MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The Combined Statistical Stepwise and Iterative Neural Network Pruning Algorithm

2009· article· en· W1843038572 on OpenAlex
Nader Fnaiech, Farhat Fnaiech, B.W. Jervis, Mohamed Cheriet

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueEspace ÉTS (ETS) · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicNeural Networks and Applications
Canadian institutionsÉcole de Technologie Supérieure
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPruningComputer scienceAlgorithmArtificial neural networkLayer (electronics)Artificial intelligencePattern recognition (psychology)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract In this paper, we present a new pruning algorithm formed by combining the Statistical Stepwise Method (SSM) [1] with the Iterative Pruning (IP) [4] algorithms. This proposed algorithm (SSIP) is used to simultaneously remove unnecessary neurons or weight connections from a given feed-forward neural network (NN) in order to “optimize” its structure. Some modifications to the previous pruning algorithms published in [1] and [4] are also reported. Two versions of the combined SSIP are considered: In the fast version, SSIPl, the modified IP is fast applied to the given neural network in order to prune insignificant units, and then the modified SSM is applied to the pruned network to remove unnecessary links. In the second version, SSIP2, the above procedure is applied to each layer in turn, working from the input layer to the output layer. The performances of the algorithms are compared using two real world applications, brain disease detection and texture classification, and the superiority of the SS...

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.938
Threshold uncertainty score0.464

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.244 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it