More documents for Corpus
This commit is contained in:
Eduardo Cueto Mendoza
parent
e78ae20e92
commit
266e371642
4936
Corpus/CORPUS.txt
4936
Corpus/CORPUS.txt
File diff suppressed because it is too large
Load Diff
Binary file not shown.
File diff suppressed because it is too large
Load Diff
|
|
@ -1,662 +0,0 @@
|
|||
Movement Pruning:
|
||||
Adaptive Sparsity by Fine-Tuning
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
Victor Sanh 1 , Thomas Wolf 1 , Alexander M. Rush 1,2
|
||||
1 Hugging Face, 2 Cornell University
|
||||
{victor,thomas}@huggingface.co;arush@cornell.edu
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
arXiv:2005.07683v1 [cs.CL] 15 May 2020 Abstract
|
||||
|
||||
Magnitude pruning is a widely used strategy for reducing model size in pure
|
||||
supervised learning; however, it is less effective in the transfer learning regime that
|
||||
has become standard for state-of-the-art natural language processing applications.
|
||||
We propose the use ofmovement pruning, a simple, deterministic first-order weight
|
||||
pruning method that is more adaptive to pretrained model fine-tuning. We give
|
||||
mathematical foundations to the method and compare it to existing zeroth- and
|
||||
first-order pruning methods. Experiments show that when pruning large pretrained
|
||||
language models, movement pruning shows significant improvements in high-
|
||||
sparsity regimes. When combined with distillation, the approach achieves minimal
|
||||
accuracy loss with down to only 3% of the model parameters.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
1 Introduction
|
||||
|
||||
Large-scale transfer learning has become ubiquitous in deep learning and achieves state-of-the-art
|
||||
performance in applications in natural language processing and related fields. In this setup, a large
|
||||
model pretrained on a massive generic dataset is then fine-tuned on a smaller annotated dataset to
|
||||
perform a specific end-task. Model accuracy has been shown to scale with the pretrained model and
|
||||
dataset size [Raffel et al., 2019]. However, significant resources are required to ship and deploy these
|
||||
large models, and training the models have high environmental costs [Strubell et al., 2019].
|
||||
Sparsity induction is a widely used approach to reduce the memory footprint of neural networks at
|
||||
only a small cost of accuracy. Pruning methods, which remove weights based on their importance,
|
||||
are a particularly simple and effective method for compressing models to be sent to edge devices such
|
||||
as mobile phones. Magnitude pruning [Han et al., 2015, 2016], which preserves weights with high
|
||||
absolute values, is the most widely used method for weight pruning. It has been applied to a large
|
||||
variety of architectures in computer vision [Guo et al., 2016], in language processing [Gale et al.,
|
||||
2019], and more recently has been leveraged as a core component in thelottery ticket hypothesis
|
||||
[Frankle et al., 2019].
|
||||
While magnitude pruning is highly effective for standard supervised learning, it is inherently less
|
||||
useful in the transfer learning regime. In supervised learning, weight values are primarily determined
|
||||
by the end-task training data. In transfer learning, weight values are mostly predetermined by the
|
||||
original model and are only fine-tuned on the end task. This prevents these methods from learning to
|
||||
prune based on the fine-tuning step, or “fine-pruning.”
|
||||
In this work, we argue that to effectively reduce the size of models for transfer learning, one should
|
||||
instead usemovement pruning, i.e., pruning approaches that consider the changes in weights during
|
||||
fine-tuning. Movement pruning differs from magnitude pruning in that both weights with low and
|
||||
high values can be pruned if they shrink during training. This strategy moves the selection criteria
|
||||
from the 0th to the 1st-order and facilitates greater pruning based on the fine-tuning objective. To
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
Preprint. Under review. test this approach, we introduce a particularly simple, deterministic version of movement pruning
|
||||
utilizing the straight-through estimator [Bengio et al., 2013].
|
||||
We apply movement pruning to pretrained language representations (BERT) [Devlin et al., 2019,
|
||||
Vaswani et al., 2017] on a diverse set of fine-tuning tasks. In highly sparse regimes (less than 15% of
|
||||
remaining weights), we observe significant improvements over magnitude pruning and other 1st-order
|
||||
methods such asL0 regularization [Louizos et al., 2017]. Our models reach 95% of the original
|
||||
BERT performance with only 5% of the encoder’s weight on natural language inference (MNLI)
|
||||
[Williams et al., 2018] and question answering (SQuAD v1.1) [Rajpurkar et al., 2016]. Analysis of
|
||||
the differences between magnitude pruning and movement pruning shows that the two methods lead
|
||||
to radically different pruned models with movement pruning showing greater ability to adapt to the
|
||||
end-task.
|
||||
|
||||
2 Related Work
|
||||
|
||||
In addition to magnitude pruning, there are many other approaches for generic model weight pruning.
|
||||
Most similar to our approach are methods for using parallel score matrices to augment the weight
|
||||
matrices [Mallya and Lazebnik, 2018, Ramanujan et al., 2020], which have been applied for convo-
|
||||
lutional networks. Differing from our methods, these methods keep the weights of the model fixed
|
||||
(either from a randomly initialized network or a pre-trained network) and the scores are updated to
|
||||
find a good sparse subnetwork.
|
||||
Many previous works have also explored using higher-order information to select prunable weights.
|
||||
LeCun et al. [1989] and Hassibi et al. [1993] leverage the Hessian of the loss to select weights for
|
||||
deletion. Our method does not require the (possibly costly) computation of second-order derivatives
|
||||
since the importance scores are obtained simply as the by-product of the standard fine-tuning. Theis
|
||||
et al. [2018] and Ding et al. [2019] use the absolute value or the square value of the gradient. In
|
||||
contrast, we found it useful to preserve the direction of movement in our algorithm.
|
||||
Compressing pretrained language models for transfer learning is also a popular area of study. Other
|
||||
approaches include knowledge distillation [Sanh et al., 2019, Tang et al., 2019] and structured pruning
|
||||
[Fan et al., 2020a, Michel et al., 2019]. Our core method does not require an external teacher model
|
||||
and targets individual weight. We also show that having a teacher can further improve our approach.
|
||||
Recent work also builds upon iterative magnitude pruning with rewinding [Yu et al., 2020] to train
|
||||
sparse language models from scratch. This differs from our approach which focuses on the fine-tuning
|
||||
stage. Finally, another popular compression approach is quantization. Quantization has been applied
|
||||
to a variety of modern large architectures [Fan et al., 2020b, Zafrir et al., 2019, Gong et al., 2014]
|
||||
providing high memory compression rates at the cost of no or little performance. As shown in
|
||||
previous works [Li et al., 2020, Han et al., 2016] quantization and pruning are complimentary and
|
||||
can be combined to further improve the performance/size ratio.
|
||||
|
||||
3 Background: Score-Based Pruning
|
||||
|
||||
We first establish shared notation for discussing different neural network pruning strategies. Let
|
||||
W2Rn n refer to a generic weight matrix in the model (we consider square matrices, but they
|
||||
could be of any shape). To determine which weights are pruned, we introduce a parallel matrix of
|
||||
associated importance scoresS2Rn n . Given importance scores, each pruning strategy computes a
|
||||
maskM2 f0;1gn n . Inference for an inputxbecomesa= (W M)x, where is the Hadamard
|
||||
product. A common strategy is to keep the top-vpercent of weights by importance. We define Top v as a function which selects thev%highest values inS: 1; STop(S) (1) v i;j = i;j in topv%
|
||||
0; o.w.
|
||||
|
||||
Magnitude-based weight pruning determines the mask based on the absolute value of each weight as a measure of importance. Formally, we have importance scoresS= jWi;j j , and masks 1 i;j n M=Top(S)(Eq(1)). There are several extensions to this base setup. Han et al. [2015] use v iterative magnitude pruning: the model is first trained until convergence and weights with the lowest
|
||||
magnitudes are removed afterward. The sparsified model is then re-trained with the removed weights
|
||||
fixed to 0. This loop is repeated until the desired sparsity level is reached.
|
||||
|
||||
2 Magnitude pruning L0 regularization Movement pruning Soft movement pruning
|
||||
Pruning Decision 0th order 1st order 1st order 1st order
|
||||
Masking Function Top v Continuous Hard-Concrete Top v Thresholding
|
||||
Pruning Structure Local or Global Global Local or Global Global
|
||||
Learning Objective L L+ l0 E(L0 ) L L+ mvp R(S)
|
||||
Gradient Form Gumbel-Softmax Straight-Through Straight-ThroughP P PScoresS jW ) )i;j j (@L )(t W(t) f(S(t) ) (@L )(t) W(t) (@L )(t) W(t
|
||||
t@W i;j i;j i;j i;j t@W i;j i;j t@W i;j
|
||||
Table 1: Summary of the pruning methods considered in this work and their specificities. The
|
||||
expression offofL0 regularization is detailed in Eq (3).
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
In this study, we focus onautomated gradual pruning[Zhu and Gupta, 2018]. It supplements
|
||||
magnitude pruning by allowing masked weights to be updated such that they are not fixed for the
|
||||
entire duration of the training. Automated gradual pruning enables the model to recover from previous
|
||||
masking choices [Guo et al., 2016]. In addition, one can gradually increases the sparsity levelv during training using a cubic sparsity scheduler:v(t) =vf + (v t 3
|
||||
i vf ) 1 t i . The sparsity n t level at time stept,v(t) is increased from an initial valuevi (usually 0) to a final valuevf innpruning
|
||||
steps afterti steps of warm-up. The model is thus pruned and trained jointly.
|
||||
|
||||
4 Movement Pruning
|
||||
|
||||
Magnitude pruning can be seen as utilizing zeroth-order information (absolute value) of the running
|
||||
model. In this work, we focus on movement pruning methods where importance is derived from
|
||||
first-order information. Intuitively, instead of selecting weights that are far from zero, we retain
|
||||
connections that are moving away from zero during the training process. We consider two versions of
|
||||
movement pruning: hard and soft.
|
||||
For (hard) movement pruning, masks are computed using the Top v function:M=Top(S). Unlike v magnitude pruning, during training, we learn both the weightsP Wand their importance scoresS.
|
||||
During the forward pass, we compute for alli,a ni = Wk=1 i;k Mi;k xk .
|
||||
Since the gradient of Top v is 0 everywhere it is defined, we follow Ramanujan et al. [2020], Mallya
|
||||
and Lazebnik [2018] and approximate its value with thestraight-through estimator[Bengio et al.,
|
||||
2013]. In the backward pass, Top v is ignored and the gradient goes "straight-through" toS. The
|
||||
approximation of gradient of the lossLwith respect toSi;j is given by
|
||||
@L @L @a= i @L= W x@S j (2)
|
||||
i;j @a i @S i;j @a i;ji
|
||||
This implies that the scores of weights are updated, even if these weights are masked in the forward
|
||||
pass. We prove in Appendix A.1 that movement pruning as an optimization problem will converge.
|
||||
We also consider a relaxed (soft) version of movement pruning based on the binary mask function
|
||||
described by Mallya and Lazebnik [2018]. Here we replace hyperparametervwith a fixed global
|
||||
threshold value that controls the binary mask. The mask is calculated asP M= (S> ). In order to
|
||||
control the sparsity level, we add a regularization termR(S) = mvp (Si;j i;j )which encourages
|
||||
the importance scores to decrease over time 1 . The coefficient mvp controls the penalty intensity and
|
||||
thus the sparsity level.
|
||||
Finally we note that these approaches yield a similar updateL0 regularization based pruning, another
|
||||
movement based pruning approach [Louizos et al., 2017]. Instead of straight-through,L0 uses the
|
||||
hard-concretedistribution, where the maskMis sampled for alli;jwith hyperparametersb >0,
|
||||
l <0, andr >1: u U(0;1) Si;j = (log(u) log(1 u) +Si;j )=b
|
||||
Zi;j = (r l)Si;j +l M i;j = min(1;ReLU(Zi;j ))
|
||||
|
||||
The expectedP L0 norm has a closed form involving the parameters of the hard-concrete: E(L0 ) =
|
||||
logSi;j i;j blog( l=r). Thus, the weights and scores of the model can be optimized in
|
||||
P1 We also experimented with jSi;j i;j jbut it turned out to be harder to tune while giving similar results.
|
||||
|
||||
3 (a) Magnitude pruning (b) Movement pruning
|
||||
Figure 1: During fine-tuning (on MNLI), the weights stay close to their pre-trained values which
|
||||
limits the adaptivity of magnitude pruning. We plot the identity line in black. Pruned weights are
|
||||
plotted in grey. Magnitude pruning selects weights that are far from 0 while movement pruning
|
||||
selects weights that are moving away from 0.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
an end-to-end fashion to minimize the sum of the training lossLand the expectedL0 penalty. A
|
||||
coefficient l0 controls theL0 penalty and indirectly the sparsity level. Gradients take a similar form:
|
||||
@L @L r l= W@S i;j xj f(Si;j )wheref(Si;j ) = S Zi;j 1g (3)
|
||||
i;j @a i b i;j (1 S i;j )1f0
|
||||
|
||||
At test time, a non-stochastic estimation of the mask is used:M^= min 1;ReLU (r l) (S)+l
|
||||
and weights multiplied by 0 can simply be discarded.
|
||||
Table 1 highlights the characteristics of each pruning method. The main differences are in the masking
|
||||
functions, pruning structure, and the final gradient form.
|
||||
|
||||
Method Interpretation In movement pruning, the gradient ofLwith respect toWi;j is given
|
||||
by the standard gradient derivation: @L = @L M@W i;j @a i;j xj . By combining it to Eq(2), we have i @L = @L W@S i;j @W i;j (we omit the binary mask termMi;j for simplicity). From the gradient update in i;j
|
||||
Eq (2),S @Li;j is increasing when <0, which happens in two cases: @S i;j
|
||||
(a) @L <0andW@W i;j >0i;j
|
||||
(b) @L >0andW@W i;j <0i;j
|
||||
It means that during trainingWi;j is increasing while being positive or is decreasing while being
|
||||
negative. It is equivalent to saying thatSi;j is increasing whenWi;j is moving away from 0. Inversely,
|
||||
Si;j is decreasing when @L >0which means thatW@S i;j is shrinking towards 0. i;j
|
||||
While magnitude pruning selects the most important weights as the ones which maximize their
|
||||
distance to 0 (jWi;j j), movement pruning selects the weights which are moving the most away from
|
||||
0 (Si;j ). For this reason, magnitude pruning can be seen as a 0th order method, whereas movement
|
||||
pruning is based on a 1st order signal. In fact,Scan be seen as an accumulator of movement: from
|
||||
equation (2), afterTgradient updates, we have
|
||||
XS(T) @L= )(t) W(t) (4) i;j S (@W i;j i;jt<T
|
||||
|
||||
Figure 1 shows this difference empirically by comparing weight values during fine-tuning against
|
||||
their pre-trained value. As observed by Gordon et al. [2020], fine-tuned weights stay close in absolute
|
||||
value to their initial pre-trained values. For magnitude pruning, this stability around the pre-trained
|
||||
|
||||
4 values implies that we know with high confidence before even fine-tuning which weights will be
|
||||
pruned as the weights with the smallest absolute value at pre-training will likely stay small and be
|
||||
pruned. In contrast, in movement pruning, the pre-trained weights do not have such an awareness of
|
||||
the pruning decision since the selection is made during fine-tuning (moving away from 0), and both
|
||||
low and high values can be pruned. We posit that this is critical for the success of the approach as it
|
||||
is able to prune based on the task-specific data, not only the pre-trained value.
|
||||
|
||||
5 Experimental Setup
|
||||
|
||||
Transfer learning for NLP uses large pre-trained language models that are fine-tuned on target tasks
|
||||
[Ruder et al., 2019, Devlin et al., 2019, Radford et al., 2019, Liu et al., 2019]. We experiment with task-
|
||||
specific pruning ofBERT-base-uncased, a pre-trained model that contains roughly 84M parameters.
|
||||
We freeze the embedding modules and fine-tune the transformer layers and the task-specific head.
|
||||
We perform experiments on three monolingual (English) tasks, which are common benchmarks for
|
||||
the recent progress in transfer learning for NLP: question answering (SQuAD v1.1) [Rajpurkar et al.,
|
||||
2016], natural language inference (MNLI) [Williams et al., 2018], and sentence similarity (QQP)
|
||||
[Iyer et al., 2017]. The datasets respectively contain 8K, 393K, and 364K training examples. SQuAD
|
||||
is formulated as a span extraction task, MNLI and QQP are paired sentence classification tasks.
|
||||
For a given task, we fine-tune the pre-trained model for the same number of updates (between 6
|
||||
and 10 epochs) across pruning methods 2 . We follow Zhu and Gupta [2018] and use a cubic sparsity
|
||||
scheduling for Magnitude Pruning (MaP), Movement Pruning (MvP), and Soft Movement Pruning
|
||||
(SMvP). Adding a few steps of cool-down at the end of pruning empirically improves the performance
|
||||
especially in high sparsity regimes. The schedule forvis:
|
||||
8<vi 0 t < t i
|
||||
v v )3 t (5):f + (vi f )(1 t ti tf
|
||||
n t i t < T tf
|
||||
vf o.w.
|
||||
wheretf is the number of cool-down steps.
|
||||
We compare our results against several state-of-the-art pruning baselines: Reweighted Proximal
|
||||
Pruning (RPP) [Guo et al., 2019] combines re-weightedL1 minimization and Proximal Projection
|
||||
[Parikh and Boyd, 2014] to perform unstructured pruning. LayerDrop [Fan et al., 2020a] leverages
|
||||
structured dropout to prune models at test time. For RPP and LayerDrop, we report results from
|
||||
authors. We also compare our method against the mini-BERT models, a collection of smaller BERT
|
||||
models with varying hyper-parameters [Turc et al., 2019].
|
||||
|
||||
6 Results
|
||||
|
||||
Figure 2 displays the results for the main pruning methods at different levels of pruning on each
|
||||
dataset. First, we observe the consistency of the comparison between magnitude and movement
|
||||
pruning: at low sparsity (more than 70% of remaining weights), magnitude pruning outperforms
|
||||
all methods with little or no loss with respect to the dense model whereas the performance of
|
||||
movement pruning methods quickly decreases even for low sparsity levels. However, magnitude
|
||||
pruning performs poorly with high sparsity, and the performance drops extremely quickly. In contrast,
|
||||
first-order methods show strong performances with less than 15% of remaining weights.
|
||||
Table 2 shows the specific model scores for different methods at high sparsity levels. Magnitude
|
||||
pruning on SQuAD achieves 54.5 F1 with 3% of the weights compared to 73.6 F1 withL0 regular-
|
||||
ization, 76.3 F1 for movement pruning, and 79.9 F1 with soft movement pruning. These experiments
|
||||
indicate that in high sparsity regimes, importance scores derived from the movement accumulated
|
||||
during fine-tuning induce significantly better pruned models compared to absolute values.
|
||||
Next, we compare the difference in performance between first-order methods. We see that straight-
|
||||
through based hard movement pruning (MvP) is comparable withL0 regularization (with a significant
|
||||
gap in favor of movement pruning on QQP). Soft movement pruning (SMvP) consistently outperforms
|
||||
2 Preliminary experiments showed that increasing the number of pruning steps tended to improve the end
|
||||
performance
|
||||
|
||||
5 Figure 2: Comparisons between different pruning methods in high sparsity regimes.Soft move-
|
||||
ment pruning consistently outperforms other methods in high sparsity regimes.We plot the
|
||||
performance of the standard fine-tuned BERT along with 95% of its performance.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
Table 2: Performance at high sparsity levels. (Soft) movement pruning outperforms current
|
||||
state-of-the art pruning methods at different high sparsity levels.
|
||||
|
||||
BERT base Remaining
|
||||
fine-tuned Weights (%) MaP L0 Regu MvP soft MvP
|
||||
SQuAD - Dev 10% 67.7/78.5 69.9/80.1 71.9/81.7 71.3/81.580.4/88.1EM/F1 3% 40.1/54.5 61.6/73.6 65.2/76.3 69.6/79.9
|
||||
MNLI - Dev 10% 77.8/79.0 77.9/78.5 79.3/79.5 80.7/81.2acc/MM acc 84.5/84.9 3% 68.9/69.8 75.2/75.6 76.1/76.7 79.0/79.7
|
||||
QQP - Dev 10% 78.8/75.1 87.6/81.9 89.1/85.5 90.2/86.891.4/88.4acc/F1 3% 72.1/58.4 86.5/81.1 85.6/81.0 89.2/85.5
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
hard movement pruning andL0 regularization by a strong margin and yields the strongest performance
|
||||
among all pruning methods in high sparsity regimes. These comparisons support the fact that even if
|
||||
movement pruning (and its relaxed version soft movement pruning) is simpler thanL0 regularization,
|
||||
it yet yields stronger performances for the same compute budget.
|
||||
Finally, movement pruning and soft movement pruning compare favorably to the other baselines, ex-
|
||||
cept for QQP where RPP is on par with soft movement pruning. Movement pruning also outperforms
|
||||
the fine-tuned mini-BERT models. This is coherent with [Li et al., 2020]: it is both more efficient and
|
||||
more effective to train a large model and compress it afterward than training a smaller model from
|
||||
scratch. We do note though that current hardware does not support optimized inference for sparse
|
||||
models: from an inference speed perspective, it might often desirable to use a small dense model
|
||||
such as mini-BERT over a sparse alternative of the same size.
|
||||
|
||||
Distillation further boosts performance Following previous work, we can further leverage knowl-
|
||||
edge distillation [Bucila et al., 2006, Hinton et al., 2014] to boost performance for free in the pruned
|
||||
domain [Jiao et al., 2019, Sanh et al., 2019] using our baseline fine-tunedBERT-basemodel as
|
||||
teacher. The training objective is a linear combination of the training loss and a knowledge distillation
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
Figure 3: Comparisons between different pruning methods augmented with distillation.Distillation
|
||||
improves the performance across all pruning methods and sparsity levels.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
6 Table 3: Distillation-augmented performances for selected high sparsity levels.All pruning methods
|
||||
benefit from distillation signal further enhancing the ratio Performance VS Model Size.
|
||||
|
||||
BERT base Remaining
|
||||
fine-tuned Weights (%) MaP L0 Regu MvP soft MvP
|
||||
SQuAD - Dev 10% 70.2/80.1 72.4/81.9 75.6/84.3 76.6/84.980.4/88.1EM/F1 3% 45.5/59.6 65.5/75.9 67.5/78.0 72.9/82.4
|
||||
MNLI - Dev 10% 78.3/79.3 78.7/79.8 80.1/80.4 81.2/81.8acc/MM acc 84.5/84.9 3% 69.4/70.6 76.2/76.5 76.5/77.4 79.6/80.2
|
||||
QQP - Dev 10% 79.8/65.0 88.1/82.8 89.7/86.2 90.5/87.191.4/88.4acc/F1 3% 72.4/57.8 87.1/82.0 86.1/81.5 89.3/85.6
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
(a) Distribution of remaining weights (b) Scores and weights learned by
|
||||
movement pruning
|
||||
Figure 4: Magnitude pruning and movement pruning leads to pruned models with radically different
|
||||
weight distribution.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
loss on the output distributions. Figure 3 shows the results on SQuAD, MNLI, and QQP for the three
|
||||
pruning methods boosted with distillation. Overall, we observe that the relative comparisons of the
|
||||
pruning methods remain unchanged while the performances are strictly increased. Table 3 shows for
|
||||
instance that on SQuAD, movement pruning at 10% goes from 81.7 F1 to 84.3 F1. When combined
|
||||
with distillation, soft movement pruning yields the strongest performances across all pruning methods
|
||||
and studied datasets: it reaches 95% ofBERT-basewith only a fraction of the weights in the encoder
|
||||
( 5% on SQuAD and MNLI).
|
||||
|
||||
7 Analysis
|
||||
|
||||
Movement pruning is adaptive Figure 4a compares the distribution of the remaining weights for
|
||||
the same matrix of a model pruned at the same sparsity using magnitude and movement pruning. We
|
||||
observe that by definition, magnitude pruning removes all the weights that are close to zero, ending
|
||||
up with two clusters. In contrast, movement pruning leads to a smoother distribution, which covers
|
||||
the whole interval except for values close to 0.
|
||||
Figure 4b displays each individual weight against its associated importance score in movement
|
||||
pruning. We plot pruned weights in grey. We observe that movement pruning induces no simple
|
||||
relationship between the scores and the weights. Both weights with high absolute value or low
|
||||
absolute value can be considered important. However, high scores are systematically associated with
|
||||
non-zero weights (and thus the “v-shape”). This is coherent with the interpretation we gave to the
|
||||
scores (section 4): a high scoreSindicates that during fine-tuning, the associated weight moved away
|
||||
from 0 and is thus non-null.
|
||||
|
||||
Local and global masks perform similarly We study the influence of the locality of the pruning
|
||||
decision. While local Top v selects thev% most important weights matrix by matrix, global Top v uncovers non-uniform sparsity patterns in the network by selecting thev% most important weights in
|
||||
|
||||
7 Figure 5: Comparison of local and global selec- Figure 6:Remaining weights per layer in thetions of weights on SQuAD at different sparsity Transformer.Global magnitude pruning tends tolevels.For magnitude and movement pruning, prune uniformly layers. Global 1st order meth-local and global Top v performs similarly at all ods allocate the weight to the lower layers whilelevels of sparsity. heavily pruning the highest layers.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
the whole network. Previous work has shown that a non-uniform sparsity across layers is crucial to
|
||||
the performance in high sparsity regimes [He et al., 2018]. In particular, Mallya and Lazebnik [2018]
|
||||
found that the sparsity tends to increase with the depth of the network layer.
|
||||
Figure 5 compares the performance of local selection (matrix by matrix) against global selection
|
||||
(all the matrices) for magnitude pruning and movement pruning. Despite being able to find a
|
||||
global sparsity structure, we found that global did not significantly outperform local, except in high
|
||||
sparsity regimes (2.3 F1 points of difference with 3% of remaining weights for movement pruning).
|
||||
Even though the distillation signal boosts the performance of pruned models, the end performance
|
||||
difference between local and global selections remains marginal.
|
||||
Figure 6 shows the remaining weights percentage obtained per layer when the model is pruned until
|
||||
10% with global pruning methods. Global weight pruning is able to allocate sparsity non-uniformly
|
||||
through the network, and it has been shown to be crucial for the performance in high sparsity regimes
|
||||
[He et al., 2018]. We notice that except for global magnitude pruning, all the global pruning methods
|
||||
tend to allocate a significant part of the weights to the lowest layers while heavily pruning in the
|
||||
highest layers. Global magnitude pruning tends to prune similarly to local magnitude pruning, i.e.,
|
||||
uniformly across layers.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
8 Conclusion
|
||||
|
||||
We consider the case of pruning of pretrained models for task-specific fine-tuning and compare
|
||||
zeroth- and first-order pruning methods. We show that a simple method for weight pruning based on
|
||||
straight-through gradients is effective for this task and that it adapts using a first-order importance
|
||||
score. We apply this movement pruning to a transformer-based architecture and empirically show that
|
||||
our method consistently yields strong improvements over existing methods in high-sparsity regimes.
|
||||
The analysis demonstrates how this approach adapts to the fine-tuning regime in a way that magnitude
|
||||
pruning cannot. In future work, it would also be interesting to leverage group-sparsity inducing
|
||||
penalties [Bach et al., 2011] to remove entire columns or filters. In this setup, we would associate a
|
||||
score to a group of weights (a column or a row for instance). In the transformer architecture, it would
|
||||
give a systematic way to perform feature selection and remove entire columns of the embedding
|
||||
matrix.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
References
|
||||
Colin Raffel, Noam Shazeer, Adam Roberts, Katherine Lee, Sharan Narang, Michael Matena, Yanqi
|
||||
Zhou, Wei Li, and Peter J. Liu. Exploring the limits of transfer learning with a unified text-to-text
|
||||
transformer.ArXiv, abs/1910.10683, 2019.
|
||||
|
||||
8 Emma Strubell, Ananya Ganesh, and Andrew McCallum. Energy and policy considerations for deep
|
||||
learning in nlp. InACL, 2019.
|
||||
Song Han, Jeff Pool, John Tran, and William J. Dally. Learning both weights and connections for
|
||||
efficient neural network. InNIPS, 2015.
|
||||
Song Han, Huizi Mao, and William J. Dally. Deep compression: Compressing deep neural network
|
||||
with pruning, trained quantization and huffman coding. InICLR, 2016.
|
||||
Yiwen Guo, Anbang Yao, and Yurong Chen. Dynamic network surgery for efficient dnns. InNIPS,
|
||||
2016.
|
||||
Trevor Gale, Erich Elsen, and Sara Hooker. The state of sparsity in deep neural networks.ArXiv,
|
||||
abs/1902.09574, 2019.
|
||||
Jonathan Frankle, Gintare Karolina Dziugaite, Daniel M. Roy, and Michael Carbin. The lottery ticket
|
||||
hypothesis at scale.ArXiv, abs/1903.01611, 2019.
|
||||
Yoshua Bengio, Nicholas Léonard, and Aaron C. Courville. Estimating or propagating gradients
|
||||
through stochastic neurons for conditional computation.ArXiv, abs/1308.3432, 2013.
|
||||
Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. Bert: Pre-training of deep
|
||||
bidirectional transformers for language understanding. InNAACL, 2019.
|
||||
Ashish Vaswani, Noam Shazeer, Niki Parmar, Jakob Uszkoreit, Llion Jones, Aidan N. Gomez, Lukasz
|
||||
Kaiser, and Illia Polosukhin. Attention is all you need. InNIPS, 2017.
|
||||
Christos Louizos, Max Welling, and Diederik P. Kingma. Learning sparse neural networks through
|
||||
l0 regularization. InICLR, 2017.
|
||||
Adina Williams, Nikita Nangia, and Samuel Bowman. A broad-coverage challenge corpus for
|
||||
sentence understanding through inference. InNAACL, 2018.
|
||||
Pranav Rajpurkar, Jian Zhang, Konstantin Lopyrev, and Percy Liang. Squad: 100, 000+ questions for
|
||||
machine comprehension of text. InEMNLP, 2016.
|
||||
Arun Mallya and Svetlana Lazebnik. Piggyback: Adding multiple tasks to a single, fixed network by
|
||||
learning to mask.ArXiv, abs/1801.06519, 2018.
|
||||
Vivek Ramanujan, Mitchell Wortsman, Aniruddha Kembhavi, Ali Farhadi, and Mohammad Rastegari.
|
||||
What’s hidden in a randomly weighted neural network? InCVPR, 2020.
|
||||
Yann LeCun, John S. Denker, and Sara A. Solla. Optimal brain damage. InNIPS, 1989.
|
||||
Babak Hassibi, David G. Stork, and Gregory J. Wolff. Optimal brain surgeon: Extensions and
|
||||
performance comparisons. InNIPS, 1993.
|
||||
Lucas Theis, Iryna Korshunova, Alykhan Tejani, and Ferenc Huszár. Faster gaze prediction with
|
||||
dense networks and fisher pruning.ArXiv, abs/1801.05787, 2018.
|
||||
Xiaohan Ding, Guiguang Ding, Xiangxin Zhou, Yuchen Guo, Ji Liu, and Jungong Han. Global sparse
|
||||
momentum sgd for pruning very deep neural networks. InNeurIPS, 2019.
|
||||
Victor Sanh, Lysandre Debut, Julien Chaumond, and Thomas Wolf. Distilbert, a distilled version of
|
||||
bert: smaller, faster, cheaper and lighter. InNeurIPS EMC2 Workshop, 2019.
|
||||
Raphael Tang, Yao Lu, Linqing Liu, Lili Mou, Olga Vechtomova, and Jimmy Lin. Distilling
|
||||
task-specific knowledge from bert into simple neural networks.ArXiv, abs/1903.12136, 2019.
|
||||
Angela Fan, Edouard Grave, and Armand Joulin. Reducing transformer depth on demand with
|
||||
structured dropout. InICLR, 2020a.
|
||||
Paul Michel, Omer Levy, and Graham Neubig. Are sixteen heads really better than one? InNeurIPS,
|
||||
2019.
|
||||
|
||||
9 Haonan Yu, Sergey Edunov, Yuandong Tian, and Ari S. Morcos. Playing the lottery with rewards and
|
||||
multiple languages: lottery tickets in rl and nlp. InICLR, 2020.
|
||||
Angela Fan, Pierre Stock, Benjamin Graham, Edouard Grave, Rémi Gribonval, Hervé Jégou,
|
||||
and Armand Joulin. Training with quantization noise for extreme model compression.ArXiv,
|
||||
abs/2004.07320, 2020b.
|
||||
Ofir Zafrir, Guy Boudoukh, Peter Izsak, and Moshe Wasserblat. Q8bert: Quantized 8bit bert.ArXiv,
|
||||
abs/1910.06188, 2019.
|
||||
Yunchao Gong, Liu Liu, Ming Yang, and Lubomir D. Bourdev. Compressing deep convolutional
|
||||
networks using vector quantization.ArXiv, abs/1412.6115, 2014.
|
||||
Zhuohan Li, Eric Wallace, Sheng Shen, Kevin Lin, Kurt Keutzer, Dan Klein, and Joseph E. Gon-
|
||||
zalez. Train large, then compress: Rethinking model size for efficient training and inference of
|
||||
transformers.ArXiv, abs/2002.11794, 2020.
|
||||
Michael Zhu and Suyog Gupta. To prune, or not to prune: exploring the efficacy of pruning for model
|
||||
compression. InICLR, 2018.
|
||||
Mitchell A. Gordon, Kevin Duh, and Nicholas Andrews. Compressing bert: Studying the effects of
|
||||
weight pruning on transfer learning.ArXiv, abs/2002.08307, 2020.
|
||||
Sebastian Ruder, Matthew E. Peters, Swabha Swayamdipta, and Thomas Wolf. Transfer learning in
|
||||
natural language processing. InNAACL, 2019.
|
||||
Alec Radford, Jeff Wu, Rewon Child, David Luan, Dario Amodei, and Ilya Sutskever. Language
|
||||
models are unsupervised multitask learners. 2019.
|
||||
Yinhan Liu, Myle Ott, Naman Goyal, Jingfei Du, Mandar Joshi, Danqi Chen, Omer Levy, Mike
|
||||
Lewis, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Veselin Stoyanov. Roberta: A robustly optimized bert pretraining
|
||||
approach.ArXiv, abs/1907.11692, 2019.
|
||||
Shankar Iyer, Nikhil Dandekar, and Kornel Csernai. First quora dataset release: Question pairs, 2017.
|
||||
URLhttps://data.quora.com/First-Quora-Dataset-Release-Question-Pairs.
|
||||
Fu-Ming Guo, Sijia Liu, Finlay S. Mungall, Xue Lian Lin, and Yanzhi Wang. Reweighted proximal
|
||||
pruning for large-scale language representation.ArXiv, abs/1909.12486, 2019.
|
||||
Neal Parikh and Stephen P. Boyd. Proximal algorithms.Found. Trends Optim., 1:127–239, 2014.
|
||||
Iulia Turc, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. Well-read students learn better:
|
||||
The impact of student initialization on knowledge distillation.ArXiv, abs/1908.08962, 2019.
|
||||
Cristian Bucila, Rich Caruana, and Alexandru Niculescu-Mizil. Model compression. InKDD, 2006.
|
||||
Geoffrey E. Hinton, Oriol Vinyals, and Jeffrey Dean. Distilling the knowledge in a neural network.
|
||||
InNIPS, 2014.
|
||||
Xiaoqi Jiao, Y. Yin, Lifeng Shang, Xin Jiang, Xusong Chen, Linlin Li, Fang Wang, and Qun Liu.
|
||||
Tinybert: Distilling bert for natural language understanding.ArXiv, abs/1909.10351, 2019.
|
||||
Yihui He, Ji Lin, Zhijian Liu, Hanrui Wang, Li-Jia Li, and Song Han. Amc: Automl for model
|
||||
compression and acceleration on mobile devices. InECCV, 2018.
|
||||
Francis Bach, Rodolphe Jenatton, Julien Mairal, and Guillaume Obozinski. Structured sparsity
|
||||
through convex optimization.Statistical Science, 27, 09 2011. doi: 10.1214/12-STS394.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
10 A Appendices
|
||||
|
||||
A.1 Guarantees on the decrease of the training loss
|
||||
|
||||
As the scores are updated, the relative order of the importances is likely shuffled, and some connections
|
||||
will be replaced by more important ones. Under certain conditions, we are able to formally prove that
|
||||
as these replacements happen, the training loss is guaranteed to decrease. Our proof is adapted from
|
||||
[Ramanujan et al., 2020] to consider the case of fine-tuableW.
|
||||
We suppose that (a) the training lossLis smooth and admits a first-order Taylor development
|
||||
everywhere it is defined and (b) the learning rate ofW( W >0) is small. We define the TopK
|
||||
function as the analog of the Top v function, wherekis an integer instead of a proportion. We first
|
||||
consider the case wherek= 1in the TopK masking, meaning that only one connection is remaining
|
||||
(and the other weights are deactivated/masked). Let’s denoteWi;j this sole remaining connection at
|
||||
stept. Following Eq (1), it means that81 u;v n;S (t)u;v S(t) .i;j
|
||||
We suppose that at stept+ 1, connections are swapped and the only remaining connection at step
|
||||
t+ 1is(k;l). We have:
|
||||
(
|
||||
Att; 81 u;v n;S (t)u;v S(t)
|
||||
i;j (6) Att+ 1; 81 u;v n;S (t+1)u;v S(t+1)
|
||||
k;l
|
||||
|
||||
Eq(6)gives the following inequality:S(t+1) S(t) S(t+1) S(t) . After re-injecting the gradient k;l k;l i;j i;j update in Eq (2), we have:
|
||||
@L ) @L
|
||||
S W(t x (7)@a k;l l S W(t) x
|
||||
k @a i;j ji
|
||||
|
||||
Moreover, the conditions in Eq(6)lead to the following inferences:a(t) =W(t) x a(t+1) =i i;j j and k
|
||||
W(t+1) xk;l l .
|
||||
|
||||
Since t)W is small,jj(a(t+1) ;a (t+1) ) (a( ;a (t) )jj i k i k 2 is also small. Because the training lossLis
|
||||
smooth, we can write the 1st order Taylor development ofLin point(a(t) ;a (t) ):i k
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
L(a(t+1) ;a (t+1) ) L(a(t) ;a (t) )i k i k
|
||||
@L (a(t+1) a(t) @L) + (a(t+1) a(t) )@a k kk @a i ii
|
||||
@L= W(t+1) @Lx W(t) x@a k;l l
|
||||
k @a i;j ji
|
||||
@L @L @L (8) = W(t+1) x W(t) @Lx (t) x@a k;l l + ( W(t) x
|
||||
k @a k;l l +
|
||||
k @a k;l l ) Wi;j jk @a i
|
||||
@L= (W(t+1) x ) @L
|
||||
@a k;l l W(t) @Lx xk;l l ) + ( W(t
|
||||
k @a k;l l W(t) x
|
||||
k @a i;j j )
|
||||
i
|
||||
@L @L @L @L= x (S(t) ) x@a l ( W x k;l ) + ( W(t) l W(t) x
|
||||
k @a l m
|
||||
k @a k;lk @a i;j j )
|
||||
i
|
||||
The first term is null because of inequalities(6)and the second term is negative because of inequality
|
||||
(7). ThusL(a(t+1) ;a (t+1) ) L(a(t) ;a (t) ): when connection(k;l)becomes more important than i k i (i;j), the connections are swapped and the training loss decreases between step k tandt+ 1. Similarly, we can generalize the proof to a setE=f(ai ;b i );(ci ;d i );i Ng ofNswapping
|
||||
connections.
|
||||
We note that this proof is not specific to theTopKmasking function. In fact, we can extend the proof
|
||||
using theThresholdmasking functionM:= (S>= )[Mallya and Lazebnik, 2018]. Inequalities
|
||||
(6) are still valid and the proof stays unchanged.
|
||||
|
||||
11 Last, we note these guarantees do not hold if we consider the absolute value of the scoresjSi;j j(as
|
||||
it is done in Ding et al. [2019] for instance). We prove it by contradiction. If it was the case, it
|
||||
would also be true one specific case: thenegative thresholdmasking function (M:= (S< )where
|
||||
<0).
|
||||
We suppose that at stept+ 1, the only remaining connection(i;j)is replaced by(k;l):
|
||||
(
|
||||
Att; 81 u;v n;S (t) S(t)
|
||||
i;j u;v (9)Att+ 1; 81 u;v n;S (t+1) S(t+1)
|
||||
k;l u;v
|
||||
|
||||
The inequality on the gradient update becomes: @LS W(t) x@a k k;l l < @LS W@a i;j xj and following i
|
||||
the same development as in Eq(8), we haveL(a(t+1) ;a (t+1) ) L(a(t) ;a (t) ) 0: the loss increases. i k i We proved by contradiction that the guarantees on the decrease of the loss do not hold if we consider k
|
||||
the absolute value of the score as a proxy for importance.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
12
|
||||
|
|
@ -1,150 +0,0 @@
|
|||
Network Pruning
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
As one of the earliest works in network pruning, Yann Lecun's Optimal brain
|
||||
damage (OBD) paper has been cited in many of the papers.
|
||||
Some research focuses on module network designs. "These models, such as
|
||||
SqueezeNet , MobileNet and Shufflenet, are basically made up of low resolutions
|
||||
convolution with lesser parameters and better performance."
|
||||
Many recent papers -I've read- ephasize on structured pruning (or sparsifying) as a
|
||||
compression and regularization method, as opposed to other techniques such as
|
||||
non-structured pruning (weight sparsifying and connection pruning), low rank
|
||||
approximation and vector quantization (references to these approaches can be
|
||||
found in the related work sections of the following papers).
|
||||
Difference between structred and non-structured pruning:
|
||||
"Non-structured pruning aims to remove single parameters that have little
|
||||
influence on the accuracy of networks". For example, L1-norm regularization on
|
||||
weights is noted as non-structured pruning- since it's basically a weight
|
||||
sparsifying method, i.e removes single parameter.
|
||||
The term 'structure' refers to a structured unit in the network. So instead of
|
||||
pruning individual weights or connections, structured pruning targets neurons,
|
||||
filters, channels, layers etc. But the general implementation idea is the same as
|
||||
penalizing individual weights: introducing a regularization term (mostly in the
|
||||
form of L1-norm) to the loss function to penalize (sparsify) structures.
|
||||
I focused on structured pruning and read through the following papers:
|
||||
|
||||
1. Structured Pruning of Convolutional Neural Networks via L1
|
||||
Regularization (August 2019)
|
||||
"(...) network pruning is useful to remove redundant parameters, filters,
|
||||
channels or neurons, and address the over-fitting issue."
|
||||
|
||||
Provides a good review of previous work on non-structured and structured
|
||||
pruning.
|
||||
"This study presents a scheme to prune filters or neurons of fully-connected
|
||||
layers based on L1 regularization to zero out the weights of some filters or
|
||||
neurons."
|
||||
Didn't quite understand the method and implementation. There are two key
|
||||
elements: mask and threshold. "(...) the problem of zeroing out the values of
|
||||
some filters can be transformed to zero some mask." || "Though the proposed
|
||||
method introduces mask, the network topology will be preserved because the mask can be absorbed into weight." || "Here the mask value cannot be
|
||||
completely zeroed in practical application, because the objective function (7) is
|
||||
non-convex and the global optimal solution may not be obtained. A strategy is
|
||||
adopted in the proposed method to solve this problem. If the order of
|
||||
magnitude of the mask value is small enough, it can be considered almost as
|
||||
zero. Thus, to decide whether the mask is zero, a threshold is introduced. (...)
|
||||
The average value of the product of the mask and the weight is used to
|
||||
determine whether the mask is exactly zero or not."
|
||||
From what I understand they use L1 norm in the loss function to penalize
|
||||
useless filters through peenalizing masks. And a threshold value is introduced
|
||||
to determine when the mask is small enough to be considered zero.
|
||||
They test on MNIST (models: Lenet-5) and CIFAR-10 (models: VGG-16, ResNet-
|
||||
32)
|
||||
|
||||
2. Learning Efficient Convolutional Networks through Network Slimming (August
|
||||
2017) + Git repo
|
||||
"Our approach imposes L1 regular- ization on the scaling factors in batch
|
||||
normalization (BN) layers, thus it is easy to implement without introducing any
|
||||
change to existing CNN architectures. Pushing the values of BN scaling factors
|
||||
towards zero with L1 regularization enables us to identify insignificant channels
|
||||
(or neurons), as each scaling factor corresponds to a specific con- volutional
|
||||
channel (or a neuron in a fully-connected layer)."
|
||||
They provide a good insight on advantages and disadvantages of other
|
||||
computation reduction methods such as low rank approximation, vector
|
||||
quantization etc.
|
||||
I belive here they use the word 'channel' to refer to filters (?).
|
||||
"Our idea is introducing a scaling factor γ for each channel, which is multiplied
|
||||
to the output of that channel. Then we jointly train the network weights and
|
||||
these scaling factors, with sparsity regularization imposed on the latter. Finally
|
||||
|
||||
we prune those channels with small factors, and fine-tune the pruned network.
|
||||
" --> so instead of 'mask' they use the 'scaling factor' and impose regularization
|
||||
on that, but the idea is very similar.
|
||||
"The way BN normalizes the activations motivates us to design a simple and
|
||||
efficient method to incorporates the channel-wise scaling factors. Particularly,
|
||||
BN layer normalizes the internal activa- tions using mini-batch statistics." || "
|
||||
(...) we can directly leverage the γ parameters in BN layers as the scaling factors
|
||||
we need for network slim- ming. It has the great advantage of introducing no
|
||||
overhead to the network." They test on CIFAR and SVHN (models: VGG-16, ResNet-164, DenseNet-40),
|
||||
ImageNet (model: VGG-A) and MNIST (model: Lenet)
|
||||
|
||||
3. Learning Structured Sparsity in Deep Neural Networks (Oct 2016) + Git repo
|
||||
" (...) we propose Structured Sparsity Learning (SSL) method to directly learn a
|
||||
compressed structure of deep CNNs by group Lasso regularization during the
|
||||
training. SSL is a generic regularization to adaptively adjust mutiple structures
|
||||
in DNN, including structures of filters, channels, and filter shapes within each
|
||||
layer, and structure of depth beyond the layers." || " (...) offering not only well-
|
||||
regularized big models with improved accuracy but greatly accelerated
|
||||
computation."
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
"Here W represents the collection of all weights in the DNN; ED(W) is the loss
|
||||
on data; R(·) is non-structured regularization applying on every weight, e.g., L2-
|
||||
norm; and Rg(·) is the structured sparsity regularization on each layer. Because
|
||||
Group Lasso can effectively zero out all weights in some groups [14][15], we
|
||||
adopt it in our SSL. The regularization of group Lasso on a set of weights w can
|
||||
be represented as
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
, where w(g) is a group of partial weights in w and G is the total number of
|
||||
groups. " || "In SSL, the learned “structure” is decided by the way of splitting
|
||||
groups of w(g). We investigate and formulate the filer-wise, channel-wise,
|
||||
shape-wise, and depth-wise structured sparsity (...)"
|
||||
They test on MNIST (models: Lenet, MLP), CIFAR-10 (models: ConvNet, ResNet-
|
||||
20) and ImageNet (model:AlexNet)
|
||||
The authors also provide a visualization of filters after pruning, showing that
|
||||
only important detectors of patterns remain after pruning.
|
||||
|
||||
In conclusions: "Moreover, a variant of SSL can be performed as structure
|
||||
regularization to improve classification accuracy of state-of-the-art DNNs."
|
||||
|
||||
4. Learning both Weights and Connections for Efficient Neural Networks (Oct 2015)
|
||||
"After an initial training phase, we remove all connections whose weight is
|
||||
lower than a threshold. This pruning converts a dense, fully-connected layer to
|
||||
a sparse layer." || "We then retrain the sparse network so the remaining
|
||||
connections can compensate for the connections that have been removed. The
|
||||
phases of pruning and retraining may be repeated iteratively to further reduce network complexity. In effect, this training process learns the network
|
||||
connectivity in addition to the weights (...)"
|
||||
Although the description above implies the pruning was done only for FC
|
||||
layers, they also do pruning on convolutional layers - although they don't
|
||||
provide much detail on this in the methods. But there's this statement when
|
||||
they explain retraining: "(...) we fix the parameters for CONV layers and only
|
||||
retrain the FC layers after pruning the FC layers, and vice versa.". The results
|
||||
section also shows that convolutional layer connections were also
|
||||
pruned on the tested models.
|
||||
They test on MNIST (models: Lenet-300-100 (MLP), Lenet-5 (CNN)) and
|
||||
ImageNet (models: AlexNet, VGG-16)
|
||||
The authors provide a visualization of the sparsity patterns of neurons after
|
||||
pruning (for an FC layer) which shows that pruning can detect visual attention
|
||||
regions.
|
||||
The method used in this paper targets individual parameters (weights) to
|
||||
prune. So, technically this should be considered as a non-structured pruning
|
||||
method. However, the reason I think this is referenced as a structured pruning
|
||||
method is that if all connections of a neuron is pruned (i.e all input and output
|
||||
weights were below threshold), the neuron itself will be removed from the
|
||||
network: "After pruning connections, neurons with zero input connections or
|
||||
zero output connections may be safely pruned."
|
||||
SIDENOTE: They touch on the use of global average pooling instead of fully
|
||||
connected layers in CNNs: "There have been other attempts to reduce the
|
||||
number of parameters of neural networks by replacing the fully connected
|
||||
layer with global average pooling."
|
||||
|
||||
5. Many more can be picked from the references of these papers.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
There's a paper on Bayesion compression for Deep Learning from 2017. Their
|
||||
hypothesis is: "By employing sparsity inducing priors for hidden units (and not
|
||||
individual weights) we can prune neurons including all their ingoing and outgoing
|
||||
weights." However, the method is mathematically heavy and the related work
|
||||
references are quite old (1990s, 2000s).
|
||||
Binary file not shown.
File diff suppressed because it is too large
Load Diff
Binary file not shown.
Binary file not shown.
Binary file not shown.
Binary file not shown.
Loading…
Reference in New Issue