ACLI: A CNN Pruning Framework Leveraging Adjacent Convolutional Layer Interdependence and $\gamma$γ-Weakly Submodularity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Today, convolutional neural network (CNN) pruning techniques often rely on manually crafted importance criteria and pruning structures. Due to their heuristic nature, these methods may lack generality, and their performance is not guaranteed. In this paper, we propose a theoretical framework to address this challenge by leveraging the concept of $\gamma$γ-weak submodularity, based on a new efficient importance function. By deriving an upper bound on the absolute error in the layer subsequent to the pruned layer, we formulate the importance function as a $\gamma$γ-weakly submodular function. This formulation enables the development of an easy-to-implement, low-complexity, and data-free oblivious algorithm for selecting filters to be removed from a convolutional layer. Extensive experiments show that our method outperforms state-of-the-art benchmark networks across various datasets, with a computational cost comparable to the simplest pruning techniques, such as $l_{2}$l2-norm pruning. Notably, the proposed method achieves an accuracy of 76.52%, compared to 75.15% for the overall best baseline, with a 25.5% reduction in network parameters. According to our proposed resource-efficiency metric for pruning methods, the ACLI approach demonstrates orders-of-magnitude higher efficiency than the other baselines, while maintaining competitive accuracy.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".