Budget-constrained micro-pretraining often requires triaging many candidate recipes on a shared accelerator before larger search budgets are spent. We study whether a staged fractional-factorial workflow can recover stable early effect structure in this setting. On a fixed autoresearch-derived single-GPU training loop, we run 613 experiments across pilot and follow-up screens at 2, 5, and 10 minutes; full 16-condition seeded reruns at 5 and 10 minutes; targeted seeded anchor checks; same-host greedy and matched-cost random baselines; a 60-minute bridge package; and bounded Windows A100 and Linux L40S anchor continuations through 24 hours. Main penalties from total batch, depth, and width are largest at short budgets and relax as budget increases. Within the predeclared seeded full-screen families, D, A, B, and C retain non-zero estimates at 5 and 10 minutes after within-budget Benjamini-Hochberg correction, while E does not. Random search can reach strong incumbents in this 32-condition space, but repeatedly in the same low-penalty region and without factor attribution. The 60-minute bridge anchor has the lowest mean, although that package does not separate workflow refinement from the larger bridge model's capacity advantage. In bounded 12-hour and 24-hour three-anchor continuations on both hosts, the bridge has the lowest sample mean while the non-bridge ordering stays host-sensitive. We therefore present a bounded methods result: use short designed screens to identify high-penalty directions, confirm promising anchors under repeated runs, and refine locally inside the reduced space. The evidence supports a bridge-centered recommendation through 24 hours on two hosts, not hardware-invariant ranking or general hyperparameter-optimization superiority.
Short pretraining runs can reduce experimental cost, but they can also over-promote configurations that only look strong at tiny budgets. We study an auditable staged-promotion protocol for a fixed micro-pretraining runner on two heterogeneous host blocks: Windows A100 and Linux L40S. Starting from twelve prior-screened configurations, we use staged budgets of 2 minutes, 5 minutes, 10 minutes, 60 minutes, and 12 hours, with frozen promotion rules before expensive continuations. The early screens are intentionally treated as unstable: the 5- and 10-minute rankings are host-sensitive, and the eventual 12-hour top-ranked condition is not the mean-best condition at the replicated 10-minute gate. Because seed ranges differ across stages, these changes are operational promotion evidence, not within-seed curves. A replicated 60-minute gate keeps the Staged Factorial Screening bridge reference in the promoted set, where it ranks first in all four 60-minute host-seed cells. In the final 12-hour confirmation package, the bridge condition ranks first in all four host-seed cells across two seeds; the greedy comparator does not meet the frozen 0.010 val_bpb near-equivalence rule; and the cheaper d8/ar48 (depth-8, aspect-48) sentinel does not meet the frozen 0.020 mean-gap rule. The executed 12-hour branch spends 144 GPU-hours, and the full staged protocol records 169.2 training GPU-hours including screening stages. Continuing all four 60-minute candidates would spend 192 GPU-hours, while continuing all nine replicated 10-minute candidates would spend 432 GPU-hours. The latter numbers are accounting counterfactuals for unrun continuations, not evidence that skipped candidates could not have overtaken the reference. The result is a bounded cost-allocation finding, not a claim of global optimality, capacity-normalized superiority, or superiority over adaptive hyperparameter optimization methods.
Comparisons between AutoML systems at short time budgets -- tens of seconds rather than hours -- are common in tool READMEs and workshop papers, and they are easy to get wrong. We report a case study in which a simple AutoML engine, Orcetra, appeared to beat FLAML and AutoGluon on 513 OpenML datasets, winning 57.1% of them at a nominal 60-second budget and 78.4% of datasets against FLAML alone at 30 seconds. Both margins came from protocol defects that a results table cannot show. The search loop scored every candidate on the test split and reported the best, making the headline metric a maximum over dozens of noisy estimates while the baselines selected on training data and touched the test set once; and the budget was checked before launching a candidate but never enforced during one, so the system consumed a median of 120 s against a 60-second budget, 2.24x the wall-clock AutoGluon used. Re-running with selection moved to a validation split, the deadline enforced externally and every framework pinned to an equal share of the machine, Orcetra's win rate on the re-run subset falls from 59.4% to 34.3% and no pairwise difference against either competitor remains significant. Recording both estimands inside a single search lets us attribute the collapse: the selection rule accounts for 4.8 percentage points and unequal compute for most of the rest. The same traces give the selection bias as a function of budget, measured rather than assumed: it grows with K but reaches only 0.27 accuracy points, about five times below the σ2lnK bound a marginal-standard-error argument predicts, because candidates scored on shared test rows cancel most of the noise. We close with a checklist for short-budget comparisons. Code, per-dataset results and the scripts that regenerate every number and figure in the paper are released with it.
Pretraining followed by fine-tuning introduces a compute-allocation problem: under a fixed training budget, compute spent improving the upstream objective reduces the compute available for downstream adaptation. Despite its practical importance, this trade-off is not yet well understood theoretically, even in simple models. In this paper, we cast this allocation as a compute-split problem under a two-stage pretrain--fine-tune procedure with fixed total optimisation budget, using regularised least squares trained by gradient descent as a tractable setting. We characterise the optimal split under data-dependent evaluation geometries induced by the fine-tuning problem. Our results show that the allocation depends on how pretraining directions affect fine-tuning predictions and how fine-tuning shifts are seen through downstream data geometry. In particular, the relevant quantities are determined by prediction-relevant spectral components of the pretraining and fine-tuning empirical covariances. Technically, the analysis relies on a basis-invariant, eigenspace-level spectral decomposition, together with perturbative control of the non-commuting pretraining and fine-tuning dynamics.