mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Parameter Reduction Improves Vision Transformers: A Comparative Study of Sharing and Width Reduction

arXiv 2512.01059 ↗First posted 30 Nov 2025cs.CV cs.AI cs.LGcited by 1

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Although scaling laws and many empirical results suggest that increasing the size of Vision Transformers often improves performance, model accuracy and training behavior are not always monotonically increasing with scale. Focusing on ViT-B/16 trained on ImageNet-1K, we study two simple parameter-reduction strategies applied to the MLP blocks, each removing 32.7% of the baseline parameters. Our GroupedMLP variant shares MLP weights between adjacent transformer blocks and achieves 81.47% top-1 accuracy while maintaining the baseline computational cost. Our ShallowMLP variant halves the MLP hidden dimension and reaches 81.25% top-1 accuracy with a 38% increase in inference throughput. Both models outperform the 86.6M-parameter baseline (81.05%) and exhibit substantially improved training stability, reducing peak-to-final accuracy degradation from 0.47% to the range 0.03% to 0.06%. These results suggest that, for ViT-B/16 on ImageNet-1K with a standard training recipe, the model operates in an overparameterized regime in which MLP capacity can be reduced without harming performance and can even slightly improve it. More broadly, our findings suggest that architectural constraints such as parameter sharing and reduced width may act as useful inductive biases, and highlight the importance of how parameters are allocated when designing Vision Transformers. All code is available at: https://github.com/AnanthaPadmanaban-KrishnaKumar/parameter-efficient-vit-mlps.

Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 19 of its 19 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 30 Nov 2025.

Builds on

19 of 19 references.

References · 19

  1. 2020An Image is Worth 16x16 Words: Transformers for Image Recognition at Scalecited by 29,915
  2. 2021Swin Transformer: Hierarchical Vision Transformer using Shifted Windowscited by 12,082
  3. 2014ImageNet Large Scale Visual Recognition Challengecited by 8,441
  4. 2022Training Compute-Optimal Large Language Modelscited by 2,927
  5. 2019ALBERT: A Lite BERT for Self-supervised Learning of Language Representationscited by 2,772
  6. 2018The Lottery Ticket Hypothesis: Finding Sparse, Trainable Neural Networkscited by 2,250
  7. 2020Sharpness-Aware Minimization for Efficiently Improving Generalizationcited by 1,404
  8. 2018Reconciling modern machine learning practice and the bias-variance trade-offcited by 919
  9. 2021DynamicViT: Efficient Vision Transformers with Dynamic Token Sparsificationcited by 849
  10. 2023Scaling Vision Transformers to 22 Billion Parameterscited by 690
  11. 2019Deep Double Descent: Where Bigger Models and More Data Hurtcited by 667
  12. 2021Gradient Descent on Neural Networks Typically Occurs at the Edge of Stabilitycited by 413
7 more
  1. 2022Not All Patches are What You Need: Expediting Vision Transformers via Token Reorganizationscited by 359
  2. 2021Understanding Robustness of Transformers for Image Classificationcited by 250
  3. 2021Chasing Sparsity in Vision Transformers: An End-to-End Explorationcited by 181
  4. 2022Unified Visual Transformer Compressioncited by 79
  5. 2021Vision Transformer Pruningcited by 77
  6. 2024DeiT-LT Distillation Strikes Back for Vision Transformer Training on Long-Tailed Datasetscited by 14
  7. 2023Understanding Parameter Sharing in Transformerscited by 3

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 7 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2026: 1.

1 paper.