Chasing Sparsity in Vision Transformers: An End-to-End Exploration
Open accessAbstract
Vision transformers (ViTs) have recently received explosive popularity, but their enormous model sizes and training costs remain daunting. Conventional post-training pruning often incurs higher training budgets. In contrast, this paper aims to trim down both the training memory overhead and the inference complexity, without sacrificing the achievable accuracy. We carry out the first-of-its-kind comprehensive exploration, on taking a unified approach of integrating sparsity in ViTs "from end to end". Specifically, instead of training full ViTs, we dynamically extract and train sparse subnetworks, while sticking to a fixed small parameter budget. Our approach jointly optimizes model parameters and explores connectivity throughout training, ending up with one sparse network as the final output. The approach is seamlessly extended from unstructured to structured sparsity, the latter by considering to guide the prune-and-grow of self-attention heads inside ViTs. We further co-explore data and architecture sparsity for additional efficiency gains by plugging in a novel learnable token selector to adaptively determine the currently most vital patches. Extensive results on ImageNet with diverse ViT backbones validate the effectiveness of our proposals which obtain significantly reduced computational cost and almost unimpaired generalization. Perhaps most surprisingly, we find that the proposed sparse (co-)training can sometimes improve the ViT accuracy rather than compromising it, making sparsity a tantalizing "free lunch". For example, our sparsified DeiT-Small at (5%, 50%) sparsity for (data, architecture), improves 0.28% top-1 accuracy, and meanwhile enjoys 49.32% FLOPs and 4.40% running time savings. Our codes are available at https://github.com/VITA-Group/SViTE.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The SViTE end-to-end exploratory methods improve the accuracy of DeiT-small by 0.28% while compressing at least 50% weights.
“The end-to-end exploratory methods improve the accuracy of DeiTsmall by 0.28% while compressing at least 50% weights.”
From A Survey of Techniques for Optimizing Transformer Inference (2023) · cites this paper as [98]
WDPruning, S2ViTE, and SAViT methods increase the accuracy of the compressed model with fewer model parameters on the DeiT-base model.
“For example, WDPruning [99], S 2 ViTE [98], SAViT [65] methods increase the accuracy of the compressed model with less number of model parameters on DeiT-base model.”
From A Survey of Techniques for Optimizing Transformer Inference (2023) · cites this paper as [98]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 95 · Cited by 111
- Authors
- Chen, T., Cheng, Y., Gan, Z., Yuan, L., Zhang, L., & Wang, Z.
- Affiliations
- The University of Texas at Austin (US)
- Microsoft (United States) (US)
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2021
- Volume
- 34
- ISSN
- 2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 2106.04533
- OpenAlex
- W3169769781
- Cited by
- 111
- References
- 95
- Citations by year
- 2025: 18 · 2024: 34 · 2023: 39 · 2022: 16 · 2021: 4
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Locations
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- Funders
- National Science Foundation (2053279)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Advanced Neural Network Applications
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Domain Adaptation and Few-Shot Learning
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Visual Attention and Saliency Detection
- Keywords
- vision transformer, structured sparsity, data sparsity, inference efficiency, DeiT
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review