Sparse Weight Averaging with Multiple Particles for Iterative Magnitude Pruning
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Given the ever-increasing size of modern neural networks, the significance of sparse architectures has surged due to their accelerated inference speeds and minimal memory demands. When it comes to global pruning techniques, Iterative Magnitude Pruning (IMP) still stands as a state-of-the-art algorithm despite its simple nature, particularly in extremely sparse regimes. In light of the recent finding that the two successive matching IMP solutions are linearly connected without a loss barrier, we propose Sparse Weight Averaging with Multiple Particles (SWAMP), a straightforward modification of IMP that achieves performance comparable to an ensemble of two IMP solutions. For every iteration, we concurrently train multiple sparse models, referred to as particles, using different batch orders yet the same matching ticket, and then weight average such models to produce a single mask. We demonstrate that our method consistently outperforms existing baselines across different sparsities through extensive experiments on various data and neural network structures.
Key facts. Cited by 2 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 44 of its 58 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 24 May 2023.
Builds on
44 of 58 references.
References · 44
- 2015Deep Residual Learning for Image Recognitioncited by 52,096
- 2019PyTorch: An Imperative Style, High-Performance Deep Learning Librarycited by 20,305
- 2014Very Deep Convolutional Networks for Large-Scale Image Recognitioncited by 15,364
- 2019RoBERTa: A Robustly Optimized BERT Pretraining Approachcited by 13,372
- 2017On Calibration of Modern Neural Networkscited by 4,960
- 2018GLUE: A Multi-Task Benchmark and Analysis Platform for Natural Language Understandingcited by 4,899
- 2016Simple and Scalable Predictive Uncertainty Estimation using Deep Ensemblescited by 3,926
- 2018The Lottery Ticket Hypothesis: Finding Sparse, Trainable Neural Networkscited by 2,262
- 2015Learning both Weights and Connections for Efficient Neural Networkscited by 2,031
- 2020Sharpness-Aware Minimization for Efficiently Improving Generalizationcited by 1,417
- 2022Model soups: averaging weights of multiple fine-tuned models improves accuracy without increasing inference timecited by 1,396
- 2018Averaging Weights Leads to Wider Optima and Better Generalizationcited by 1,209
32 more
- 2018SNIP: Single-shot Network Pruning based on Connection Sensitivitycited by 812
- 2019Linear Mode Connectivity and the Lottery Ticket Hypothesiscited by 637
- 2018Loss Surfaces, Mode Connectivity, and Fast Ensembling of DNNscited by 588
- 2019Rigging the Lottery: Making All Tickets Winnerscited by 495
- 2020Pruning neural networks without any data by iteratively conserving synaptic flowcited by 479
- 2020Picking Winning Tickets Before Training by Preserving Gradient Flowcited by 471
- 2016Entropy-SGD: Biasing Gradient Descent Into Wide Valleyscited by 359
- 2018Essentially No Barriers in Neural Network Energy Landscapecited by 330
- 2019PyHessian: Neural Networks Through the Lens of the Hessiancited by 292
- 2020Comparing Rewinding and Fine-tuning in Neural Network Pruningcited by 240
- 2017Learning to Prune Deep Neural Networks via Layer-wise Optimal Brain Surgeoncited by 221
- 2020Pitfalls of In-Domain Uncertainty Estimation and Ensembling in Deep Learningcited by 210
- 2019Deconstructing Lottery Tickets: Zeros, Signs, and the Supermaskcited by 207
- 2020Deep learning versus kernel learning: an empirical study of loss landscape geometry and the time evolution of the Neural Tangent Kernelcited by 187
- 2020Pruning Neural Networks at Initialization: Why are We Missing the Mark?cited by 182
- 2019Drawing Early-Bird Tickets: Towards More Efficient Training of Deep Networkscited by 160
- 2021A Unified Lottery Ticket Hypothesis for Graph Neural Networkscited by 118
- 2019Subspace Inference for Bayesian Deep Learningcited by 95
- 2021Learning Neural Network Subspacescited by 82
- 2020Gradient Flow in Sparse Neural Networks and How Lottery Tickets Wincited by 77
- 2021Loss Surface Simplexes for Mode Connecting Volumes and Fast Ensemblingcited by 75
- 2019Large Scale Structure of Neural Network Loss Landscapescited by 68
- 2020Dynamic Sparse Training: Find Efficient Sparse Network From Scratch With Trainable Masked Layerscited by 68
- 2020Sanity-Checking Pruning Methods: Random Tickets can Win the Jackpotcited by 66
- 2020Lookahead: A Far-Sighted Alternative of Magnitude-based Pruningcited by 61
- 2021Sanity Checks for Lottery Tickets: Does Your Winning Ticket Really Win the Jackpot?cited by 52
- 2022Unmasking the Lottery Ticket Hypothesis: What's Encoded in a Winning Ticket's Mask?cited by 38
- 2020The Lottery Ticket Hypothesis for Object Recognitioncited by 34
- 2021How many degrees of freedom do we need to train deep networks: a loss landscape perspectivecited by 28
- 2020Winning Lottery Tickets in Deep Generative Modelscited by 25
- 2022Train Flat, Then Compress: Sharpness-Aware Minimization Learns More Compressible Modelscited by 20
- 2022Lottery Pools: Winning More by Interpolating Tickets without Increasing Training or Inference Costcited by 11
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2024: 2.
2 papers.