Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

Modeling of Pruning Techniques for Deep Neural Networks Simplification

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2001.04062 v1 pith:FYTMBQ4Y submitted 2020-01-13 cs.CV

classification cs.CV
keywords pruningmethodsmodeltechniquesdifferentcnnsgeneralnetworks
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

0 comments
read the original abstract

Convolutional Neural Networks (CNNs) suffer from different issues, such as computational complexity and the number of parameters. In recent years pruning techniques are employed to reduce the number of operations and model size in CNNs. Different pruning methods are proposed, which are based on pruning the connections, channels, and filters. Various techniques and tricks accompany pruning methods, and there is not a unifying framework to model all the pruning methods. In this paper pruning methods are investigated, and a general model which is contained the majority of pruning techniques is proposed. The advantages and disadvantages of the pruning methods can be identified, and all of them can be summarized under this model. The final goal of this model is to provide a general approach for all of the pruning methods with different structures and applications.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Using Federated Machine Learning in Predictive Maintenance of Jet Engines

    cs.LG 2025-02 reject novelty 3.0 of 10

    A federated LSTM model predicts jet engine remaining useful life on C-MAPSS with RMSE 17.9 for the aggregated model, but no centralized baseline is run, so the central comparison claim is unsupported.

Pith tools