Papers › Confidence Interval Estimation of Predictive Performance in the Context of AutoML
Confidence Interval Estimation of Predictive Performance in the Context of AutoML
Konstantinos Paraschakis, Andrea Castellani, Giorgos Borboudakis, Ioannis Tsamardinos
Any supervised machine learning analysis is required to provide an estimate of the out-of-sample predictive performance. However, it is imperative to also provide a quantification of the uncertainty of this performance in the form of a confidence or credible interval (CI) and not just a point estimate. In an AutoML setting, estimating the CI is challenging due to the ``winner's curse", i.e., the bias of estimation due to cross-validating several machine learning pipelines and selecting the winning one. In this work, we perform a comparative evaluation of 9 state-of-the-art methods and variants in CI estimation in an AutoML setting on a corpus of real and simulated datasets. The methods are compared in terms of inclusion percentage (does a 95% CI include the true performance at least 95% of the time), CI tightness (tighter CIs are preferable as being more informative), and execution time. The evaluation is the first one that covers most, if not all, such methods and extends previous work to imbalanced and small-sample tasks. In addition, we present a variant, called BBC-F, of an existing method (the Bootstrap Bias Correction, or BBC) that maintains the statistical properties of the BBC but is more computationally efficient. The results support that BBC-F and BBC dominate the other methods in all metrics measured.
Code
Repository list and official/mentioned flags are the archive's, frozen 2025-07-28. Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.
Code Syntology ran Syntology
Not run by Syntology. Nothing on this page verifies that the listed code works.
Tasks
Results from the paper archive 2025-07-28
No leaderboard rows for this paper in the archive.
Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections