Papers › Are Straight-Through gradients and Soft-Thresholding all you need for Sparse Training?

Are Straight-Through gradients and Soft-Thresholding all you need for Sparse Training?

2 Dec 2022arXiv:2212.01076archive 2025-07-28

Antoine Vanderschueren, Christophe De Vleeschouwer

Turning the weights to zero when training a neural network helps in reducing the computational complexity at inference. To progressively increase the sparsity ratio in the network without causing sharp weight discontinuities during training, our work combines soft-thresholding and straight-through gradient estimation to update the raw, i.e. non-thresholded, version of zeroed weights. Our method, named ST-3 for straight-through/soft-thresholding/sparse-training, obtains SoA results, both in terms of accuracy/sparsity and accuracy/FLOPS trade-offs, when progressively increasing the sparsity ratio in a single training cycle. In particular, despite its simplicity, ST-3 favorably compares to the most recent methods, adopting differentiable formulations or bio-inspired neuroregeneration principles. This suggests that the key ingredients for effective sparsification primarily lie in the ability to give the weights the freedom to evolve smoothly across the zero state while progressively increasing the sparsity ratio. Source code and weights available at https://github.com/vanderschuea/stthree

PaperPDFCode

Code

vanderschuea/stthree officialmentioned in papermentioned on GitHubpytorch report

Repository list and official/mentioned flags are the archive's, frozen 2025-07-28. Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.

Code Syntology ran Syntology

Not run by Syntology. Nothing on this page verifies that the listed code works.

Tasks

AllImage ClassificationNetwork Pruning

Results from the paper archive 2025-07-28

TaskDatasetModelMetricValueRank at snapshotLeaderboardReport
Network Pruning ImageNet - ResNet 50 - 90% sparsity ST-3 Top-1 Accuracy 76.03 #3 of 9 Archive leaderboard report

Ranks are positions in the archive's leaderboards as they stood at the 2025-07-28 snapshot. Results published since then are not among these rows, so a rank here is not a current standing.

Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections