Frankle and Carbin further conjecture that pruning a neural network after training reveals a winning ticket in the original, untrained network. They posit that were pruned after training were never necessary at all, meaning they could have been removed from the original network with no harm to learning. Once pruned, the original network becomes a winning ticket.
I'm not sure what the missing words are, but it doesn't make sense the way its written now. Maybe it should read "They posit that the networks that were pruned..."?
The second sentence in this paragraph:
I'm not sure what the missing words are, but it doesn't make sense the way its written now. Maybe it should read "They posit that the networks that were pruned..."?