FactorizeNet: Progressive Depth Factorization for Efficient Network Architecture Exploration Under Quantization Constraints
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Depth factorization and quantization have emerged as two of the principal strategies for designing efficient deep convolutional neural network (CNN) architectures tailored for low-power inference on the edge. However, there is still little detailed understanding of how different depth factorization choices affect the final, trained distributions of each layer in a CNN, particularly in the situation of quantized weights and activations. In this study, we introduce a progressive depth factorization strategy for efficient CNN architecture exploration under quantization constraints. By algorithmically increasing the granularity of depth factorization in a progressive manner, the proposed strategy enables a fine-grained, low-level analysis of layer-wise distributions. Thus enabling the gain of in-depth, layer-level insights on efficiency-accuracy tradeoffs under fixed-precision quantization. Such a progressive depth factorization strategy also enables efficient identification of the optimal depth-factorized macroarchitecture design (which we will refer to here as FactorizeNet) based on the desired efficiency-accuracy requirements.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".