Title: ONE-SHOT NEURAL ARCHITECTURE SEARCH VIA COMPRESSIVE SENSING

Abstract: Neural architecture search (NAS), or automated design of neural network models, remains a very challenging meta-learning problem. Several recent works (called "one-shot" approaches) have focused on dramatically reducing NAS running time by leveraging proxy models that still provide architectures with competitive performance. In our work, we propose a new meta-learning algorithm that we call CoNAS, or Compressive sensing-based Neural Architecture Search. Our approach merges ideas from one-shot NAS approaches with iterative techniques for learning low-degree sparse Boolean polynomial functions. We validate our approach on several standard test datasets, discover novel architectures hitherto unreported, and achieve competitive (or better) results in both performance and search time compared to existing NAS approaches. Further, we provide theoretical analysis via upper bounds on the number of validation error measurements needed to perform reliable meta-learning; to our knowledge, these analysis tools are novel to the NAS literature and may be of independent interest.

1. INTRODUCTION:

Motivation. Choosing a suitable neural network architecture for complex prediction tasks such as image classification and language modeling often requires a substantial effort of trial-and-error. Therefore, there has been a growing interest to automatically learn (or meta-learn) the architecture of neural networks that can achieve competitive (or better) results over hand-designed architectures. The sub-field of neural architecture search (NAS) addresses the problem of designing competitive architectures with as small computational budget as possible.

Numerous approaches for neural architecture search already exist in the literature, each with their own pros and cons: these include black-box optimization based on reinforcement learning (RL) (Zoph & Le, 2017) , evolutionary search (Real et al., 2019) , and Bayesian optimization (Cao et al., 2019; Kandasamy et al., 2018) . Though the algorithmic details vary, most of these NAS methods face the common challenge of evaluating the test/validation performance of a (combinatorially) large number of candidate architecture evaluations.

Our Contributions. In a departure from traditional methods, we approach the NAS problem via the lens of compressive sensing. The field of compressive sensing (or sparse recovery), introduced by the seminal works of (Candes et al., 2006; Donoho et al., 2006) , has received significant attention in both ML theory and applications over the last decade, and has influenced the development of numerous advances in nonlinear and combinatorial optimization.

We leverage these advances for the NAS problem. In particular, we develop a new NAS method called CoNAS (Compressive sensing-based Neural Architecture Search), which merges ideas from sparse recovery with so-called "one-shot" architecture search methods (Bender et al., 2018) , described in greater detail below. CoNAS consists of two new innovations: (i) a new search space that permits exploration of a large(r) number of diverse candidate architectures, and (ii) a new search strategy that borrows ideas from recovery of Boolean functions from their (sparse) Fourier expansions.

Our experiments show that CoNAS is able to discover a deep convolutional neural network with test error 2.74 ± 0.12% on CIFAR-10 classification, outperforming existing state-of-the-art methods, including DARTs (Liu et al., 2018b) , ENAS (Pham et al., 2018) , random search with weight-sharing (RSWS) (Li & Talwalkar, 2019) , and the baseline vanilla random search method (Liu et al., 2018b) in terms of test error, search time, model size, and number of multiply-add operations. Moreover, CoNAS can achieve the comparable performance as NASNet (Zoph et al., 2018) and AmoebaNet (Real et al., 2019) with less than one GPU-day of computation. Our experiments on designing recurrent neural networks for language modeling are somewhat short of the state-of-the-art (Zilly et al., 2017) , but we find that CoNAS still finds competitive results with less search time than previous NAS approaches. Our results are exactly reproducible (having been trained with fixed pseudorandom seeds), and an implementation of CoNAS will be made publicly available post-peer review.

Stage 1:

Stage 2 

Figure 1 : Overview of CoNAS. A one-shot neural network model f is pre-trained, and an appropriate sub-graph of f is chosen by applying a sparse recovery technique. Iterative sparse recoveries allow to find the larger sub-graph from f .

Finally, while our original motivation was to devise an empirically useful NAS method, a nice benefit is that CoNAS can also be theoretically analyzed, since existing theoretical results for Fourier-sparse Boolean functions can be ported over in order to provide upper bounds for the required number of performance evaluations of subarchitectures of the one-shot model. This, to our knowledge, is one of the first results of their kind in the NAS literature and may be of independent interest. We defer discussion of our approach to Section 3.

Our Techniques. The intuition behind compressive sensing is that if a signal (or function) can be represented via a sparse basis expansion, then it can be recovered (either exactly or approximately) from a small number of randomized measurements. CoNAS leverages this intuition in the context of one-shot architecture search (Bender et al., 2018) . In one-shot NAS, instead of evaluating several candidate architectures, a single "base" neural network model is pre-trained; a class of sub-networks is identified (called the search space) and the performance of each sub-network is evaluated on a validation set; and the best-performing sub-network is finally selected and fine-tuned.

Following Hazan et al. (2017) ; Stobbe & Krause (2012) , we model the sub-network selection as a sparse recovery problem. Concretely, consider a function f that maps sub-architectures to a measure of performance (validation loss). We assume that f can be written as a sparse, low-degree polynomial in the (discrete) Fourier basis . If the sparsity assumption is satisfied, then we claim the function f can be reconstructed using a very small number of sub-network evaluations, thus reducing overall compute time. A key challenge lies in defining a suitable search space; we propose one that is considerably larger than the one used in DARTS or ENAS, allowing us to (putatively) search over a more diverse set of candidate architectures.

2. BACKGROUND:

We briefly describe one-shot neural architecture search techniques (Bender et al., 2018; Li & Talwalkar, 2019) ; a supplementary description is available in Appendix A.1. Following the treatment given in the recent survey paper (Elsken et al., 2018) , one-shot NAS approaches have three main components: a search space, a search strategy, and a performance estimation strategy.

Search Space. The goal of one-shot NAS is to find the best performing cell, a fundamental component from which more complex architectures are constructed via stacking. Following Liu et al. (2018b) , a cell is a directed acyclic graph (DAG) where a node corresponds to the latent representation, and a directed edge transforms predecessor nodes using a given operation; common operations used in CNNs include 3 × 3 and 5 × 5 separable convolutions, 3 × 3 max pooling, and 3 × 3 average pooling. 

: {-1, 1} n → {-1, 1} such that χ S (α) = i∈S α i .

Then, the Fourier basis is the set of all 2 n parity functions {χ S }.

The key fact is that the basis of parity functions forms an K-bounded orthonormal system (BOS) with K = 1, therefore satisfying two properties:

EQUATION

Due to orthonormality, any Boolean function f has a unique Fourier representation, given by

f (α) = S⊆[n] f (S)χ S (α), with Fourier coefficients f (S) = E α∈{-1,1} n [f (α)χ S (α)]

where expectation is taken with respect to the uniform distribution over the nodes of the hypercube.

A modeling assumption is that the Fourier spectrum of the function is concentrated on monomials of small degree (≤ d). This corresponds to the case where f is a decision tree (Hazan et al., 2017) , and allows us to simplify the Fourier expansion by limiting its support. Let P d ⊆ 2 [n] be a fixed collection of Fourier basis such that P d := {χ S ⊆ 2 [n] : |S| ≤ d}. Then P d ⊆ 2 [n] induces a function space consisting of all functions of order d or less, denoted by H P d := {f : Supp[ f ] ⊆ P d }. For example, P 2 allows us to express the function f with at most d l=0 n l ≡ O(n 2 ) Fourier coefficients. Lastly, if we have prior knowledge of some set of bits J, we use an operation called restriction. Definition 2.2. Let f : {-1, 1} n → R, (J, J) be a partition of [n] , and z ∈ {-1, 1} J . The restriction of f to J using z denoted by f J|z : {-1, 1} J → R is the subfunction of f given by fixing the coordinates in J to the bit values z.

3. PROPOSED ALGORITHM: CONAS:

Overview. Our proposed algorithm, Compressive sensing-based Neural Architecture Search (CoNAS), infuses ideas from learning a sparse graph (Boolean Fourier analysis) into one-shot NAS. CoNAS consists of two novel components: an expanded search space, and a more effective search strategy.

Search Space. Our first ingredient is an expanded search space. Following the approach of DARTS (Liu et al., 2018b) , we define a directed acyclic graph (DAG) where all predecessor nodes are connected to every intermediate node with all possible operations. We represent any sub-graph of the DAG using a binary string α called the architecture encoder. Its length is the total number of edges in the DAG, and a 1 (resp. -1) in α indicates an active (resp. inactive) edge. Search Strategy. We propose a compressive measuring strategy to approximate the one-shot model with a Fourier-sparse Boolean function. Let f : {-1, 1} n → R map the sub-graph of the one-shot pre-trained model encoded by α to its validation performance. Similar to Hazan et al. (2017) , we collect a small number of function evaluations of f , and reconstruct the Fourier-sparse function g ≈ f via sparse recovery algorithms with randomly sampled measurements. Then, we solve arg min α g(α) by exhaustive enumeration over all coordinates in its sub-cube {-1, 1} J where (J, J) partitions [n] (Definition 2.2)2 . If the solution of the arg min α g(α) does not return enough edges to construct the cell (some intermediate nodes are disconnected), we simply connect the intermediate nodes to the previous cell output, Cell k-2 , using the Identity operation (this does not increase neither the model size nor number of multiply-add operations). Larger cells can be found from multiple iterations by restricting the approximate function g and with fixing the bit values found in the previous solution, and randomly sampling sub-graphs in the remaining edges.

Full Algorithm. We now describe CoNAS in detail, with pseudocode provided in Appendix A.3.

We first train a one-shot model with standard backpropagation but only updates the weight corresponding to the randomly sampled sub-graph edges for each minibatch. Then, we randomly sample sub-graphs by generating architecture encoder strings α ∈ {-1, 1} n using a Bernoulli(p) distribution for each bit of α independently (We set p = 0.5).

In the second stage, we collect m measurements of randomly sampled sub-architecture performance denoted by y = (f (α 1 ), f (α 2 ), . . . , f (α m )) T . Next, we construct the graph-sampling matrix

A ∈ {-1, 1} m×|P d | with entries A l,k = χ S k (α l ), l ∈ [m], k ∈ [|P d |], S ⊆ [n], |S| ≤ d, (3.1)

where d is the maximum degree of monomials in the Fourier expansion, and S k is the index set corresponding to k th Fourier basis.

We solve the familiar Lasso problem (Tibshirani, 1996) :

x * = arg min x∈R |P d | y -Ax 2 2 + λ x 1 , (3.2)

to (approximately) recover the global optimizer x * , the vector contains the Fourier coefficients corresponding to P d . We define an approximate function g ≈ f with Fourier coefficients with the top-s (absolutely) largest coefficients from x * , and compute α * = arg min α g(α), resulting all the possible points in the subcube defined by the support of g (this computation is feasible if s is small). Multiple stages of sparse recovery (with successive restrictions to previously obtained optimal α * ) enable us to approximate additional monomial terms. Finally, we obtain a cell to construct the final architecture by activating the edges corresponding to all i ∈ [n] such that α * i = 1.

Theoretical support for CoNAS. The system of linear equations y = Ax with the graph-sampling matrix A ∈ {-1, 1} m×O(n d ) , measurements y ∈ R m , and Fourier coefficient vector

x ∈ R O(n d ) is an ill-posed problem when m O(n d

) for large n. However, if the graph-sampling matrix satisfies Restricted Isometry Property (RIP), the sparse coefficients, u can be recovered:

Definition 3.1. A matrix A ∈ R m×O(n d )

satisfies the restricted isometry property of order s with some constant δ if for every s-sparse vector u ∈ R O(n d ) (i.e., only s entries are non-zero) the following holds:

(

1 -δ) u 2 2 ≤ Au 2 2 ≤ (1 + δ) u 2 2 .

We defer the history of improvements on the upper bounds of the number of rows from bounded orthonormal dictionaries (matrix A) for which A is guaranteed to satisfy the restricted isometry property with high probability in Appendix A.2. To the best of our knowledge, the best known result with mild dependency on δ (i.e., δ -2 ) is due to Haviv & Regev (2017) , which we can apply for our setup. It is easy to check that the graph-sampling matrix A in our proposed CoNAS algorithm satisfies BOS for K = 1 (Eq 3.1).

Theorem 3.2. Let the graph-sampling matrix A ∈ {-1, 1} m×O(n d ) be constructed by taking m rows (random sampling points) uniformly and independently from the rows of a square matrix M ∈ {-1, 1} O(n d )×O(n d ) . Then the normalized matrix A with m = O(log 2 ( 1 δ )δ -2 s log 2 ( s δ )d log(n)) with probability at least 1 -2 -Ω(d log n log( s δ )) satisfies the restricted isometry property of order s with constant δ; as a result, every s-sparse vector u ∈ R O(n d ) can be recovered from the sample y i 's:

y = Au = |O(n d )| j=1 u j A i,j m i=1 , by LASSO (equation 3.2).

Proof. First, we note that the graph-sampling matrix A is a BOS matrix with K = 1; hence, directly invoking Theorem 4.5 of Haviv & Regev (2016) to our setting, we can see that matrix A satisfies RIP. Now according to Theorem 1.1 of Candes (2008) , letting δ < √ 2 -1, the l 1 minimization or LASSO will recover exactly the s sparse vector u. For instance, in our experiments, we have selected m = 1000 which is consistent with our parameters, d = 2, s = 10, n = 140.

Here, it is worthwhile to mention two points: first, the above upper bound on the number of rows of the graph-sampling matrix A is the tightest bound (according to our knowledge) for the BOS matrices to satisfy RIP. There exist series of results establishing the RIP for BOS matrices during the last 15 year. We have reviewed these results in the appendix A.2. Second, instead of LASSO, one can use any sparse recovery method (such as IHT (Blumensath & Davies, 2009) ) in our algorithm. In essence, Theorem 3.2 provides a successful guarantee for recovering the optimal sub-network of a given size given a sufficient number of performance measurements.

4. EXPERIMENTS AND RESULTS:

We experiment on two different NAS problems: (i) CNN search on CIFAR-10, CIFAR-100, Fashion MNIST and SVHN, (ii) an RNN search for Penn Treebank (PTB). We describe the training details for CIFAR-10 and PTB in Sections 4.1 and 4.3 respectively. Our evaluation setup for training the final architecture (CIFAR-10 and PTB) is the same as that reported in DARTS and RSWS.

4.1. CIFAR-10:

Architecture Search. We create a one-shot architecture similar to RSWS with a cell containing N = 7 nodes with two nodes as input and one node as output; our wiring rules between nodes are different and as in Section 3. We used five operations: 3 × 3 and 5 × 5 separable convolutions, 3 × 3 max pooling, 3 × 3 average pooling, and Identity. On CIFAR-10, we equally divide the 50,000-sample training set to training and validation sets, following Li & Talwalkar (2019) and Liu et al. (2018b) . We train a one-shot model by sampling the random sub-graph under Bernoulli(0.5) sampling with eight layers and 16 initial channels for 100 training epochs. All other hyperparameters used in training the one-shot model are the same as in RSWS.

We run CoNAS in two different settings to find small and large size CNN cells. Specifically, we use the sparsity parameters s = 10, Fourier basis degree d = 2, and Lasso coefficient λ = 1 (We include experiments with varying lasso coefficients in Appendix A.6). As a result, we found the normal cell and reduce cell with one sparse recovery stage as shown in Appendix A.4 (the larger CNN cells were found with multiple sparse recovery stages). Repeating four stages (t = 4) of sparse recovery with restriction in definition (2.2) returns an architecture encoder α * with numerous operation edges in the cells (Please see Appendix A.9.1 for the found architecture). We support the effect of multiple stages sampling providing the empirical experiments on Appendix A.7. Now, we evaluate the model found by CoNAS as follows:

Architecture Evaluation. We re-train the final architecture with the learned cell and with the same hyperparameter configurations in DARTS to make the direct comparisons. We use NVIDIA TITAN X, GTX 

h l = (1 -c l ) ⊗ activation(h l-1 • W (h) l,l-1 ) + h l-1 ⊗ c l ,

where "⊗" denotes the element-wise multiplication. Since we use an expanded search space, we allow multiple operations; in such cases, we replace activation(h l-1 • W (h) l,l-1 ) with its sum-pooled version, 1

n n i activation i (h l-1 • W (h)

l,l-1 ). Pre-training the above RNN using weight-sharing can create unstable results since the sub-graphs could have some internal nodes with no connections, leading to exploding gradients. One way to mitigate this issue is to increase the p-parameter in the Bernoulli sampling to enforce connectivity; however, this can significantly slow down the computations. Hence, we add an additional heuristic of randomly activating an edge to connect the intermediate node if the node does not have any input edge according to its architecture encoder α.

After obtaining the one-shot model, we randomly sample the measurements of the sub-graph without the above heuristic used in the training stage. Running CoNAS with two stages of sparse recovery with s = 10 and s = 5 finds enough number of edges for the RNN cell. If the final resulting cells has intermediate nodes with a disconnected input, we added ReLU operations from the previous intermediate node. The visualization of the RNN cell found by CoNAS is shown in Appendix A.9.2. Architecture Evaluation. The results for recurrent architectures are presented in Table 3 . We trained the final RNN model with the learned cell and the same hyperparameters in DARTs and RSWS, except with minibatch size equals 128 (due to hardware constraints). We also included the experimental results with RSWS methods allocating the equivalent search time with our methods to make a fair comparison with CoNAS. Since the published NAS literature in Table 3 uses different GPU hardware (e.g. DARTs and ENAS: NVIDIA GTX 1080Ti, RSWS: Tesla P100), a one-to-one comparison of the search cost value listed in Table 3 is not applicable. Our experiments show that CoNAS finds better performing architectures when compared with DARTs and RSWS; however, note that these differ slightly from the published experimental results for DARTs and RSWS, which we could not reproduce.

4.4. DISCUSSION:

Noticeably, CoNAS achieves improved results on CIFAR-10 in both test error and search cost when compared to the previous state-of-the-art algorithms: DARTs, RSWS, and ENAS. In addition, not only CoNAS finds the cell with smallest parameter size and multiply-add operations than the other NAS approaches, but also it obtains a better test error with 2.57%. Many previous NAS papers have focused on the search strategy, while adopted the same search space to (Zoph et al., 2018) and (Liu et al., 2018b) . Our experimental results highlight the importance of both seeking new performance strategies and the search space.

Finally, on PTB, our experiments show that CoNAS finds a better RNN architecture than RSWS, DARTs using an equivalent or less search cost. However, the reported test perplexity of DARTs and RSWS outperforms both valid and test perplexity of CoNAS.

5. PRIOR ART:

We conclude by briefly reviewing the NAS literature and highlighting connections with CoNAS.

Neural Architecture Search. Early NAS approaches used RL-based controllers (Zoph et al., 2018) , evolutionary algorithms (Real et al., 2019) , or sequential model-based optimization (SMBO) (Liu et al., 2018a) , and showed competitive performance with manually-designed architectures such as deep ResNets (He et al., 2016) and DenseNets (Huang et al., 2017) . However, these approaches required substantial computational resources, running into thousands of GPU-days. Subsequent NAS works have focused on boosting search speeds by proposing novel search strategies, such as differentiable search technique via gradient-based optimization (Cai et al., 2019; Liu et al., 2018b; Noy et al., 2019; Luo et al., 2018; Xie et al., 2018) and random search via sampling sub-networks from a one-shot supernetwork (Bender et al., 2018; Li & Talwalkar, 2019) . Other recent NAS approaches include RL approaches via weight-sharing to boost speeds compare to vanilla RL (Pham et al., 2018) , network transformations (Cai et al., 2018; Elsken et al., 2019; Jaderberg et al., 2017; Jin et al., 2018; Liu et al., 2017; Hu et al., 2019) , and random exploration (Li et al., 2018; Li & Talwalkar, 2019; Sciuto et al., 2019; Xie et al., 2019) . To the best of our knowledge, no NAS method yet reported has explored compressive sensing techniques.

Differentiable Neural Architecture Search (DARTs). Our CoNAS approach can be viewed as a refinement to DARTs ( (Liu et al., 2018b) ) which performs bilevel optimization by relaxing the (discrete) architecture search space to a differentiable search space via softmax operations. The choice of alternative optimization on differentiable multi-objective formulation substantially speeds up the search by orders of magnitude while achieving competitive performance compared to previous works (Zoph & Le, 2017; Zoph et al., 2018; Real et al., 2019; Liu et al., 2018a) .

One-Shot Neural Architecture Search. Bender et al. (2018) provide an extensive experimental analysis on one-shot architecture search based on weight-sharing. Bender et al. (2018) statistically showed the correlation between the one-shot model (supergraph) and stand-alone model (subgraph) through the experiments. Li & Talwalkar (2019) proposes simplified training procedures without stabilizing techniques (e.g., path dropout schedule on a direct acyclic graph (DAG) and ghost batch normalization) from Bender et al. (2018) . As the final performance of the discovered architecture heavily relies on hyperparameter settings, Li & Talwalkar (2019) exactly accords hyperparameters and data augmentation techniques to DARTs for their experiments. This combination of random search via one-shot models with weight-sharing provides the best competitive baseline results reported in the NAS literature. Our CoNAS approach improves upon these reported results.

Learning Sub-Networks. Stobbe & Krause (2012) propose learning sparse sub-networks from a small number of random cuts; they also leverage ideas from compressive sensing and provide theoretical upper bounds for successful recover. Our CoNAS approach is directly inspired from their seminal work. However, we emphasize essential differences: while Stobbe & Krause (2012) emphasize linear measurements, CoNAS takes a different perspective by focusing on measurements that map sub-networks to performance, which are fundamentally nonlinear. Moreover, our theoretical bounds use better Fourier-RIP bounds, and lead to improved results in terms of measurement complexity.

Hyperparameter optimization. Building upon the approach of Stobbe & Krause (2012), Hazan et al. (2017) develop a spectral approach called Harmonica for hyperparameter optimization (HPO) by encoding hyperparameters as binary strings. CoNAS also follows the same path, albeit for NAS.

While NAS and HPO are sister meta-learning problems, we emphasize that our focus is exclusively on NAS, while Hazan et al. (2017) exclusively focus on HPO.

Moreover, the techniques of Hazan et al. (2017) cannot be directly applied to the NAS problem. We need to define our search space, encode our search problem in terms of Boolean variables, and propose how to gather measurements. All these are new to our paper: in particular, CoNAS proposes gathering measurements within tractable sampling time as described in Appendix A.1, while Harmonica naively gathers the approximated measurements by training the model for each randomly sampled hyperparameter choice. In Appendix A.1, we show that describes the sampling times with the naive sampling method for 1,000 measurements takes approximately 174 GPU days, whereas CoNAS only take 0.02 GPU days to gather 1,000 measurements. Finally, Harmonica requires invocation of a baseline hyperparameter optimization method (such as random search, successive halving (Jamieson & Talwalkar, 2016) , or Hyperband (Li et al., 2017) ), which CoNAS does not require.

A APPENDIX:

A.1 SUPPLEMENTARY BACKGROUND OF ONE-SHOT NEURAL ARCHITECTURE SEARCH

In this section, we explain the one-shot neural architecture search in more details regarding of three directions introduced by Elsken et al. (2018) .

Search Space. First, we start with the search space, defining the principles of constructing neural architecture. As discussed before, simplifying the search space using human prior knowledge can help search algorithms to find an optimal candidate faster. However, it may limit the algorithm to find a novel architecture beyond our knowledge due to human bias. One-shot neural architecture search methodology is not restrict to the specific search space (e.g. RSWS (Li & Talwalkar, 2019) uses the equivalent search space to DARTs (Liu et al., 2018b) ).

Search Strategy Next, we have a search strategy which is considered as a methodology to find the best neural architecture. In the last two years, different methodologies for search space such as reinforcement learning, evolutionary algorithms, SMBO, Bayesian optimization, bilevel optimization, and randomness are introduced in NAS literature. For instance, one-shot architecture uses random search as a search strategy.

Performance Estimation Strategy. One-shot NAS aims to reduce the computational cost for the searching with the surrogate model to estimate the sub-networks performance. The conventional performance estimating methods require the massive computational resources as each model need to be trained and evaluated separately. In particular, assume that our goal is to construct a CNN by using a proxy architecture through randomly selected cell samples by concatenating eight layers with 16 initial channels (This is the same proxy model setup in DARTs). Then, we measure the validation loss from 50 epochs trained model where each epoch takes five minutes of training. As a result, the total sampling time to collect 1,000 randomly sampled of the architecture performance (which is the same number of measurements as our experiment using CoNAS with t = 1) equals to 5 • 50 • 1000 • 1 60 • 1 24 ≈ 174 days. Instead, one-shot NAS trains the super-network with weight-sharing by randomly sample a subnetwork and only update the weights corresponding to the sampled network for each minibatch. Bender et al. (2018) demonstrates the correlation between the performance of one-shot model and the stand-alone architectures. Moreover, Li & Talwalkar (2019) provides the experimental results that the random search with weight-sharing is a competitive baseline even outperforming ENAS (Pham et al., 2018) .

A.2 PRIOR WORKS ON RECOVERY CONDITIONS ON COMPRESSIVE SENSING:

There has been significant research during the last decade in proving upper bounds on the number of rows of bounded orthonormal dictionaries (matrix A) for which A is guaranteed to satisfy the restricted isometry property with high probability. One of the first BOS results was established by Candes & Tao (2006) , where the authors proved an upper bound scales as O(sd 6 log 6 n) for a subsampled Fourier matrix. While this result is seminal, it is only optimal up to some polylog factors. In fact, the authors in chapter 12 of Foucart & Rauhut (2017) have shown a necessary condition (lower bound) on the number of rows of BOS which scales as O(sd log n). In an attempt to achieve to this lower bound, the result in Candes & Tao (2006) was further improved by Rudelson & Vershynin (2008) to O(sd log 2 s log(sd log n) log n). Motivated by this result, Cheraghchi et al. (2013) has even reduced the gap further by proving an upper bound on the number of rows as O(sd log 3 s log n). The best known available upper bound on the number of rows appears to be O(sd 2 log s log 2 n); however with worse dependency on the constant δ, i.e., δ -4 (please see Bourgain (2014) ). To the best of our knowledge, the best known result with mild dependency on δ (i.e., δ -2 ) is due to Haviv & Regev (2017) , and is given by O(sd log 2 s log n). We have used this result for proving Theorem 3.2.

A.3 CONAS ALGORITHM:

In this section, we provide the pseudocode of CoNAS explained in the Section 3 from the main paper. Let x * 1 , x * 2 , . . . , x * s be the s absolutely largest coefficients of x * . Construct

g(α) = s i=1

x * i χ i (α)

13:

Compute minimizer z = arg min α g(α) and let J the set of indices of z. 

A.5 TRAINING DETAILS ON OTHER DATASETS:

CIFAR-100 This dataset is extended version of CIFAR-10 with 100 classes containing 600 images each. Similar to CIFAR-10, CIFAR100 consists of 60,000 color images which splits into 50,000 training images and 10,000 test images. Following the existing works (Liu et al., 2018b) , we train the architecture with 20 stacked cells equivalent to CIFAR-10 setting. We train the architecture for A.7 EFFECT OF MULTIPLE STAGES SAMPLING

We illustrate an experiment which shows that the CoNAS with multiple stages can successively discover important edges, and eventually find a architecture with smaller loss/perplexity. Suppose we sample 1,000 measurements and computed the mean and the standard deviation of the validation loss from CIFAR-10 (perplexity from PTB) for each stage. As we can see in Figure 4 , the larger number of stages, the smaller loss/perplexity. While the multiple stage sampling finds more operation edges in the cell (equivalent to finding larger sub-graph), it may increase the architecture size (in terms of parameters and multiply-addition operation) as shown in Table 1 . The line plot and shaded region correspond to the average and standard deviation of measurements respectively.

A.8 EFFECT OF INCREASING OPERATION EDGES IN THE CELL.:

We provide more experiments on training results of randomly wired cells which have a similar number of edges to the cell found by CoNAS (t=4). We randomly sampled the architecture code α with Binomial(140, 1/4) for each digit being 1 that the expected number of total edges in normal cell and reduce cell is 35. We randomly selected three architectures as shown in Appendix A.9.5 and trained with the same settings to the section 4.1. Table 5 shows that choosing a larger number of randomly chosen edges is not sufficient to improve the model's performance. 

:

We note that the quality of sub-network performance predictions is heavily dependent on the base model that is trained. Choosing the correct base model is itself a separate challenge, which earlier papers such asBender et al. (2018) have addressed in detail. We do not pursue that direction here since our focus is on the sub-network selection problem, and assume that the base model is well-trained.

This is similar to the idea of de-biasing in the Hard-Thresholding (HT) algorithm(Foucart & Rauhut, 2017) where the support is first estimated, and then within the estimated support, the coefficients are calculated through least-squares estimation.

# This is the experimental result taken fromNoy et al. (2019).

Figures and Tables:

Inputs: Number of one-shot measurements m, stage t, sparsity s, lasso parameter, λ, Bernoulli p sub-architecture encoded binary vector α according to Bernoulli(p) 5: Update weights w α by descending ∇ wα L train (w α ) ONE-SHOT MODEL APPROXIMATION VIA COMPRESSIVE SENSING 9: for k ∈ {1, . . . , t} do 10:Collect y = (f (α 1 ), f (α 2 ), . . . , f (α m ))

by activating the edge where z i = 1 where i ∈ [n]. 17: end procedureA.4 ARCHITECTURE FOUND FROM CONAS FOR IMAGE CLASSIFICATION TASK

Figure 3: Convolution Cell found from CoNAS. The reduce cell found from CoNAS have a missing connection between c k-1 and intermediate nodes which is a valid architecture in our search space.

Figure 4: The one-shot architecture validation loss/perplexity vs stage iterations of (a) CIFAR-10 and (b) PTB.

Figure 5: Convolution Cell found from CoNAS (t=4)

Figure 7: Convolutional Cell found from DARTs with the original setting in Liu et al. (2018b).

Figure 8: CoNAS cell with λ = 5 corresponding to Table4.

Figure 9: CoNAS cell with λ = 10 corresponding to Table 4.

Figure12: Randomly wired cell corresponding to the third row result to Table5.

Each cell has two input nodes and one output node, and intermediate nodes can only be connected by predecessor nodes including input nodes. Intermediate nodes are wired to two predecessor nodes in CNNs and one predecessor node in RNNs.Search Strategy and Performance Estimation Strategy. Having defined a search space, oneshot NAS approaches employ four steps: (i) train a single "one-shot" base model that is capable of predicting the performance of sub-architectures 1 ; (ii) randomly sample sub-architectures of a trained one-shot model and measure performance over a hold-out validation set of samples; (iii) select the candidate (cell) with best validation performance; (iv) retrain a deeper final architecture using the best cell. Using the one-shot model as the proxy measurements of the candidate architecture corresponds to the performance estimation strategy (first and second step). analysis of Boolean functions. We follow the treatment given in O'Donnell(2014). A real-valued Boolean function is one that maps n-bit binary vectors (i.e., nodes of the hypercube) to real values: f : {-1, 1} n → R. Such functions can be represented in a basis comprising real multilinear polynomials called the Fourier basis, defined as follows. (We denote the vectors with bold letters. Also, [n] denotes the set {1, 2 . . . , n}.) Definition 2.1. For S ⊆ [n], define the parity function χ S

Table content: <table><tr><td>Fourier</td></tr></table>

Diagram inspired byBender et al. (2018). The example architecture encoder α samples the sub-architecture for N = 5 nodes (two intermediate nodes) with five different operations. Each component in α maps to the edges one-to-one in all Choice blocks in a cell. If a bit in α corresponds to 1, the edge activates, while -1 turns off the edge. Since the CNN search space finds both normal cell and reduce cell, the length of α is equivalent to (2 + 3) • 5 • 2 = 50. Figure2gives an example of how the architecture encoder α samples the sub-architecture of the fully-connected model in case of a convolutional neural network. The goal of CoNAS is to find the "best" encoder α * , which is "close enough" to the global optimum returning the best validation accuracy by constructing the final model with α * encoded sub-graph.Since each edge can be switched on and off independently, the proposed search space allows exploring a cell with more diverse connectivity patterns thanDARTS Liu et al. (2018b).

Table content: <table><tr><td>Image</td><td>Cellk-2</td><td/><td/><td>Cellk-1</td><td colspan="3">Input 1 Input 2 Input 3</td><td/><td>Input L</td></tr><tr><td>Stem1</td><td/><td colspan="2">Cell</td><td/><td/><td/><td>Choice i</td><td/></tr><tr><td>Stem2</td><td>Choice1</td><td>Choice2</td><td/><td/><td/><td>αi</td><td>Concat.</td><td>αi+4</td></tr><tr><td>Cell1</td><td colspan="2">Node1</td><td>Choice3</td><td>Choice4</td><td>3x3</td><td>5x5</td><td>Identity αi+1 αi+2</td><td>Max Pool αi+3</td><td>Avg Pool</td></tr><tr><td>Cell3 Cell2</td><td colspan="2">Choice5</td><td>Node2</td><td/><td>3x3</td><td>5x5</td><td/><td/></tr><tr><td>Softmax</td><td/><td colspan="2">Concat.</td><td/><td/><td/><td>Sum</td><td/></tr><tr><td>Output</td><td/><td/><td/><td/><td/><td/><td/><td/></tr><tr><td>Figure 2:</td><td/><td/><td/><td/><td/><td/><td/><td/></tr></table>

Comparison with hand-designed networks and state-of-the-art NAS methods on CIFAR-10 (Lower test error is better). The results are grouped as follows: manually designed networks, published NAS algorithms, and our experimental results. The average test error of our experiment used five random seeds. Table entries with "-" indicates that either the field is not applicable or unknown. The methods listed in this table are trained with auxiliary towers and cutout augmentation. Running time cost is measured on NVIDIA TITAN X GPU. The reported time of CoNAS includes both training one-shot model and gathering measurements for the sparse recovery.

Table content: <table><tr><td/><td>Test Error</td><td colspan="2">Params Multi-Add</td><td>Search</td></tr><tr><td>Architecture</td><td>(%)</td><td>(M)</td><td>(M)</td><td>GPU days</td></tr><tr><td>PyramidNet (Yamada et al., 2018)</td><td>2.31</td><td>26</td><td>-</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>AutoAugment (Cubuk et al., 2019)</td><td>1.48</td><td>26</td><td>-</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>ProxylessNAS (Cai et al., 2019)</td><td>2.08</td><td>5.7</td><td>-</td><td>4</td></tr><tr><td>NASNet-A (Zoph et al., 2018)</td><td>2.65</td><td>3.3</td><td>-</td><td>2000</td></tr><tr><td>AmoebaNet-B (Real et al., 2019)</td><td>2.55 ± 0.05</td><td>2.8</td><td>-</td><td>3150</td></tr><tr><td>GHN + (Zhang et al., 2018)</td><td>2.84 ± 0.07</td><td>5.7</td><td>-</td><td>0.84</td></tr><tr><td>SNAS (Xie et al., 2018)</td><td>2.85 ± 0.02</td><td>2.8</td><td>-</td><td>1.5</td></tr><tr><td>ENAS (Pham et al., 2018)</td><td>2.89</td><td>4.6</td><td>-</td><td>0.45</td></tr><tr><td>DARTs (Liu et al., 2018b)</td><td>2.76 ± 0.09</td><td>3.3</td><td>548</td><td>4</td></tr><tr><td>Random Search (Liu et al., 2018b)</td><td>3.29 ± 0.15</td><td>3.1</td><td>-</td><td>4</td></tr><tr><td>ASHA (Li &amp; Talwalkar, 2019)</td><td>2.85|3.03 ± 0.13</td><td>2.2</td><td>-</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>RSWS (Li &amp; Talwalkar, 2019)</td><td>2.71|2.85 ± 0.08</td><td>3.7</td><td>634</td><td>2.7</td></tr><tr><td>DARTs # (Li &amp; Talwalkar, 2019)</td><td>2.62|2.78 ± 0.12</td><td>3.3</td><td>-</td><td>4</td></tr><tr><td>DARTs  †</td><td>2.59|2.78 ± 0.13</td><td>3.4</td><td>576</td><td>4</td></tr><tr><td>CoNAS (t=1)</td><td>2.57|2.74 ± 0.12</td><td>2.3</td><td>386</td><td>0.4</td></tr><tr><td>CoNAS (t=4)</td><td>2.55|2.62 ± 0.06</td><td>4.8</td><td>825</td><td>0.5</td></tr><tr><td>CoNAS (t=1, C=60) + +AutoAugment</td><td>1.87</td><td>6.1</td><td>1019</td><td>0.4</td></tr></table>

1080, and Tesla V100 for final architecture training process. CoNAS cells from four sparse recovery stages (t=4) cannot use the same minibatch size (i.e., 96) used in DARTs and RSWS, due to the hardware constraint; instead, we re-train the final model with minibatch size 56 with TITAN X. CoNAS architecture with one sparse recovery (t=1) outperforms DARTs and RSWS (stronger than vanilla random search) in test errors with smaller parameters, multiply-addition operations, and search time. In addition, CoNAS with four recovery stages (t=4) performs better than CoNAS (t=1) on both lower test error average and deviation; however, it requires larger parameters and multiply-add operations compared to DARTs, RSWS, and CoNAS (t=1). We also train CoNAS (t=1) with increasing the number of channels from 36 to 60 and training epochs from 600 to 1,000 together with a recent data augmentation technique called AutoAugment(Cubuk et al., 2019), which breaks through 2% test error barrier on CIFAR-10.4.2 TRANSFER TO OTHER DATASETSWe test the cell found from CIFAR-10 to evaluate the transferability to different datasets: CIFAR-100, SVHN, and Fashion-MNIST in Table2. As we can see, CoNAS achieves the competitive results with the smallest architecture size compared to the other algorithms. Similar to the setup in DARTS and RSWS, CoNAS explores the cell with the following operations: Tanh, ReLU, Sigmoid, and Identity. We augment the RNN cell with a variation of highway connections suggested by Pham et alPham et al. (2018). Layers of depth l in Recurrent Highway Network(Zilly et al., 2017) utilize a nonlinear transformation from its hidden state h l as follows:

Table content: <table><tr><td>4.3 PENN TREEBANK</td></tr><tr><td>Architecture Search.</td></tr></table>

Image Classification Test Error of CoNAS on Multiple Datasets. We compare the performance of CoNAS on different datasets with existing NAS results. The experiment details for CoNAS is described in Appendix A.5.

Table content: <table><tr><td/><td colspan="4">CIFAR100 SVHN F-MNIST Params</td><td>Search</td></tr><tr><td>Architecture</td><td>(%)</td><td>(%)</td><td>(%)</td><td>(M)</td><td>(GPU days)</td></tr><tr><td>SNAS # (Xie et al., 2018)</td><td>16.5</td><td>1.98</td><td>3.73</td><td>2.8</td><td>1.5</td></tr><tr><td>PNAS # (Liu et al., 2018a)</td><td>15.9</td><td>1.83</td><td>3.72</td><td>3.2</td><td>150</td></tr><tr><td>NASNet # (Zoph et al., 2018)</td><td>15.8</td><td>1.96</td><td>3.71</td><td>3.3</td><td>1800</td></tr><tr><td>DARTs # (Liu et al., 2018b)</td><td>15.8</td><td>1.85</td><td>3.68</td><td>3.4</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>AmoebaNet-A # (Real et al., 2019)</td><td>15.9</td><td>1.93</td><td>3.8</td><td>3.2</td><td>3150</td></tr><tr><td>ASAP # (Noy et al., 2019)</td><td>15.6</td><td>1.81</td><td>3.73</td><td>2.5</td><td>0.2</td></tr><tr><td>CoNAS (t=1)</td><td>15.9</td><td>1.44</td><td>4.11</td><td>2.3</td><td>0.4</td></tr></table>

Comparison of state-of-the-art NAS methods and hand-designed networks on PTB (Lower perplexity is better). The results are grouped in following orders: manually designed networks, published NAS algorithms, and our experimental results. The average test error of our experiment used five random seeds. Tableentrieswith "-" indicates either the field is not applicable or unknown.

Table content: <table><tr><td>Test Perplexity Params Search Cost</td></tr></table>

Randomly Wired Model Performance on CIFAR-10. (Lower test error is better) Trained with auxiliary towers and cutout augmentation for 600 epochs (equivalent training setup to CIFAR-10 from DARTs.

Table content: <table><tr><td>Method</td><td colspan="3">Number of Edges Size (M) Test Error</td></tr><tr><td>Randomly Wired Model (1)</td><td>31</td><td>5.2</td><td>3.45%</td></tr><tr><td>Randomly Wired Model (2)</td><td>35</td><td>4.5</td><td>2.89%</td></tr><tr><td>Randomly Wired Model (3)</td><td>32</td><td>3.1</td><td>3.52%</td></tr></table>

Peer review (iclr2020):
This paper proposes a new algorithm for one-shot neural architecture search (NAS) via compressive sensing. The authors propose a new search strategy, as well as a slightly different search space compared to DARTS [1], ProxylessNAS [2], etc. They use architecture samples from the one-shot model evaluated with the search parameters as a surrogate of the true objective in order to speed-up the search. Afterwards, these surrogate function evaluations are used to compute Fourier coefficients which are eventually used to optimize the vector of binary parameters encoding the architecture. Overall, I think the proposed algorithm is interesting and of practical usefulness. However, in terms of novelty, this work seems more to be an application of Harmonica [6] to the NAS problem (with small modifications in order to make it applicable). In page 10 you state some of the differences of your method with Harmonica. I agree that the number of function evaluations you use (coming from the one-shot model) is larger and computationally less expensive to obtain, however this does not guarantee that these are a good surrogate of the true objective that NAS aims to minimize, i.e. the validation/test accuracy of final (stand-alone) architectures . The empirical evaluations of their algorithm seem to outperform/be competitive compared to other NAS methods on all benchmarks used in the paper, however only DARTS is evaluated on their search space and the other results are taken from the corresponding papers. The paper is well-written and -structured with the caveat of being more than the recommended 8 pages. I will adjust my score depending on the authors responses concerning the following questions/issues: 1. The correlation between the architectures evaluated using the one-shot weights and retrained from scratch, seems to be of crucial importance in your method, since you directly use the one-shot weights to collect the measurements, similarly to Random Search with weight sharing [3], ENAS [4] or Bender et al. [5]. What is the correlation of these measurements with the stand-alone architectures trained from scratch using the final evaluation settings? How did you tune the p in the Bernoulli distribution during the one-shot weight updates. According to Bender et al. [5] the ScheduledDropPath probability is an important hyperparameter affecting the aforementioned correlation. 2. What is the main motivation for using 5 operations in the operation set and not 8 as in DARTS [1] for example? Does the main contribution in the competitive results come from the different search space or the search method? 3. Is there any reference or proof for the correctness of Theorem 3.2? 4. I think there are some parts that can be moved in the Supplementary, such as the pseudocode for the proposed algorithm or Figure 3, and some other parts that can be compressed, such as the Related Work section. References [1] Hanxiao Liu, Karen Simonyan, and Yiming Yang. DARTS: Differentiable architecture search. In ICLR, 2019. [2] Han Cai, Ligeng Zhu, Song Han. ProxylessNAS: Direct Neural Architecture Search on Target Task and Hardware. In ICLR, 2019. [3] LIAM LI, AMEET TALWALKAR. Random Search and Reproducibility for Neural Architecture Search. [4] Hieu Pham, Melody Y. Guan, Barret Zoph, Quoc V. Le, Jeff Dean. Efficient Neural Architecture Search via Parameter Sharing. In ICML, 2018 [5] Gabriel Bender, Pieter-Jan Kindermans, Barret Zoph, Vijay Vasudevan, Quoc Le. Understanding and Simplifying One-Shot Architecture Search. In ICML, 2018 [6] Elad Hazan, Adam Klivans, Yang Yuan. Hyperparameter Optimization: A Spectral Approach