LLM Performance Predictors are good initializers for Architecture Search
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this work, we utilize Large Language Models (LLMs) for a novel use case: constructing Performance Predictors (PP) that estimate the performance of specific deep neural network architectures on downstream tasks.We create PP prompts for LLMs, comprising (i) role descriptions, (ii) instructions for the LLM, (iii) hyperparameter definitions, and (iv) demonstrations presenting sample architectures with efficiency metrics and 'training from scratch' performance.In machine translation (MT) tasks, GPT-4 with our PP prompts (LLM-PP) achieves a SoTA mean absolute error and a slight degradation in rank correlation coefficient compared to baseline predictors.Additionally, we demonstrate that predictions from LLM-PP can be distilled to a compact regression model (LLM-Distill-PP), which surprisingly retains much of the performance of LLM-PP.This presents a cost-effective alternative for resource-intensive performance estimation.Specifically, for Neural Architecture Search (NAS), we introduce a Hybrid-Search algorithm (HS-NAS) employing LLM-Distill-PP for the initial search stages and reverting to the baseline predictor later.HS-NAS performs similarly to SoTA NAS, reducing search hours by approximately 50%, and in some cases, improving latency, GFLOPs, and model size.The code can be found at: https://github.com
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 | 0.002 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.007 |
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".