1 Introduction
Neural architecture search (NAS) has demonstrated much success in automating neural network architecture design for various deep learning tasks, such as image recognition
(Zoph et al., 2018; Cai et al., 2018a; Liu et al., 2018a; Zhong et al., 2018) and language modeling (Zoph & Le, 2017). Despite the remarkable results, conventional NAS algorithms are prohibitively computationintensive, requiring to train thousands of models on the target task in a single experiment. Therefore, directly applying NAS to a largescale task (e.g. ImageNet) is computationally expensive or impossible, which makes it difficult for making practical industry impact. As a tradeoff, Zoph et al. (2018) propose to search for building blocks on proxy tasks, such as training for fewer epochs, starting with a smaller dataset (e.g. CIFAR10), or learning with fewer blocks. Then topperforming blocks are stacked and transferred to the largescale target task. This paradigm has been widely adopted in subsequent NAS algorithms (Liu et al., 2018a, b; Real et al., 2018; Cai et al., 2018b; Liu et al., 2018c; Tan et al., 2018; Luo et al., 2018).However, these blocks optimized on proxy tasks are not guaranteed to be optimal on the target task, especially when taking hardware metrics such as latency into consideration. More importantly, to enable transferability, such methods need to search for only a few architectural motifs and then repeatedly stack the same pattern, which restricts the block diversity and thereby harms performance.
In this work, we propose a simple and effective solution to the aforementioned limitations, called ProxylessNAS, which directly learns the architectures on the target task and hardware instead of with proxy (Figure 1). We also remove the restriction of repeating blocks in previous NAS works (Zoph et al., 2018; Liu et al., 2018c) and allow all of the blocks to be learned and specified. To achieve this, we reduce the computational cost (GPU hours and GPU memory) of architecture search to the same level of regular training in the following ways.
GPU hourwise, inspired by recent works (Liu et al., 2018c; Bender et al., 2018), we formulate NAS as a pathlevel pruning process. Specifically, we directly train an overparameterized network that contains all candidate paths (Figure 2). During training, we explicitly introduce architecture parameters to learn which paths are redundant, while these redundant paths are pruned at the end of training to get a compact optimized architecture. In this way, we only need to train a single network without any metacontroller (or hypernetwork) during architecture search.
However, naively including all the candidate paths leads to GPU memory explosion (Liu et al., 2018c; Bender et al., 2018)
, as the memory consumption grows linearly w.r.t. the number of choices. Thus, GPU memorywise, we binarize the architecture parameters (1 or 0) and force only one path to be active at runtime, which reduces the required memory to the same level of training a compact model. We propose a gradientbased approach to train these binarized parameters based on BinaryConnect
(Courbariaux et al., 2015). Furthermore, to handle nondifferentiable hardware objectives (using latency as an example) for learning specialized network architectures on target hardware, we model network latency as a continuous function and optimize it as regularization loss. Additionally, we also present a REINFORCEbased (Williams, 1992) algorithm as an alternative strategy to handle hardware metrics.In our experiments on CIFAR10 and ImageNet, benefiting from the directness and specialization, our method can achieve strong empirical results. On CIFAR10, our model reaches 2.08% test error with only 5.7M parameters. On ImageNet, our model achieves 75.1% top1 accuracy which is 3.1% higher than MobileNetV2 (Sandler et al., 2018) while being 1.2 faster. Our contributions can be summarized as follows:

ProxylessNAS is the first NAS algorithm that directly learns architectures on the largescale dataset (e.g. ImageNet) without any proxy while still allowing a large candidate set and removing the restriction of repeating blocks. It effectively enlarged the search space and achieved better performance.

We provide a new pathlevel pruning perspective for NAS, showing a close connection between NAS and model compression (Han et al., 2016). We save memory consumption by one order of magnitude by using pathlevel binarization.

We propose a novel gradientbased approach (latency regularization loss) for handling hardware objectives (e.g. latency). Given different hardware platforms: CPU/GPU/Mobile, ProxylessNAS enables hardwareaware neural network specialization that’s exactly optimized for the target hardware. To our best knowledge, it is the first work to study specialized neural network architectures for different hardware architectures.

Extensive experiments showed the advantage of the directness property and the specialization property of ProxylessNAS. It achieved stateoftheart accuracy performances on CIFAR10 and ImageNet under latency constraints on different hardware platforms (GPU, CPU and mobile phone). We also analyze the insights of efficient CNN models specialized for different hardware platforms and raise the awareness that specialized neural network architecture is needed on different hardware architectures for efficient inference.
2 Related Work
The use of machine learning techniques, such as reinforcement learning or neuroevolution, to replace human experts in designing neural network architectures, usually referred to as neural architecture search, has drawn an increasing interest
(Zoph & Le, 2017; Liu et al., 2018a, b, c; Cai et al., 2018a, b; Pham et al., 2018; Brock et al., 2018; Bender et al., 2018; Elsken et al., 2017, 2018b; Kamath et al., 2018). In NAS, architecture search is typically considered as a metalearning process, and a metacontroller (e.g. a recurrent neural network (RNN)), is introduced to explore a given architecture space with training a network in the inner loop to get an evaluation for guiding exploration. Consequently, such methods are computationally expensive to run, especially on largescale tasks, e.g. ImageNet.
Some recent works (Brock et al., 2018; Pham et al., 2018) try to improve the efficiency of this metalearning process by reducing the cost of getting an evaluation. In Brock et al. (2018), a hypernetwork is utilized to generate weights for each sampled network and hence can evaluate the architecture without training it. Similarly, Pham et al. (2018) propose to share weights among all sampled networks under the standard NAS framework (Zoph & Le, 2017). These methods speed up architecture search by orders of magnitude, however, they require a hypernetwork or an RNN controller and mainly focus on smallscale tasks (e.g. CIFAR) rather than largescale tasks (e.g. ImageNet).
Our work is most closely related to OneShot (Bender et al., 2018) and DARTS (Liu et al., 2018c), both of which get rid of the metacontroller (or hypernetwork) by modeling NAS as a single training process of an overparameterized network that comprises all candidate paths. Specifically, OneShot trains the overparameterized network with DropPath (Zoph et al., 2018)
that drops out each path with some fixed probability. Then they use the pretrained overparameterized network to evaluate architectures, which are sampled by randomly zeroing out paths. DARTS additionally introduces a realvalued architecture parameter for each path and jointly train weight parameters and architecture parameters via standard gradient descent. However, they suffer from the large GPU memory consumption issue and hence still need to utilize proxy tasks. In this work, we address the large memory issue in these two methods through path binarization.
Another relevant topic is network pruning (Han et al., 2016)
that aim to improve the efficiency of neural networks by removing insignificant neurons
(Han et al., 2015) or channels (Liu et al., 2017). Similar to these works, we start with an overparameterized network and then prune the redundant parts to derive the optimized architecture. The distinction is that they focus on layerlevel pruning that only modifies the filter (or units) number of a layer but can not change the topology of the network, while we focus on learning effective network architectures through pathlevel pruning. We also allow both pruning and growing the number of layers.3 Method
We first describe the construction of the overparameterized network with all candidate paths, then introduce how we leverage binarized architecture parameters to reduce the memory consumption of training the overparameterized network to the same level as regular training. We propose a gradientbased algorithm to train these binarized architecture parameters. Finally, we present two techniques to handle nondifferentiable objectives (e.g. latency) for specializing neural networks on target hardware.
3.1 Construction of OverParameterized Network
Denote a neural network as where represents a certain edge in the directed acyclic graph (DAG). Let be the set of candidate primitive operations (e.g. convolution, pooling, identity, zero, etc). To construct the overparameterized network that includes any architecture in the search space, instead of setting each edge to be a definite primitive operation, we set each edge to be a mixed operation that has parallel paths (Figure 2), denoted as . As such, the overparameterized network can be expressed as .
Given input , the output of a mixed operation is defined based on the outputs of its paths. In OneShot, is the sum of , while in DARTS, is weighted sum of where the weights are calculated by applying softmax to realvalued architecture parameters :
(1) 
As shown in Eq. (1), the output feature maps of all N paths are calculated and stored in the memory, while training a compact model only involves one path. Therefore, OneShot and DARTS roughly need times GPU memory and GPU hours compared to training a compact model. On largescale dataset, this can easily exceed the memory limits of hardware with large design space. In the following section, we solve this memory issue based on the idea of path binarization.
3.2 Learning Binarized Path
To reduce memory footprint, we keep only one path when training the overparameterized network. Unlike Courbariaux et al. (2015) which binarize individual weights, we binarize entire paths. We introduce realvalued architecture parameters and then transforms the realvalued path weights to binary gates:
(2) 
Based on the binary gates , the output of the mixed operation is given as:
(3) 
As illustrated in Eq. (3) and Figure 2, by using the binary gates rather than realvalued path weights (Liu et al., 2018c), only one path of activation is active in memory at runtime and the memory requirement of training the overparameterized network is thus reduced to the same level of training a compact model. That’s more than an order of magnitude memory saving.
3.2.1 Training Binarized Architecture Parameters
Figure 2 illustrates the training procedure of the weight parameters and binarized architecture parameters in the overparameterized network. When training weight parameters, we first freeze the architecture parameters and stochastically sample binary gates according to Eq. (2) for each batch of input data. Then the weight parameters of active paths are updated via standard gradient descent on the training set (Figure 2 left). When training architecture parameters, the weight parameters are frozen, then we reset the binary gates and update the architecture parameters on the validation set (Figure 2 right). These two update steps are performed in an alternative manner. Once the training of architecture parameters is finished, we can then derive the compact architecture by pruning redundant paths. In this work, we simply choose the path with the highest path weight.
Unlike weight parameters, the architecture parameters are not directly involved in the computation graph and thereby cannot be updated using the standard gradient descent. In this section, we introduce a gradientbased approach to learn the architecture parameters.
In BinaryConnect (Courbariaux et al., 2015)
, the realvalued weight is updated using the gradient w.r.t. its corresponding binary gate. In our case, analogously, the gradient w.r.t. architecture parameters can be approximately estimated using
in replace of :(4) 
where if and if . Since the binary gates are involved in the computation graph, as shown in Eq. (3),
can be calculated through backpropagation. However, computing
requires to calculate and store . Therefore, directly using Eq. (4) to update the architecture parameters would also require roughly times GPU memory compared to training a compact model.To address this issue, we consider factorizing the task of choosing one path out of N candidates into multiple binary selection tasks. The intuition is that if a path is the best choice at a particular position, it should be the better choice when solely compared to any other path.^{2}^{2}2In Appendix D, we provide another solution to this issue that does not require the approximation.
Following this idea, within an update step of the architecture parameters, we first sample two paths according to the multinomial distribution and mask all the other paths as if they do not exist. As such the number of candidates temporarily decrease from to 2, while the path weights and binary gates are reset accordingly. Then we update the architecture parameters of these two sampled paths using the gradients calculated via Eq. (4). Finally, as path weights are computed by applying softmax to the architecture parameters, we need to rescale the value of these two updated architecture parameters by multiplying a ratio to keep the path weights of unsampled paths unchanged. As such, in each update step, one of the sampled paths is enhanced (path weight increases) and the other sampled path is attenuated (path weight decreases) while all other paths keep unchanged. In this way, regardless of the value of , only two paths are involved in each update step of the architecture parameters, and thereby the memory requirement is reduced to the same level of training a compact model.
3.3 Handling Nondifferentiable Hardware Metrics
Besides accuracy, latency (not FLOPs) is another very important objective when designing efficient neural network architectures for hardware. Unfortunately, unlike accuracy that can be optimized using the gradient of the loss function, latency is nondifferentiable. In this section, we present two algorithms to handle the nondifferentiable objectives.
3.3.1 Making Latency Differentiable
To make latency differentiable, we model the latency of a network as a continuous function of the neural network dimensions ^{3}^{3}3Details of the latency prediction model are provided in Appendix B.. Consider a mixed operation with a candidate set and each is associated with a path weight which represents the probability of choosing . As such, we have the expected latency of a mixed operation (i.e. a learnable block) as:
(5) 
where is the expected latency of the learnable block, denotes the latency prediction model and is the predicted latency of . The gradient of w.r.t. architecture parameters can thereby be given as: .
For the whole network with a sequence of mixed operations (Figure 3 left), since these operations are executed sequentially during inference, the expected latency of the network can be expressed with the sum of these mixed operations’ expected latencies:
(6) 
We incorporate the expected latency of the network into the normal loss function by multiplying a scaling factor which controls the tradeoff between accuracy and latency. The final loss function is given as (also shown in Figure 3 right)
(7) 
where denotes the crossentropy loss and is the weight decay term.
3.3.2 REINFORCEbased Approach
As an alternative to BinaryConnect, we can utilize REINFORCE to train binarized weights as well. Consider a network that has binarized parameters , the goal of updating binarized parameters is to find the optimal binary gates that maximizes a certain reward, denoted as . Here we assume the network only has one mixed operation for ease of illustration. Therefore, according to REINFORCE (Williams, 1992), we have the following updates for binarized parameters:
(8) 
where denotes the sampled binary gates, denotes the probability of sampling according to Eq. (2) and is the compact network according to the binary gates . Since Eq. (3.3.2) does not require to be differentiable w.r.t. , it can thus handle nondifferentiable objectives. An interesting observation is that Eq. (3.3.2) has a similar form to the standard NAS (Zoph & Le, 2017), while it is not a sequential decisionmaking process and no RNN metacontroller is used in our case. Furthermore, since both gradientbased updates and REINFORCEbased updates are essentially two different update rules to the same binarized architecture parameters, it is possible to combine them to form a new update rule for the architecture parameters.
4 Experiments and Results
We demonstrate the effectiveness of our proposed method on two benchmark datasets (CIFAR10 and ImageNet) for the image classification task. Unlike previous NAS works (Zoph et al., 2018; Liu et al., 2018c) that first learn CNN blocks on CIFAR10 under smallscale setting (e.g. fewer blocks), then transfer the learned block to ImageNet or CIFAR10 under largescale setting by repeatedly stacking it, we directly learn the architectures on the target task (either CIFAR10 or ImageNet) and target hardware (GPU, CPU and mobile phone) while allowing each block to be specified.
Model  Params  Test error (%) 

DenseNetBC (Huang et al., 2017)  25.6M  3.46 
PyramidNet (Han et al., 2017)  26.0M  3.31 
ShakeShake + c/o (DeVries & Taylor, 2017)  26.2M  2.56 
PyramidNet + SD (Yamada et al., 2018)  26.0M  2.31 
ENAS + c/o (Pham et al., 2018)  4.6M  2.89 
DARTS + c/o (Liu et al., 2018c)  3.4M  2.83 
NASNetA + c/o (Zoph et al., 2018)  27.6M  2.40 
PathLevel EAS + c/o (Cai et al., 2018b)  14.3M  2.30 
AmoebaNetB + c/o (Real et al., 2018)  34.9M  2.13 
ProxylessR + c/o (ours)  5.8M  2.30 
ProxylessG + c/o (ours)  5.7M  2.08 
4.1 Experiments on CIFAR10
Architecture Space. For CIFAR10 experiments, we use the treestructured architecture space that is introduced by Cai et al. (2018b) with PyramidNet (Han et al., 2017) as the backbone^{4}^{4}4The list of operations in the candidate set is provided in the appendix.. Specifically, we replace all convolution layers in the residual blocks of a PyramidNet with treestructured cells, each of which has a depth of 3 and the number of branches is set to be 2 at each node (except the leaf nodes). For further details about the treestructured architecture space, we refer to the original paper (Cai et al., 2018b)
. Additionally, we use two hyperparameters to control the depth and width of a network in this architecture space, i.e.
and , which respectively represents the number of blocks at each stage (totally 3 stages) and the number of output channels of the final block.Training Details. We randomly sample 5,000 images from the training set as a validation set for learning architecture parameters which are updated using the Adam optimizer with an initial learning rate of 0.006 for the gradientbased algorithm (Section 3.2.1) and 0.01 for the REINFORCEbased algorithm (Section 3.3.2). In the following discussions, we refer to these two algorithms as ProxylessG (gradient) and ProxylessR (REINFORCE) respectively.
After the training process of the overparameterized network completes, a compact network is derived according to the architecture parameters, as discussed in Section 3.2.1. Next, we train the compact network using the same training settings except that the number of training epochs increases from 200 to 300. Additionally, when the DropPath regularization (Zoph et al., 2018; Huang et al., 2016) is adopted, we further increase the number of training epochs to 600 (Zoph et al., 2018).
Results. We apply the proposed method to learn architectures in the treestructured architecture space with and . Since we do not repeat cells and each cell has 12 learnable edges, totally decisions are required to fully determine the architecture.
The test error rate results of our proposed method and other stateoftheart architectures on CIFAR10 are summarized in Table 1, where “c/o” indicates the use of Cutout (DeVries & Taylor, 2017). Compared to these stateoftheart architectures, our proposed method can achieve not only lower test error rate but also better parameter efficiency. Specifically, ProxylessG reaches a test error rate of 2.08% which is slightly better than AmoebaNetB (Real et al., 2018) (the previous best architecture on CIFAR10). Notably, AmoebaNetB uses 34.9M parameters while our model only uses 5.7M parameters which is fewer than AmoebaNetB. Furthermore, compared with PathLevel EAS (Cai et al., 2018b) that also explores the treestructured architecture space, both ProxylessG and ProxylessR achieves similar or lower test error rate results with half fewer parameters. The strong empirical results of our ProxylessNAS demonstrate the benefits of directly exploring a large architecture space instead of repeatedly stacking the same block.
4.2 Experiments on ImageNet
For ImageNet experiments, we focus on learning efficient CNN architectures (Iandola et al., 2016; Howard et al., 2017; Sandler et al., 2018; Zhu et al., 2018) that have not only high accuracy but also low latency on specific hardware platforms. Therefore, it is a multiobjective NAS task (Hsu et al., 2018; Dong et al., 2018; Elsken et al., 2018a; He et al., 2018; Wang et al., 2018; Tan et al., 2018), where one of the objectives is nondifferentiable (i.e. latency). We use three different hardware platforms, including mobile phone, GPU and CPU, in our experiments. The GPU latency is measured on V100 GPU with a batch size of 8 (single batch makes GPU severely underutilized). The CPU latency is measured under batch size 1 on a server with two 2.40GHz Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E52640 v4. The mobile latency is measured on Google Pixel 1 phone with a batch size of 1. For ProxylessR, we use as the optimization goal, where denotes the accuracy of model , denotes the latency of , is the target latency and is a hyperparameter for controlling the tradeoff between accuracy and latency.
Additionally, on mobile phone, we use the latency prediction model (Appendix B) during architecture search. As illustrated in Figure 5, we observe a strong correlation between the predicted latency and real measured latency on the test set, suggesting that the latency prediction model can be used to replace the expensive mobile farm infrastructure (Tan et al., 2018) with little error introduced.
Architecture Space. We use MobileNetV2 (Sandler et al., 2018) as the backbone to build the architecture space. Specifically, rather than repeating the same mobile inverted bottleneck convolution (MBConv), we allow a set of MBConv layers with various kernel sizes and expansion ratios
. To enable a direct tradeoff between width and depth, we initiate a deeper overparameterized network and allow a block with the residual connection to be skipped by adding the zero operation to the candidate set of its mixed operation. In this way, with a limited latency budget, the network can either choose to be shallower and wider by skipping more blocks and using larger MBConv layers or choose to be deeper and thinner by keeping more blocks and using smaller MBConv layers.
Training Details. We randomly sample 50,000 images from the training set as a validation set during the architecture search. The settings for updating architecture parameters are the same as CIFAR10 experiments except the initial learning rate is 0.001. The overparameterized network is trained on the remaining training images with batch size 256.
Model Top1 Top5 Mobile Hardware No No Search cost Latency aware Proxy Repeat (GPU hours) MobileNetV1 [16] 70.6 89.5 113ms   ✗ Manual MobileNetV2 [30] 72.0 91.0 75ms   ✗ Manual NASNetA [38] 74.0 91.3 183ms ✗ ✗ ✗ AmoebaNetA [29] 74.5 92.0 190ms ✗ ✗ ✗ MnasNet [31] 74.0 91.8 76ms ✓ ✗ ✗ MnasNet (our impl.) 74.0 91.8 79ms ✓ ✗ ✗ ProxylessG (mobile) 71.8 90.3 83ms ✗ ✓ ✓ ProxylessG + LL 74.2 91.7 79ms ✓ ✓ ✓ ProxylessR (mobile) 74.6 92.2 78ms ✓ ✓ ✓ 
ImageNet Classification Results. We first apply our ProxylessNAS to learn specialized CNN models on the mobile phone. The summarized results are reported in Table 2. Compared to MobileNetV2, our model improves the top1 accuracy by 2.6% while maintaining a similar latency on the mobile phone. Furthermore, by rescaling the width of the networks using a multiplier (Sandler et al., 2018; Tan et al., 2018), it is shown in Figure 5 that our model consistently outperforms MobileNetV2 by a significant margin under all latency settings. Specifically, to achieve the same level of top1 accuracy performance (i.e. around 74.6%), MobileNetV2 has 143ms latency while our model only needs 78ms (1.83 faster). While compared with MnasNet (Tan et al., 2018), our model can achieve 0.6% higher top1 accuracy with slightly lower mobile latency. More importantly, we are much more resource efficient: the GPUhour is fewer than MnasNet (Table 2).
Additionally, we also observe that ProxylessG has no incentive to choose computationcheap operations if were not for the latency regularization loss. Its resulting architecture initially has 158ms latency on Pixel 1. After rescaling the network using the multiplier, its latency reduces to 83ms. However, this model can only achieve 71.8% top1 accuracy on ImageNet, which is 2.4% lower than the result given by ProxylessG with latency regularization loss. Therefore, we conclude that it is essential to take latency as a direct objective when learning efficient neural networks.
Besides the mobile phone, we also apply our ProxylessNAS to learn specialized CNN models on GPU and CPU. Table 3 reports the results on GPU, where we find that our ProxylessNAS can still achieve superior performances compared to both humandesigned and automatically searched architectures. Specifically, compared to MobileNetV2 and MnasNet, our model improves the top1 accuracy by 3.1% and 1.1% respectively while being 1.2 faster. Table 4 shows the summarized results of our searched models on three different platforms. An interesting observation is that models optimized for GPU do not run fast on CPU and mobile phone, vice versa. Therefore, it is essential to learn specialized neural networks for different hardware architectures to achieve the best efficiency on different hardware.
Specialized Models for Different Hardware. Figure 6 demonstrates the detailed architectures of our searched CNN models on three hardware platforms: GPU/CPU/Mobile. We notice that the architecture shows different preferences when targeting different platforms: (i) The GPU model is shallower and wider, especially in early stages where the feature map has higher resolution; (ii) The GPU model prefers large MBConv operations (e.g. 7 7 MBConv6), while the CPU model would go for smaller MBConv operations. This is because GPU has much higher parallelism than CPU so it can take advantage of large MBConv operations. Another interesting observation is that our searched models on all platforms prefer larger MBConv operations in the first block within each stage where the feature map is downsampled. We suppose it might because larger MBConv operations are beneficial for the network to preserve more information when downsampling. Notably, such kind of patterns cannot be captured in previous NAS methods as they force the blocks to share the same structure (Zoph et al., 2018; Liu et al., 2018a).
(a) Efficient GPU model found by ProxylessNAS. 
(b) Efficient CPU model found by ProxylessNAS. 
(c) Efficient mobile model found by ProxylessNAS. 
Model  Top1  Top5  GPU latency 

MobileNetV2 (Sandler et al., 2018)  72.0  91.0  6.1ms 
ShuffleNetV2 (1.5) (Ma et al., 2018)  72.6    7.3ms 
ResNet34 (He et al., 2016)  73.3  91.4  8.0ms 
NASNetA (Zoph et al., 2018)  74.0  91.3  38.3ms 
DARTS (Liu et al., 2018c)  73.1  91.0   
MnasNet (Tan et al., 2018)  74.0  91.8  6.1ms 
Proxyless (GPU)  75.1  92.5  5.1ms 
Model  Top1 (%)  GPU latency  CPU latency  Mobile latency 

Proxyless (GPU)  75.1  5.1ms  204.9ms  124ms 
Proxyless (CPU)  75.3  7.4ms  138.7ms  116ms 
Proxyless (mobile)  74.6  7.2ms  164.1ms  78ms 
5 Conclusion
We introduced ProxylessNAS that can directly learn neural network architectures on the target task and target hardware without any proxy. We also reduced the search cost (GPUhours and GPU memory) of NAS to the same level of normal training using path binarization. Benefiting from the direct search, we achieve strong empirical results on CIFAR10 and ImageNet. Furthermore, we allow specializing network architectures for different platforms by directly incorporating the measured hardware latency into optimization objectives. We compared the optimized models on CPU/GPU/mobile and raised the awareness of the needs of specializing neural network architecture for different hardware architectures.
Acknowledgments
We thank MIT Quest for Intelligence, MITIBM Watson AI lab, SenseTime, Xilinx, Snap Research for supporting this work. We also thank AWS Cloud Credits for Research Program providing us the cloud computing resources.
References
 Bender et al. (2018) Gabriel Bender, PieterJan Kindermans, Barret Zoph, Vijay Vasudevan, and Quoc Le. Understanding and simplifying oneshot architecture search. In ICML, 2018.
 Brock et al. (2018) Andrew Brock, Theodore Lim, James M Ritchie, and Nick Weston. Smash: oneshot model architecture search through hypernetworks. In ICLR, 2018.
 Cai et al. (2018a) Han Cai, Tianyao Chen, Weinan Zhang, Yong Yu, and Jun Wang. Efficient architecture search by network transformation. In AAAI, 2018a.
 Cai et al. (2018b) Han Cai, Jiacheng Yang, Weinan Zhang, Song Han, and Yong Yu. Pathlevel network transformation for efficient architecture search. In ICML, 2018b.
 Courbariaux et al. (2015) Matthieu Courbariaux, Yoshua Bengio, and JeanPierre David. Binaryconnect: Training deep neural networks with binary weights during propagations. In NIPS, 2015.
 DeVries & Taylor (2017) Terrance DeVries and Graham W Taylor. Improved regularization of convolutional neural networks with cutout. arXiv preprint arXiv:1708.04552, 2017.
 Dong et al. (2018) JinDong Dong, AnChieh Cheng, DaCheng Juan, Wei Wei, and Min Sun. Dppnet: Deviceaware progressive search for paretooptimal neural architectures. In ECCV, 2018.
 Elsken et al. (2017) Thomas Elsken, JanHendrik Metzen, and Frank Hutter. Simple and efficient architecture search for convolutional neural networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1711.04528, 2017.
 Elsken et al. (2018a) Thomas Elsken, Jan Hendrik Metzen, and Frank Hutter. Multiobjective architecture search for cnns. arXiv preprint arXiv:1804.09081, 2018a.
 Elsken et al. (2018b) Thomas Elsken, Jan Hendrik Metzen, and Frank Hutter. Neural architecture search: A survey. arXiv preprint arXiv:1808.05377, 2018b.
 Han et al. (2017) Dongyoon Han, Jiwhan Kim, and Junmo Kim. Deep pyramidal residual networks. In CVPR, 2017.
 Han et al. (2015) Song Han, Jeff Pool, John Tran, and William Dally. Learning both weights and connections for efficient neural network. In NIPS, 2015.
 Han et al. (2016) Song Han, Huizi Mao, and William J Dally. Deep compression: Compressing deep neural networks with pruning, trained quantization and huffman coding. In ICLR, 2016.
 He et al. (2016) Kaiming He, Xiangyu Zhang, Shaoqing Ren, and Jian Sun. Deep residual learning for image recognition. In CVPR, 2016.
 He et al. (2018) Yihui He, Ji Lin, Zhijian Liu, Hanrui Wang, LiJia Li, and Song Han. Amc: Automl for model compression and acceleration on mobile devices. In ECCV, 2018.
 Howard et al. (2017) Andrew G Howard, Menglong Zhu, Bo Chen, Dmitry Kalenichenko, Weijun Wang, Tobias Weyand, Marco Andreetto, and Hartwig Adam. Mobilenets: Efficient convolutional neural networks for mobile vision applications. arXiv preprint arXiv:1704.04861, 2017.
 Hsu et al. (2018) ChiHung Hsu, ShuHuan Chang, DaCheng Juan, JiaYu Pan, YuTing Chen, Wei Wei, and ShihChieh Chang. Monas: Multiobjective neural architecture search using reinforcement learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:1806.10332, 2018.
 Huang et al. (2016) Gao Huang, Yu Sun, Zhuang Liu, Daniel Sedra, and Kilian Q Weinberger. Deep networks with stochastic depth. In ECCV, 2016.
 Huang et al. (2017) Gao Huang, Zhuang Liu, Laurens Van Der Maaten, and Kilian Q Weinberger. Densely connected convolutional networks. In CVPR, 2017.
 Iandola et al. (2016) Forrest N Iandola, Song Han, Matthew W Moskewicz, Khalid Ashraf, William J Dally, and Kurt Keutzer. Squeezenet: Alexnetlevel accuracy with 50x fewer parameters and¡ 0.5 mb model size. arXiv preprint arXiv:1602.07360, 2016.
 Kamath et al. (2018) Purushotham Kamath, Abhishek Singh, and Debo Dutta. Neural architecture construction using envelopenets. arXiv preprint arXiv:1803.06744, 2018.
 Liu et al. (2018a) Chenxi Liu, Barret Zoph, Jonathon Shlens, Wei Hua, LiJia Li, Li FeiFei, Alan Yuille, Jonathan Huang, and Kevin Murphy. Progressive neural architecture search. In ECCV, 2018a.
 Liu et al. (2018b) Hanxiao Liu, Karen Simonyan, Oriol Vinyals, Chrisantha Fernando, and Koray Kavukcuoglu. Hierarchical representations for efficient architecture search. In ICLR, 2018b.
 Liu et al. (2018c) Hanxiao Liu, Karen Simonyan, and Yiming Yang. Darts: Differentiable architecture search. arXiv preprint arXiv:1806.09055, 2018c.
 Liu et al. (2017) Zhuang Liu, Jianguo Li, Zhiqiang Shen, Gao Huang, Shoumeng Yan, and Changshui Zhang. Learning efficient convolutional networks through network slimming. In ICCV, 2017.
 Luo et al. (2018) Renqian Luo, Fei Tian, Tao Qin, and TieYan Liu. Neural architecture optimization. arXiv preprint arXiv:1808.07233, 2018.
 Ma et al. (2018) Ningning Ma, Xiangyu Zhang, HaiTao Zheng, and Jian Sun. Shufflenet v2: Practical guidelines for efficient cnn architecture design. In ECCV, 2018.
 Pham et al. (2018) Hieu Pham, Melody Y Guan, Barret Zoph, Quoc V Le, and Jeff Dean. Efficient neural architecture search via parameter sharing. In ICML, 2018.
 Real et al. (2018) Esteban Real, Alok Aggarwal, Yanping Huang, and Quoc V Le. Regularized evolution for image classifier architecture search. arXiv preprint arXiv:1802.01548, 2018.
 Sandler et al. (2018) Mark Sandler, Andrew Howard, Menglong Zhu, Andrey Zhmoginov, and LiangChieh Chen. Mobilenetv2: Inverted residuals and linear bottlenecks. In CVPR, 2018.
 Tan et al. (2018) Mingxing Tan, Bo Chen, Ruoming Pang, Vijay Vasudevan, and Quoc V Le. Mnasnet: Platformaware neural architecture search for mobile. arXiv preprint arXiv:1807.11626, 2018.
 Wang et al. (2018) Kuan Wang, Zhijian Liu, Yujun Lin, Ji Lin, and Song Han. Haq: Hardwareaware automated quantization. arXiv, 2018.
 Williams (1992) Ronald J Williams. Simple statistical gradientfollowing algorithms for connectionist reinforcement learning. In Reinforcement Learning. 1992.
 Yamada et al. (2018) Yoshihiro Yamada, Masakazu Iwamura, and Koichi Kise. Shakedrop regularization. arXiv preprint arXiv:1802.02375, 2018.
 Zhong et al. (2018) Zhao Zhong, Junjie Yan, Wei Wu, Jing Shao, and ChengLin Liu. Practical blockwise neural network architecture generation. In CVPR, 2018.

Zhu et al. (2018)
Ligeng Zhu, Ruizhi Deng, Michael Maire, Zhiwei Deng, Greg Mori, and Ping Tan.
Sparsely aggregated convolutional networks.
In
Proceedings of the European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV)
, pp. 186–201, 2018.  Zoph & Le (2017) Barret Zoph and Quoc V Le. Neural architecture search with reinforcement learning. In ICLR, 2017.
 Zoph et al. (2018) Barret Zoph, Vijay Vasudevan, Jonathon Shlens, and Quoc V Le. Learning transferable architectures for scalable image recognition. In CVPR, 2018.
Appendix A The List of Candidate Operations Used on CIFAR10
We adopt the following operations in our CIFAR10 experiments:

dilated depthwiseseparable convolution

Identity

depthwiseseparable convolution

depthwiseseparable convolution

depthwiseseparable convolution

average pooling
Appendix B Mobile Latency Prediction
Measuring the latency ondevice is accurate but not ideal for scalable neural architecture search. There are two reasons: (i) Slow.
As suggested in TensorFlowLite, we need to average hundreds of runs to produce a precise measurement, approximately 20 seconds. This is far more slower than a single forward / backward execution. (ii)
Expensive. A lot of mobile devices and software engineering work are required to build an automatic pipeline to gather the latency from a mobile farm. Instead of direct measurement, we build a model to estimate the latency. We need only 1 phone rather than a farm of phones, which has only 0.75ms latency RMSE. We use the latency model to search, and we use the measured latency to report the final model’s latency.We sampled 5k architectures from our candidate space, where 4k architectures are used to build the latency model and the rest are used for test. We measured the latency on Google Pixel 1 phone using TensorFlowLite. The features include (i) type of the operator (ii) input and output feature map size (iii) other attributes like kernel size, stride for convolution and expansion ratio.
Appendix C Details of MnasNet’s Search Cost
Mnas (Tan et al., 2018) trains 8,000 mobilesized models on ImageNet, each of which is trained for 5 epochs for learning architectures. If these models are trained on V100 GPUs, as done in our experiments, the search cost is roughly 40,000 GPU hours.
Appendix D Implementaion of the GradientBased Algorithm
A naive implementation of the gradientbased algorithm (see Eq. (4)) is calculating and storing in the forward step to later compute in the backward step:
(9) 
where denotes the gradient w.r.t. the output of the mixed operation , “” denotes the elementwise product, and “reduce_sum” denotes the sum of all elements.
Notice that is only used for calculating when path is not active (i.e. not involved in calculating ). So we do not need to actually allocate GPU memory to store . Instead, we can calculate after getting in the backward step, use to compute following Eq. (9), then release the occupied GPU memory. In this way, without the approximation discussed in Section 3.2.1, we can reduce the GPU memory cost to the same level of training a compact model.
Comments
There are no comments yet.