REVIEW 1 cited by
FGGP: Fixed-Rate Gradient-First Gradual Pruning
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
read the original abstract
In recent years, the increasing size of deep learning models and their growing demand for computational resources have drawn significant attention to the practice of pruning neural networks, while aiming to preserve their accuracy. In unstructured gradual pruning, which sparsifies a network by gradually removing individual network parameters until a targeted network sparsity is reached, recent works show that both gradient and weight magnitudes should be considered. In this work, we show that such mechanism, e.g., the order of prioritization and selection criteria, is essential. We introduce a gradient-first magnitude-next strategy for choosing the parameters to prune, and show that a fixed-rate subselection criterion between these steps works better, in contrast to the annealing approach in the literature. We validate this on CIFAR-10 dataset, with multiple randomized initializations on both VGG-19 and ResNet-50 network backbones, for pruning targets of 90, 95, and 98% sparsity and for both initially dense and 50% sparse networks. Our proposed fixed-rate gradient-first gradual pruning (FGGP) approach outperforms its state-of-the-art alternatives in most of the above experimental settings, even occasionally surpassing the upperbound of corresponding dense network results, and having the highest ranking across the considered experimental settings.
Forward citations
Cited by 1 Pith paper
-
Efficient Column-Wise N:M Pruning on RISC-V CPU
Column-wise N:M pruning plus fused im2col and data packing accelerates ResNet inference on RISC-V vector CPUs by up to 4x while keeping ImageNet top-1 accuracy within 2.1% of the dense model.
Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.