On How Iterative Magnitude Pruning Discovers Local Receptive Fields in Fully Connected Neural Networks
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Since its use in the Lottery Ticket Hypothesis, iterative magnitude pruning (IMP) has become a popular method for extracting sparse subnetworks that can be trained to high performance. Despite its success, the mechanism that drives the success of IMP remains unclear. One possibility is that IMP is capable of extracting subnetworks with good inductive biases that facilitate performance. Supporting this idea, recent work showed that applying IMP to fully connected neural networks (FCNs) leads to the emergence of local receptive fields (RFs), a feature of mammalian visual cortex and convolutional neural networks that facilitates image processing. However, it remains unclear why IMP would uncover localized features in the first place. Inspired by results showing that training on synthetic images with highly non-Gaussian statistics (e.g., sharp edges) is sufficient to drive the emergence of local RFs in FCNs, we hypothesize that IMP iteratively increases the non-Gaussian statistics of FCN representations, creating a feedback loop that enhances localization. Here, we demonstrate first that non-Gaussian input statistics are indeed necessary for IMP to discover localized RFs. We then develop a new method for measuring the effect of individual weights on the statistics of the FCN representations ("cavity method"), which allows us to show that IMP systematically increases the non-Gaussianity of pre-activations, leading to the formation of localized RFs. Our work, which is the first to study the effect of IMP on the statistics of the representations of neural networks, sheds parsimonious light on one way in which IMP can drive the formation of strong inductive biases.
Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 13 Oct 2026). Builds on 39 of its 63 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 9 Dec 2024.
Builds on
39 of 63 references.
References · 39
- 2015Batch Normalization: Accelerating Deep Network Training by Reducing Internal Covariate Shiftcited by 6,991
- 2018The Lottery Ticket Hypothesis: Finding Sparse, Trainable Neural Networkscited by 2,257
- 2015Learning both Weights and Connections for Efficient Neural Networkscited by 2,017
- 2018SNIP: Single-shot Network Pruning based on Connection Sensitivitycited by 809
- 2019Linear Mode Connectivity and the Lottery Ticket Hypothesiscited by 631
- 2020Pruning neural networks without any data by iteratively conserving synaptic flowcited by 476
- 2017A Downsampled Variant of ImageNet as an Alternative to the CIFAR datasetscited by 376
- 2017Scalable Training of Artificial Neural Networks with Adaptive Sparse Connectivity inspired by Network Sciencecited by 326
- 2020The Lottery Ticket Hypothesis for Pre-trained BERT Networkscited by 275
- 2017Three Factors Influencing Minima in SGDcited by 273
- 2020Comparing Rewinding and Fine-tuning in Neural Network Pruningcited by 240
- 2020Pruning Neural Networks at Initialization: Why are We Missing the Mark?cited by 181
27 more
- 2021A Unified Lottery Ticket Hypothesis for Graph Neural Networkscited by 118
- 2020The Early Phase of Neural Network Trainingcited by 114
- 2020The Gaussian equivalence of generative models for learning with shallow neural networkscited by 113
- 2019One ticket to win them all: generalizing lottery ticket initializations across datasets and optimizerscited by 102
- 2020The Lottery Tickets Hypothesis for Supervised and Self-supervised Pre-training in Computer Vision Modelscited by 91
- 2020Gradient Flow in Sparse Neural Networks and How Lottery Tickets Wincited by 77
- 2019Playing the lottery with rewards and multiple languages: lottery tickets in RL and NLPcited by 73
- 2020Statistical Mechanics of Deep Linear Neural Networks: The Back-Propagating Kernel Renormalizationcited by 71
- 2021Classifying high-dimensional Gaussian mixtures: Where kernel methods fail and neural networks succeedcited by 69
- 2022Neural networks trained with SGD learn distributions of increasing complexitycited by 50
- 2019Sparse evolutionary Deep Learning with over one million artificial neurons on commodity hardwarecited by 48
- 2020Towards Learning Convolutions from Scratchcited by 46
- 2021Efficient Lottery Ticket Finding: Less Data is Morecited by 44
- 2023The Emergence of Essential Sparsity in Large Pre-trained Models: The Weights that Mattercited by 42
- 2021GANs Can Play Lottery Tickets Toocited by 32
- 2022Data-driven emergence of convolutional structure in neural networkscited by 29
- 2019Sparse Transfer Learning via Winning Lottery Ticketscited by 27
- 2022Gaussian Universality of Perceptrons with Random Labelscited by 26
- 2019Evaluating Lottery Tickets Under Distributional Shiftscited by 23
- 2021The Elastic Lottery Ticket Hypothesiscited by 23
- 2021On Lottery Tickets and Minimal Task Representations in Deep Reinforcement Learningcited by 23
- 2022Lottery Tickets on a Data Diet: Finding Initializations with Sparse Trainable Networkscited by 21
- 2023Fundamental limits of overparametrized shallow neural networks for supervised learningcited by 13
- 2020On the Transferability of Winning Tickets in Non-Natural Image Datasetscited by 10
- 2021Universality of Winning Tickets: A Renormalization Group Perspectivecited by 8
- 2022The Effect of Data Dimensionality on Neural Network Prunabilitycited by 2
- 2023Quantifying lottery tickets under label noise: accuracy, calibration, and complexitycited by 2
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 1.
1 paper.