REVIEW 1 cited by
Pruning Neural Networks at Initialization: Why are We Missing the Mark?
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
read the original abstract
Recent work has explored the possibility of pruning neural networks at initialization. We assess proposals for doing so: SNIP (Lee et al., 2019), GraSP (Wang et al., 2020), SynFlow (Tanaka et al., 2020), and magnitude pruning. Although these methods surpass the trivial baseline of random pruning, they remain below the accuracy of magnitude pruning after training, and we endeavor to understand why. We show that, unlike pruning after training, randomly shuffling the weights these methods prune within each layer or sampling new initial values preserves or improves accuracy. As such, the per-weight pruning decisions made by these methods can be replaced by a per-layer choice of the fraction of weights to prune. This property suggests broader challenges with the underlying pruning heuristics, the desire to prune at initialization, or both.
Forward citations
Cited by 1 Pith paper
-
Hyperpruning: Efficient Search through Pruned Variants of Recurrent Neural Networks Leveraging Lyapunov Spectrum
A Lyapunov-spectrum-based distance to the dense network lets hyperparameter search for pruned RNNs stop early and select models that beat both loss-based baselines and the dense originals.
Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.