Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

Can weight sharing outperform random architecture search? An investigation with TuNAS

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2008.06120 v1 pith:35ISKWKE submitted 2020-08-13 cs.LG cs.CVstat.ML

classification cs.LGcs.CVstat.ML
keywords searchmethodsefficientrandomarchitecturegoogle-researchneuralsharing
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

Efficient Neural Architecture Search methods based on weight sharing have shown good promise in democratizing Neural Architecture Search for computer vision models. There is, however, an ongoing debate whether these efficient methods are significantly better than random search. Here we perform a thorough comparison between efficient and random search methods on a family of progressively larger and more challenging search spaces for image classification and detection on ImageNet and COCO. While the efficacies of both methods are problem-dependent, our experiments demonstrate that there are large, realistic tasks where efficient search methods can provide substantial gains over random search. In addition, we propose and evaluate techniques which improve the quality of searched architectures and reduce the need for manual hyper-parameter tuning. Source code and experiment data are available at https://github.com/google-research/google-research/tree/master/tunas

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. SHeRL-FL: When Representation Learning Meets Split Learning in Hierarchical Federated Learning

    cs.LG 2025-08 unverdicted novelty 2.0 of 10

    The submitted body is an unrelated survey, not the SHeRL-FL method claimed in the metadata.

Pith tools