skip to main content
10.1145/3445814.3446753acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesasplosConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article
Distinguished Paper

Neural architecture search as program transformation exploration

Published:17 April 2021Publication History

ABSTRACT

Improving the performance of deep neural networks (DNNs) is important to both the compiler and neural architecture search (NAS) communities. Compilers apply program transformations in order to exploit hardware parallelism and memory hierarchy. However, legality concerns mean they fail to exploit the natural robustness of neural networks. In contrast, NAS techniques mutate networks by operations such as the grouping or bottlenecking of convolutions, exploiting the resilience of DNNs. In this work, we express such neural architecture operations as program transformations whose legality depends on a notion of representational capacity. This allows them to be combined with existing transformations into a unified optimization framework. This unification allows us to express existing NAS operations as combinations of simpler transformations. Crucially, it allows us to generate and explore new tensor convolutions. We prototyped the combined framework in TVM and were able to find optimizations across different DNNs, that significantly reduce inference time - over 3× in the majority of cases. Furthermore, our scheme dramatically reduces NAS search time.

References

  1. Martín Abadi, Paul Barham, Jianmin Chen, Zhifeng Chen, Andy Davis, Jeffrey Dean, Matthieu Devin, Sanjay Ghemawat, Geoffrey Irving, Michael Isard, et al\mbox. 2016. Tensorflow: A system for large-scale machine learning. In USENIX Symposium on Operating Systems Design and Implementation.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Mohamed S Abdelfattah, Abhinav Mehrotra, \Lukasz Dudziak, and Nicholas D Lane. 2021. Zero-Cost Proxies for Lightweight NAS. arXiv preprint arXiv:2101.08134 (2021).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Lei Jimmy Ba and Rich Caruana. 2014. Do Deep Nets Really Need to be Deep?. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Paul Barham and Michael Isard. 2019. Machine Learning Systems are Stuck in a Rut. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Hot Topics in Operating Systems. ACM, 177?183.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Uday Bondhugula, Albert Hartono, J. Ramanujam, and P. Sadayappan. 2008. A Practical Automatic Polyhedral Parallelizer and Locality Optimizer. In Proceedings of the 29th ACM SIGPLAN Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation (Tucson, AZ, USA) (PLDI ?08). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 101?113. isbn:9781595938602 https://doi.org/10.1145/1375581.1375595 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. L\'eon Bottou. 2010. Large-scale machine learning with stochastic gradient descent. In Proceedings of COMPSTAT'2010. Springer, 177?186.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Liang-Chieh Chen, Maxwell Collins, Yukun Zhu, George Papandreou, Barret Zoph, Florian Schroff, Hartwig Adam, and Jon Shlens. 2018. Searching for efficient multi-scale architectures for dense image prediction. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Tianshi Chen, Yunji Chen, Marc Duranton, Qi Guo, Atif Hashmi, Mikko Lipasti, Andrew Nere, Shi Qiu, Michele Sebag, and Olivier Temam. 2012. BenchNN: On the broad potential application scope of hardware neural network accelerators. In International Symposium on Workload Characterization.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Tianshi Chen, Zidong Du, Ninghui Sun, Jia Wang, Chengyong Wu, Yunji Chen, and Olivier Temam. 2014. DianNao: A Small-footprint High-throughput Accelerator for Ubiquitous Machine-learning. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Architectural Support for Programming Languages and Operating Systems.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Tianqi Chen, Thierry Moreau, Ziheng Jiang, Lianmin Zheng, Eddie Yan, Haichen Shen, Meghan Cowan, Leyuan Wang, Yuwei Hu, Luis Ceze, et al\mbox. 2018. $\$TVM$\$: An automated end-to-end optimizing compiler for deep learning. In USENIX Symposium on Operating Systems Design and Implementation.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Fran\ccois Chollet. 2017. Xception: Deep Learning with Depthwise Separable Convolutions. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Aakanksha Chowdhery, Pete Warden, Jonathon Shlens, Andrew Howard, and Rocky Rhodes. 2019. Visual Wake Words Dataset. arXiv preprint arXiv:1906.05721 (2019).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Albert Henri Cohen. 1999. Analyse et transformation de programmes: du mod\`ele poly\'edrique aux langages formels. Ph.D. Dissertation. Versailles-St Quentin en Yvelines.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Elliot J Crowley, Jack Turner, Amos Storkey, and Michael O'Boyle. 2018. Pruning neural networks: is it time to nip it in the bud? arXiv preprint arXiv:1810.04622 (2018).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Scott Cyphers, Arjun K. Bansal, Anahita Bhiwandiwalla, Jayaram Bobba, Matthew Brookhart, Avijit Chakraborty, Will Constable, Christian Convey, Leona Cook, Omar Kanawi, Robert Kimball, Jason Knight, Nikolay Korovaiko, Varun Kumar, Yixing Lao, Christopher R. Lishka, Jaikrishnan Menon, Jennifer Myers, Sandeep Aswath Narayana, Adam Procter, and Tristan J. Webb. 2018. Intel nGraph: An Intermediate Representation, Compiler, and Executor for Deep Learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:1801.08058 (2018).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Misha Denil, Babak Shakibi, Laurent Dinh, Ranzato Marc'Aurelio, and Nando de Freitas. 2013. Predicting parameters in deep learning. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Xuanyi Dong and Yi Yang. 2020. NAS-Bench-201: Extending the Scope of Reproducible Neural Architecture Search. In International Conference on Learning Representations. https://openreview.net/forum?id=HJxyZkBKDrGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Venmugil Elango, Norm Rubin, Mahesh Ravishankar, Hariharan Sandanagobalane, and Vinod Grover. 2018. Diesel: DSL for Linear Algebra and Neural Net Computations on GPUs. In In International Workshop on Machine Learning and Programming Languages.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Thomas Elsken, Jan Hendrik Metzen, Frank Hutter, et al\mbox. 2019. Neural Architecture Search.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Michael Figurnov, Aijan Ibraimova, Dmitry Vetrov, and Pushmeet Kohli. 2015. Perforatedcnns: Acceleration through elimination of redundant convolutions. arXiv preprint arXiv:1504.08362 (2015).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Jonathan Frankle and Michael Carbin. 2019. The lottery ticket hypothesis: Finding sparse, trainable neural networks. In International Conference on Learning Representations.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Trevor Gale, Erich Elsen, and Sara Hooker. 2019. The State of Sparsity in Deep Neural Networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1902.09574 (2019).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Perry Gibson, Jos\'e Cano, Jack Turner, Elliot J Crowley, Michael O?Boyle, and Amos Storkey. 2020. Optimizing Grouped Convolutions on Edge Devices. In 2020 IEEE 31st International Conference on Application-specific Systems, Architectures and Processors (ASAP). IEEE, 189?196.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Sylvain Girbal, Nicolas Vasilache, C\'edric Bastoul, Albert Cohen, David Parello, Marc Sigler, and Olivier Temam. 2006. Semi-Automatic Composition of Loop Transformations for Deep Parallelism and Memory Hierarchies. International Journal of Parallel Programming 34, 3 (01 June 2006), 261?317. issn:1573-7640 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10766-006-0012-3 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. Inigo Goiri, Ricardo Bianchini, Santosh Nagarakatte, and Thu D Nguyen. 2015. Approxhadoop: Bringing approximations to mapreduce frameworks. In Proceedings of the Twentieth International Conference on Architectural Support for Programming Languages and Operating Systems. 383?397.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. Aditya Sharad Golatkar, Alessandro Achille, and Stefano Soatto. 2019. Time matters in regularizing deep networks: Weight decay and data augmentation affect early learning dynamics, matter little near convergence. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems. 10678?10688.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. Tobias Grosser, Hongbin Zheng, Raghesh Aloor, Andreas Simbürger, Armin Größlinger, and Louis-Noël Pouchet. 2011. Polly-Polyhedral optimization in LLVM. In International Workshop on Polyhedral Compilation Techniques.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. Song Han, Huizi Mao, and William J. Dally. 2016. Deep compression: Compressing deep neural networks with pruning, trained quantization and huffman coding. In International Conference on Learning Representations.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. Kaiming He, Xiangyu Zhang, Shaoqing Ren, and Jian Sun. 2016. Deep residual learning for image recognition. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  30. Yihui He, Ji Lin, Zhijian Liu, Hanrui Wang, Li-Jia Li, and Song Han. 2018. AMC: Automl for model compression and acceleration on mobile devices. In Proceedings of the European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV).Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. Geoffrey Hinton, Oriol Vinyals, and Jeff Dean. 2015. Distilling the knowledge in a neural network. arXiv preprint arXiv:1503.02531 (2015).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. Andrew G. Howard, Menglong Zhu, Bo Chen, Dmitry Kalenichenko, Weijun Wang, Tobias Weyand, Marco Andreetto, and Hartwig Adam. 2017. MobileNets: Efficient convolutional neural networks for mobile vision applications. arXiv preprint arXiv:1704.04861 (2017).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. Gao Huang, Schichen Liu, Laurens van der Maaten, and Kilian Q. Weinberger. 2018. CondenseNet: An Efficient DenseNet using Learned Group Convolutions. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. Gao Huang, Zhuang Liu, Laurens Van Der Maaten, and Kilian Q Weinberger. 2017. Densely connected convolutional networks. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition. 4700?4708.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  35. Yanping Huang, Youlong Cheng, Ankur Bapna, Orhan Firat, Dehao Chen, Mia Chen, HyoukJoong Lee, Jiquan Ngiam, Quoc V Le, Yonghui Wu, et al\mbox. 2019. Gpipe: Efficient training of giant neural networks using pipeline parallelism. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  36. Yani Ioannou, Duncan Robertson, Roberto Cipolla, and Antonio Criminisi. 2017. Deep Roots: Improving CNN Efficiency with Hierarchical Filter Groups. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  37. Zhihao Jia, Oded Padon, James Thomas, Todd Warszawski, Matei Zaharia, and Alex Aiken. 2019. TASO: Optimizing Deep Learning Computation with Automatic Generation of Graph Substitutions. In Symposium on Operating Systems Principles.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  38. Wayne Kelly and William Pugh. 1998. A framework for unifying reordering transformations. Technical Report.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  39. Yann LeCun, Yoshua Bengio, and Geoffrey Hinton. 2015. Deep learning. Nature 521, 7553 (2015), 436.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  40. Yann LeCun, John S. Denker, and Sara A. Solla. 1989. Optimal Brain Damage. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  41. Namhoon Lee, Thalaiyasingam Ajanthan, and Philip H. S. Torr. 2019. SNIP: Single-shot network pruning based on connection sensitivity. In International Conference on Learning Representations.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  42. Hao Li, Asim Kadav, Igor Durdanovic, Hanan Samet, and Hans Peter Graf. 2017. Pruning filters for efficient convnets. In International Conference on Learning Representations.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  43. Liam Li and Ameet Talwalkar. 2019. Random search and reproducibility for neural architecture search. arXiv preprint arXiv:1902.07638 (2019).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  44. Hanxiao Liu, Karen Simonyan, and Yiming Yang. 2019. DARTS: Differentiable Architecture Search. In International Conference on Learning Representations.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  45. Renqian Luo, Fei Tian, Tao Qin, Enhong Chen, and Tie-Yan Liu. 2018. Neural architecture optimization. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  46. Joseph Mellor, Jack Turner, Amos Storkey, and Elliot J Crowley. 2020. Neural Architecture Search without Training. arXiv preprint arXiv:2006.04647 (2020).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  47. Sasa Misailovic, Daniel M Roy, and Martin C Rinard. 2011. Probabilistically accurate program transformations. In International Static Analysis Symposium. Springer, 316?333.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  48. Naums Mogers, Valentin Radu, Lu Li, Jack Turner, Michael O'Boyle, and Christophe Dubach. 2020. Automatic generation of specialized direct convolutions for mobile GPUs. In Proceedings of the 13th Annual Workshop on General Purpose Processing using Graphics Processing Unit. 41?50.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  49. Pavlo Molchanov, Arun Mallya, Stephen Tyree, Iuri Frosio, and Jan Kautz. 2019. Importance estimation for neural network pruning. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. 11264?11272.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  50. Pavlo Molchanov, Stephen Tyree, Tero Karras, Timo Aila, and Jan Kautz. 2017. Pruning Convolutional Neural Networks for Resource Efficient Inference. In International Conference on Learning Representations.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  51. Ravi Teja Mullapudi, Vinay Vasista, and Uday Bondhugula. 2015. Polymage: Automatic optimization for image processing pipelines. In ACM SIGPLAN Notices, Vol. 50. ACM, 429?443.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  52. Jongse Park, Hadi Esmaeilzadeh, Xin Zhang, Mayur Naik, and William Harris. 2015. Flexjava: Language support for safe and modular approximate programming. In Proceedings of the 2015 10th Joint Meeting on Foundations of Software Engineering. 745?757.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  53. Junran Peng, Lingxi Xie, Zhaoxiang Zhang, Tieniu Tan, and Jingdong Wang. 2018. Accelerating Deep Neural Networks with Spatial Bottleneck Modules. arXiv preprint arXiv:1809.02601 (2018).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  54. Hieu Pham, Melody Y. Guan, Barret Zoph, Quoc V. Le, and Jeff Dean. 2018. Efficient neural architecture search via parameter sharing. In International Conference on Machine Learning.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  55. Jing Pu, Steven Bell, Xuan Yang, Jeff Setter, Stephen Richardson, Jonathan Ragan-Kelley, and Mark Horowitz. 2017. Programming Heterogeneous Systems from an Image Processing DSL. ACM Trans. Archit. Code Optim. 14, 3, Article 26 (Aug. 2017), 25 pages. issn:1544-3566 https://doi.org/10.1145/3107953 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  56. Valentin Radu, Kuba Kaszyk, Yuan Wen, Jack Turner, Jos\'e Cano, Elliot J Crowley, Björn Franke, Amos Storkey, and Michael O'Boyle. 2019. Performance aware convolutional neural network channel pruning for embedded GPUs. In 2019 IEEE International Symposium on Workload Characterization (IISWC). IEEE, 24?34.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  57. Jonathan Ragan-Kelley, Connelly Barnes, Andrew Adams, Sylvain Paris, Fr\'edo Durand, and Saman Amarasinghe. 2013. Halide: a language and compiler for optimizing parallelism, locality, and recomputation in image processing pipelines. In Acm Sigplan Notices, Vol. 48. ACM, 519?530.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  58. Martin Rinard. 2006. Probabilistic accuracy bounds for fault-tolerant computations that discard tasks. In Proceedings of the 20th annual international conference on Supercomputing. 324?334.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  59. Adrian Sampson, Andr\'e Baixo, Benjamin Ransford, Thierry Moreau, Joshua Yip, Luis Ceze, and Mark Oskin. 2015. Accept: A programmer-guided compiler framework for practical approximate computing. University of Washington Technical Report UW-CSE-15-01 1, 2 (2015).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  60. Jürgen Schmidhuber. 2015. Deep learning in neural networks: An overview. Neural networks 61 (2015), 85?117.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  61. Christian Sciuto, Kaicheng Yu, Martin Jaggi, Claudiu Musat, and Mathieu Salzmann. 2019. Evaluating the Search Phase of Neural Architecture Search. arXiv preprint arXiv:1902.08142 (2019).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  62. Stelios Sidiroglou-Douskos, Sasa Misailovic, Henry Hoffmann, and Martin Rinard. 2011. Managing performance vs. accuracy trade-offs with loop perforation. In Proceedings of the 19th ACM SIGSOFT symposium and the 13th European conference on Foundations of software engineering. 124?134.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  63. David R So, Chen Liang, and Quoc V Le. 2019. The evolved transformer. arXiv preprint arXiv:1901.11117 (2019).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  64. Michel Steuwer, Toomas Remmelg, and Christophe Dubach. 2017. Lift: a functional data-parallel IR for high-performance GPU code generation. In International Symposium on Code Generation and Optimization.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  65. Mingxing Tan, Bo Chen, Ruoming Pang, Vijay Vasudevan, Mark Sandler, Andrew Howard, and Quoc V. Le. 2019. MnasNet: Platform-aware neural architecture search for mobile. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  66. Mingxing Tan and Quoc V. Le. 2019. EfficientNet: Rethinking Model Scaling for Convolutional Neural Networks. In International Conference on Machine Learning.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  67. Lucas Theis, Iryna Korshunova, Alykhan Tejani, and Ferenc Husz\'ar. 2018. Faster gaze prediction with dense networks and Fisher pruning.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  68. Philippe Tillet, HT Kung, and David Cox. 2019. Triton: an intermediate language and compiler for tiled neural network computations. In International Workshop on Machine Learning and Programming Languages.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  69. Jack Turner, Elliot J. Crowley, Michael O'Boyle, Amos Storkey, and Gavin Gray. 2020. BlockSwap: Fisher-guided Block Substitution for Network Compression on a Budget. In International Conference on Learning Representations. https://openreview.net/forum?id=SklkDkSFPBGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  70. Jack Turner, Elliot J Crowley, Valentin Radu, Jos\'e Cano, Amos Storkey, and Michael O'Boyle. 2018. Distilling with performance enhanced students. arXiv preprint arXiv:1810.10460 (2018).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  71. Nicolas Vasilache, C\'edric Bastoul, and Albert Cohen. 2006. Polyhedral code generation in the real world. In International Conference on Compiler Construction. \balancecolumnsGoogle ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  72. Nicolas Vasilache, Oleksandr Zinenko, Theodoros Theodoridis, Priya Goyal, Zachary DeVito, William S. Moses, Sven Verdoolaege, Andrew Adams, and Albert Cohen. 2018. Tensor Comprehensions: Framework-Agnostic High-Performance Machine Learning Abstractions. arXiv preprint arXiv:1802.04730 (2018).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  73. Sven Verdoolaege. 2010. isl: An integer set library for the polyhedral model. In International Congress on Mathematical Software.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  74. Sven Verdoolaege, Juan Carlos Juega, Albert Cohen, Jose Ignacio Gomez, Christian Tenllado, and Francky Catthoor. 2013. Polyhedral parallel code generation for CUDA. ACM Transactions on Architecture and Code Optimization (TACO) 9, 4 (2013), 54.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  75. Sven Verdoolaege, Serge Guelton, Tobias Grosser, and Albert Cohen. 2014. Schedule trees. In International Workshop on Polyhedral Compilation Techniques.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  76. Martin Wistuba, Ambrish Rawat, and Tejaswini Pedapati. 2019. A survey on neural architecture search. arXiv preprint arXiv:1905.01392 (2019).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  77. Bichen Wu, Xiaoliang Dai, Peizhao Zhang, Yanghan Wang, Fei Sun, Yiming Wu, Yuandong Tian, Peter Vajda, Yangqing Jia, and Kurt Keutzer. 2019. FBNet: Hardware-aware efficient convnet design via differentiable neural architecture search. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  78. Saining Xie, Ross Girshick, Piotr Doll\'ar, Zhuowen Tu, and Kaiming He. 2017. Aggregated Residual Transformations for Deep Neural Networks. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  79. Tien-Ju Yang, Andrew Howard, Bo Chen, Xiao Zhang, Alec Go, Mark Sandler, Vivienne Sze, and Hartwig Adam. 2018. Netadapt: Platform-aware neural network adaptation for mobile applications. In Proceedings of the European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV).Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  80. Xuan Yang, Jing Pu, Blaine Burton Rister, Nikhil Bhagdikar, Stephen Richardson, Shahar Kvatinsky, Jonathan Ragan-Kelley, Ardavan Pedram, and Mark Horowitz. 2016. A Systematic Approach to Blocking Convolutional Neural Networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1606.04209 (2016).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  81. Chris Ying, Aaron Klein, Esteban Real, Eric Christiansen, Kevin Murphy, and Frank Hutter. 2019. Nas-bench-101: Towards reproducible neural architecture search. arXiv preprint arXiv:1902.09635 (2019).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  82. Arber Zela, Julien Siems, and Frank Hutter. 2020. NAS-Bench-1Shot1: Benchmarking and Dissecting One-shot Neural Architecture Search. arXiv preprint arXiv:2001.10422 (2020).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  83. Tim Zerrell and Jeremy Bruestle. 2019. Stripe: Tensor Compilation via the Nested Polyhedral Model. arXiv preprint arXiv:1903.06498 (2019).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  84. Lianmin Zheng, Chengfan Jia, Minmin Sun, Zhao Wu, Cody Hao Yu, Ameer Haj-Ali, Yida Wang, Jun Yang, Danyang Zhuo, Koushik Sen, et al\mbox. 2020. Ansor: Generating High-Performance Tensor Programs for Deep Learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2006.06762 (2020).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  85. Zeyuan Allen Zhu, Sasa Misailovic, Jonathan A Kelner, and Martin Rinard. 2012. Randomized accuracy-aware program transformations for efficient approximate computations. ACM SIGPLAN Notices 47, 1 (2012), 441?454.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  86. Barret Zoph and Quoc V. Le. 2017. Neural architecture search with reinforcement learning. In International Conference on Learning Representations.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Neural architecture search as program transformation exploration

      Recommendations

      Comments

      Login options

      Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

      Sign in
      • Published in

        cover image ACM Conferences
        ASPLOS '21: Proceedings of the 26th ACM International Conference on Architectural Support for Programming Languages and Operating Systems
        April 2021
        1090 pages
        ISBN:9781450383172
        DOI:10.1145/3445814

        Copyright © 2021 ACM

        Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

        Publisher

        Association for Computing Machinery

        New York, NY, United States

        Publication History

        • Published: 17 April 2021

        Permissions

        Request permissions about this article.

        Request Permissions

        Check for updates

        Qualifiers

        • research-article

        Acceptance Rates

        Overall Acceptance Rate535of2,713submissions,20%

        Upcoming Conference

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader