Deep Neural Networks Pruning via the Structured Perspective Regularization
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Machine Learning, Artificial Neural Networks (ANNs) are a very powerful tool, broadly used in many applications. Often, the selected (deep) architectures include many layers, and therefore a large amount of parameters, which makes training, storage and inference expensive. This motivated a stream of research about compressing the original networks into smaller ones without excessively sacrificing performances. Among the many proposed compression approaches, one of the most popular is pruning, whereby entire elements of the ANN (links, nodes, channels, ...) and the corresponding weights are deleted. Since the nature of the problem is inherently combinatorial (what elements to prune and what not), we propose a new pruning method based on Operational Research tools. We start from a natural Mixed-Integer-Programming model for the problem, and we use the Perspective Reformulation technique to strengthen its continuous relaxation. Projecting away the indicator variables from this reformulation yields a new regularization term, which we call the Structured Perspective Regularization, that leads to structured pruning of the initial architecture. We test our method on some ResNet architectures applied to CIFAR-10, CIFAR-100 and ImageNet datasets, obtaining competitive performances w.r.t. the state of the art for structured pruning.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it