Novel Post-Training Structure-Agnostic Weight Pruning Technique for Deep Neural Networks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Deep neural networks (DNNs) have shown ex-ceptional performance in various domains, leading to their widespread adoption. However, the necessity to deploy DNNs on resource-constrained devices calls for improved model efficiency. Accordingly, DNN pruning has emerged as a critical technique in the field of machine learning, offering significant improve-ments in computational efficiency and model simplicity. This paper introduces an innovative post-training pruning approach for DNNs without any retraining, that utilizes multi-objective optimization to achieve substantial sparsity rates while preserving significant accuracy levels. The proposed method transforms the post-training weight pruning challenge into a two-variable, bi-objective optimization problem. The optimizer finds the optimal minimum and maximum threshold values through optimization, effectively converting the real-valued weights between these two thresholds to zero. The task and model-independency of the proposed framework make it applicable across various models, tasks, and datasets without constraints on the number of weights. The approach provides a decision-maker, where users can select the best strategy within resource constraints to achieve their desired accuracy. In order to assess our method, we evaluated the pruning of RESNET50 model on CIFAR10 and CIFAR100 benchmark datasets. In CIFAR10, by reducing 70% of the weights within the optimal threshold values, the network's accuracy only decreases by 0.1. Similarly, in CIFAR100, an appropriate weight range was selected, resulting in a 65 % reduction in weights while maintaining a negligible 0.1 decrease in network accuracy. This demonstrates the effectiveness of the optimization in achieving significant model size reduction without compromising performance on large DNNs.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".