PrunedCaps: A Case For Primary Capsules Discrimination
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Capsule Networks (CapsNets) are a generation of image classifiers with proven advantages over Convolutional Neural Networks (CNNs). Better robustness to affine transformation and overlapping image detection are some of the benefits associated with CapsNets. However, CapsNets cannot be classified as a resource-efficient deep learning architecture due to the high number of Primary Capsules (PCs). In addition, CapsNets’ training and testing are slow and resource hungry. This paper investigates the possibility of Primary Capsules pruning in CapsNets on MNIST handwritten digits, Fashion-MNIST, CIFAR-10, and SVHN datasets. We show that a pruned version of CapsNet performs up to 9.90x faster than the conventional architecture by removing 95% percent of Capsules without a loss of accuracy. Also, our pruned architecture saves on more than 95.36% of floating-point operations in the dynamic routing stage of the architecture. Moreover, we provide insight into why some datasets benefit significantly from pruning while others fall behind.
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 | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".