Greedy Pruning with Group Lasso Provably Generalizes for Matrix Sensing
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Pruning schemes have been widely used in practice to reduce the complexity of trained models with a massive number of parameters. In fact, several practical studies have shown that if a pruned model is fine-tuned with some gradient-based updates it generalizes well to new samples. Although the above pipeline, which we refer to as pruning + fine-tuning, has been extremely successful in lowering the complexity of trained models, there is very little known about the theory behind this success. In this paper, we address this issue by investigating the pruning + fine-tuning framework on the overparameterized matrix sensing problem with the ground truth U_star ∈ ℝd × r and the overparameterized model U ∈ ℝd × k with k gg r. We study the approximate local minima of the mean square error, augmented with a smooth version of a group Lasso regularizer, sumi=1k | U ei |2. In particular, we provably show that pruning all the columns below a certain explicit ℓ2-norm threshold results in a solution Uprune which has the minimum number of columns r, yet close to the ground truth in training loss. Moreover, in the subsequent fine-tuning phase, gradient descent initialized at Uprune converges at a linear rate to its limit. While our analysis provides insights into the role of regularization in pruning, we also show that running gradient descent in the absence of regularization results in models which are not suitable for greedy pruning, i.e., many columns could have their ℓ2 norm comparable to that of the maximum. To the best of our knowledge, our results provide the first rigorous insights on why greedy pruning + fine-tuning leads to smaller models which also generalize well.
Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 45 of its 73 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 20 Mar 2023.
Builds on
45 of 73 references.
References · 45
- 2015Distilling the Knowledge in a Neural Networkcited by 10,324
- 2015Deep Compression: Compressing Deep Neural Networks with Pruning, Trained Quantization and Huffman Codingcited by 2,329
- 2015Learning both Weights and Connections for Efficient Neural Networkscited by 2,031
- 2016Pruning Filters for Efficient ConvNetscited by 1,143
- 2019Analyzing Multi-Head Self-Attention: Specialized Heads Do the Heavy Lifting, the Rest Can Be Prunedcited by 856
- 2018SNIP: Single-shot Network Pruning based on Connection Sensitivitycited by 812
- 2017Channel Pruning for Accelerating Very Deep Neural Networkscited by 702
- 2017Learning Efficient Convolutional Networks through Network Slimmingcited by 676
- 2017The Implicit Bias of Gradient Descent on Separable Datacited by 655
- 2017To prune, or not to prune: exploring the efficacy of pruning for model compressioncited by 603
- 2018Rethinking the Value of Network Pruningcited by 599
- 2017Learning Sparse Neural Networks through L0 Regularizationcited by 583
33 more
- 2016Learning Structured Sparsity in Deep Neural Networkscited by 541
- 2018Quantizing deep convolutional networks for efficient inference: A whitepapercited by 521
- 2014In Search of the Real Inductive Bias: On the Role of Implicit Regularization in Deep Learningcited by 342
- 2017Implicit Regularization in Matrix Factorizationcited by 322
- 2018Soft Filter Pruning for Accelerating Deep Convolutional Neural Networkscited by 315
- 2018Model compression via distillation and quantizationcited by 289
- 2017How to Escape Saddle Points Efficientlycited by 285
- 2017NISP: Pruning Networks using Neuron Importance Score Propagationcited by 228
- 2019Structured Pruning of Large Language Modelscited by 203
- 2020Soft Threshold Weight Reparameterization for Learnable Sparsitycited by 151
- 2017No Spurious Local Minima in Nonconvex Low Rank Problems: A Unified Geometric Analysiscited by 129
- 2017Theoretical insights into the optimization landscape of over-parameterized shallow neural networkscited by 128
- 2016Matrix Completion has No Spurious Local Minimumcited by 125
- 2018Rethinking the Smaller-Norm-Less-Informative Assumption in Channel Pruning of Convolution Layerscited by 112
- 2018On the Power of Over-parametrization in Neural Networks with Quadratic Activationcited by 102
- 2016Group Sparse Regularization for Deep Neural Networkscited by 89
- 2014Guaranteed Matrix Completion via Non-convex Factorizationcited by 82
- 2015Fast ConvNets Using Group-wise Brain Damagecited by 82
- 2016Global Optimality of Local Search for Low Rank Matrix Recoverycited by 82
- 2018A Survey on Methods and Theories of Quantized Neural Networkscited by 75
- 2015Fast low-rank estimation by projected gradient descent: General statistical and algorithmic guaranteescited by 70
- 2020Good Subnetworks Provably Exist: Pruning via Greedy Forward Selectioncited by 70
- 2013Regularized M-estimators with nonconvexity: Statistical and algorithmic theory for local optimacited by 66
- 2019Learning Filter Basis for Convolutional Neural Network Compressioncited by 57
- 2019The Generalization-Stability Tradeoff In Neural Network Pruningcited by 54
- 2021Global Convergence of Gradient Descent for Asymmetric Low-Rank Matrix Factorizationcited by 45
- 2023Understanding Incremental Learning of Gradient Descent: A Fine-grained Analysis of Matrix Sensingcited by 42
- 2016Non-square matrix sensing without spurious local minima via the Burer-Monteiro approachcited by 38
- 2021On the computational and statistical complexity of over-parameterized matrix sensingcited by 31
- 2014Fast matrix completion without the condition numbercited by 17
- 2019Stabilized SVRG: Simple Variance Reduction for Nonconvex Optimizationcited by 15
- 2018Escaping Saddle Points in Constrained Optimizationcited by 14
- 2019Stationary Points of Shallow Neural Networks with Quadratic Activation Functioncited by 12
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2025: 1.
1 paper.