Bibliographic record
Abstract
Over-parameterized networks, where the number of parameters surpass the number of train-ing samples, generalize well on various tasks. However, large networks are computationally expensive in terms of the training and inference time. Furthermore, the lottery ticket hy-pothesis states that a subnetwork of a randomly initialized network can achieve marginal loss after training on a specific task compared to the original network. Therefore, there is a need to optimize the inference and training time, and a potential for more compact neural architectures. We introduce a novel approach “Optimizing ANN Architectures using Mixed-Integer Programming” (OAMIP) to find these subnetworks by identifying critical neurons and re-moving non-critical ones, resulting in a faster inference time. The proposed OAMIP utilizes a Mixed-Integer Program (MIP) for assigning importance scores to each neuron in deep neural network architectures. Our MIP is guided by the impact on the main learning task of the net-work when simultaneously pruning subsets of neurons. In concrete, the optimization of the objective function drives the solver to minimize the number of neurons, to limit the network to critical neurons, i.e., with high importance score, that need to be kept for maintaining the overall accuracy of the trained neural network. Further, the proposed formulation generalizes the recently considered lottery ticket hypothesis by identifying multiple “lucky” subnetworks, resulting in optimized architectures, that not only perform well on a single dataset, but also generalize across multiple ones upon retraining of network weights. Finally, we present a scalable implementation of our method by decoupling the importance scores across layers using auxiliary networks and across di˙erent classes. We demonstrate the ability of OAMIP to prune neural networks with marginal loss in accuracy and generalizability on popular datasets and architectures.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".