Comparing Rewinding and Fine-tuning in Neural Network Pruning
read the original abstract
Many neural network pruning algorithms proceed in three steps: train the network to completion, remove unwanted structure to compress the network, and retrain the remaining structure to recover lost accuracy. The standard retraining technique, fine-tuning, trains the unpruned weights from their final trained values using a small fixed learning rate. In this paper, we compare fine-tuning to alternative retraining techniques. Weight rewinding (as proposed by Frankle et al., (2019)), rewinds unpruned weights to their values from earlier in training and retrains them from there using the original training schedule. Learning rate rewinding (which we propose) trains the unpruned weights from their final values using the same learning rate schedule as weight rewinding. Both rewinding techniques outperform fine-tuning, forming the basis of a network-agnostic pruning algorithm that matches the accuracy and compression ratios of several more network-specific state-of-the-art techniques.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet.
Forward citations
Cited by 2 Pith papers
-
When AI Reviews Its Own Code: Recursive Self-Training Collapse in Code LLMs
Experiments across code LLMs show no-review collapses fastest, human-gated filters slow collapse, and AI self-gates lose effect over time, degenerating to ungated self-training under self-confirming acceptance as prov...
-
STARFISH: faST Accuracy Recovery in pruned networks From Internal State Healing
STARFISH recovers accuracy in pruned neural networks by optimizing internal state alignment to the original model with a minimal unlabeled calibration set, outperforming prior recovery methods especially at high pruni...
discussion (0)
Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.