Papers › Local Search is a Remarkably Strong Baseline for Neural Architecture Search

Local Search is a Remarkably Strong Baseline for Neural Architecture Search

20 Apr 2020arXiv:2004.08996archive 2025-07-28

T. Den Ottelander, A. Dushatskiy, M. Virgolin, P. A. N. Bosman

Neural Architecture Search (NAS), i.e., the automation of neural network design, has gained much popularity in recent years with increasingly complex search algorithms being proposed. Yet, solid comparisons with simple baselines are often missing. At the same time, recent retrospective studies have found many new algorithms to be no better than random search (RS). In this work we consider, for the first time, a simple Local Search (LS) algorithm for NAS. We particularly consider a multi-objective NAS formulation, with network accuracy and network complexity as two objectives, as understanding the trade-off between these two objectives is arguably the most interesting aspect of NAS. The proposed LS algorithm is compared with RS and two evolutionary algorithms (EAs), as these are often heralded as being ideal for multi-objective optimization. To promote reproducibility, we create and release two benchmark datasets, named MacroNAS-C10 and MacroNAS-C100, containing 200K saved network evaluations for two established image classification tasks, CIFAR-10 and CIFAR-100. Our benchmarks are designed to be complementary to existing benchmarks, especially in that they are better suited for multi-objective search. We additionally consider a version of the problem with a much larger architecture space. While we find and show that the considered algorithms explore the search space in fundamentally different ways, we also find that LS substantially outperforms RS and even performs nearly as good as state-of-the-art EAs. We believe that this provides strong evidence that LS is truly a competitive baseline for NAS against which new NAS algorithms should be benchmarked.

Code

Repository list and official/mentioned flags are the archive's, frozen 2025-07-28. Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.

Code Syntology ran Syntology

8 samples harvested; 0 ran; 0 honoured the contract we drafted; 8 have no recorded run. Read from Syntology's graph 2026-09-24; that is when this build read the record, not when the samples ran.

Licence: 0 of the 8 samples are pointer only, meaning Syntology does not serve that copy's text. This page shows no code text for any sample; each one links to its file in the repository.

Harvested from 2 repositories linked to this paper, official or community; each sample names its own and says which. “Ran” means the sample executed on a synthesized input. It does not mean the output is correct, and nothing here reproduces the paper's results. “Honoured” and “violated” refer to a contract Syntology drafted from the code itself; “our draft was wrong” and “fixture could not drive it” are failures of Syntology's instrument, not of the code.

Each sample ends with its code_sha256, Syntology's identity for that exact code. An agent fetches the stored sample with Syntology's MCP tool get_code(code_sha256="…") (how to connect); click an identity to copy that call.

Repository labels, per sample. official repository: The archive marks this repository official for the paper. named in the paper: The archive records that the paper mentions this repository; it is not marked official. community (archive-listed): In the archive's code links for this paper, not marked official and not recorded as mentioned in the paper. found in paper text by Syntology: Syntology found this repository in the paper's own text; whether it is the authors' implementation is not asserted. community: Not in the archive's code links for this paper; a community repository Syntology harvested. Samples from a repository marked official are listed first. Licence labels name the repository's licence as recorded at harvest. “Pointer only” means Syntology does not serve that copy's text, for one of four reasons: no licence file was found; the licence was not identified; the licence is recorded as permissive but that copy's record is not marked cleared; or the licence is outside the permissive list Syntology serves text under (MIT, Apache-2.0, BSD and similar). Some licences outside that list permit redistribution, such as WTFPL, and GPL-3.0 under its conditions; they are simply not on the list. Hover a licence label for the reason. File links open the file on GitHub at the default branch, which may have changed since the harvest.

Tasks

Results from the paper archive 2025-07-28

No leaderboard rows for this paper in the archive.

Methods

Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections