PapersWithELO
← ICLR 2024 leaderboard

BiDST: Dynamic Sparse Training is a Bi-Level Optimization Problem

Jie Ji, Gen Li, Lu Yin, Minghai Qin, Geng Yuan, Linke Guo, Shiwei Liu, Xiaolong Ma

general MLsparse trainingefficient learning algorithm
60.60100
Fused
band ≈ ±14 pct pts (from σ = 0.28)
59.50100
Mimo
band ≈ ±21 pct pts (from σ = 0.41)
59.50100
DeepSeek
band ≈ ±18 pct pts (from σ = 0.36)

OpenReview ground truth

Rejected

Abstract

Dynamic Sparse Training (DST) is an effective approach for addressing the substantial training resource requirements posed by the ever-increasing size of the Deep Neural Networks (DNNs). Characterized by its dynamic ``train-prune-grow'' schedule during training, DST implicitly develops a bi-level structure for training the weights while discovering a subnetwork topology. However, such a structure is consistently overlooked by the current DST algorithms for further optimization opportunities, and these algorithms, on the other hand, solely optimize the weights while determining masks heuristically. In this paper, we extensively study DST algorithms and argue that the training scheme of DST naturally forms a bi-level problem in which the updating of weight and mask is interdependent. Based on this observation, we introduce a novel efficient training framework called BiDST, which for the first time, introduces bi-level optimization methodology into dynamic sparse training domain. Unlike traditional partial-heuristic DST schemes, which suffer from sub-optimal search efficiency for masks and miss the opportunity to fully explore the topological space of neural networks, BiDST excels at discovering excellent sparse patterns by optimizing mask and weight simultaneously, resulting in maximum $2.62$% higher accuracy, $2.1\times$ faster execution speed, and $25\times$ reduced overhead. Code will be released.

Author context

Most prolific author: 9 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.

Judge assessments

Mean overall score 0.0 ± 0.0 (n = 40)