Network Automatic Pruning: Start NAP and Take a Nap
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Network pruning can significantly reduce the computation and memory footprint of large neural networks. To achieve a good trade-off between model size and performance, popular pruning techniques usually rely on hand-crafted heuristics and require manually setting the compression ratio for each layer. This process is typically time-consuming and requires expert knowledge to achieve good results. In this paper, we propose NAP, a unified and automatic pruning framework for both fine-grained and structured pruning. It can find out unimportant components of a network and automatically decide appropriate compression ratios for different layers, based on a theoretically sound criterion. Towards this goal, NAP uses an efficient approximation of the Hessian for evaluating the importances of components, based on a Kronecker-factored Approximate Curvature method. Despite its simpleness to use, NAP outperforms previous pruning methods by large margins. For fine-grained pruning, NAP can compress AlexNet and VGG16 by 25x, and ResNet-50 by 6.7x without loss in accuracy on ImageNet. For structured pruning (e.g. channel pruning), it can reduce flops of VGG16 by 5.4x and ResNet-50 by 2.3x with only 1% accuracy drop. More importantly, this method is almost free from hyper-parameter tuning and requires no expert knowledge. You can start NAP and then take a nap!
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 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".