TasksSotADatasetsPapersMethodsSubmitAbout
Papers With Code 2

A community resource for machine learning research: papers, code, benchmarks, and state-of-the-art results.

Explore

Notable BenchmarksAll SotADatasetsPapersMethods

Community

Submit ResultsAbout

Data sourced from the PWC Archive (CC-BY-SA 4.0). Built by the community, for the community.

Papers/Playing Lottery Tickets with Vision and Language

Playing Lottery Tickets with Vision and Language

Zhe Gan, Yen-Chun Chen, Linjie Li, Tianlong Chen, Yu Cheng, Shuohang Wang, Jingjing Liu, Lijuan Wang, Zicheng Liu

2021-04-23Question AnsweringImage-text RetrievalReferring ExpressionText RetrievalVisual EntailmentReferring Expression ComprehensionRetrievalVisual Question Answering (VQA)Visual Commonsense ReasoningVisual Question Answering
PaperPDF

Abstract

Large-scale pre-training has recently revolutionized vision-and-language (VL) research. Models such as LXMERT and UNITER have significantly lifted the state of the art over a wide range of VL tasks. However, the large number of parameters in such models hinders their application in practice. In parallel, work on the lottery ticket hypothesis (LTH) has shown that deep neural networks contain small matching subnetworks that can achieve on par or even better performance than the dense networks when trained in isolation. In this work, we perform the first empirical study to assess whether such trainable subnetworks also exist in pre-trained VL models. We use UNITER as the main testbed (also test on LXMERT and ViLT), and consolidate 7 representative VL tasks for experiments, including visual question answering, visual commonsense reasoning, visual entailment, referring expression comprehension, image-text retrieval, GQA, and NLVR$^2$. Through comprehensive analysis, we summarize our main findings as follows. ($i$) It is difficult to find subnetworks that strictly match the performance of the full model. However, we can find "relaxed" winning tickets at 50%-70% sparsity that maintain 99% of the full accuracy. ($ii$) Subnetworks found by task-specific pruning transfer reasonably well to the other tasks, while those found on the pre-training tasks at 60%/70% sparsity transfer universally, matching 98%/96% of the full accuracy on average over all the tasks. ($iii$) Besides UNITER, other models such as LXMERT and ViLT can also play lottery tickets. However, the highest sparsity we can achieve for ViLT is far lower than LXMERT and UNITER (30% vs. 70%). ($iv$) LTH also remains relevant when using other training methods (e.g., adversarial training).

Related Papers

From Roots to Rewards: Dynamic Tree Reasoning with RL2025-07-17Enter the Mind Palace: Reasoning and Planning for Long-term Active Embodied Question Answering2025-07-17Vision-and-Language Training Helps Deploy Taxonomic Knowledge but Does Not Fundamentally Alter It2025-07-17City-VLM: Towards Multidomain Perception Scene Understanding via Multimodal Incomplete Learning2025-07-17HapticCap: A Multimodal Dataset and Task for Understanding User Experience of Vibration Haptic Signals2025-07-17A Survey of Context Engineering for Large Language Models2025-07-17MCoT-RE: Multi-Faceted Chain-of-Thought and Re-Ranking for Training-Free Zero-Shot Composed Image Retrieval2025-07-17VisionThink: Smart and Efficient Vision Language Model via Reinforcement Learning2025-07-17