Paper detail

Exploring the Loss Landscape in Neural Architecture Search

Neural architecture search (NAS) has seen a steep rise in interest over the last few years. Many algorithms for NAS consist of searching through a space of architectures by iteratively choosing an architecture, evaluating its performance by training it, and using all prior evaluations to come up with the next choice. The evaluation step is noisy - the final accuracy varies based on the random initialization of the weights. Prior work has focused on devising new search algorithms to handle this noise, rather than quantifying or understanding the level of noise in architecture evaluations. In this work, we show that (1) the simplest hill-climbing algorithm is a powerful baseline for NAS, and (2), when the noise in popular NAS benchmark datasets is reduced to a minimum, hill-climbing to outperforms many popular state-of-the-art algorithms. We further back up this observation by showing that the number of local minima is substantially reduced as the noise decreases, and by giving a theoretical characterization of the performance of local search in NAS. Based on our findings, for NAS research we suggest (1) using local search as a baseline, and (2) denoising the training pipeline when possible.

preprint2021arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.