a-scoreable-file-in-the-first-hour

Solid

Use at the first stage of a run whose deliverable is a predictions file, and again at every stage when one still does not exist. Covers why a trivial submission written early dominates a good one written late, what the first version should contain, and how to improve it in place without ever leaving it invalid.

AI & Automation 805 stars 25 forks Updated 2 weeks ago NOASSERTION

Install

View on GitHub

Quality Score: 82/100

Stars 20%
97
Recency 20%
90
Frontmatter 20%
70
Documentation 15%
100
Issue Health 10%
80
License 10%
100
Description 5%
100

Skill Content

# Write a scoreable file before you write anything else A predictions file that does not exist scores nothing. Not a low score — no score, and on a benchmark that reports *valid submission rate* as a headline metric beside the score, a missing file costs you on two axes at once. So the first version is not a milestone to work toward. It is a thing to get out of the way in the first hour, from whatever you can compute immediately, and then improve in place for the rest of the run. ## Why this is not the obvious advice The instinct is that a trivial submission is embarrassing and that a real one is close, so it is better to wait. Two measurements say otherwise. Every run of a scored arm on this benchmark hit its wall clock — nineteen of nineteen — and none of them finished the pipeline they had planned. Six never got past the first stage. Whatever a run intends to do at stage five, it should assume it will not get there. And a run on that arm shipped **1,137 rows where the split has 1,147** and scored nothing at all on a task it had otherwise solved, because the file was written once, late, and never re-checked. ## The first version Build it from the training labels alone, with no model: | task shape | first submission | |---|---| | regression | the training mean, or the per-group mean if a grouping column is obvious | | classification | the majority class, or the class prior | | ranking / retrieval | the identity ordering, or a length or frequency heuristic | | genera...

Details

Author
tangxiangru
Repository
tangxiangru/AutoR
Created
6 months ago
Last Updated
2 weeks ago
Language
Python
License
NOASSERTION

Integrates with

Similar Skills

Semantically similar based on skill content — not just same category

AI & Automation Solid

add-the-baseline-back-on-the-split-you-cannot-score

Use at study design, implementation and every write thereafter, whenever the value you submit is assembled from parts - a fitted baseline plus a model's residual, a level plus a shape, a de-trended prediction that has to be re-trended, any inverse transform - and the validation arrays and the graded arrays are produced by separate calls. Covers assembling every split through one function, using the baseline you already fitted as a label-free reference vector on the graded split, why row count, header, dtype and finiteness cannot see this class of error, and putting the gate inside the writer rather than in a script somebody has to remember to run.

805 Updated 2 weeks ago
tangxiangru
AI & Automation Solid

chemistry-reproduce-the-scoring-path-before-you-replace-it

Use at implementation, experimentation and analysis when you are reproducing a published benchmark number and the source's scoring path is one you can read — which rows are scored, in what order, how many the loader drops, which epoch is reported, how tasks are pooled, over how many seeds. Covers implementing that path exactly before improving it, the one-row-per-step ladder from the published rule down to your own honest estimate, and why one un-replicated step makes the reproduction gap you report uninterpretable.

805 Updated 2 weeks ago
tangxiangru
AI & Automation Solid

a-combination-is-not-the-candidate-set

Use once more than one trained artifact exists on disk -- two checkpoints, two seeds, two architectures, a continuation run -- and something is deciding which of them, or which combination of them, writes the predictions file. Covers the ballot that lists every artifact as a submission on its own before any blend, re-running it whenever a training job finishes, the known-bad canary that tests the objective, and persisting a rejected candidate's predictions.

805 Updated 2 weeks ago
tangxiangru