Papers › Good Subnetworks Provably Exist: Pruning via Greedy Forward Selection

Good Subnetworks Provably Exist: Pruning via Greedy Forward Selection

3 Mar 2020arXiv:2003.01794archive 2025-07-28

Mao Ye, Chengyue Gong, Lizhen Nie, Denny Zhou, Adam Klivans, Qiang Liu

Recent empirical works show that large deep neural networks are often highly redundant and one can find much smaller subnetworks without a significant drop of accuracy. However, most existing methods of network pruning are empirical and heuristic, leaving it open whether good subnetworks provably exist, how to find them efficiently, and if network pruning can be provably better than direct training using gradient descent. We answer these problems positively by proposing a simple greedy selection approach for finding good subnetworks, which starts from an empty network and greedily adds important neurons from the large network. This differs from the existing methods based on backward elimination, which remove redundant neurons from the large network. Theoretically, applying the greedy selection strategy on sufficiently large {pre-trained} networks guarantees to find small subnetworks with lower loss than networks directly trained with gradient descent. Our results also apply to pruning randomly weighted networks. Practically, we improve prior arts of network pruning on learning compact neural architectures on ImageNet, including ResNet, MobilenetV2/V3, and ProxylessNet. Our theory and empirical results on MobileNet suggest that we should fine-tune the pruned subnetworks to leverage the information from the large model, instead of re-training from new random initialization as suggested in \citet{liu2018rethinking}.

Code

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

7 samples harvested; 4 ran; 1 honoured the contract we drafted; 3 have no recorded run. Read from Syntology's graph 2026-09-24; that is when this build read the record, not when the samples ran.

Licence: 7 of the 7 samples are pointer only, meaning Syntology does not serve that copy's text. This page shows no code text for any sample; each one links to its file in the repository.

Harvested from lushleaf/Network-Pruning-Greedy-Forward-Selection. “Ran” means the sample executed on a synthesized input. It does not mean the output is correct, and nothing here reproduces the paper's results. “Honoured” and “violated” refer to a contract Syntology drafted from the code itself; “our draft was wrong” and “fixture could not drive it” are failures of Syntology's instrument, not of the code.

Each sample ends with its code_sha256, Syntology's identity for that exact code. An agent fetches the stored sample with Syntology's MCP tool get_code(code_sha256="…") (how to connect); click an identity to copy that call.

Repository labels, per sample. official repository: The archive marks this repository official for the paper. named in the paper: The archive records that the paper mentions this repository; it is not marked official. community (archive-listed): In the archive's code links for this paper, not marked official and not recorded as mentioned in the paper. found in paper text by Syntology: Syntology found this repository in the paper's own text; whether it is the authors' implementation is not asserted. community: Not in the archive's code links for this paper; a community repository Syntology harvested. Samples from a repository marked official are listed first. Licence labels name the repository's licence as recorded at harvest. “Pointer only” means Syntology does not serve that copy's text, for one of four reasons: no licence file was found; the licence was not identified; the licence is recorded as permissive but that copy's record is not marked cleared; or the licence is outside the permissive list Syntology serves text under (MIT, Apache-2.0, BSD and similar). Some licences outside that list permit redistribution, such as WTFPL, and GPL-3.0 under its conditions; they are simply not on the list. Hover a licence label for the reason. File links open the file on GitHub at the default branch, which may have changed since the harvest.

Tasks

Results from the paper archive 2025-07-28

No leaderboard rows for this paper in the archive.

Methods

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