Structured Pruning of Neural Networks for Constraints Learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In recent years, the integration of Machine Learning (ML) models with Operation Research (OR) tools has gained popularity across diverse applications, including cancer treatment, algorithmic configuration, and chemical process optimization. In this domain, the combination of ML and OR often relies on representing the ML model output using Mixed Integer Programming (MIP) formulations. Numerous studies in the literature have developed such formulations for many ML predictors, with a particular emphasis on Artificial Neural Networks (ANNs) due to their significant interest in many applications. However, ANNs frequently contain a large number of parameters, resulting in MIP formulations that are impractical to solve, thereby impeding scalability. In fact, the ML community has already introduced several techniques to reduce the parameter count of ANNs without compromising their performance, since the substantial size of modern ANNs presents challenges for ML applications as it significantly impacts computational efforts during training and necessitates significant memory resources for storage. In this paper, we showcase the effectiveness of pruning, one of these techniques, when applied to ANNs prior to their integration into MIPs. By pruning the ANN, we achieve significant improvements in the speed of the solution process. We discuss why pruning is more suitable in this context compared to other ML compression techniques, and we identify the most appropriate pruning strategies. To highlight the potential of this approach, we conduct experiments using feed-forward neural networks with multiple layers to construct adversarial examples. Our results demonstrate that pruning offers remarkable reductions in solution times without hindering the quality of the final decision, enabling the resolution of previously unsolvable instances.
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 | 0.011 |
| 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 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".