↓ Skip to main content

PMLB: a large benchmark suite for machine learning evaluation and comparison

Overview of attention for article published in BioData Mining, December 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • One of the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#6 of 325)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (95th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (75th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
64 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages
googleplus
3 Google+ users

Citations

dimensions_citation
212 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
217 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
PMLB: a large benchmark suite for machine learning evaluation and comparison
Published in
BioData Mining, December 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13040-017-0154-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Randal S. Olson, William La Cava, Patryk Orzechowski, Ryan J. Urbanowicz, Jason H. Moore

Abstract

The selection, development, or comparison of machine learning methods in data mining can be a difficult task based on the target problem and goals of a particular study. Numerous publicly available real-world and simulated benchmark datasets have emerged from different sources, but their organization and adoption as standards have been inconsistent. As such, selecting and curating specific benchmarks remains an unnecessary burden on machine learning practitioners and data scientists. The present study introduces an accessible, curated, and developing public benchmark resource to facilitate identification of the strengths and weaknesses of different machine learning methodologies. We compare meta-features among the current set of benchmark datasets in this resource to characterize the diversity of available data. Finally, we apply a number of established machine learning methods to the entire benchmark suite and analyze how datasets and algorithms cluster in terms of performance. From this study, we find that existing benchmarks lack the diversity to properly benchmark machine learning algorithms, and there are several gaps in benchmarking problems that still need to be considered. This work represents another important step towards understanding the limitations of popular benchmarking suites and developing a resource that connects existing benchmarking standards to more diverse and efficient standards in the future.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 64 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 217 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 216 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 34 16%
Student > Master 33 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 30 14%
Student > Bachelor 26 12%
Professor 12 6%
Other 28 13%
Unknown 54 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Computer Science 71 33%
Engineering 23 11%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 13 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 11 5%
Physics and Astronomy 7 3%
Other 29 13%
Unknown 63 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 46. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 28 May 2022.
All research outputs
#919,844
of 26,017,215 outputs
Outputs from BioData Mining
#6
of 325 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#20,494
of 451,588 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BioData Mining
#2
of 8 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,017,215 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 325 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 451,588 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 8 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 6 of them.