PapersWithELO
← ICLR 2024 leaderboard

Structured Pruning Adapters

Lukas Hedegaard, Aman Alok, Juby Jose, Alexandros Iosifidis

transfer & meta learningStructured PruningAdaptersTransfer LearningComputer VisionConvolutional Neural NetworkTransformerVision Transformer
63.00100
Fused
band ≈ ±15 pct pts (from σ = 0.30)
59.40100
Mimo
band ≈ ±21 pct pts (from σ = 0.43)
67.60100
DeepSeek
band ≈ ±21 pct pts (from σ = 0.41)

OpenReview ground truth

Rejected

TL;DR — The paper shows how adapters can outperform fine-tuning during structured pruning using far fewer learned parameters.

Abstract

Adapters are a parameter-efficient alternative to fine-tuning, which augment a frozen base network to learn new tasks. Yet, the inference of the adapted model is often slower than the corresponding fine-tuned model. To improve on this, we introduce the concept of Structured Pruning Adapters (SPAs), a family of compressing, task-switching network adapters, that accelerate and specialize networks using tiny parameter sets and structured pruning. Specifically, we propose the Structured Pruning Low-rank Adapter (SPLoRA) and the Structured Pruning Residual Adapter (SPPaRA) and evaluate them on a suite of pruning methods, architectures, and image recognition benchmarks. Compared to regular structured pruning with fine-tuning, SPLoRA improves image recognition accuracy by 6.9% on average for ResNet50 while using half the parameters at 90% pruned weights. Alternatively, a SPLoRA augmented model can learn adaptations with 17x fewer parameters at 70% pruning with 1.6% lower accuracy. For ViT-b/16 models, SPLoRA improves accuracy by an average of 43%-points at 75% pruned weights while learning 6.8x fewer parameters. Our experimental code and Python library of adapters are available at link-available-upon-acceptance.

Author context

Most prolific author: 2 submissions (credibility 1.00).

No mass-submission penalty for this paper (authors within normal submission volume).

Aggregate statistics only — no individual author rankings.

Ranking trajectory

Percentile by tournament round — convergence indicates rating stability.

Battle history — 34 comparisons

Ranked above opponent in 51% of matchups.

Judge assessments

Mean overall score 0.0 ± 0.0 (n = 34)