Some issues about the paper

[yukang2017]

Hi Hanxiao,

The table 1 in the paper makes me confused. There are three issues:
1 . AmoebaNet-A with 3.34 ± 0.06 test error and 3.2 M params in the original paper is trained without cutout.
2. The search cost for NASNet-A is different in the first an the second line (1800 vs 3150). I refer to the latest original paper, it is 2000 GPU days, 4 days with 500 GPUS.
3. In my view, using GPU days (number of GPUs x days) as metrics is not fair. Because, the running speed on two GPUs is less than twice as the speed on one GPU. In the other word, running on two GPUs across 1 day are not simply same to running one GPU across 2 days, although they are both 2 GPU days.

Best
Yukang

[quark0]

1. I thought it was obtained with cutout, and will do a double check. 2. That was a typo to be fixed 3. Yes, GPU days are very rough estimators of the computation cost. We only care about their orders.

Update: You are right about 1, thanks! I will remove it from the table. The 3.12% error rate reported in our table was indeed obtained using cutout though.

[yukang2017]

You are welcome.
Another small issue is in the Table 3. ShuffleNet 2x (v2) is actually ‘ShuffleNet 2× (g = 3)’ in the ShuffleNet V1 paper.
By the way, where did you find the ShuffleNet 2x (v1) result (29.1 test error) in Table 3?

[quark0]

It's from a prior version of the paper, http://cn.arxiv.org/pdf/1707.01083v1. Some NAS papers were referring to this number, e.g., https://arxiv.org/pdf/1712.00559.pdf.