Winning the Lottery with Continuous Sparsification
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The search for efficient, sparse deep neural network models is most prominently performed by pruning: training a dense, overparameterized network and removing parameters, usually via following a manually-crafted heuristic. Additionally, the recent Lottery Ticket Hypothesis conjectures that, for a typically-sized neural network, it is possible to find small sub-networks which, when trained from scratch on a comparable budget, match the performance of the original dense counterpart. We revisit fundamental aspects of pruning algorithms, pointing out missing ingredients in previous approaches, and develop a method, Continuous Sparsification, which searches for sparse networks based on a novel approximation of an intractable $\ell_0$ regularization. We compare against dominant heuristic-based methods on pruning as well as ticket search -- finding sparse subnetworks that can be successfully re-trained from an early iterate. Empirical results show that we surpass the state-of-the-art for both objectives, across models and datasets, including VGG trained on CIFAR-10 and ResNet-50 trained on ImageNet. In addition to setting a new standard for pruning, Continuous Sparsification also offers fast parallel ticket search, opening doors to new applications of the Lottery Ticket Hypothesis.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".