Generalized Evolutionary Training Framework for Neural Networks

Resolve Bottlenecks,
Find Innovative Solutions
Generate Solutions

Solution Overview

Problem

Optimizing neural networks is challenging due to the difficulty in tuning model parameters and hyperparameters efficiently, leading to computationally expensive processes that hinder quick adaptation to new problems and potential overfitting.

Innovation Solution

A generalized evolutionary training framework that utilizes a set of trainer components to train models, evaluates their performance, selects parent models, and generates child models through perturbation, allowing for iterative improvement until convergence, thereby efficiently tuning model parameters and hyperparameters.

Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles

VSEngineering Contradiction Analysis

1Reliability

If traditional trial-and-error processes are used to tune hyperparameters, then model performance can be improved, but the process becomes time-consuming and computationally expensive

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvemodel performanceVSAvoidtraining time
Core Design Contradiction:
ReliabilityVSLoss of time

Solution Approach 1:

The system performs preliminary actions by pre-training multiple parent models with different hyperparameter configurations before the actual optimization process. These pre-trained models serve as a foundation for generating child models through perturbation, eliminating the need to start from random initialization for each hyperparameter configuration and significantly reducing total training time.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #10Preliminary action

Solution Approach 2:

The system creates copies of parent models by generating child models through perturbation of parent model parameters and hyperparameters. Instead of training entirely new models for each configuration, the system copies and modifies existing models, leveraging previously learned features and reducing computational overhead while exploring the hyperparameter space efficiently.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #26Copying

2Reliability

If comprehensive hyperparameter tuning is performed to achieve optimal model characteristics, then model accuracy improves, but computational expense increases

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvemodel accuracyVSAvoidcomputational expense
Core Design Contradiction:
ReliabilityVSUse of energy by moving object

Solution Approach 1:

The system employs cheap short-living objects by using multiple parent models with varied hyperparameter configurations as disposable intermediates. These parent models are trained with different settings and then used to generate child models through perturbation. The parent models serve as temporary, low-cost explorations of the hyperparameter space, allowing comprehensive tuning without the full computational expense of training many complete models to convergence.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #27Cheap short-living objects (Disposable)

Solution Approach 2:

The system applies parameter changes by systematically perturbing hyperparameters and model parameters to generate child models from parent models. This allows efficient exploration of the parameter space around promising configurations, achieving comprehensive hyperparameter tuning by making targeted changes rather than exhaustive searching, thus reducing computational expense while maintaining model accuracy.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #35Parameter changes

3Ease of operation

If manual hyperparameter setting is used by developers, then model behavior can be controlled, but the process becomes inefficient and cannot quickly adapt to new problems

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvemodel controlVSAvoidadaptation speed
Core Design Contradiction:
Ease of operationVSProductivity

Solution Approach 1:

The system implements self-service by automatically performing hyperparameter optimization through the evolutionary process of selecting parent models, generating child models through perturbation, and evaluating performance. The system autonomously explores the hyperparameter space and identifies optimal configurations without requiring manual developer intervention, maintaining model control while dramatically improving adaptation speed to new problems.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #25Self-service

Solution Approach 2:

The system uses feedback by evaluating the performance of child models and using this information to guide the selection of parent models for the next generation. This feedback mechanism allows the system to automatically learn which hyperparameter configurations are effective and which are not, enabling efficient adaptation to new problems while maintaining controlled model behavior through performance-driven selection.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #23Feedback

4Reliability

If traditional training frameworks are used, then model parameters can be learned, but the process is computationally expensive and limits quick adaptation

Engineering Contradiction:
Improveparameter learningVSAvoidtraining framework complexity
Core Design Contradiction:
ReliabilityVSDevice complexity

Solution Approach 1:

The system applies segmentation by dividing the training process into distinct phases: parent model training, child model generation through perturbation, and performance evaluation. This segmented approach allows parallel processing of multiple parent models and their corresponding child models, reducing overall computational expense while maintaining effective parameter learning. The framework complexity is managed by organizing the training process into modular, independent segments.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #1Segmentation

Data Source

PatentUS20240403647A1Generalized evolutionary training frameworks for deep neural networks
Publication Date: 2024.12.05 APOLLO AUTONOMOUS DRIVING USA LLC
  • US20240403647A1 patent drawing
  • US20240403647A1 patent drawing
  • US20240403647A1 patent drawing

AI summary

Embodiments of a methodology for generalized evolutionary training of a neural network may comprise: (i) obtaining a set of model snapshots by training a set of input models until at least one snapshot condition is satisfied for each input model from the set of input models, wherein each model snapshot comprises values of model components of its respective input model when the at least one snapshot condition was satisfied; (ii) generating model snapshot evaluation results by evaluating performance of each model snapshot; (iii) based upon the model snapshot evaluation results, selecting one or more parent models from the set of model snapshots; (iv) generating one or more child models by perturbing at least one or more model components of a parent model from the one or more parent models; and (v) setting the one or more child models as the set of input models for a subsequent training iteration.