You are provided with the abstract of a scientific paper and the abstracts of the papers it references. Your task is to write a Related Work section for the main paper. This section should concisely summarize and integrate the key points from the cited abstracts, reflecting how they relate to the main paper's contributions and context. In your summary, use numerical citation markers like [1], [2], etc., to refer to the corresponding papers.

Main Abstract:
In neural architecture search, the structure of the neural network to best model a given dataset is determined by an automated search process. Efficient Neural Architecture Search (ENAS), proposed by (2018), has recently received considerable attention due to its ability to find excellent architectures within a comparably short search time. In this work, which is motivated by the quest to further improve the learning speed of architecture search, we evaluate the learning progress of the controller which generates the architectures in ENAS. We measure the progress by comparing the architectures generated by it at different controller training epochs, where architectures are evaluated after having re-trained them from scratch. As a surprising result, we find that the learning curves are completely flat, i.e., there is no observable progress of the controller in terms of the performance of its generated architectures. This observation is consistent across the CIFAR-10 and CIFAR-100 datasets and two different search spaces. We conclude that the high quality of the models generated by ENAS is a result of the search space design rather than the controller training, and our results indicate that one-shot architecture design is an efficient alternative to architecture search by ENAS.

Cited Abstract(s):
[1]: Neural networks are powerful and flexible models that work well for many difficult learning tasks in image, speech and natural language understanding. Despite their success, neural networks are still hard to design. In this paper, we use a recurrent network to generate the model descriptions of neural networks and train this RNN with reinforcement learning to maximize the expected accuracy of the generated architectures on a validation set. On the CIFAR-10 dataset, our method, starting from scratch, can design a novel network architecture that rivals the best human-invented architecture in terms of test set accuracy. Our CIFAR-10 model achieves a test error rate of 3.65, which is 0.09 percent better and 1.05x faster than the previous state-of-the-art model that used a similar architectural scheme. On the Penn Treebank dataset, our model can compose a novel recurrent cell that outperforms the widely-used LSTM cell, and other state-of-the-art baselines. Our cell achieves a test set perplexity of 62.4 on the Penn Treebank, which is 3.6 perplexity better than the previous state-of-the-art model. The cell can also be transferred to the character language modeling task on PTB and achieves a state-of-the-art perplexity of 1.214.
The idea of using machine learning methods to determine neural network architectures has been popularized by the seminal work of [1] , who have demonstrated that (NAS) is able to find networks that outperform the best human-designed neural architectures. The most obvious drawback of the original NAS method is its resource requirement, as the learning process involves generating a large number of deep neural networks, whose performance is evaluated by fully training them with the given training dataset and evaluating them with the test set, which takes several hours or even days per candidate architecture.