Gradient-Based Neural Architecture Search: A Comprehensive Evaluation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
One of the challenges in deep learning involves discovering the optimal architecture for a specific task. This is effectively tackled through Neural Architecture Search (NAS). Neural Architecture Search encompasses three prominent approaches—reinforcement learning, evolutionary algorithms, and gradient descent—that have demonstrated noteworthy potential in identifying good candidate architectures. However, approaches based on reinforcement learning and evolutionary algorithms often necessitate extensive computational resources, requiring hundreds of GPU days or more. Therefore, we confine this work to a gradient-based approach due to its lower computational resource demands. Our objective encompasses identifying the optimal gradient-based NAS method and pinpointing opportunities for future enhancements. To achieve this, a comprehensive evaluation of the use of four major Gradient descent-based architecture search methods for discovering the best neural architecture for image classification tasks is provided. An overview of these gradient-based methods, i.e., DARTS, PDARTS, Fair DARTS and Att-DARTS, is presented. A theoretical comparison, based on search spaces, continuous relaxation strategy and bi-level optimization, for deriving the best neural architecture is then provided. The strong and weak features of these methods are also listed. Experimental results for comparing the error rate and computational cost of these gradient-based methods are analyzed. These experiments involved using bench marking datasets CIFAR-10, CIFAR-100 and ImageNet. The results show that PDARTS is better and faster among the examined methods, making it a potent candidate for automating Neural Architecture Search. By effectively conducting a comparative analysis, our research provides valuable insights and future research directions to address the criticism and gaps in the literature.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".