Taxonomy of Saliency Metrics for Channel Pruning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pruning unimportant parameters can allow deep neural networks (DNNs) to reduce their heavy computation and memory requirements. A saliency metric estimates which parameters can be safely pruned with little impact on the classification performance of the DNN. Many saliency metrics have been proposed, each within the context of a wider pruning algorithm. The result is that it is difficult to separate the effectiveness of the saliency metric from the wider pruning algorithm that surrounds it. Similar-looking saliency metrics can yield very different results because of apparently minor design choices. We propose a novel taxonomy of saliency metrics based on four mostly-orthogonal principal components. We show that a broad range of metrics from the pruning literature can be grouped according to these components. Our taxonomy serves as a guide to prior work, and allows us to construct new saliency metrics by exploring novel combinations of our taxonomic components. We perform the first in-depth experimental investigation of more than 300 saliency metrics made up of existing techniques and new combinations of components. Our results provide decisive answers to open research questions. In particular, we demonstrate the importance of reduction and scaling when pruning groups of weights. We also propose a novel scaling method based on the number of weights transitively removed. We find that some of our constructed metrics can outperform the best existing state-of-the-art metrics for convolutional neural network channel pruning. We find further that our novel scaling method improves existing saliency metrics.
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 | 0.004 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".