Why is Pruning at Initialization Immune to Reinitializing and Shuffling?
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Recent studies assessing the efficacy of pruning neural networks methods uncovered a surprising finding: when conducting ablation studies on existing pruning-at-initialization methods, namely SNIP, GraSP, SynFlow, and magnitude pruning, performances of these methods remain unchanged and sometimes even improve when randomly shuffling the mask positions within each layer (Layerwise Shuffling) or sampling new initial weight values (Reinit), while keeping pruning masks the same. We attempt to understand the reason behind such network immunity towards weight/mask modifications, by studying layer-wise statistics before and after randomization operations. We found that under each of the pruning-at-initialization methods, the distribution of unpruned weights changed minimally with randomization operations.
Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 8 of its 13 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 5 Jul 2021.
Builds on
8 of 13 references.
References · 8
- 2015Deep Residual Learning for Image Recognitioncited by 52,096
- 2015Learning both Weights and Connections for Efficient Neural Networkscited by 2,031
- 2018SNIP: Single-shot Network Pruning based on Connection Sensitivitycited by 812
- 2020What is the State of Neural Network Pruning?cited by 583
- 2020Pruning neural networks without any data by iteratively conserving synaptic flowcited by 479
- 2020Picking Winning Tickets Before Training by Preserving Gradient Flowcited by 471
- 2020Pruning Neural Networks at Initialization: Why are We Missing the Mark?cited by 182
- 2020Sanity-Checking Pruning Methods: Random Tickets can Win the Jackpotcited by 66
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2023: 1.
1 paper.