REVIEW
How much pre-training is enough to discover a good subnetwork?
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
How much pre-training is enough to discover a good subnetwork?
read the original abstract
Neural network pruning is useful for discovering efficient, high-performing subnetworks within pre-trained, dense network architectures. More often than not, it involves a three-step process -- pre-training, pruning, and re-training -- that is computationally expensive, as the dense model must be fully pre-trained. While previous work has revealed through experiments the relationship between the amount of pre-training and the performance of the pruned network, a theoretical characterization of such dependency is still missing. Aiming to mathematically analyze the amount of dense network pre-training needed for a pruned network to perform well, we discover a simple theoretical bound in the number of gradient descent pre-training iterations on a two-layer, fully-connected network, beyond which pruning via greedy forward selection [61] yields a subnetwork that achieves good training error. Interestingly, this threshold is shown to be logarithmically dependent upon the size of the dataset, meaning that experiments with larger datasets require more pre-training for subnetworks obtained via pruning to perform well. Lastly, we empirically validate our theoretical results on a multi-layer perceptron trained on MNIST.
discussion (0)
Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.