Paper detail

Generalization Guarantees for Neural Architecture Search with Train-Validation Split

Neural Architecture Search (NAS) is a popular method for automatically designing optimized architectures for high-performance deep learning. In this approach, it is common to use bilevel optimization where one optimizes the model weights over the training data (inner problem) and various hyperparameters such as the configuration of the architecture over the validation data (outer problem). This paper explores the statistical aspects of such problems with train-validation splits. In practice, the inner problem is often overparameterized and can easily achieve zero loss. Thus, a-priori it seems impossible to distinguish the right hyperparameters based on training loss alone which motivates a better understanding of the role of train-validation split. To this aim this work establishes the following results. (1) We show that refined properties of the validation loss such as risk and hyper-gradients are indicative of those of the true test loss. This reveals that the outer problem helps select the most generalizable model and prevent overfitting with a near-minimal validation sample size. This is established for continuous search spaces which are relevant for differentiable schemes. Extensions to transfer learning are developed in terms of the mismatch between training & validation distributions. (2) We establish generalization bounds for NAS problems with an emphasis on an activation search problem. When optimized with gradient-descent, we show that the train-validation procedure returns the best (model, architecture) pair even if all architectures can perfectly fit the training data to achieve zero error. (3) Finally, we highlight connections between NAS, multiple kernel learning, and low-rank matrix learning. The latter leads to novel insights where the solution of the outer problem can be accurately learned via efficient spectral methods to achieve near-minimal risk.

preprint2022arXivOpen 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.