BZPEERReading, trust and collaboration for research
Menu

Discover

GraphFollow connections around a paper, topic or saved view.

Workspaces

HomePick up where your research flow left off.InboxHandle requests, replies and notifications from one place.CollectionsCurate reading lists, evidence sets and shareable dossiers.ResearchSee your private provenance graph, trail and imports.CollaborationMove from discovery into focused discussion rooms.PublishDraft, preview and publish full-text research articles.

Network

ExpertsFind specialists worth following or asking for help.CommunitiesJoin research circles organized around shared work.PartnersSee external organizations active around the same topics.

Opportunities

ListingsBrowse roles, calls and collaborations with clearer fit signals.

Account

Log inReturn to your reading and collaboration workspace.Create accountStart saving work, following people and joining teams.
Log inCreate account

Researcher profile

Jonathan Frankle

Jonathan Frankle contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate
Machine LearningArtificial IntelligenceNeural and Evolutionary Computing

Trust snapshot

Quick read

Trust 21 - EmergingVerification L1Unclaimed author
8works
0followers
3topics
4close collaborators

Actions

Decide how to stay connected

Follow researcher0

Identity and collaboration

How to connect with this researcher

Claiming links this public author record to a researcher profile and unlocks direct collaboration workflows.

Log in to claim

Direct collaboration

Open a focused conversation when the fit is right

Claim this author entity first to unlock direct invitations.

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent work, topics, institutions and collaborators without jumping out to a separate graph page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Published work

8 published item(s)

preprint2024arXiv

Dataset Difficulty and the Role of Inductive Bias

Motivated by the goals of dataset pruning and defect identification, a growing body of methods have been developed to score individual examples within a dataset. These methods, which we call "example difficulty scores", are typically used to rank or categorize examples, but the consistency of rankings between different training runs, scoring methods, and model architectures is generally unknown. To determine how example rankings vary due to these random and controlled effects, we systematically compare different formulations of scores over a range of runs and model architectures. We find that scores largely share the following traits: they are noisy over individual runs of a model, strongly correlated with a single notion of difficulty, and reveal examples that range from being highly sensitive to insensitive to the inductive biases of certain model architectures. Drawing from statistical genetics, we develop a simple method for fingerprinting model architectures using a few sensitive examples. These findings guide practitioners in maximizing the consistency of their scores (e.g. by choosing appropriate scoring methods, number of runs, and subsets of examples), and establishes comprehensive baselines for evaluating scores in the future.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2022arXiv

Lottery Tickets on a Data Diet: Finding Initializations with Sparse Trainable Networks

A striking observation about iterative magnitude pruning (IMP; Frankle et al. 2020) is that $\unicode{x2014}$ after just a few hundred steps of dense training $\unicode{x2014}$ the method can find a sparse sub-network that can be trained to the same accuracy as the dense network. However, the same does not hold at step 0, i.e. random initialization. In this work, we seek to understand how this early phase of pre-training leads to a good initialization for IMP both through the lens of the data distribution and the loss landscape geometry. Empirically we observe that, holding the number of pre-training iterations constant, training on a small fraction of (randomly chosen) data suffices to obtain an equally good initialization for IMP. We additionally observe that by pre-training only on "easy" training data, we can decrease the number of steps necessary to find a good initialization for IMP compared to training on the full dataset or a randomly chosen subset. Finally, we identify novel properties of the loss landscape of dense networks that are predictive of IMP performance, showing in particular that more examples being linearly mode connected in the dense network correlates well with good initializations for IMP. Combined, these results provide new insight into the role played by the early phase training in IMP.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2022arXiv

Strengthening Subcommunities: Towards Sustainable Growth in AI Research

AI's rapid growth has been felt acutely by scholarly venues, leading to growing pains within the peer review process. These challenges largely center on the inability of specific subareas to identify and evaluate work that is appropriate according to criteria relevant to each subcommunity as determined by stakeholders of that subarea. We set forth a proposal that re-focuses efforts within these subcommunities through a decentralization of the reviewing and publication process. Through this re-centering effort, we hope to encourage each subarea to confront the issues specific to their process of academic publication and incentivization. This model has historically been successful for several subcommunities in AI, and we highlight those instances as examples for how the broader field can continue to evolve despite its continually growing size.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2022arXiv

What can linear interpolation of neural network loss landscapes tell us?

Studying neural network loss landscapes provides insights into the nature of the underlying optimization problems. Unfortunately, loss landscapes are notoriously difficult to visualize in a human-comprehensible fashion. One common way to address this problem is to plot linear slices of the landscape, for example from the initial state of the network to the final state after optimization. On the basis of this analysis, prior work has drawn broader conclusions about the difficulty of the optimization problem. In this paper, we put inferences of this kind to the test, systematically evaluating how linear interpolation and final performance vary when altering the data, choice of initialization, and other optimizer and architecture design choices. Further, we use linear interpolation to study the role played by individual layers and substructures of the network. We find that certain layers are more sensitive to the choice of initialization, but that the shape of the linear path is not indicative of the changes in test accuracy of the model. Our results cast doubt on the broader intuition that the presence or absence of barriers when interpolating necessarily relates to the success of optimization.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

Comparing Rewinding and Fine-tuning in Neural Network Pruning

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.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

Linear Mode Connectivity and the Lottery Ticket Hypothesis

We study whether a neural network optimizes to the same, linearly connected minimum under different samples of SGD noise (e.g., random data order and augmentation). We find that standard vision models become stable to SGD noise in this way early in training. From then on, the outcome of optimization is determined to a linearly connected region. We use this technique to study iterative magnitude pruning (IMP), the procedure used by work on the lottery ticket hypothesis to identify subnetworks that could have trained in isolation to full accuracy. We find that these subnetworks only reach full accuracy when they are stable to SGD noise, which either occurs at initialization for small-scale settings (MNIST) or early in training for large-scale settings (ResNet-50 and Inception-v3 on ImageNet).

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

The Early Phase of Neural Network Training

Recent studies have shown that many important aspects of neural network learning take place within the very earliest iterations or epochs of training. For example, sparse, trainable sub-networks emerge (Frankle et al., 2019), gradient descent moves into a small subspace (Gur-Ari et al., 2018), and the network undergoes a critical period (Achille et al., 2019). Here, we examine the changes that deep neural networks undergo during this early phase of training. We perform extensive measurements of the network state during these early iterations of training and leverage the framework of Frankle et al. (2019) to quantitatively probe the weight distribution and its reliance on various aspects of the dataset. We find that, within this framework, deep networks are not robust to reinitializing with random weights while maintaining signs, and that weight distributions are highly non-independent even after only a few hundred iterations. Despite this behavior, pre-training with blurred inputs or an auxiliary self-supervised task can approximate the changes in supervised networks, suggesting that these changes are not inherently label-dependent, though labels significantly accelerate this process. Together, these results help to elucidate the network changes occurring during this pivotal initial period of learning.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

What is the State of Neural Network Pruning?

Neural network pruning---the task of reducing the size of a network by removing parameters---has been the subject of a great deal of work in recent years. We provide a meta-analysis of the literature, including an overview of approaches to pruning and consistent findings in the literature. After aggregating results across 81 papers and pruning hundreds of models in controlled conditions, our clearest finding is that the community suffers from a lack of standardized benchmarks and metrics. This deficiency is substantial enough that it is hard to compare pruning techniques to one another or determine how much progress the field has made over the past three decades. To address this situation, we identify issues with current practices, suggest concrete remedies, and introduce ShrinkBench, an open-source framework to facilitate standardized evaluations of pruning methods. We use ShrinkBench to compare various pruning techniques and show that its comprehensive evaluation can prevent common pitfalls when comparing pruning methods.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access