# Towards Robust Training in NNGPT AutoML Pipeline: A Loss-Optimizer Pairing Selection Study

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2606.20933 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2606.20933/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 17 of its 28 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 18 Jun 2026.

## Builds on (most cited first, 17 of 17)

- [Deep Residual Learning for Image Recognition](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1512.03385/) (2015)
- [Optuna vs Code Llama: Are LLMs a New Paradigm for Hyperparameter Tuning?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2504.06006/) (2025)
- [LEMUR Neural Network Dataset: Towards Seamless AutoML](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2504.10552/) (2025)
- [NNGPT: Rethinking AutoML with Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2511.20333/) (2025)
- [Preparation of Fractal-Inspired Computational Architectures for Advanced Large Language Model Analysis](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2511.07329/) (2025)
- [A Retrieval-Augmented Generation Approach to Extracting Algorithmic Logic from Neural Networks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2512.04329/) (2025)
- [AugmentGest: Can Random Data Cropping Augmentation Boost Gesture Recognition Performance?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2506.07216/) (2025)
- [Enhancing LLM-Based Neural Network Generation: Few-Shot Prompting and Efficient Validation for Automated Architecture Design](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2512.24120/) (2025)
- [From Memorization to Creativity: LLM as a Designer of Novel Neural Architectures](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2601.02997/) (2026)
- [LLM as a Neural Architect: Controlled Generation of Image Captioning Models Under Strict API Contracts](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2512.14706/) (2025)
- [From Brute Force to Semantic Insight: Performance-Guided Data Transformation Design with LLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2601.03808/) (2026)
- [Resource-Efficient Iterative LLM-Based NAS with Feedback Memory](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2603.12091/) (2026)
- [Closed-Loop LLM Discovery of Non-Standard Channel Priors in Vision Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2601.08517/) (2026)
- [Delta-Based Neural Architecture Search: LLM Fine-Tuning via Code Diffs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2605.04903/) (2026)
- [Next Generation Loss Function for Image Classification](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2404.12948/) (2024)
- [MobileAgeNet: Lightweight Facial Age Estimation for Mobile Deployment](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2604.17007/) (2026)
- [Real Image Denoising with Knowledge Distillation for High-Performance Mobile NPUs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2605.03680/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

The choice of loss function and optimizer is an important decision, that shapes further model training. Yet automated architecture search pipelines (AutoML) benefits significantly more from the optimal pairing selection and vice versa. This paper investigates whether a single recipe is sufficient for heterogeneous architecture pools, or whether the optimal pairing varies across structurally diverse models. We conduct a systematic empirical study of all 3 × 6 = 18 combinations of six optimizers (SGD+Momentum, Adam, AdamW, RMSprop, Adagrad, Adadelta), paired with three loss functions: Cross-Entropy (CEL), Negative Log-Likelihood (NLL), and the recently introduced genetically evolved NGL loss across the base models presented in LEMUR heterogeneous architecture pool on six image classification datasets (CelebA-Gender, CIFAR-10, CIFAR-100, ImageNette, MNIST, SVHN). The 18 loss-optimizer configurations are applied to each of the 33 compatible base architectures taken from the LEMUR pool, resulting in 594 variants that were generated fully automatically by a source-level injection pipeline and evaluated under fixed hyperparameters, ensuring that observed accuracy differences are attributable solely to the loss-optimizer pairing. Our results confirm that no single pairing is universally optimal. Cross-Entropy with Adam or AdamW is the most robust choice across architecture families and datasets. NGL is a competitive alternative to CEL on standard convolutional classifiers, but only when paired with adaptive optimizers; it degrades substantially with SGD or accumulation-based methods. Adagrad and Adadelta consistently underperform under fixed hyperparameters regardless of loss function, highlighting their sensitivity to learning rate tuning. These findings provide actionable guidance for loss-optimizer selection within NNGPT Framework.