ZAPS: Zero-Cost Active Proxy Search for Neural Architecture Search
cs.LG
Submitted: 2026-09-12
Updated: 2026-09-12
Comments: 12 pages, 13 figures, 9 tables
License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
The gist: Neural Architecture Search (NAS) automates network design, but evaluating a single candidate requires training it to convergence, making exhaustive search intractable.
Terminology
Abstract
Neural Architecture Search (NAS) automates network design, but evaluating a single candidate requires training it to convergence, making exhaustive search intractable. Zero-cost proxies estimate architecture quality at initialization in seconds, yet a single proxy is noisy, and combining several does not straightforwardly help: proxies are strongly correlated, so naive aggregation compounds their shared errors instead of averaging them out. Existing methods exploit either proxy signals or architectural topology - never both within a single active-learning framework. We introduce ZAPS (Zero-cost Active Proxy Search), a four-stage pipeline that closes this gap. ZAPS (i) selects a compact, non-redundant proxy subset offline via ProxyFit, a greedy anti-redundancy criterion; (ii) seeds the search with a hybrid K-means strategy that balances exploitation and exploration; (iii) re-selects proxies at every iteration by a bootstrapped vote as the labeled set grows; and (iv) ranks candidates with an XGBoost ensemble trained jointly on proxy ranks and one-hot topological encodings, queried through an Upper Confidence Bound (UCB) acquisition function. On NAS-Bench-201 under a budget of B=200 evaluations, ZAPS recovers 52.3% of the true top-100 architectures on CIFAR-10 and 65.8% on CIFAR-100, ahead of every baseline we consider - Random Search, Local Search, REA, BANANAS and TPE - and, on CIFAR-10, with less than half the run-to-run standard deviation of the strongest of them. The advantage is largest where evaluations are scarce: on NAS-Bench-201 it narrows as the budget grows, whereas on the harder NAS-Bench-101, which no method comes close to saturating, it widens instead. All methods are scored by a single criterion: how much of the true top-100 lies among the architectures they actually evaluated.
Related papers
- Polynomial-Augmented Neural Networks (PANNs) with Weak Orthogonality Constraints for Enhanced Function and PDE Approximation
- AIRL-S: Unifying Reinforcement Learning and Search-Based Test-Time Scaling via Adversarial Inverse Reinforcement Learning
- Transformers as Bayesian In-Context Experimenters: Smoothness-Adaptive Efficient ATE Estimation
- Convergence issues in Relational Concept Analysis based on AOC-posets
- Beliefs Beyond Posteriors: Local-Consistency Optimisation for Bayesian Neural Networks
- Understanding Diffusion Models via Ratio-Based Function Approximation with SignReLU Networks