First, as R4 suggested, "symbolic35 tree" was more approachable for people in the ML community. Second, the symbolic tree is declared by the user using36 decorators and serves to represent high-level program constructs, which is different from the AST that represents all37 the syntactic structures for the program. For example, the full Python AST contains information about objects' class38 methods, whereas our symbolic representation does not.39 R4: "Second, most of their tool/language design could be summarized as adding some kind of non determinis-40 tic/parametric choice ... It's extension to ML does not introduce anything particularly new ..."41 We agree with R4 that symbolic programming and non-deterministic programming are well-studied topics in the PL42 community. However, we would like to emphasize that this work is the first to introduce such concepts to AutoML43 to significantly reduce engineering effort, which is a novel and useful contribution. For example, PyGlove leverages44 symbolic manipulation to decouple the search algorithm, search space and child program, which enabled us to unify45 the interface among search methods with and without weight sharing. To enable symbolic programming in Python,46 PyGlove implements an object model for maintaining the consistency of program state during symbolic manipulation.47 R4 "Provide the grammar in the main text"48 We understand the "grammar" here as a reference to the formal definition of the search space specification. We will49 revise current Appendix Table 3 into a formal definition, and add it to the "search space" sub-section.50

Neural networks are sensitive to architecture and hyper-parameter choices [3,4]. For example, on the ImageNet dataset [5], we have observed a large increase in accuracy thanks to changes in architectures, hyper-parameters, and training algorithms, from the seminal work of AlexNet [5] to recent state-of-the-art models such as EfficientNet [6]. However, as neural networks become increasingly complex,thepotential number ofarchitecture and hyper-parameter choices becomes numerous.

Neural networks are sensitive to hyper-parameter and architecture choices. Automated Machine Learning (AutoML) is a promising paradigm for automating these choices. Current ML software libraries, however, are quite limited in handling the dynamic interactions among the components of AutoML. For example, efficient NAS algorithms, such as ENAS and DARTS, typically require an implementation coupling between the search space and search algorithm, the two key components in AutoML. Furthermore, implementing a complex search flow, such as searching architectures within a loop of searching hardware configurations, is difficult. To summarize, changing the search space, search algorithm, or search flow in current ML libraries usually requires a significant change in the program logic. In this paper, we introduce a new way of programming AutoML based on symbolic programming. Under this paradigm, ML programs are mutable, thus can be manipulated easily by another program. As a result, AutoML can be reformulated as an automated process of symbolic manipulation.

Neural networks are sensitive to hyper-parameter and architecture choices. Automated Machine Learning (AutoML) is a promising paradigm for automating these choices. Current ML software libraries, however, are quite limited in handling the dynamic interactions among the components of AutoML. For example, efficient NAS algorithms, such as ENAS and DARTS, typically require an implementation coupling between the search space and search algorithm, the two key components in AutoML. Furthermore, implementing a complex search flow, such as searching architectures within a loop of searching hardware configurations, is difficult.

Summary and Contributions: The paper introduces an AutoML library that tries to find its own sweet spot in the large ecosystem of newly minted AutoML libraries. The paper introduces a symbolic frontend to build neural network models, with simple fundamental constructs that provide choice insertions. Unlike all other packages that I have seen and reviewed, such as Keras Tuner, NNI, AutoGluon, Optuna (btw reference missing to Optuna, you should consider adding), this paper introduces something innovative and elegant. All these other packages consistently suffer from the code of the model definition getting ugly and unweildy really quickly when you have to introduce model structure searches, and when there's interaction between structure searches and size searches. In this paper, the authors cleanly separate model structure definitions from each layer's hyperparameter choices.

The reviewers generally agree that the design choices of this framework for AutoML are judicious and hit a "sweet spot". This combination of language/tooling design is of great value to expose to large swathes of the NeurIPS community. The rebuttal persuasively addresses the reviewers' concerns about the evaluation and utility of this proposal, and the response to R4 is also reassuring. We look forward to the authors' final version of the paper, incorporating the proposed improvements.

Neural networks are sensitive to hyper-parameter and architecture choices. Automated Machine Learning (AutoML) is a promising paradigm for automating these choices. Current ML software libraries, however, are quite limited in handling the dynamic interactions among the components of AutoML. For example, efficient NAS algorithms, such as ENAS and DARTS, typically require an implementation coupling between the search space and search algorithm, the two key components in AutoML. Furthermore, implementing a complex search flow, such as searching architectures within a loop of searching hardware configurations, is difficult.

The increasing complexity and scale of machine learning (ML) has led to the need for more efficient collaboration among multiple teams. For example, when a research team invents a new architecture like "ResNet," it is desirable for multiple engineering teams to adopt it. However, the effort required for each team to study and understand the invention does not scale well with the number of teams or inventions. In this paper, we present an extension of our PyGlove library to easily and scalably share ML ideas. PyGlove represents ideas as symbolic rule-based patches, enabling researchers to write down the rules for models they have not seen. For example, an inventor can write rules that will "add skip-connections." This permits a network effect among teams: at once, any team can issue patches to all other teams. Such a network effect allows users to quickly surmount the cost of adopting PyGlove by writing less code quicker, providing a benefit that scales with time. We describe the new paradigm of organizing ML through symbolic patches and compare it to existing approaches. We also perform a case study of a large codebase where PyGlove led to an 80% reduction in the number of lines of code.