroup discovery or outlier detection, by swapping the inner heuristic and the evaluation metrics.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

The core idea is straightforward: wrap the inner NiaARM optimizer in an outer metaheuristic that also selects preprocessing methods, evaluation metrics, metric weights, and hyperparameters. That is a sensible extension of the authors' earlier NiaAML work, and the genotype-phenotype mapping in Eqs. (1)-(2) plus Algorithm 1 is clearly specified. The genuinely new bit is applying AutoML to numerical association rule mining pipelines, which does appear to be missing from the literature, and the experimental effort is real: ten datasets, 30 runs, two outer optimizers, and statistical tests.

Where it gets soft. First, the P>1 experiments are under-specified. Eq. (1) encodes each preprocessing method as an independent binary switch, and the paper never states the order in which selected methods like MM, ZS, RHC, and DK are applied. Normalizing before versus after discretization changes the result. If the implementation uses a fixed order, that order is part of the pipeline and must be documented; otherwise a single genotype maps to multiple executable pipelines and the P>1 fitness values are not well-defined. This does not sink the P=1 baseline, but it undermines the claim of searching over the full pipeline space.

Second, the VARDE comparison is indirect and the budget matching is unclear. The paper says it uses the best reported variations of VARDE from [18], but it never states whether the total number of fitness evaluations was matched. Since NiaAutoARM allocates up to 10,000 inner evaluations per pipeline and runs 1,000 outer pipeline evaluations, the comparison could be severely unequal. Table 9's Wilcoxon results are also hard to parse as presented.

Third, alpha and beta in Eq. (3) are never reported, and there is no baseline like a default pipeline or random search over pipelines. Finally, the paper claims a Python implementation but provides no code or repository link.

None of this destroys the paper. The central mechanism is credible, the empirical work is substantial, and the authors are honest about the computational cost. But the evaluation needs tightening before I would trust the state-of-the-art claim.

Send it to peer review. It is a legitimate engineering contribution with testable claims, and a good referee can push for the missing details. I would expect a major revision, not a rejection. I would not cite it yet, but I would bring it to a reading group if anyone near you works on AutoML or ARM.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes NiaAutoARM, an AutoML approach that models the construction of numerical association rule mining (ARM) pipelines as a continuous optimization problem. An outer population-based metaheuristic (PSO or DE) evolves real-valued vectors that encode the inner ARM algorithm, its hyperparameters (NP and MAXFES), a set of preprocessing methods, a set of evaluation metrics, and metric weights. The inner ARM algorithm is then run on the preprocessed data, and the outer fitness is defined by Eq. (3) as a linear combination of support and confidence. The method is evaluated on ten UCI datasets in four experimental settings: a baseline with one preprocessing method and fixed metric weights, metric-weight adaptation, multiple preprocessing methods, and an indirect comparison against the VARDE algorithm. The paper claims to be the first AutoML solution for ARM pipeline construction, and reports that the generated pipelines outperform VARDE in some instances.

Significance. If the full pipeline semantics were precisely specified, the paper would make a useful contribution to automated numerical ARM: it formulates an interesting search space, provides Algorithm 1 as a concrete optimization loop, evaluates on ten public datasets, and attempts a comparison with a state-of-the-art ARM method. The paper also has the merit of treating metric weights as optimizable parameters and of recognizing preprocessing as a pipeline component. However, the significance of the empirical claims is currently limited by under-specified execution semantics for multiple preprocessing methods and by an incompletely defined outer fitness aggregation over the mined rule set. These gaps affect the reproducibility and interpretation of most reported results.

major comments (4)

[Section 3, Eq. (1)-(2); Section 4.1.3, Tables 7-8] The preprocessing block in Eq. (1) is an unordered set of binary switches (each method active when p_i,j > 0.5), and Eq. (2) passes this set to the inner ARM call. For P > 1, the selected methods (MM, ZS, DS, RHC, DK) are order-dependent: applying min-max normalization before k-means discretization is not equivalent to applying it after, and applying z-score after min-max is not the same as the reverse order. Section 4.1.3 reports results for combinations such as {MM, RHC, ZS}, but the paper never specifies the execution order. A single genotype therefore maps to multiple different executable pipelines, so the P > 1 fitness values are not well-defined. The authors should either define a deterministic fixed order for applying all selected preprocessing methods, or extend the representation to encode the order explicitly, and then re-run or re-describe the P > 1 experiments under that unambiguous semantics.
[Section 3, Eq. (3)] The outer fitness function in Eq. (3) uses support and confidence of a single association rule, but the inner ARM algorithm generally returns a set of rules. The paper does not state how supp and conf are obtained from that rule set: best rule, average over rules, weighted aggregate, or some other summary. This omission makes the objective function of the outer optimization incomplete and prevents the reader from reproducing the fitness values reported in Section 4. The authors should specify the aggregation rule, or alternatively define Eq. (3) directly over the mined rule set.
[Section 4.1.4, Table 9] The comparison with VARDE is under-specified. The text says that for each dataset the authors observed which pipeline components provided the best results and then performed 30 independent runs with those settings, but it does not state how those components were selected, whether the selection used information from the same runs that are later compared, what inner hyperparameter budget was used, or how the Wilcoxon signed-rank test was paired across the 30 runs. Table 9 also reports only p-values with no effect sizes or confidence intervals. Consequently, the conclusion that NiaAutoARM is 'distinguished as an effective framework' or achieves 'superior performance' is not sufficiently supported by the presented evidence.
[Section 4.1.2, Tables 5-6 vs Tables 3-4] The claims that ARM metric-weight adaptation provides 'slightly higher fitness values' and 'overall better ARM pipelines for the majority of datasets' are not backed by a proper statistical comparison. The only statistical statement is a Wilcoxon test with p-value=0.41 reported in the text, but it is not clear which two configurations are being compared. The same issue applies to Section 4.1.3, where the effect of P > 1 versus P = 1 is described qualitatively. The authors should report pairwise tests for the configurations they compare, or explicitly state that the observed differences are descriptive only.

minor comments (5)

[Section 4.1.3, Tables 7-8] In Tables 7 and 8, the preprocessing columns are all reported as '-', so the tables do not contain the preprocessing-selection frequencies that the experiment is meant to analyze. The actual frequencies appear only in the heatmaps of Figures 5 and 6; the tables should either include these data or be merged with the figures consistently.
[Section 3, Eq. (3)] The parameters α and β in Eq. (3) are never given values or a calibration procedure. The text says they designate the impact of each metric, but the reader cannot tell whether they are fixed constants, user inputs, or optimized values. Please define them.
[Section 4.1.2] The text refers to a 'Wilcox test'; this should be spelled as the 'Wilcoxon signed-rank test', and the compared configurations should be identified explicitly.
[Section 4.1.4, Table 9] The column headers 'VARDE pos 15 2000 [18]' and 'VARDE neg 15 2000 [18]' are unclear. The meaning of 'pos' and 'neg', and whether '15 2000' are hyperparameters of VARDE, should be explained in the caption or the text.
[Contributions, Section 1] The paper lists 'To implement a new method called NiaAutoARM as a Python package' as a contribution, but no repository or package URL is provided in the manuscript. Adding a link would improve reproducibility and allow reviewers and readers to verify the implementation details.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the outer fitness in Eq. (3) is fixed and independent of the evolved inner weighted-metric fitness, so the ARM-pipeline search does not reduce to its own inputs.

full rationale

The paper's formal chain runs from the pipeline encoding in Eq. (1), through the genotype-to-phenotype mapping in Eq. (2), to the outer fitness in Eq. (3) and Algorithm 1. Eq. (3) is a fixed linear combination of support and confidence with constants alpha and beta that are not part of the evolved pipeline; it is not defined by, or equal to, the inner weighted-metric fitness that Eq. (2) supplies to the inner ARM optimizer. The inner fitness is a weighted sum of chosen or optimized metrics and weights, while the outer objective is fixed, so the outer search is not optimizing a quantity that it itself defines. The preprocessing selection is a binary activation mask, which is under-specified for P>1 because no execution order is given, but this is a representational and correctness issue, not a circularity: the phenotype is not defined in terms of the fitness value. The paper does rely heavily on the authors' previous NiaAML, NiaARM, NiaPy, and VARDE components, and the VARDE comparison is not an independent external baseline, but these uses provide software and a comparison algorithm rather than a premise that is assumed circularly. The experimental evaluation uses external UCI datasets, and the reported numbers come from actual optimizer runs. No equation or fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no uniqueness or existence theorem is imported from the authors' prior work to force the paper's choices. Therefore no circular step can be exhibited from the text alone.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The main free parameters are the metric weights optimized by the outer loop and the unreported alpha/beta constants in the evaluation function, plus hand-set thresholds and budget ranges. The axioms are domain assumptions about the sufficiency of the chosen metrics, the validity of the inherited mapping Gamma, the order-independence of preprocessing, the representativeness of the datasets, and the fairness of the VARDE baseline. No new theoretical entities are introduced.

free parameters (5)

Inner metric weights w_{i,m} = dataset-dependent; e.g., Supp 0.76, Conf 0.77 for PSO WO P=1 (Table 5)
The outer algorithm optimizes the weights of the six ARM metrics in the inner fitness; these are fitted per dataset and are part of what NiaAutoARM searches over.
Alpha and beta in outer fitness (Eq. 3) = not reported
The paper defines f = (alpha*supp + beta*conf)/(alpha+beta) but never states the values used in the experiments; if they are treated as fixed constants, they are hand-chosen and unreported.
Inclusion threshold 0.5 for preprocessing and metrics = 0.5
Genotype values above 0.5 activate a preprocessing method or metric; this threshold is arbitrary and not tuned.
Hyperparameter domains for inner algorithm NP and MAXFES = NP in [10,30], MAXFES in [2000,10000]
These bounds are chosen by hand for the inner search; the outer algorithm only searches within them.
Outer algorithm population size and budget = NP=30, MAXFES=1000 pipeline evaluations
Experimental settings chosen for DE and PSO outer optimizers; they affect the quality of the found pipelines and are not justified.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption The six ARM metrics in Table 1 are appropriate and sufficient for evaluating rule quality.
Used to define both inner and outer fitness; no justification is given for choosing exactly these metrics, and amplitude and inclusion are partially redundant with confidence.
ad hoc to paper The genotype-phenotype mapping Gamma from [18] correctly decodes hyperparameters.
Gamma is referenced but not defined; the paper relies on this prior mapping for NP and MAXFES decoding without restating it.
ad hoc to paper Multiple selected preprocessing methods can be applied in a fixed or order-independent manner.
No execution order is defined for P>1 preprocessing methods; the genotype vector encodes a set, not a sequence.
domain assumption The UCI datasets listed in Table 2 are representative of NARM problems.
Ten datasets of varying size and attribute types are used without a justification that they cover the difficulty spectrum of NARM.
domain assumption The VARDE configuration with NP=15 and MAXFES=2000 is a fair state-of-the-art baseline.
The comparison in Section 4.1.4 assumes that this configuration from reference [18] is a strong baseline and that the difference in search budget does not confound the Wilcoxon tests.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of NiaAutoARM: Automated generation and evaluation of Association Rule Mining pipelines." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/3TJ45DFJ

@misc{pith2026250100138,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: NiaAutoARM: Automated generation and evaluation of Association Rule Mining pipelines},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/3TJ45DFJ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.00138}
}

read the original abstract

The Numerical Association Rule Mining paradigm that includes concurrent dealing with numerical and categorical attributes is beneficial for discovering associations from datasets consisting of both features. The process is not considered as easy since it incorporates several processing steps running sequentially that form an entire pipeline, e.g., preprocessing, algorithm selection, hyper-parameter optimization, and the definition of metrics evaluating the quality of the association rule. In this paper, we proposed a novel Automated Machine Learning method, NiaAutoARM, for constructing the full association rule mining pipelines based on stochastic population-based meta-heuristics automatically. Along with the theoretical representation of the proposed method, we also present a comprehensive experimental evaluation of the proposed method.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.00138 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** An example of genotype-phenotype mapping within the ARM pipeline construction. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Results for baseline ARM pipeline optimization, reporting the averages of best pipelines in terms of fitness values, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (2 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Results of ARM pipeline construction using ARM metric weight adaptation, reporting the averages of best pipelines [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Results of PSO ARM pipeline optimization using ARM metric weight adaptation and selecting more preprocessing [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

25 extracted references · 22 canonical work pages

[18]

Variable-length differential evolution for numerical and discrete association rule mining,

U. Mlakar and I. Fister, “Variable-length differential evolution for numerical and discrete association rule mining,” IEEE access, 2023

work page 2023
[1]

Taking human out of learning applications: A survey on automated machine learning,

Q. Yao, M. Wang, Y. Chen, W. Dai, Y.-F. Li, W.-W. Tu, Q. Yang, and Y. Yu, “Taking human out of learning applications: A survey on automated machine learning,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1810.13306, 2018

arXiv 2018
[2]

Hutter, L

F. Hutter, L. Kotthoff, and J. Vanschoren, Automated machine learn- ing: methods, systems, challenges. Springer Nature, 2019

work page 2019
[3]

Automl: A survey of the state-of-the- art,

X. He, K. Zhao, and X. Chu, “Automl: A survey of the state-of-the- art,” Knowledge-Based Systems, vol. 212, p. 106622, 2021

work page 2021
[4]

Benchmarking automl for regression tasks on small tabular data in materials design,

F. Conrad, M. M ¨alzer, M. Schwarzenberger, H. Wiemer, and S. Ihlenfeldt, “Benchmarking automl for regression tasks on small tabular data in materials design,” Scientific Reports, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 1–14, 2022

work page 2022
[5]

A. E. Eiben and J. E. Smith, Introduction to Evolutionary Computing, 2nd ed. Springer Publishing Company, Incorporated, 2015

work page 2015
[6]

Blum and D

C. Blum and D. Merkle, Swarm Intelligence: Introduction and Appli- cations. Springer-Verlag Berlin, 2008

work page 2008
[7]

No free lunch theorems for optimization,

D. H. Wolpert and W. G. Macready, “No free lunch theorems for optimization,” IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation , vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 67–82, 1997

1997

Show all 25 references

[8]

Human- centered ai in smart farming: Toward agriculture 5.0,

A. Holzinger, I. Fister, I. Fister, H.-P . Kaul, and S. Asseng, “Human- centered ai in smart farming: Toward agriculture 5.0,”IEEE Access, vol. 12, pp. 62 199–62 214, 2024

2024
[9]

Benchmark and survey of auto- mated machine learning frameworks,

M.-A. Z ¨oller and M. F. Huber, “Benchmark and survey of auto- mated machine learning frameworks,” Journal of artificial intelli- gence research, vol. 70, pp. 409–472, 2021

2021
[10]

Automated machine learning—a brief review at the end of the early years,

H. J. Escalante, “Automated machine learning—a brief review at the end of the early years,” Automated Design of Machine Learning and Search Algorithms, pp. 11–28, 2021

2021
[11]

Testing the applicability and performance of auto ml for potential applications in diagnostic neuroradiology,

M. Musigmann, B. H. Akkurt, H. Kr ¨ahling, N. G. Nacul, L. Re- monda, T. Sartoretti, D. Henssen, B. Brokinkel, W. Stummer, W. Heindel et al. , “Testing the applicability and performance of auto ml for potential applications in diagnostic neuroradiology,” Scientific reports, vo...

2022
[12]

Net-net auto machine learning (automl) prediction of complex ecosystems,

E. Barreiro, C. R. Munteanu, M. Cruz-Monteagudo, A. Pazos, and H. Gonz ´alez-D´ıaz, “Net-net auto machine learning (automl) prediction of complex ecosystems,” Scientific reports, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 1–9, 2018

2018
[13]

Continuous op- timizers for automatic design and evaluation of classification pipelines,

I. Fister, M. Zorman, D. Fister, and I. Fister, “Continuous op- timizers for automatic design and evaluation of classification pipelines,” Frontier applications of nature inspired computation , pp. 281–301, 2020

2020
[14]

Niaaml2: An improved automl using nature-inspired algorithms,

L. Pe ˇcnik, I. Fister, and I. Fister, “Niaaml2: An improved automl using nature-inspired algorithms,” in Advances in Swarm Intelli- gence: 12th International Conference, ICSI 2021, Qingdao, China, July 17–21, 2021, Proceedings, Part II 12 . Springer, 2021, pp. 243–252

2021
[15]

Niaarm: A minimalistic framework for numerical association rule mining,

ˇZ. Stupan and I. Fister, “Niaarm: A minimalistic framework for numerical association rule mining,”Journal of Open Source Software, vol. 7, no. 77, p. 4448, 2022

2022
[16]

Differential evolution for association rule mining using cate- gorical and numerical attributes,

I. Fister, A. Iglesias, A. Galvez, J. Del Ser, E. Osaba, and I. Fister, “Differential evolution for association rule mining using cate- gorical and numerical attributes,” in Intelligent Data Engineering and Automated Learning–IDEAL 2018: 19th International Confer- ence, Madrid...

2018
[17]

NiaPy: Python microframework for building nature-inspired algorithms,

G. Vrban ˇciˇc, L. Brezo ˇcnik, U. Mlakar, D. Fister, and I. Fister Jr., “NiaPy: Python microframework for building nature-inspired algorithms,” Journal of Open Source Software , vol. 3, 2018. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.00613

2018 doi
[19]

Differential Evolution – A Simple and Effi- cient Heuristic for Global Optimization over Continuous Spaces,

R. Storn and K. Price, “Differential Evolution – A Simple and Effi- cient Heuristic for Global Optimization over Continuous Spaces,” J. of Global Optimization, vol. 11, no. 4, pp. 341–359, dec 1997

1997
[20]

Particle swarm optimization,

J. Kennedy and R. Eberhart, “Particle swarm optimization,” in Neural Networks, 1995. Proceedings., IEEE International Conference on, vol. 4, 1995, pp. 1942–1948

1995
[21]

D. E. Goldberg, Genetic Algorithms in Search, Optimization and Machine Learning, 1st ed. Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing Co., Inc., 1989

1989
[22]

Improving the search performance of {SHADE} using linear population size reduction,

R. Tanabe and A. S. Fukunaga, “Improving the search performance of {SHADE} using linear population size reduction,” in Proceed- ings of the {IEEE} Congress on Evolutionary Computation, {CEC} 2014, Beijing, China, July 6-11, 2014 , 2014, pp. 1658–1665

2014
[23]

Il-shade: Improved l- shade algorithm for single objective real-parameter optimization,

J. Brest, M. S. Mau ˇcec, and B. Bo ˇskovi´c, “Il-shade: Improved l- shade algorithm for single objective real-parameter optimization,” 2016 IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation, CEC 2016 , pp. 1188–1195, 2016

2016
[24]

Self- adapting control parameters in differential evolution: A compara- tive study on numerical benchmark problems,

J. Brest, S. Greiner, B. Bo ˇskovi´c, M. Mernik, and V . ˇZumer, “Self- adapting control parameters in differential evolution: A compara- tive study on numerical benchmark problems,” Trans. Evol. Comp, vol. 10, pp. 646–657, 12 2006

2006
[25]

UCI machine learning repository,

D. Dua and C. Graff, “UCI machine learning repository,” 2017. [Online]. Available: http://archive.ics.uci.edu/ml

2017

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [18]

Variable-length differential evolution for numerical and discrete association rule mining,

U. Mlakar and I. Fister, “Variable-length differential evolution for numerical and discrete association rule mining,” IEEE access, 2023

work page 2023

[2] [1]

Taking human out of learning applications: A survey on automated machine learning,

Q. Yao, M. Wang, Y. Chen, W. Dai, Y.-F. Li, W.-W. Tu, Q. Yang, and Y. Yu, “Taking human out of learning applications: A survey on automated machine learning,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1810.13306, 2018

arXiv 2018

[3] [2]

Hutter, L

F. Hutter, L. Kotthoff, and J. Vanschoren, Automated machine learn- ing: methods, systems, challenges. Springer Nature, 2019

work page 2019

[4] [3]

Automl: A survey of the state-of-the- art,

X. He, K. Zhao, and X. Chu, “Automl: A survey of the state-of-the- art,” Knowledge-Based Systems, vol. 212, p. 106622, 2021

work page 2021

[5] [4]

Benchmarking automl for regression tasks on small tabular data in materials design,

F. Conrad, M. M ¨alzer, M. Schwarzenberger, H. Wiemer, and S. Ihlenfeldt, “Benchmarking automl for regression tasks on small tabular data in materials design,” Scientific Reports, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 1–14, 2022

work page 2022

[6] [5]

A. E. Eiben and J. E. Smith, Introduction to Evolutionary Computing, 2nd ed. Springer Publishing Company, Incorporated, 2015

work page 2015

[7] [6]

Blum and D

C. Blum and D. Merkle, Swarm Intelligence: Introduction and Appli- cations. Springer-Verlag Berlin, 2008

work page 2008

[8] [7]

No free lunch theorems for optimization,

D. H. Wolpert and W. G. Macready, “No free lunch theorems for optimization,” IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation , vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 67–82, 1997

1997