PapersWithELO
← ICLR 2024 leaderboard

Sparse Model Soups: A Recipe for Improved Pruning via Model Averaging

Max Zimmer, Christoph Spiegel, Sebastian Pokutta

self/semi-supervised learningpruningretrainingmodel averagingneural networks
42.10100
Fused
band ≈ ±14 pct pts (from σ = 0.28)
37.00100
Mimo
band ≈ ±20 pct pts (from σ = 0.39)
59.10100
DeepSeek
band ≈ ±20 pct pts (from σ = 0.40)

OpenReview ground truth

Accepted

Abstract

Neural networks can be significantly compressed by pruning, yielding sparse models with reduced storage and computational demands while preserving predictive performance. Model soups (Wortsman et al., 2022) enhance generalization and out-of-distribution (OOD) performance by averaging the parameters of multiple models into a single one, without increasing inference time. However, achieving both sparsity and parameter averaging is challenging as averaging arbitrary sparse models reduces the overall sparsity due to differing sparse connectivities. This work addresses these challenges by demonstrating that exploring a single retraining phase of Iterative Magnitude Pruning (IMP) with varied hyperparameter configurations such as batch ordering or weight decay yields models suitable for averaging, sharing identical sparse connectivity by design. Averaging these models significantly enhances generalization and OOD performance over their individual counterparts. Building on this, we introduce Sparse Model Soups (SMS), a novel method for merging sparse models by initiating each prune-retrain cycle with the averaged model from the previous phase. SMS preserves sparsity, exploits sparse network benefits, is modular and fully parallelizable, and substantially improves IMP's performance. We further demonstrate that SMS can be adapted to enhance state-of-the-art pruning-during-training approaches.

Author context

Most prolific author: 1 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 = 38)