NASTransfer: Analyzing Architecture Transferability in Large Scale Neural Architecture Search
Rameswar Panda, Michele Merler, Mayoore S. Jaiswal, Hui Wu, Kandan Ramakrishnan, Ulrich Finkler, Chun-Fu (Richard) Chen, Minsik Cho, Rogério Feris, David S. Kung, Bishwaranjan Bhattacharjee
Abstract
Neural Architecture Search (NAS) is an open and challenging problem in machine learning. While NAS offers great promise, the prohibitive computational demand of most of the existing NAS methods makes it difficult to directly search the architectures on large-scale tasks. The typical way of conducting large scale NAS is to search for an architectural building block on a small dataset (either using a proxy set from the large dataset or a completely different small scale dataset) and then transfer the block to a larger dataset. Despite a number of recent results that show the promise of transfer from proxy datasets, a comprehensive evaluation of different NAS methods studying the impact of different source datasets has not yet been addressed. In this work, we propose to analyze the architecture transferability of different NAS methods by performing a series of experiments on large scale benchmarks such as ImageNet1K and ImageNet22K. We find that: (i) The size and domain of the proxy set does not seem to influence architecture performance on the target dataset. On average, transfer performance of architectures searched using completely different small datasets (e.g., CIFAR10) perform similarly to the architectures searched directly on proxy target datasets. However, design of proxy sets has considerable impact on rankings of different NAS methods. (ii) While different NAS methods show similar performance on a source dataset (e.g., CIFAR10), they significantly differ on the transfer performance to a large dataset (e.g., ImageNet1K). (iii) Even on large datasets, random sampling baseline is very competitive, but the choice of the appropriate combination of proxy set and search strategy can provide significant improvement over it. We believe that our extensive empirical analysis will prove useful for future design of NAS algorithms.
Ask about this paper
Your agent reads all of it.
Lune indexed this paper to the last equation, along with the top-tier papers that cite it. Ask a question and the answer quotes them.
Builds on9
- NAS-Bench-201: Extending the Scope of Reproducible Neural Architecture SearchXuanyi Dong, Yi YangICLR 2020 · 825 citations
- Understanding and Robustifying Differentiable Architecture SearchArber Zela, Thomas Elsken, Tonmoy Saikia, Yassine Marrakchi et al.ICLR 2020 · 408 citations
- Exploring Randomly Wired Neural Networks for Image RecognitionSaining Xie, Alexander Kirillov, Ross B. Girshick, Kaiming HeICCV 2019 · 384 citations
- Evaluating The Search Phase of Neural Architecture SearchKaicheng Yu, Christian Sciuto, Martin Jaggi, Claudiu Musat et al.ICLR 2020 · 370 citations
- NAS evaluation is frustratingly hardAntoine Yang, Pedro M. Esperança, Fabio Maria CarlucciICLR 2020 · 180 citations
Related papers
- Adapting Neural Architectures Between DomainsYanxi Li, Zhaohui Yang, Yunhe Wang, Chang XuNeurIPS 2020 · 34 citations
- Accel-NASBench: Sustainable Benchmarking for Accelerator-Aware NASAfzal Ahmad, Linfeng Du, Zhiyao Xie, Wei ZhangDAC 2024 · 1 citation
- ReNAS: Relativistic Evaluation of Neural Architecture SearchYixing Xu, Yunhe Wang, Kai Han, Yehui Tang et al.CVPR 2021
- Towards Fast Adaptation of Neural Architectures with Meta LearningDongze Lian, Yin Zheng, Yintao Xu, Yanxiong Lu et al.ICLR 2020 · 95 citations
- Surrogate NAS Benchmarks: Going Beyond the Limited Search Spaces of Tabular NAS BenchmarksArber Zela, Julien Niklas Siems, Lucas Zimmer, Jovita Lukasik et al.ICLR 2022 · 100 citations
