SearcharxivSearch

arXiv · 2111.12621

Accelerating Deep Learning with Dynamic Data Pruning

Abstract

Deep learning's success has been attributed to the training of large, overparameterized models on massive amounts of data. As this trend continues, model training has become prohibitively costly, requiring access to powerful computing systems to train state-of-the-art networks. A large body of research has been devoted to addressing the cost per iteration of training through various model compression techniques like pruning and quantization. Less effort has been spent targeting the number of iterations. Previous work, such as forget scores and GraNd/EL2N scores, address this problem by identifying important samples within a full dataset and pruning the remaining samples, thereby reducing the iterations per epoch. Though these methods decrease the training time, they use expensive static scoring algorithms prior to training. When accounting for the scoring mechanism, the total run time is often increased. In this work, we address this shortcoming with dynamic data pruning algorithms. Surprisingly, we find that uniform random dynamic pruning can outperform the prior work at aggressive pruning rates. We attribute this to the existence of "sometimes" samples -- points that are important to the learned decision boundary only some of the training time. To better exploit the subtlety of sometimes samples, we propose two algorithms, based on reinforcement learning techniques, to dynamically prune samples and achieve even higher accuracy than the random dynamic method. We test all our methods against a full-dataset baseline and the prior work on CIFAR-10 and CIFAR-100, and we can reduce the training time by up to 2x without significant performance loss. Our results suggest that data pruning should be understood as a dynamic process that is closely tied to a model's training trajectory, instead of a static step based solely on the dataset alone.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

Ravi S Raju, Kyle Daruwalla, Mikko Lipasti. 2021-11-24. Accelerating Deep Learning with Dynamic Data Pruning. https://arxiv.org/abs/2111.12621

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

AUC Maximization from Biased Positive-unlabeled Data with Confidence

Maximizing the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) is a standard approach to imbalanced binary classification. Although positive and negative data are required for maximizing the AUC, negative data are often difficult to collect in some real-world applications due to privacy concerns or the need for specialized expertise to annotate them. Thus, AUC maximization from positive and unlabeled (PU) data has been attracting attention. Existing methods assume that labeled positive data are unbiased samples from the true positive distribution. However, this ideal assumption is often violated in practice. In this paper, we propose a method to maximize the AUC from biased PU data. To address the bias, our key idea is to exploit {\it confidence}, i.e., the probability that an instance is positive, associated with the small number of labeled positive data. We derive an estimator of the AUC risk using biased PU data with confidence, enabling AUC maximization under such bias. We further show that the rewritten AUC risk induces a Bayes-optimal AUC ranking even when the available confidence is any strictly increasing transformation of the true posterior probability. We experimentally show the effectiveness of our method on eight real-world datasets.

cs.LG

Measuring the Value of World-Model Updates: A Counterfactual Utility Protocol for Continual Adaptation

Continual world models must decide whether new data justify changing the model. Fixed replay schedules and prediction-error triggers specify when to update, but neither reveals the value of an individual update: one deployment run cannot show how the same model would have performed at that moment had it held its parameters. We introduce the fork ledger, which branches a deployment stream at pre-registered decision points into matched update and hold continuations under common random numbers. It evaluates both continuations on the same episodes and records $\Delta R = R_{\mathrm{update}} - R_{\mathrm{hold}}$. Always applying one fixed update mechanism lowers return on all three simulated control tasks: CartPole ($-144.0$; checkpoint-bootstrap $95\%$ CI $[-185.4,-116.1]$, against a converged return near $650$), Walker ($-82.8$; $[-101.1,-61.7]$) and Cheetah ($-18.6$; $[-29.0,-6.6]$). Divergence is an outcome of applying the update, so the estimand counts every attempted fork; restricted to the $693$ of $720$ that did not collapse, CartPole and Walker are unchanged in sign ($-113.4$ and $-82.1$) and Cheetah becomes unresolved ($-3.9$; $[-17.5,+13.0]$). The task is the unit of inference: each contributes $240$ attempted forks over five pretrained checkpoints crossed with two drift directions. The ledger makes counterfactual utility observable for a fixed mechanism, allowing triggers to be judged by the updates they select rather than by surprise detection alone.

cs.LG

When More Is Not Better: Component Anti-Synergy in a P300 Speller

P300 brain-computer interface (BCI) spellers can provide hands-free communication for people with severe motor impairments. Modern pipelines combine multiple individually promising components, often assuming that 'more-is-better'. We tested this assumption using a four-component full-factorial experiment varying the inclusion of Euclidean Alignment (EA), xDAWN spatial filtering, subject calibration, and language model priors on a public P300 dataset. Performance was evaluated using accuracy, repetitions, and information transfer rate (ITR) with mixed-effects models. Results show that the value of components is conditional rather than additive. Calibration was the strongest singular contributor, while EA compensated for its absence in zero-calibration settings. Adding independently useful components could also reduce performance, revealing component anti-synergy. Contrary to conventional wisdom, LM support was not universally beneficial: its effect depends strongly on the strength of the underlying EEG pipeline, while results from a larger LM showed a similar pattern. Together, these findings challenge maximal 'all-on' pipeline design and highlight the value of selecting spatial and language-support components according to the quality of available EEG evidence.

cs.LG