Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 cited by

Comparing Rewinding and Fine-tuning in Neural Network Pruning

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

arxiv 2003.02389 v1 pith:D5ZXEAJ7 submitted 2020-03-05 cs.LG stat.ML

classification cs.LGstat.ML
keywords rewindingfine-tuningnetworklearningpruningratetechniquesunpruned
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
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.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Accelerating Linear Recurrent Neural Networks for the Edge with Unstructured Sparsity

    cs.LG 2025-02 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Sparse, 8-bit quantized S5 linear RNNs match dense model audio denoising accuracy with 2x less compute and 36% less memory, and run 42x faster with 149x lower energy on Loihi 2 than a dense FP32 model on Jetson Orin Nano.

  2. TROI: Cross-Subject Pretraining with Sparse Voxel Selection for Enhanced fMRI Visual Decoding

    cs.CV 2025-02 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    TROI learns a sparse brain-voxel mask from one hour of a new subject's fMRI data and improves several retrieval metrics over a MindEye2 baseline that uses manual ROIs.

Pith tools