pith. sign in

arxiv: 2604.23403 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-25 · 💻 cs.CV · cs.AI· cs.NE

Learn&Drop: Fast Learning of CNNs based on Layer Dropping

Giorgio Cruciata , Luca Cruciata , Liliana Lo Presti , Jan van Gemert , Marco La Cascia This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-08 08:33 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.CV cs.AIcs.NE
keywords CNN training accelerationlayer droppingforward propagation reductionVGGResNetimage classification efficiencytraining time speedup
0
0 comments X

The pith

By scoring each layer's parameter change and future learning potential, dropping low-scoring layers during training cuts forward operations and more than halves CNN training time with comparable accuracy.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper introduces Learn&Drop, a training method that computes two scores per layer: one measuring how much its parameters are still changing and another assessing whether it will continue to learn meaningfully. Layers with low scores are dropped, shrinking the active network so that each forward pass performs fewer operations and training proceeds faster. This approach differs from prior work by targeting the forward phase of training rather than inference compression or backpropagation savings. Experiments on MNIST, CIFAR-10, and Imagenette using VGG and ResNet families demonstrate training time reductions exceeding 50 percent and forward FLOPs cuts between 18 and 84 percent, while final accuracy stays close to that of full models. The technique is positioned as especially practical for fine-tuning or sequential data scenarios.

Core claim

During training, layer-change and continuation scores can be used to identify and drop layers whose removal reduces the number of parameters that must be updated, thereby lowering the computational cost of every forward pass while still allowing the remaining network to reach comparable final accuracy on image classification tasks.

What carries the argument

Layer-change score and continuation score, which together decide which layers to drop so the network shrinks dynamically during training.

If this is right

  • Training time for VGG and ResNet models is more than halved on MNIST, CIFAR-10, and Imagenette.
  • FLOPs in forward propagation during training are reduced from 17.83 percent for VGG-11 up to 83.74 percent for ResNet-152.
  • Final accuracy remains comparable to training the full network.
  • The method applies directly to fine-tuning and online learning settings where data arrives sequentially.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same scoring idea could be tested on other families such as EfficientNet or Vision Transformers to check whether similar early redundancy appears.
  • If scores are recomputed periodically, previously dropped layers might be reinserted when their contribution later increases.
  • In memory-limited hardware the dynamic reduction could allow training of deeper models than would otherwise fit.
  • The approach implicitly suggests that many layers in over-parameterized networks contribute little during substantial portions of training.

Load-bearing premise

That the two scores reliably flag layers whose removal will not block the remaining network from reaching comparable final accuracy, and that this holds without extra tuning across datasets and architectures.

What would settle it

Apply the method to a new architecture or dataset and observe that final test accuracy falls substantially below the accuracy obtained by training the identical architecture without any drops.

read the original abstract

This paper proposes a new method to improve the training efficiency of deep convolutional neural networks. During training, the method evaluates scores to measure how much each layer's parameters change and whether the layer will continue learning or not. Based on these scores, the network is scaled down such that the number of parameters to be learned is reduced, yielding a speed up in training. Unlike state-of-the-art methods that try to compress the network to be used in the inference phase or to limit the number of operations performed in the backpropagation phase, the proposed method is novel in that it focuses on reducing the number of operations performed by the network in the forward propagation during training. The proposed training strategy has been validated on two widely used architecture families: VGG and ResNet. Experiments on MNIST, CIFAR-10 and Imagenette show that, with the proposed method, the training time of the models is more than halved without significantly impacting accuracy. The FLOPs reduction in the forward propagation during training ranges from 17.83\% for VGG-11 to 83.74\% for ResNet-152. These results demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed technique in speeding up learning of CNNs. The technique will be especially useful in applications where fine-tuning or online training of convolutional models is required, for instance because data arrive sequentially.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes Learn&Drop, a training heuristic for CNNs that computes two per-layer scores (parameter-change magnitude and a continuation prediction) during training and drops selected layers to reduce the number of parameters and forward-propagation FLOPs. The method is evaluated on VGG and ResNet families using MNIST, CIFAR-10, and Imagenette, with the central empirical claim that training time is more than halved while accuracy remains comparable and forward FLOPs are reduced between 17.83% (VGG-11) and 83.74% (ResNet-152). The approach is positioned as distinct from inference-time compression or back-propagation-focused techniques.

Significance. If the layer-selection scores prove reliable across architectures and datasets, the technique could meaningfully accelerate training loops in online or fine-tuning settings where data arrive sequentially. The emphasis on forward-pass savings during training rather than inference is a potentially useful distinction. However, the absence of methodological detail and controls in the current version makes it difficult to judge whether the reported speed-ups exceed what would be obtained by simpler capacity-reduction baselines.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract / Experiments] Abstract and Experiments section: The claims of '>50% training-time reduction' and specific FLOPs savings (17.83%–83.74%) are presented without any description of the measurement protocol (hardware, batch size, epoch count, wall-clock vs. FLOPs accounting), number of independent runs, or statistical significance tests. These omissions are load-bearing because they prevent verification of the central efficiency claim.
  2. [Method] Method section: No ablation is reported that isolates the contribution of the layer-change and continuation scores from generic early-layer dropping or from simply training a statically thinner network from scratch. Without such controls it remains unclear whether the scores are predictive or whether the observed speed-up is an artifact of reduced model capacity.
  3. [Method] Method section: The exact definitions, formulas, and dropping schedule for the two scores are not provided (no equations, pseudocode, or hyper-parameter values). This prevents reproduction and makes it impossible to assess whether the scores are robust or require extensive per-architecture tuning.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract states that the method was validated on 'two widely used architecture families' but only names VGG-11 and ResNet-152; a table listing all evaluated depths and variants would improve clarity.
  2. [Introduction] Related-work discussion could more explicitly contrast the forward-pass focus with existing dynamic-pruning or early-exit methods to strengthen the novelty claim.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive feedback. The comments highlight important areas for improving reproducibility and methodological clarity, and we will revise the manuscript to address them.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract / Experiments] Abstract and Experiments section: The claims of '>50% training-time reduction' and specific FLOPs savings (17.83%–83.74%) are presented without any description of the measurement protocol (hardware, batch size, epoch count, wall-clock vs. FLOPs accounting), number of independent runs, or statistical significance tests. These omissions are load-bearing because they prevent verification of the central efficiency claim.

    Authors: We agree that the measurement protocol requires explicit documentation. In the revised manuscript we will add a dedicated paragraph in the Experiments section specifying the hardware (GPU model and memory), batch sizes per dataset, epoch counts, wall-clock timing procedure (including overhead from score computation), FLOPs accounting method, number of independent runs (averaged over 5 seeds with standard deviations), and statistical tests (paired t-tests on accuracy). revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Method] Method section: No ablation is reported that isolates the contribution of the layer-change and continuation scores from generic early-layer dropping or from simply training a statically thinner network from scratch. Without such controls it remains unclear whether the scores are predictive or whether the observed speed-up is an artifact of reduced model capacity.

    Authors: We acknowledge the need for controls that separate the effect of the proposed scores from simple capacity reduction. We will include new ablation experiments comparing Learn&Drop against (i) random layer dropping at matched rates, (ii) position-based dropping without scores, and (iii) training statically thinner networks of equivalent parameter count from scratch, reporting both accuracy and training-time metrics. revision: yes

  3. Referee: [Method] Method section: The exact definitions, formulas, and dropping schedule for the two scores are not provided (no equations, pseudocode, or hyper-parameter values). This prevents reproduction and makes it impossible to assess whether the scores are robust or require extensive per-architecture tuning.

    Authors: We apologize for the missing formal definitions. The revised version will supply the exact equations for the parameter-change magnitude and continuation scores, the complete dropping schedule, algorithm pseudocode, and all hyper-parameter values (thresholds, weighting coefficients, evaluation frequency) used in the reported experiments. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: empirical heuristic without derivations or self-referential claims

full rationale

The paper describes a practical training heuristic that computes layer-change and continuation scores to decide which layers to drop mid-training, then reports empirical speed-ups and accuracy on MNIST/CIFAR-10/Imagenette for VGG and ResNet families. No equations, derivations, uniqueness theorems, or first-principles predictions appear; the central claims rest on experimental measurements rather than any reduction of outputs to fitted inputs or self-citations. The method is therefore self-contained as an engineering technique whose validity is tested externally against full-model baselines.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

Only the abstract is available; no equations, parameters, or assumptions are stated, so the ledger remains empty.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5554 in / 1187 out tokens · 36233 ms · 2026-05-08T08:33:26.132614+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

31 extracted references

  1. [1]

    Deep learn- ing

    LeCun Y, Bengio Y, Hinton G. Deep learn- ing. nature. 2015;521(7553):436–444. Springer Nature 2021 LATEX template Learn&Drop15

    2015

  2. [2]

    Efficient deep learning: A survey on making deep learning models smaller, faster, and better

    Menghani G. Efficient deep learning: A survey on making deep learning models smaller, faster, and better. arXiv preprint arXiv:210608962. 2021

    2021

  3. [3]

    Importance estimation for neu- ral network pruning

    Molchanov P, Mallya A, Tyree S, Frosio I, Kautz J. Importance estimation for neu- ral network pruning. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition; 2019. p. 11264– 11272

    2019

  4. [4]

    Heuristic-based auto- matic pruning of deep neural networks

    Choudhary T, Mishra V, Goswami A, Sarangapani J. Heuristic-based auto- matic pruning of deep neural networks. Neural Computing and Applications. 2022;34(6):4889–4903

    2022

  5. [5]

    A new growing pruning deep learning neural network algorithm (GP- DLNN)

    Zemouri R, Omri N, Fnaiech F, Zerhouni N, Fnaiech N. A new growing pruning deep learning neural network algorithm (GP- DLNN). Neural Computing and Applica- tions. 2020;32:18143–18159

    2020

  6. [6]

    Channel pruning for accelerating very deep neural networks

    He Y, Zhang X, Sun J. Channel pruning for accelerating very deep neural networks. In: Proceedings of the IEEE international confer- ence on computer vision; 2017. p. 1389–1397

    2017

  7. [7]

    Efficient structured pruning based on deep feature stabilization

    Xu S, Chen H, Gong X, Liu K, L¨ u J, Zhang B. Efficient structured pruning based on deep feature stabilization. Neural Computing and Applications. 2021;33(13):7409–7420

    2021

  8. [8]

    Fast deep learning training through intel- ligently freezing layers

    Xiao X, Mudiyanselage TB, Ji C, Hu J, Pan Y. Fast deep learning training through intel- ligently freezing layers. In: 2019 International Conference on Internet of Things (iThings) and IEEE Green Computing and Communi- cations (GreenCom) and IEEE Cyber, Phys- ical and Social Computing (CPSCom) and IEEE Smart Data (SmartData). IEEE; 2019. p. 1225–1232

    2019

  9. [9]

    Efficient and effec- tive training of sparse recurrent neural net- works

    Liu S, Ni’mah I, Menkovski V, Mocanu DC, Pechenizkiy M. Efficient and effec- tive training of sparse recurrent neural net- works. Neural Computing and Applications. 2021;33:9625–9636

    2021

  10. [10]

    Eager prun- ing: Algorithm and architecture support for fast training of deep neural networks

    Zhang J, Chen X, Song M, Li T. Eager prun- ing: Algorithm and architecture support for fast training of deep neural networks. In: 2019 ACM/IEEE 46th Annual International Sym- posium on Computer Architecture (ISCA). IEEE; 2019. p. 292–303

    2019

  11. [11]

    Very deep convo- lutional networks for large-scale image recog- nition

    Simonyan K, Zisserman A. Very deep convo- lutional networks for large-scale image recog- nition. arXiv preprint arXiv:14091556. 2014

    2014

  12. [12]

    Deep residual learning for image recognition

    He K, Zhang X, Ren S, Sun J. Deep residual learning for image recognition. In: Proceedings of the IEEE conference on com- puter vision and pattern recognition; 2016. p. 770–778

    2016

  13. [13]

    Optimal brain damage

    LeCun Y, Denker J, Solla S. Optimal brain damage. Advances in neural information processing systems. 1989;2

    1989

  14. [14]

    Optimal brain surgeon and general network pruning

    Hassibi B, Stork DG, Wolff GJ. Optimal brain surgeon and general network pruning. In: IEEE international conference on neural networks. IEEE; 1993. p. 293–299

    1993

  15. [15]

    Thinet: A filter level pruning method for deep neural network compression

    Luo JH, Wu J, Lin W. Thinet: A filter level pruning method for deep neural network compression. In: Proceedings of the IEEE international conference on computer vision

  16. [16]

    Deep com- pression: Compressing deep neural networks with pruning, trained quantization and huff- man coding

    Han S, Mao H, Dally WJ. Deep com- pression: Compressing deep neural networks with pruning, trained quantization and huff- man coding. arXiv preprint arXiv:151000149. 2015

    2015

  17. [17]

    Learn- ing both weights and connections for efficient neural network

    Han S, Pool J, Tran J, Dally W. Learn- ing both weights and connections for efficient neural network. Advances in neural informa- tion processing systems. 2015;28

    2015

  18. [18]

    Residual net- works behave like ensembles of relatively shal- low networks

    Veit A, Wilber MJ, Belongie S. Residual net- works behave like ensembles of relatively shal- low networks. Advances in neural information processing systems. 2016;29

    2016

  19. [19]

    Channel-level acceleration of deep face representations

    Polyak A, Wolf L. Channel-level acceleration of deep face representations. IEEE Access. 2015;3:2163–2175. Springer Nature 2021 LATEX template 16Learn&Drop

    2015

  20. [20]

    Shallowing deep net- works: Layer-wise pruning based on fea- ture representations

    Chen S, Zhao Q. Shallowing deep net- works: Layer-wise pruning based on fea- ture representations. IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence. 2018;41(12):3048–3056

    2018

  21. [21]

    Layer pruning via fusible residual convolu- tional block for deep neural networks

    Xu P, Cao J, Shang F, Sun W, Li P. Layer pruning via fusible residual convolu- tional block for deep neural networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:201114356. 2020

    2020

  22. [22]

    To filter prune, or to layer prune, that is the question

    Elkerdawy S, Elhoushi M, Singh A, Zhang H, Ray N. To filter prune, or to layer prune, that is the question. In: Proceedings of the Asian Conference on Computer Vision; 2020. p. 1–17

    2020

  23. [23]

    Accurate and fast deep evolutionary networks structured representation through activating and freezing dense networks

    Tan D, Zhong W, Peng X, Wang Q, Mahalec V. Accurate and fast deep evolutionary networks structured representation through activating and freezing dense networks. IEEE Transactions on Cognitive and Developmen- tal Systems. 2020

    2020

  24. [24]

    The Python Library Refer- ence, release 3.8.2

    Van Rossum G. The Python Library Refer- ence, release 3.8.2. Python Software Foun- dation; 2020. https://github.com/python/ cpython/blob/3.11/Lib/pickle.py

    2020

  25. [25]

    Array programming with NumPy

    Harris CR, Millman KJ, van der Walt SJ, Gommers R, Virtanen P, Courna- peau D, et al. Array programming with NumPy. Nature. 2020 Sep;585(7825):357–

    2020

  26. [26]

    https://doi.org/10

    https://numpy.org/. https://doi.org/10. 1038/s41586-020-2649-2

  27. [27]

    PyTorch: An Imper- ative Style, High-Performance Deep Learning Library

    Paszke A, Gross S, Massa F, Lerer A, Brad- bury J, Chanan G, et al. PyTorch: An Imper- ative Style, High-Performance Deep Learning Library. In: Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 32. Curran Associates, Inc.; 2019. p. 8024–8035. https://pytorch. org/

    2019

  28. [28]

    Convolutional networks for images, speech, and time series

    LeCun Y, Bengio Y, et al. Convolutional networks for images, speech, and time series. The handbook of brain theory and neural networks. 1995;3361(10):1995

    1995

  29. [29]

    Learning Mul- tiple Layers of Features from Tiny Images

    Krizhevsky A, Hinton G, et al. Learning Mul- tiple Layers of Features from Tiny Images. Technical Report. 2009;p. 32–33

    2009

  30. [30]

    Imagenette;https://github.com/ fastai/imagenette/

    Howard J. Imagenette;https://github.com/ fastai/imagenette/

  31. [31]

    Imagenet large scale visual recognition challenge

    Russakovsky O, Deng J, Su H, Krause J, Satheesh S, Ma S, et al. Imagenet large scale visual recognition challenge. International journal of computer vision. 2015;115:211–252

    2015