No Free Prune: Information-Theoretic Barriers to Pruning at Initialization
Tanishq Kumar, Kevin Luo, Mark Sellke
Abstract
The existence of "lottery tickets" (Frankle & Carbin, 2018) at or near initialization raises the tantalizing question of whether large models are necessary in deep learning, or whether sparse networks can be quickly identified and trained without ever training the dense models that contain them. However, efforts to find these sparse subnetworks without training the dense model ("pruning at initialization") have been broadly unsuccessful (Frankle et al., 2020b). We put forward a theoretical explanation for this, based on the model's effective parameter count, p eff , given by the sum of the number of non-zero weights in the final network and the mutual information between the sparsity mask and the data. We show the Law of Robustness of (Bubeck & Sellke, 2023) extends to sparse networks with the usual parameter count replaced by p eff , meaning a sparse neural network which robustly interpolates noisy data requires a heavily data-dependent mask. We posit that pruning during and after training outputs masks with higher mutual information than those produced by pruning at initialization. Thus two networks may have the same sparsities, but differ in effective parameter count based on how they were trained. This suggests that pruning near initialization may be infeasible and explains why lottery tickets exist, but cannot be found fast (i.e. without training the full network). Experiments on neural networks confirm that information gained during training may indeed affect model capacity.
Ask about this paper
Your agent reads all of it.
Lune indexed this paper to the last equation, along with the top-tier papers that cite it. Ask a question and the answer quotes them.
Your agent calls
Luneget_paper_fulltext
Free to start. No credit card required.
Terminal
Install the CLIlune papers fulltext 4706a060-705f-45b6-8dc1-1900cd5f003aCited by top-tier papers1
Ask how each one uses itBuilds on13
- Pruning neural networks without any data by iteratively conserving synaptic flowHidenori Tanaka, Daniel Kunin, Daniel L. K. Yamins, Surya GanguliNeurIPS 2020 · 884 citations
- Linear Mode Connectivity and the Lottery Ticket HypothesisJonathan Frankle, Gintare Karolina Dziugaite, Daniel M. Roy, Michael CarbinICML 2020 · 750 citations
- Picking Winning Tickets Before Training by Preserving Gradient FlowChaoqi Wang, Guodong Zhang, Roger B. GrosseICLR 2020 · 743 citations
- The Lottery Ticket Hypothesis for Pre-trained BERT NetworksTianlong Chen, Jonathan Frankle, Shiyu Chang, Sijia Liu et al.NeurIPS 2020 · 428 citations
- A Universal Law of Robustness via IsoperimetrySébastien Bubeck, Mark SellkeNeurIPS 2021 · 260 citations
Related papers
- Why Random Pruning Is All We Need to Start SparseAdvait Harshal Gadhikar, Sohom Mukherjee, Rebekka BurkholzICML 2023 · 33 citations
- Lottery Ticket Preserves Weight Correlation: Is It Desirable or Not?Ning Liu, Geng Yuan, Zhengping Che, Xuan Shen et al.ICML 2021 · 34 citations
- Dual Lottery Ticket HypothesisYue Bai, Huan Wang, Zhiqiang Tao, Kunpeng Li et al.ICLR 2022 · 49 citations
- Most Activation Functions Can Win the Lottery Without Excessive DepthRebekka BurkholzNeurIPS 2022 · 27 citations
- Efficient Lottery Ticket Finding: Less Data is MoreZhenyu Zhang, Xuxi Chen, Tianlong Chen, Zhangyang WangICML 2021 · 58 citations
