PapersWithELO
← ICLR 2024 leaderboard

Differential Model Scaling using Differential Topk

Kai Liu, Ruohui Wang, Jianfei Gao, Kai Chen

self/semi-supervised learningNeural Architecture SearchModel Scaling
60.20100
Fused
band ≈ ±15 pct pts (from σ = 0.29)
66.50100
Mimo
band ≈ ±21 pct pts (from σ = 0.42)
50.80100
DeepSeek
band ≈ ±21 pct pts (from σ = 0.41)

OpenReview ground truth

Rejected

TL;DR — We propose a new model scaling method, which uses a differential topk to model the width and depth of models. It is effective and efficient to search for optimal width and depth configurations for models.

Abstract

Over the past few years, as large language models have ushered in an era of intelligence emergence, there has been an intensified focus on scaling networks. Currently, many network architectures are designed manually, often resulting in sub-optimal configurations. Although Neural Architecture Search (NAS) methods have been proposed to automate this process, they suffer from low search efficiency.This study introduces Differential Model Scaling (DMS), increasing the efficiency for searching optimal width and depth in networks.DMS can model both width and depth in a direct and fully differentiable way, making it easy to optimize.We have evaluated our DMS across diverse tasks, ranging from vision tasks to NLP tasks and various network architectures, including CNNs and Transformers. Results consistently indicate that our DMS can find improved structures and outperforms state-of-the-art NAS methods.Specifically, for image classification on ImageNet, our DMS improves the top-1 accuracy of EfficientNet-B0 and Deit-Tiny by 1.4% and 0.6%, respectively, and outperforms the state-of-the-art zero-shot NAS method, ZiCo, by 0.7% while requiring only 0.4 GPU days for searching. For object detection on COCO, DMS improves the mAP of Yolo-v8-n by 2.0%. For language modeling, Our pruned Llama-7B outperforms the prior method with lower perplexity and higher zero-shot classification accuracy.

Author context

Most prolific author: 8 submissions (credibility 1.00).

No mass-submission penalty for this paper (authors within normal submission volume).

Aggregate statistics only — no individual author rankings.

Ranking trajectory

Percentile by tournament round — convergence indicates rating stability.

Judge assessments

Mean overall score 0.0 ± 0.0 (n = 36)