Filter Pruning by Switching to Neighboring CNNs With Good Attributes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Filter pruning is effective to reduce the computational costs of neural networks. Existing methods show that updating the previous pruned filter would enable large model capacity and achieve better performance. However, during the iterative pruning process, even if the network weights are updated to new values, the pruning criterion remains the same. In addition, when evaluating the filter importance, only the magnitude information of the filters is considered. However, in neural networks, filters do not work individually, but they would affect other filters. As a result, the magnitude information of each filter, which merely reflects the information of an individual filter itself, is not enough to judge the filter importance. To solve the above problems, we propose meta-attribute-based filter pruning (MFP). First, to expand the existing magnitude information-based pruning criteria, we introduce a new set of criteria to consider the geometric distance of filters. Additionally, to explicitly assess the current state of the network, we adaptively select the most suitable criteria for pruning via a meta-attribute, a property of the neural network at the current state. Experiments on two image classification benchmarks validate our method. For ResNet-50 on ILSVRC-2012, we could reduce more than 50% FLOPs with only 0.44% top-5 accuracy loss.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".