Integrating Meta-Features with Knowledge Graph Embeddings for Meta-Learning
Authors: Antonis Klironomos, Ioannis Dasoulas, Francesco Periti, Mohamed Gad-Elrab, Heiko Paulheim, Anastasia Dimou, Evgeny Kharlamov
Organizations: Bosch Center for Artificial Intelligence, Germany · University of Mannheim, Germany · KU Leuven, Belgium · Leuven.AI - KU Leuven Institute for AI, Belgium · Flanders Make, Belgium · Univesity of Oslo, Norway
The vast collection of machine learning records available on the web presents a significant opportunity for meta-learning, where past experiments are leveraged to improve performance. Two crucial meta-learning tasks are pipeline performance estimation (PPE), which predicts pipeline performance on target datasets, and dataset performance-based similarity estimation (DPSE), which identifies datasets with similar performance patterns. Existing approaches primarily rely on dataset meta-features (e.g., number of instances, class entropy, etc.) to represent datasets numerically and approximate these meta-learning tasks. However, these approaches often overlook the wealth of past experimental results and pipeline metadata available. This limits their ability to capture dataset - pipeline interactions that reveal performance similarity patterns. In this work, we propose KGmetaSP, a knowledge-graph-embeddings approach that leverages existing experiment data to capture these interactions and improve both PPE and DPSE. We represent datasets and pipelines within a unified knowledge graph (KG) and derive embeddings that support pipeline-agnostic meta-models for PPE and distance-based retrieval for DPSE. To validate our approach, we construct a large-scale benchmark comprising 144,177 OpenML experiments, enabling a rich cross-dataset evaluation. KGmetaSP enables accurate PPE using a single pipeline-agnostic meta-model and improves DPSE over baselines. The proposed KGmetaSP, KG, and benchmark are released, establishing a new reference point for meta-learning and demonstrating how consolidating open experiment data into a unified KG advances the field.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Comparison of the information leveraged by our proposed approach (green) versus existing approaches (orange) for representing datasets in meta-learning. For a pair of datasets, A and B, existing approaches represent datasets using only intrinsic meta-feature vectors (top-right). Our proposed approach also includes past pipeline configurations metadata (top left) as additional context into a KG, to represent datasets.
Figure 2: KGmetaSP overview.
Figure 3: ML pipeline configuration example represented as an ExeKG .
Figure 4
Entities
Properties
Triples
Attributes
Literals
ExeKGs
1,502,140
293
4,492,036
149
371,534
ExeKGs + MLSea
1,514,836
317
4,522,216
155
385,246
Table 1: MetaExe-KG statistics.
Figure 6: Overview of MetaExe-Bench constructed by sparsely training and evaluating MetaExe-KG datasets with MetaExe-KG pipeline configurations. Resulting performance values are used to assess the ground truth performance-based similarity between datasets and train PPE meta-models.
Figure 7: High-level depiction of PPE meta-models. a) Common approach: Pipeline configuration-specific meta-models predict the performance of a pipeline-configuration for a dataset given a dataset’s representation. b) Our approach: A single common pipeline configuration-agnostic meta-model predicts the performance of a pipeline configuration for a dataset given the dataset’s and pipeline configuration’s representations.
Dataset
Pipeline
Meta-
Meta-Regr.
Meta-Classif.
Embedding
Strategy
Models
MSE
R2
Accuracy
F1
Target: Accuracy
MF All
Conf.-specific
1,028
0.0081
0.6748
0.7363
0.7358
KGmetaSP PE
1
0.0101
0.6181
0.7413
0.7427
MF Info. Theory [ 26 ]
Conf.-specific
1,028
0.0249
-0.0737
0.4428
0.4423
KGmetaSP PE
1
0.0401
-0.5135
0.4773
0.4789
Table 2: PPE meta-regression and meta-classification for unseen datasets. We compare a single, configuration-agnostic model trained on meta-features and KGmetaSP embeddings against an average evaluation of 1,028 configuration-specific specialized models trained on meta-features. Meta-regression targets are raw performance values. Meta-classification targets are binned into 3 classes (low, medium, high). The highest score per metric is underlined; the best score per dataset embedding group is bold.
Method
Meta-Regression
Meta-Classification
MSE
R2
Accuracy
F1
Target: Accuracy
Average performance
0.0267
-0.0005
0.3303
0.1640
Closest embedding
0.0127
0.5241
0.7748
0.7747
MF All + KGmetaSP PE
0.0070
0.7361
0.8250
0.8244
Target: Precision
Table 3: PPE meta-regression and meta-classification for unseen pipeline configurations. Meta-Regression targets are the raw performance values. Meta-classification targets are binned into 3 classes (low, medium, high). The best scores are in bold.
Hit@k ( ST =0.8)
Hit@k ( ST =0.9)
Method
k=1
k=2
k=5
Avg.
k=1
k=2
k=5
Avg.
GED [ 36 ]
0.5743
0.8243
0.9054
0.7680
0.4527
0.7432
0.8514
0.6824
MF [ 13 ]
0.6892
0.8243
0.8851
0.7996
0.6622
0.8041
0.8716
0.7793
MF Norm. [ 13 ]
0.6892
0.8851
0.9324
0.8356
0.7905
0.8446
0.9122
0.8491
SiFi-Dat. [ 6 , 44 ]
0.8514
0.8851
0.9054
0.8806
0.7973
0.8649
0.8919
0.8514
SiFi-Pip. [ 6 , 44 ]
0.6351
0.8176
0.9527
0.8018
0.6216
0.7568
0.9324
0.7703
Table 4: Hit@k of similarity measures according to performance-based ground truth. A hit is recorded when a dataset retrieved within the top-k has a ground-truth similarity with the query dataset greater than a similarity threshold ( ST ). Results are reported for ST=0.8 and ST=0.9 . The highest score per metric is in bold and the second highest is underlined.
NDCG@k
Method
k=1
k=2
k=5
Avg.
GED [ 36 ]
0.5684
0.6308
0.6847
0.6280
MF [ 13 ]
0.6939
0.6874
0.7016
0.6943
MF Norm. [ 13 ]
0.8561
0.8418
0.8358
0.8446
SiFi-Dat. [ 6 , 44 ]
0.8753
0.8768
0.8693
0.8738
SiFi-Pip. [ 6 , 44 ]
0.8255
0.8073
0.8248
0.8192
Table 5: NDCG@k of similarity measures according to performance-based ground truth. The highest score per metric is in bold and the second highest is underlined.
Method
MLSea-KG
Meta-Regression
Meta-Classification
MSE
R2
Accuracy
F1
Target: Accuracy
MF All + KGmetaSP PE
With
0.0101
0.6181
0.7413
0.7427
MF All + KGmetaSP PE
Without
0.0103
0.6114
0.7302
0.7320
Target: Precision
MF All + KGmetaSP PE
With
0.0164
0.5449
0.7492
0.7516
Table 6: Ablation of MLSea-KG integration for PPE for the unseen datasets. Experimental setup follows Table 2 . The best score per column is in bold.
Method
MLSea-KG
Meta-Regression
Meta-Classification
MSE
R2
Accuracy
F1
Target: Accuracy
MF All + KGmetaSP PE
With
0.0070
0.7361
0.8250
0.8244
MF All + KGmetaSP PE
Without
0.0074
0.7246
0.8225
0.8220
Target: Precision
MF All + KGmetaSP PE
With
0.0131
0.6264
0.8251
0.8247
Table 7: Ablation of MLSea-KG integration for PPE for the unseen pipeline configurations. Experimental setup follows Table 3 . The best score per column is in bold.
Hit@k
NDCG@k
Method
MLSea-KG
k=1
k=2
k=5
k=1
k=2
k=5
KGmetaSP DEpip
With
0.7905
0.8649
0.9257
0.8811
0.8642
0.8541
KGmetaSP DEpip
Without
0.7432
0.8649
0.9527
0.8551
0.8606
0.8560
Table 8: Ablation of MLSea-KG integration on DPSE . For Hit@k, datasets with similarity > 0.9 are considered hits.
Appendix figures & tables2 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Dataset
Pipeline
Meta-
Meta-Regr.
Meta-Classif.
Emb.
Strategy
Models
MSE
R2
Accuracy
F1
Target: Accuracy
MF All
Conf.-specific
1028
0.0081
0.6748
0.7363
0.7358
KGmetaSP PE (ComplEx)
1
0.0106
0.6006
0.7343
0.7361
KGmetaSP PE (TransE)
1
0.0105
0.6032
0.7351
0.7368
KGmetaSP PE (DistMult)
1
0.0103
0.6104
0.7380
0.7393
Appendix
Table 9: PPE results for unseen datasets. Setup follows Table 2 .
Method
Meta-Regr.
Meta-Classif.
MSE
R2
Accuracy
F1
Target: Accuracy
Average performance
0.0267
-0.0005
0.3303
0.1640
Closest embedding
0.0127
0.5241
0.7748
0.7747
MF All + KGmetaSP PE (ComplEx)
0.0083
0.6911
0.8072
0.8062
MF All + KGmetaSP PE (TransE)
0.0081
0.6976
0.8092
0.8083
Appendix
Table 10: PPE results for unseen pipeline configurations. Setup follows Table 3 .
Metacognition-the ability to monitor one's own knowledge state, spot gaps, and autonomously fill them--remains largely absent from modern AI. Here, we present MetaKGEnrich, a fully automated pipeline that endows large language model (LLM) applications with self-directed knowledge repair. The system (i) builds knowledge graphs from a seed query, (ii) detects sparse regions via seven graph metrics, (iii) has GPT-4o generate targeted questions, (iv) retrieves web evidence with Tavily and ingests it into Neo4j, and (v) re-answers the query with GraphRAG for GPT-4 to evaluate improvement. Tested on 30 queries from each of three widely-used datasets: Google Research Natural Questions, MS MARCO, and Hot-potQA. MetaKGEnrich improved answer quality in 80% of HotpotQA questions, 87% of Google Research Natural Questions and 83% of MS MARCO questions, while preserving well-supported regions. This proof of concept demonstrates how topological self-diagnosis plus targeted retrieval can advance AI toward humanlike metacognitive learning.
Deniz Askin, Gal Hadar, Brendan Conway-Smith
Department of Cognitive Science, Carleton University · Faculty of Computer and Information Science, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev
Recent GPU kernel optimization agents retain what they learn in knowledge bases or as distilled skills. Kernel benchmarks score each attempt's implementation for correctness and speed but leave the reuse value of retained experience unmeasured. We introduce MetaKernelBench, which measures whether experience distilled from an attempt in one kernel domain-specific language (DSL) improves a fresh attempt at the same problem in another. Its 74 problems are fused subgraphs in six families, each posed as a pair of CuTe DSL and TIRx variants that differ only in the DSL. The agent first attempts each variant solo and is instructed to distill what it learns into a natural-language skill, which is transferred whether or not the source attempt passes verification. The skill is the only extra input to a skill-conditioned attempt by the same model in the other DSL. We compare each skill-conditioned attempt with the solo attempt on the same variant under matched per-attempt budgets, scoring correctness and end-to-end runtime. Across six models and both directions, paired lift over solo attempts ranges from -19% to +29%. Four models gain in both directions, yet regressions occur on 16% to 45% of problems in every model and direction. Outcomes follow the source attempt's result relative to the target's solo attempt rather than source success alone, improving in 71% of comparisons when the source stands above and regressing in 54% when it stands below. MetaKernelBench complements implementation-quality metrics by measuring same-problem cross-DSL kernel knowledge transfer.
Xueyi Chen, Shiyu Liu, Xin Jin +5
Westlake University · Shanghai Jiao Tong University · Zhejiang University
Pairwise difference learning (PDL) has recently been introduced as a new meta-learning technique for regression. Instead of learning a mapping from instances to outcomes in the standard way, the key idea is to learn a function that takes two instances as input and predicts the difference between the respective outcomes. Given a function of this kind, predictions for a query instance are derived from every training example and then averaged. This paper extends PDL toward the task of classification and proposes a meta-learning technique for inducing a PDL classifier by solving a suitably defined (binary) classification problem on a paired version of the original training data. We analyze the performance of the PDL classifier in a large-scale empirical study and find that it outperforms state-of-the-art methods in terms of prediction performance. Last but not least, we provide an easy-to-use and publicly available implementation of PDL in a Python package.
Mohamed Karim Belaid, Maximilian Rabus, Eyke Hüllermeier
IDIADA Fahrzeugtechnik GmbH, Munich, Germany · Dr. Ing. h.c. F. Porsche AG Stuttgart, Germany · Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität Munich, Germany