PapersWithELO
← ICLR 2024 leaderboard

Automated Search-Space Generation Neural Architecture Search

Tianyi Chen, Luming Liang, Tianyu Ding, Ilya Zharkov

infrastructure & systemsautoMLneural architecture searchhierarchical structured sparsity
46.80100
Fused
band ≈ ±15 pct pts (from σ = 0.30)
48.60100
Mimo
band ≈ ±20 pct pts (from σ = 0.40)
47.00100
DeepSeek
band ≈ ±22 pct pts (from σ = 0.45)

OpenReview ground truth

Rejected

Abstract

To search an optimal sub-network within a general deep neural network (DNN), existing neural architecture search (NAS) methods typically rely on handcrafting a search space beforehand. Such requirements make it challenging to extend them onto general scenarios without significant human expertise and manual intervention. To overcome the limitations, we propose Automated Search-Space Generation Neural Architecture Search (ASGNAS), perhaps the first automated system to train general DNNs that cover all candidate connections and operations and produce high-performing sub-networks in the one shot manner. Technologically, ASGNAS delivers three noticeable contributions to minimize human efforts: (i) automated search space generation for general DNNs; (ii) a Hierarchical Half-Space Projected Gradient (H2SPG ) that leverages the hierarchy and dependency within generated search space to ensure the network validity during optimization, and reliably produces a solution with both high performance and hierarchical group sparsity; and (iii) automated sub-network construction upon the H2SPG solution. Numerically, we demonstrate the effectiveness of ASGNAS on a variety of general DNNs, including RegNet, StackedUnets, SuperResNet, and DARTS, over benchmark datasets such as CIFAR10, Fashion-MNIST, ImageNet, STL-10 , and SVNH. The sub-networks computed by ASGNAS achieve competitive even superior performance compared to the starting full DNNs and other state-of-the-arts.

Author context

Most prolific author: 2 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 = 34)