Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 4 minor 104 references

On Information Geometry and Iterative Optimization in Model Compression: Operator Factorization

T0 review · 5 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read Model compression is information-geometric projection onto low-rank manifolds, and after fine-tuning trainability matters more than the projection.

desk verdict A useful information-geometric framing for operator factorization, with a real but fixable gap in the convergence proof and a strong zero-shot vs fine-tuned empirical finding. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.09428 v1 pith:5WWEZIKD submitted 2025-07-12 cs.LG math.DGmath.OC

Zakhar Shumaylov , Vasileios Tsiaras , Yannis Stylianou This is my paper
classification cs.LGmath.DGmath.OC MSC 68T0762B1090C26
keywords modelcompressionoperatorfactorizationinformationgeometryFishersingularvaluethresholdinglow-rankapproximationiterativehardneuralnetworkfine-tuning
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper claims that operator-factorization compression (replacing large weight matrices with low-rank factors) is best understood as information-geometric projection: choose a low-rank submanifold of weight space, then project the pretrained weights onto it using a divergence between the probability distributions the networks define. It shows that successful methods, including Fisher-weighted SVD, are implicit approximations of a Kullback-Leibler projection, which explains their zero-shot advantage over plain Euclidean SVD. The paper's main empirical claim is that this advantage largely disappears after fine-tuning, and that what matters for high compression ratios is whether the bottlenecked model remains trainable, which favors iterative methods that shrink rank gradually rather than one-shot projections. On the theory side it proves convergence of iterative singular value thresholding for minimizing loss plus a soft rank penalty, with an explicit lower bound on the smallest nonzero singular value of the limit. It also introduces milder, energy-based rank cutoffs and reports improved accuracy at fixed compression rates on vision transformers and BERT.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is the mirror proximal gradient step $$W_{n+1} \in \arg\min_{W} \left\{ \tfrac{1}{\alpha_n} D_{F_n}(W,W_n) + \langle W, \nabla L(W_n)\rangle + \$\lambda$\,\mathrm{rank}(W)\right\},$$ where $D_{F_n}$ is the Bregman divergence generated by a strongly convex $F_n$; with $F_n(W)=\tfrac12\|I_n^{1/2}W\|^2$ this is a Fisher-preconditioned proximal step. Hard singular value thresholding is the proximal operator of the rank function by the Eckart-Young theorem, and the paper uses this identity to turn iterative rank reduction into an instance of nonconvex proximal gradient theory with a Kurdyka-Lojasiewicz objective. The information-geometric half of the argument rests on the generalized Pythagorean theorem for m-projections: a point is a stationary projection onto a submanifold exactly when the m-geodesic from the original point meets the submanifold orthogonally, applied locally to the image $f(M_{<r}\cap B(\tilde\theta))$ under the submersion assumption.

What would settle it

Run a controlled comparison on a pretrained vision transformer or BERT: compress with plain SVD and with Fisher-weighted SVD at matched ranks, then fine-tune both until validation metrics plateau; if the accuracy gap does not shrink to a small margin, the claim that fine-tuning erases the projection difference is false. Separately, evaluate the numerical rank of the network Jacobian $\partial f/\partial \theta$ at a low-rank checkpoint; a deficient Jacobian would show that $f(M_{<r}\cap B(\tilde\theta))$ is not a submanifold, breaking the geodesic-projection framework.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper establishes a unified reading of model compression: every factorization method is a projection onto a low-compute set, and the theoretically appropriate projection is the one induced by KL divergence, locally the Fisher information metric. The analytical core is Proposition 4.3: under Lipschitz-smoothness, coercivity, sub-analyticity, and strong convexity of the mirror maps, the sequence $W_n$ generated by the mirror proximal update for $\min_W L(W) + \lambda\,\mathrm{rank}(W)$ has non-increasing objective $(L+\lambda\,\mathrm{rank})(W_n)$, finite total movement, and converges to $W^* \in \operatorname{crit}(L+\lambda\,\mathrm{rank})$; in the Fisher-weighted case $F_n(W)=\tfrac12\|I_n^{1/2}W\|^2$ with $I_n \to I$, the limit obeys $\sigma_{\min}(I^{1/2}W^*) \ge \sqrt{\alpha\lambda}$, so the step size and regularization directly control the rank of the solution. Empirically, the paper reports that information-based projections are necessary for zero-shot accuracy but nearly irrelevant after fine-tuning, while iterative methods with soft rank cutoffs dominate the Pareto fronts; it attributes this to trainability of the bottlenecked model. It then demonstrates the principle by modifying an existing orthogonal low-rank training method and trained rank pruning with Fisher-weighted, energy-based cutoffs, obtaining improved accuracy at fixed compression rates.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing assumption is that a small region of the network's parameter space around the pretrained solution maps smoothly onto a genuine curved surface: the Jacobian of the network output must have full rank everywhere on the low-rank slice. If the Jacobian is rank-deficient, which can happen in deep networks, the image of the low-rank matrices may not be a well-behaved submanifold and the information-geometric projection used to interpret existing methods loses its grounding.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Iterative rank schedules can be designed with a convergence guarantee: any scheme that fits the mirror proximal form reaches a critical point of $L + \lambda\,\mathrm{rank}$, so the open question shifts from whether it converges to how the limit's rank is controlled.
  • Zero-shot compression and compress-then-finetune are different regimes; Fisher-weighted projections should be used when no fine-tuning access exists, since that is where the KL-projection distinction shows up.
  • Energy-based rank cutoffs and Fisher-weighted trained rank pruning should replace hard max-singular-value cutoffs in iterative low-rank training, because the experiments show milder reductions train better at the same parameter count.
  • The bound $\sigma_{\min}(I^{1/2}W^*) \ge \sqrt{\alpha\lambda}$ gives practitioners a direct rule: choose $\alpha$ and $\lambda$ to enforce a desired minimum rank before training.
  • The same projection-plus-trainability view transfers to tensor-train factorization and to pruning or quantization, because only the constraint set (low-rank variety, sparse subspace, lattice) changes.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • An implication the paper leaves implicit: if trainability is the dominant effect, the optimal rank schedule should be depth-dependent, with earlier layers either keeping larger rank or being cut more slowly; the paper's increasing-with-depth ablation is consistent with this but no scheduling policy is derived.
  • The submersion assumption is a fragile point: ReLU networks often have rank-deficient Jacobians, so a testable extension is to detect when $f(M_{<r}\cap B(\tilde\theta))$ stops being a submanifold and regularize the Jacobian during fine-tuning to preserve the information-geometric picture.
  • The convergence theorem treats the mirror maps $F_n$ as given; using empirical Fisher estimates online would make the method practical at scale, and whether the singular-value bound survives noisy $F_n$ is an open direction not addressed in the paper.
  • A direct consequence the paper does not spell out is that benchmarks reporting only fine-tuned accuracy will systematically undervalue information-geometric projections, so zero-shot accuracy should be reported as a separate axis.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

5 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes an information-geometric framework for model compression by operator factorization, arguing that many existing methods approximate information projections onto low-rank submanifolds and that the choice of projection matters mainly in the zero-shot regime, while trainability dominates after fine-tuning. It introduces iterative thresholding variants (IEHT, IFHT) based on energy or Fisher-weighted energy cutoffs and states a convergence theorem (Proposition 4.3 / Theorem 4.3) for mirror proximal gradient optimization of L(W) + λ rank(W). The empirical sections compare SVD, FWSVD, TFWSVD, TRP, OIALR, and the proposed methods on ViT and BERT across several compression ratios and tasks. The central advertised contributions are the convergence proof and the empirical claim that iterative, rank-softening methods improve fine-tuned compressed-model accuracy.

Significance. If the convergence result were complete, the paper would make a useful theoretical contribution to low-rank training under a soft rank constraint, and its information-geometric perspective would help unify several compression heuristics. The empirical study is broad, covering multiple model families and tasks, and the proposed energy-based cutoff modifications (IEHT/IFHT) are a concrete and reasonable practical improvement over the sharp cutoff used by OIALR. The paper is not circular: the convergence theorem is independent of the experiments, and the Fisher information used in IFHT is computed from the model rather than from test labels. However, the advertised proof of convergence is not self-contained as written, and the link between that theorem and the algorithms actually evaluated is loose. The paper also contains a load-bearing but unverified submersion assumption in Section 3.1, and some empirical statements in Section 5.1 are stronger than the numbers in Table 1 support. With a completed proof and a clarified theory-to-algorithm connection, the significance would be solid but not groundbreaking; in its current form the central theoretical claim is not established.

major comments (5)
  1. [Section A.1 / Proposition 4.3] The proof of Proposition 4.3 (labeled Theorem 4.3 in Section 4.1) derives the descent inequality (λrank+L)(W_{n+1}) + ((σ_n−L∇L α_n)/(2α_n))∥W_{n+1}−W_n∥² ≤ (λrank+L)(W_n), but the assumptions provide only 0<α≤α_n≤σ_n/L∇L and σ_n≤L∇F. These do not imply that the coefficient (σ_n−L∇L α_n)/(2α_n) is bounded below by a positive constant; for example, taking α_n=σ_n/L∇L−ε_n makes the coefficient tend to zero. Consequently the deduction that ∑∥W_{n+1}−W_n∥<∞ is not justified, and the Kurdyka-Łojasiewicz-based convergence to W*∈crit(L+λrank) is not established. This is an internal completeness gap rather than a disagreement with consensus, and it is fixable by strengthening the step-size condition (e.g., requiring σ_n−L∇L α_n ≥ δ>0) or by supplying a missing finite-length argument.
  2. [Section A.1, appeal to [9]] The sentence "Thanks to these bounds, the rest of the results from [9] apply directly" is doing essential work in the proof, but no verification is given. Reference [9, Theorem 12] is an inertial forward-backward convergence result for the sum of two nonconvex functions, whereas the update in Eq. (9) is a mirror-prox step with time-varying Bregman divergences F_n. The hypotheses of [9] concerning step-size rules, coercivity, the KŁ property, and any relative-error condition are not checked for this mirror-prox setting. The displayed inequality involving ⟨W_{n+1}−W_n, W_{n−1}−W_n⟩ is not used in the subsequent argument, which suggests that an inertial proof with β=0 was spliced into the present setting. The claim that W_n converges to a critical point therefore rests on an unverified citation.
  3. [Section B.2, Algorithms 1 and 2] The IEHT and IFHT methods are presented as practical instantiations of the Section 4 theory, but Algorithms 1 and 2 freeze the orthogonal factors U and V, train only the diagonal factor S, and remove singular values according to an energy cutoff or a Fisher-weighted energy cutoff. This is not the update in Eq. (9), which requires a full mirror-prox subproblem over W at each iteration with a Bregman divergence generated by the Fisher information. Consequently Proposition 4.3 does not provide a convergence guarantee for the methods actually evaluated, and the empirical Pareto-front comparisons do not test the stated theorem. The separate analysis of OIALR in Section B.1.1 is a useful step, but it does not close the gap for IEHT/IFHT.
  4. [Section 3.1] The information-geometric projection framework requires that the map f restricted to B(θ~) is a submersion, so that f(M_r∩B(θ~)) is a submanifold. This is stated as an assumption ("assuming it is a submersion") but is not verified for deep networks, where the parameter-to-output Jacobian can be rank-deficient. If the assumption fails, Proposition 3.1 and the generalized Pythagorean theorem do not apply to the neural-network setting, and the interpretation of existing methods as approximate information projections loses its theoretical grounding. The authors should either verify the condition for the architectures considered or state explicitly that the geometric interpretation is heuristic under an unverified assumption; a numerical check of the Jacobian rank on the pretrained ViT and BERT models would at least indicate when the assumption is plausible.
  5. [Table 1 / Section 5.1] The text says that after fine-tuning the performance gap between SVD and FWSVD becomes negligible, but Table 1 shows differences that are not always negligible. At 40.9% parameters, fine-tuned SVD reaches 0.9656 while fine-tuned FWSVD reaches 0.9446, a 2.1-point gap; at 61.5% parameters the gap is about 2.3 points (0.9809 vs 0.9581), with FWSVD also better at some other ranks. These numbers weaken the empirical claim that projection choice is unimportant after fine-tuning. The authors should quantify the variability across compression levels and either temper the claim or provide a statistical summary rather than asserting that the gap is negligible.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 2] There are several typos and missing words, e.g., "the distance onbetween parameters" in the paragraph on natural gradient descent; the text should be carefully proofread.
  2. [Sections 4.1 and A.1] The main convergence result is called Proposition 4.3 in the main text, Theorem 4.3 in Section 4.1, and Proposition A.2 in the appendix; please unify the numbering and cross-references.
  3. [Algorithms 1-4] The notation in the algorithms is not defined precisely: S_i, U_i, V_i, the use of √S_i at the end, and especially the eI^{-1} step in Algorithm 2 would benefit from a concise explanation to make the implementations reproducible.
  4. [Figures 2 and 3] The figure legends list method names but do not map them to line styles or marker shapes, which makes it hard for the reader to identify which method corresponds to which Pareto front; please add a clear legend or marker guide.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the convergence theorem is conditional and derived from update optimality; the information-geometric framing is interpretive, and the only self-citation is a supporting standard fact.

full rationale

The central new mathematical claim, Proposition 4.3, is a conditional convergence theorem for the mirror proximal update in Eq. (9). The proof derives a descent inequality from first-order optimality of the update plus the descent lemma, and the later appeal to [9] invokes an external nonconvex forward-backward convergence framework, not the authors' own results. None of the displayed equations is identical by construction to the conclusion, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The claimed singular-value lower bound is imported from [28, Thm. 3], again an external result. Even if the proof is terse and the direct applicability of [9] is not fully verified, that is an internal completeness or correctness gap rather than circularity. The information-geometric readings of SVD, FWSVD, TFWSVD, and activation-matching methods in Eqs. (4)-(7) reinterpret existing algorithms; they do not derive a new result whose output equals its input. The empirical claims (zero-shot vs fine-tuned behavior, Pareto fronts, trainability ablations) are evaluated on held-out test data with no fitted constants that predetermine the outcome. The only self-citation is Note 4.1's use of [77, Thm. E.3] to support the sub-analyticity assumption on neural networks; this is a supporting technical fact, not a theorem whose assumptions include the paper's convergence conclusion, so it is not load-bearing in a circular sense. The submersion assumption in Section 3.1 is explicitly an assumption and is not derived from the conclusions it supports. Section 6 also states a scope limitation to medium-sized low-rank factorization, which is a limitation, not a circular step.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on standard nonconvex optimization assumptions (smoothness, sub-analyticity), a submanifold projection assumption (submersion) that is not verified for deep networks, and the computability of the proximal operator via SVD, which only holds for unweighted norms. The empirical trainability conclusion is supported by single-run hyperparameter sweeps.

free parameters (3)
  • λ (rank penalty weight)
    Appears in the soft rank objective (Eq. 8) and in the singular value lower bound σ_min ≥ √(αλ); chosen by the user, not derived.
  • α (step size lower bound)
    The convergence theorem requires 0 < α ≤ α_n ≤ σ_n/L∇L; the lower bound α appears in the singular value bound.
  • β (energy cutoff fraction) = Swept values such as 0.9, 0.925, 0.95, 0.97 (Table 3)
    Energy cutoff threshold for IEHT/IFHT; determines rank reduction schedule; performance of proposed methods depends on it and it is not derived.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The loss L is Fréchet differentiable with Lipschitz continuous gradient, bounded below, sub-analytic, and coercive.
    Invoked before Proposition 4.3 in Section 4.1; the paper notes these are satisfied for piecewise analytic neural networks with weight decay, but does not verify them for the specific ViT/BERT models used in experiments.
  • ad hoc to paper The network parameter-to-output map f restricted to a ball around the pretrained solution is a submersion, so f(M_r ∩ B(θ~)) is a submanifold.
    Stated as 'assuming it is a submersion' in Section 3.1; this ensures the information-geometric projection theory (Proposition 3.1) applies, but rank-deficient Jacobians in deep networks could invalidate it.
  • domain assumption The proximal operator of λ rank with respect to the Bregman divergence D_{F_n} has a closed-form SVD solution (Eckart-Young).
    The paper claims in Section 4 that Eckart-Young gives a closed-form projection, but this holds only for the unweighted Frobenius norm; for the information-metric F_n = 1/2||I_n^{1/2}W||^2, the proximal step is a weighted low-rank approximation that is generally not solved by plain SVD.
  • standard math The generalized Pythagorean theorem holds locally for m-projections onto the low-rank submanifold.
    Invoked in Section 3.1 from [6, Corollary 4.2]; requires the submanifold structure guaranteed by the submersion assumption.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of On Information Geometry and Iterative Optimization in Model Compression: Operator Factorization." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5WWEZIKD

@misc{pith2026250709428,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: On Information Geometry and Iterative Optimization in Model Compression: Operator Factorization},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5WWEZIKD}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.09428}
}
read the original abstract

The ever-increasing parameter counts of deep learning models necessitate effective compression techniques for deployment on resource-constrained devices. This paper explores the application of information geometry, the study of density-induced metrics on parameter spaces, to analyze existing methods within the space of model compression, primarily focusing on operator factorization. Adopting this perspective highlights the core challenge: defining an optimal low-compute submanifold (or subset) and projecting onto it. We argue that many successful model compression approaches can be understood as implicitly approximating information divergences for this projection. We highlight that when compressing a pre-trained model, using information divergences is paramount for achieving improved zero-shot accuracy, yet this may no longer be the case when the model is fine-tuned. In such scenarios, trainability of bottlenecked models turns out to be far more important for achieving high compression ratios with minimal performance degradation, necessitating adoption of iterative methods. In this context, we prove convergence of iterative singular value thresholding for training neural networks subject to a soft rank constraint. To further illustrate the utility of this perspective, we showcase how simple modifications to existing methods through softer rank reduction result in improved performance under fixed compression rates.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.09428 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Illustration of the main components of compression methods, highlighted by the main three [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Pareto fronts for compression methods in Section 3 in for ViT-B/16 for image classification. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Performance of various compression algorithms on BERT for tasks in the GLUE benchmark. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Ablation study of different bound schedules for CIFAR-10. We find that increasing the amount of error with depth tends to perform best due to simpler trainability. It is widely known [13] that earlier layers stabilize more rapidly in training than later layers. Con￾seq…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: CIFAR-10 classification, illustrating also the globalIEHT and globalIFHT methods. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_5.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

104 extracted references · 70 canonical work pages

  1. [9]

    R. I. Bo¸ t, E. R. Csetnek, and S. C. László. An inertial forward–backward algorithm for the minimization of the sum of two nonconvex functions.EURO Journal on Computational Optimization, 4:3–25, 2016

    2016

  2. [1]

    S.-i. Amari. Information geometry of the em and em algorithms for neural networks.Neural networks, 8(9):1379–1408, 1995

    1995

  3. [2]

    S.-i. Amari. Information geometry in optimization, machine learning and statistical inference. Frontiers of Electrical and Electronic Engineering in China, 5:241–260, 2010

    2010

  4. [3]

    Amari.Information geometry and its applications, volume 194

    S.-i. Amari.Information geometry and its applications, volume 194. Springer, 2016

    2016

  5. [4]

    Amari and H

    S.-i. Amari and H. Nagaoka.Methods of information geometry, volume 191. American Mathematical Soc., 2000. 9

    2000

  6. [5]

    Arora, N

    S. Arora, N. Cohen, and E. Hazan. On the optimization of deep networks: Implicit acceleration by overparameterization. InInternational conference on machine learning, pages 244–253. PMLR, 2018

    2018

  7. [6]

    N. Ay, J. Jost, H. Vân Lê, and L. Schwachhöfer.Information geometry, volume 64. Springer, 2017

    2017

  8. [7]

    M. M. Bejani and M. Ghatee. Adaptive low-rank factorization to regularize shallow and deep neural networks, 2020

    2020

Show all 104 references
  1. [8]

    Bernstein and L

    J. Bernstein and L. Newhouse. Old optimizer, new norm: An anthology, 2024

    2024

  2. [10]

    Busbridge, A

    D. Busbridge, A. Shidani, F. Weers, J. Ramapuram, E. Littwin, and R. Webb. Distillation scaling laws, 2025

    2025

  3. [11]

    Candes and B

    E. Candes and B. Recht. Exact matrix completion via convex optimization.Communications of the ACM, 55(6):111–119, 2012

    2012

  4. [12]

    P. Chen, S. Si, Y . Li, C. Chelba, and C.-J. Hsieh. Groupreduce: Block-wise low-rank approxima- tion for neural language model shrinking.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 31, 2018

    2018

  5. [13]

    Y . Chen, A. Yuille, and Z. Zhou. Which layer is learning faster? a systematic exploration of layer-wise convergence rate for deep neural networks. InThe Eleventh International Conference on Learning Representations, 2023

    2023

  6. [14]

    Chunikhina, R

    E. Chunikhina, R. Raich, and T. Nguyen. Performance analysis for matrix completion via iterative hard-thresholded svd. In2014 IEEE Workshop on Statistical Signal Processing (SSP), pages 392–395. IEEE, 2014

    2014

  7. [15]

    Cohen, G

    N. Cohen, G. Menon, and Z. Veraszto. Deep linear networks for matrix completion—an infinite depth limit.SIAM Journal on Applied Dynamical Systems, 22(4):3208–3232, 2023

    2023

  8. [16]

    Coquelin, K

    D. Coquelin, K. Flügel, M. Weiel, N. Kiefer, C. Debus, A. Streit, and M. Götz. Harnessing orthogonality to train low-rank neural networks.arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.08505, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  9. [17]

    J. Deng, W. Dong, R. Socher, L.-J. Li, K. Li, and L. Fei-Fei. Imagenet: A large-scale hierarchical image database. In2009 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 248–255, 2009

    2009

  10. [18]

    E. L. Denton, W. Zaremba, J. Bruna, Y . LeCun, and R. Fergus. Exploiting linear structure within convolutional networks for efficient evaluation.Advances in neural information processing systems, 27, 2014

    2014

  11. [19]

    Devlin, M.-W

    J. Devlin, M.-W. Chang, K. Lee, and K. Toutanova. Bert: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding, 2019

    2019

  12. [20]

    Dosovitskiy, L

    A. Dosovitskiy, L. Beyer, A. Kolesnikov, D. Weissenborn, X. Zhai, T. Unterthiner, M. Dehghani, M. Minderer, G. Heigold, S. Gelly, J. Uszkoreit, and N. Houlsby. An image is worth 16x16 words: Transformers for image recognition at scale, 2021

    2021

  13. [21]

    Duchi, E

    J. Duchi, E. Hazan, and Y . Singer. Adaptive subgradient methods for online learning and stochastic optimization.Journal of machine learning research, 12(7), 2011

    2011

  14. [22]

    Frantar, S

    E. Frantar, S. P. Singh, and D. Alistarh. Optimal brain compression: A framework for accurate post-training quantization and pruning, 2023

    2023

  15. [23]

    S. Gao, T. Hua, Y .-C. Hsu, Y . Shen, and H. Jin. Adaptive rank selections for low-rank approximation of language models. InNAACL-HLT, pages 227–241, 2024. 10

    2024

  16. [24]

    I. Garg, C. Koguchi, E. Verma, and D. Ulbricht. Revealing the utilized rank of subspaces of learning in neural networks.CoRR, abs/2407.04797, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Gupta, T

    V . Gupta, T. Koren, and Y . Singer. Shampoo: Preconditioned stochastic tensor optimization, 2018

    2018

  18. [26]

    S. B. Harma, A. Chakraborty, E. Kostenok, D. Mishin, D. Ha, B. Falsafi, M. Jaggi, M. Liu, Y . Oh, S. Subramanian, and A. Yazdanbakhsh. Effective interplay between sparsity and quantization: From theory to practice, 2025

    2025

  19. [27]

    Hinton, O

    G. Hinton, O. Vinyals, and J. Dean. Distilling the knowledge in a neural network, 2015

    2015

  20. [28]

    Hiriart-Urruty and H

    J.-B. Hiriart-Urruty and H. Y . Le. From eckart and young approximation to moreau envelopes and vice versa.RAIRO-Operations Research-Recherche Opérationnelle, 47(3):299–310, 2013

    2013

  21. [29]

    Hiriart-Urruty and H

    J.-B. Hiriart-Urruty and H. Y . Le. A variational approach of the rank function.Top, 21:207–240, 2013

    2013

  22. [30]

    Hoefler, D

    T. Hoefler, D. Alistarh, T. Ben-Nun, N. Dryden, and A. Peste. Sparsity in deep learning: Pruning and growth for efficient inference and training in neural networks.Journal of Machine Learning Research, 22(241):1–124, 2021

    2021

  23. [31]

    S. Hofstee. Fisher information aware dynamic compression of language transformer networks using svd. Master’s thesis, University of Twente, 2024

    2024

  24. [32]

    Hohman, M

    F. Hohman, M. B. Kery, D. Ren, and D. Moritz. Model compression in practice: Lessons learned from practitioners creating on-device machine learning experiences. InProceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pages 1–18, 2024

    2024

  25. [33]

    Y .-C. Hsu, T. Hua, S. Chang, Q. Lou, Y . Shen, and H. Jin. Language model compression with weighted low-rank factorization. InInternational Conference on Learning Representations, 2022

    2022

  26. [34]

    Hua, Y .-C

    T. Hua, Y .-C. Hsu, F. Wang, Q. Lou, Y . Shen, and H. Jin. Numerical optimizations for weighted low-rank estimation on language models. InProceedings of the 2022 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 1404–1416, 2022

    2022

  27. [35]

    T. Hua, X. Li, S. Gao, Y .-C. Hsu, Y . Shen, and H. Jin. Dynamic low-rank estimation for transformer-based language models. InFindings of the Association for Computational Linguis- tics: EMNLP 2023, pages 9275–9287, 2023

    2023

  28. [36]

    Jaderberg, A

    M. Jaderberg, A. Vedaldi, and A. Zisserman. Speeding up convolutional neural networks with low rank expansions.arXiv preprint arXiv:1405.3866, 2014

    2014 arXiv

  29. [37]

    P. Jain, P. Netrapalli, and S. Sanghavi. Low-rank matrix completion using alternating minimiza- tion. InProceedings of the forty-fifth annual ACM symposium on Theory of computing, pages 665–674, 2013

    2013

  30. [38]

    X. Jia, C. Kanzow, and P. Mehlitz. Convergence analysis of the proximal gradient method in the presence of the kurdyka–łojasiewicz property without global lipschitz assumptions.SIAM Journal on Optimization, 33(4):3038–3056, 2023

    2023

  31. [39]

    Khodak, N

    M. Khodak, N. A. Tenenholtz, L. Mackey, and N. Fusi. Initialization and regularization of factorized neural layers. InInternational Conference on Learning Representations, 2021

    2021

  32. [40]

    J. Kieffer. Elements of information theory (thomas m. cover and joy a. thomas).SIAM Review, 36(3):509–511, 1994

    1994

  33. [41]

    B.-K. Kim, G. Kim, T.-H. Kim, T. Castells, S. Choi, J. Shin, and H.-K. Song. Shortened LLaMA: A simple depth pruning for large language models. InICLR 2024 Workshop on Mathematical and Empirical Understanding of Foundation Models, 2024

    2024

  34. [42]

    Krishnamoorthi

    R. Krishnamoorthi. Quantizing deep convolutional networks for efficient inference: A whitepa- per.arXiv preprint arXiv:1806.08342, 2018. 11

    2018 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Krizhevsky, V

    A. Krizhevsky, V . Nair, G. Hinton, et al. The cifar-10 dataset.online: http://www. cs. toronto. edu/kriz/cifar. html, 55(5):2, 2014

    2014

  36. [44]

    Kunstner, L

    F. Kunstner, L. Balles, and P. Hennig. Limitations of the empirical fisher approximation for natural gradient descent, 2020

    2020

  37. [45]

    Kuznedelev, E

    D. Kuznedelev, E. Kurtic, E. Frantar, and D. Alistarh. CAP: Correlation-aware pruning for highly-accurate sparse vision models. InThirty-seventh Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, 2023

    2023

  38. [46]

    Lebedev, Y

    V . Lebedev, Y . Ganin, M. Rakhuba, I. Oseledets, and V . Lempitsky. Speeding-up convolutional neural networks using fine-tuned cp-decomposition.arXiv preprint arXiv:1412.6553, 2014

    2014 arXiv

  39. [47]

    LeCun, J

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

    1989

  40. [48]

    J. M. Lee.Smooth manifolds. Springer, 2003

    2003

  41. [49]

    J. Lin, J. Tang, H. Tang, S. Yang, W.-M. Chen, W.-C. Wang, G. Xiao, X. Dang, C. Gan, and S. Han. Awq: Activation-aware weight quantization for on-device llm compression and acceleration.Proceedings of Machine Learning and Systems, 6:87–100, 2024

    2024

  42. [50]

    T. Lin, S. U. Stich, L. Barba, D. Dmitriev, and M. Jaggi. Dynamic model pruning with feedback. InInternational Conference on Learning Representations, 2020

    2020

  43. [51]

    Liu, S.-W

    Y .-H. Liu, S.-W. Luo, A.-J. Li, and H.-B. Yu. Information geometry on pruning of neural network. InProceedings of 2004 International Conference on Machine Learning and Cybernetics (IEEE Cat. No. 04EX826), volume 6, pages 3479–3483. IEEE, 2004

    2004

  44. [52]

    Maison, H

    L. Maison, H. d. M. d. Bourboux, and T. Courtat. Compression of recurrent neural networks using matrix factorization.arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.12688, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  45. [53]

    J. Martens. New insights and perspectives on the natural gradient method.Journal of Machine Learning Research, 21(146):1–76, 2020

    2020

  46. [54]

    McGowan, W

    J. McGowan, W. S. Lai, W. Chen, H. Aldridge, J. Clarke, J. R. Garcia, R. Xia, Y . Liang, G. Hennequin, and A. Bernacchia. Efficient model compression techniques with fishleg. In Workshop on Machine Learning and Compression, NeurIPS 2024, 2024

    2024

  47. [55]

    G. Menon. The geometry of the deep linear network, 2024

    2024

  48. [56]

    Mishra and D

    A. Mishra and D. Marr. Apprentice: Using knowledge distillation techniques to improve low-precision network accuracy. InInternational Conference on Learning Representations, 2018

    2018

  49. [57]

    Molchanov, A

    P. Molchanov, A. Mallya, S. Tyree, I. Frosio, and J. Kautz. Importance estimation for neural network pruning. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 11264–11272, 2019

    2019

  50. [58]

    Mosbach, M

    M. Mosbach, M. Andriushchenko, and D. Klakow. On the stability of fine-tuning {bert}: Misconceptions, explanations, and strong baselines. InInternational Conference on Learning Representations, 2021

    2021

  51. [59]

    F. Nielsen. On geodesic triangles with right angles in a dually flat space, 2021

    2021

  52. [60]

    M. B. Noach and Y . Goldberg. Compressing pre-trained language models by matrix decomposi- tion. InProceedings of the 1st Conference of the Asia-Pacific Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 10th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Pro...

    2020

  53. [61]

    I. V . Oseledets. Tensor-train decomposition.SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing, 33(5):2295– 2317, 2011. 12

    2011

  54. [62]

    A.-H. Phan, K. Sobolev, K. Sozykin, D. Ermilov, J. Gusak, P. Tichavsk`y, V . Glukhov, I. Os- eledets, and A. Cichocki. Stable low-rank tensor decomposition for compression of convolu- tional neural network. InComputer Vision–ECCV 2020: 16th European Conference, Glasgow, UK, Au...

    2020

  55. [63]

    Pletenev, V

    S. Pletenev, V . Chekalina, D. Moskovskiy, M. Seleznev, S. Zagoruyko, and A. Panchenko. A computational study of matrix decomposition methods for compression of pre-trained trans- formers. InProceedings of the 37th Pacific Asia Conference on Language, Information and Computati...

    2023

  56. [64]

    B. A. Plummer, N. Dryden, J. Frost, T. Hoefler, and K. Saenko. Neural parameter allocation search. InInternational Conference on Learning Representations, 2022

    2022

  57. [65]

    Polino, R

    A. Polino, R. Pascanu, and D. Alistarh. Model compression via distillation and quantization. In International Conference on Learning Representations, 2018

    2018

  58. [66]

    Potapczynski, S

    A. Potapczynski, S. Qiu, M. A. Finzi, C. Ferri, Z. Chen, M. Goldblum, C. B. Bruss, C. D. Sa, and A. G. Wilson. Searching for efficient linear layers over a continuous space of structured matrices. InThe Thirty-eighth Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, 2024

    2024

  59. [67]

    D. C. Psichogios and L. H. Ungar. Svd-net: An algorithm that automatically selects network structure.IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks, 5(3):513–515, 1994

    1994

  60. [68]

    S. Qiu, A. Potapczynski, M. A. Finzi, M. Goldblum, and A. G. Wilson. Compute better spent: Replacing dense layers with structured matrices. InForty-first International Conference on Machine Learning, 2024

    2024

  61. [69]

    N. Rao, P. Shah, and S. Wright. Forward–backward greedy algorithms for atomic norm regularization.IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing, 63(21):5798–5811, 2015

    2015

  62. [70]

    Ridnik, E

    T. Ridnik, E. Ben-Baruch, A. Noy, and L. Zelnik-Manor. Imagenet-21k pretraining for the masses, 2021

    2021

  63. [71]

    Rochau, H

    D. Rochau, H. Gottschalk, and R. Chan. New advances in universal approximation with neural networks of minimal width.arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.08735, 2024

    2024

  64. [72]

    Russakovsky, J

    O. Russakovsky, J. Deng, H. Su, J. Krause, S. Satheesh, S. Ma, Z. Huang, A. Karpathy, A. Khosla, M. Bernstein, A. C. Berg, and L. Fei-Fei. Imagenet large scale visual recognition challenge, 2015

    2015

  65. [73]

    R. Saha, N. Sagan, V . Srivastava, A. J. Goldsmith, and M. Pilanci. Compressing large language models using low rank and low precision decomposition.arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.18886, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  66. [74]

    T. N. Sainath, B. Kingsbury, V . Sindhwani, E. Arisoy, and B. Ramabhadran. Low-rank matrix factorization for deep neural network training with high-dimensional output targets. In2013 IEEE international conference on acoustics, speech and signal processing, pages 6655–6659. IEEE, 2013

    2013

  67. [75]

    Schotthöfer, E

    S. Schotthöfer, E. Zangrando, J. Kusch, G. Ceruti, and F. Tudisco. Low-rank lottery tickets: finding efficient low-rank neural networks via matrix differential equations.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 35:20051–20063, 2022

    2022

  68. [76]

    N. N. Schraudolph. Fast curvature matrix-vector products for second-order gradient descent. Neural computation, 14(7):1723–1738, 2002

    2002

  69. [77]

    Shumaylov, J

    Z. Shumaylov, J. Budd, S. Mukherjee, and C.-B. Schönlieb. Weakly convex regularisers for inverse problems: Convergence of critical points and primal-dual optimisation. InForty-first International Conference on Machine Learning, 2024

    2024

  70. [78]

    S. P. Singh and D. Alistarh. Woodfisher: Efficient second-order approximation for neural network compression.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 33:18098–18109, 2020. 13

    2020

  71. [79]

    Srebro and T

    N. Srebro and T. Jaakkola. Weighted low-rank approximations. InProceedings of the 20th international conference on machine learning (ICML-03), pages 720–727, 2003

    2003

  72. [80]

    Sun and Z.-Q

    R. Sun and Z.-Q. Luo. Guaranteed matrix completion via non-convex factorization.IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, 62(11):6535–6579, 2016

    2016

  73. [81]

    Tanner and K

    J. Tanner and K. Wei. Normalized iterative hard thresholding for matrix completion.SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing, 35(5):S104–S125, 2013

    2013

  74. [82]

    Touvron, M

    H. Touvron, M. Cord, M. Douze, F. Massa, A. Sablayrolles, and H. Jégou. Training data-efficient image transformers and distillation through attention, 2021

    2021

  75. [83]

    Tseng, J

    A. Tseng, J. Chee, Q. Sun, V . Kuleshov, and C. D. Sa. QuIP$\#$: Even better LLM quantization with hadamard incoherence and lattice codebooks. InForty-first International Conference on Machine Learning, 2024

    2024

  76. [84]

    Uschmajew and B

    A. Uschmajew and B. Vandereycken.Geometric methods on low-rank matrix and tensor manifolds. Springer, 2020

    2020

  77. [85]

    C. Üyük, M. Lasby, M. Yassin, U. Evci, and Y . Ioannou. Learning parameter sharing with tensor decompositions and sparsity.arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.09816, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  78. [86]

    T. Vu, E. Chunikhina, and R. Raich. On local linear convergence rate of iterative hard threshold- ing for matrix completion.IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing, 70:5940–5953, 2022

    2022

  79. [87]

    Waleffe and T

    R. Waleffe and T. Rekatsinas. Principal component networks: Parameter reduction early in training, 2020

    2020

  80. [88]

    A. Wang, A. Singh, J. Michael, F. Hill, O. Levy, and S. Bowman. GLUE: A multi-task benchmark and analysis platform for natural language understanding. In T. Linzen, G. Chrupała, and A. Alishahi, editors,Proceedings of the 2018 EMNLP Workshop BlackboxNLP: Analyzing and Interpre...

    2018

  81. [89]

    H. Wang, S. Agarwal, and D. Papailiopoulos. Pufferfish: Communication-efficient models at no extra cost.Proceedings of Machine Learning and Systems, 3:365–386, 2021

    2021

  82. [90]

    X. Wang, Y . Zheng, Z. Wan, and M. Zhang. Svd-llm: Truncation-aware singular value decomposition for large language model compression.arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.07378, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  83. [91]

    G. I. Winata, S. Cahyawijaya, Z. Lin, Z. Liu, and P. Fung. Lightweight and efficient end-to-end speech recognition using low-rank transformer. InICASSP 2020-2020 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP), pages 6144–6148. IEEE, 2020

    2020

  84. [92]

    Wu, I.-V

    D. Wu, I.-V . Modoranu, M. Safaryan, D. Kuznedelev, and D. Alistarh. The iterative optimal brain surgeon: Faster sparse recovery by leveraging second-order information. InThe Thirty-eighth Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, 2024

    2024

  85. [93]

    Y . Xu, Y . Li, S. Zhang, W. Wen, B. Wang, W. Dai, Y . Qi, Y . Chen, W. Lin, and H. Xiong. Trained rank pruning for efficient deep neural networks. In2019 Fifth Workshop on Energy Efficient Machine Learning and Cognitive Computing-NeurIPS Edition (EMC2-NIPS), pages 14–17. IEEE, 2019

    2019

  86. [94]

    Z. Yuan, Y . Shang, Y . Song, Q. Wu, Y . Yan, and G. Sun. Asvd: Activation-aware singular value decomposition for compressing large language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.05821, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  87. [95]

    Zhang, J

    C. Zhang, J. Cheng, G. A. Constantinides, and Y . Zhao. LQER: Low-rank quantization error reconstruction for LLMs. InForty-first International Conference on Machine Learning, 2024

    2024

  88. [96]

    Zhang and V

    S. Zhang and V . Papyan. Low-rank is required for pruning LLMs. InSparsity in LLMs (SLLM): Deep Dive into Mixture of Experts, Quantization, Hardware, and Inference, 2025

    2025

  89. [97]

    Zhang and V

    S. Zhang and V . Papyan. OATS: Outlier-aware pruning through sparse and low rank decomposi- tion. InThe Thirteenth International Conference on Learning Representations, 2025. 14 A Appendix: Mathematical Step Here, we recap some of the basic notions, primarily following [9]. We...

    2025

  90. [98]

    Based on this, they propose to reduce the number of trainable parameters by iteratively orthogonalizing as follows:

    observed that the orthogonal basis of a network’s weights stabilizes during the training process. Based on this, they propose to reduce the number of trainable parameters by iteratively orthogonalizing as follows:

  91. [99]

    The network is initially trained with a traditional full-rank scheme. 16 Table 2: Summary of Compression Methods Projection Method Origin Iterative Rank Selection Criterion Euclidean OIALR [16] Yes Layer Maximal Singular Value IEHT (Ours Sections B.2 and 4) Yes Layer Energy TR...

  92. [100]

    After a number of iterations, the network’s matrix weights are transitioned to their UΣV T representation using singular value decomposition (SVD)

  93. [101]

    The orthogonal bases U and V T are frozen, and only the square matrix Σ is trained using backpropagation

  94. [102]

    After a specified number of training steps, the bases U and V T are updated by extracting the new bases from the trainedΣmatrix using SVD

  95. [103]

    β is a hyperparameter that defaults to 0.1

    A new inner rank is found by removing the singular values fromΣ whose absolute magnitude is less than β times the largest singular value in the current Σ. β is a hyperparameter that defaults to 0.1

  96. [104]

    We summarize the method in Algorithm 1, and attempt to formalize the approach below

    This process is repeated until the end of training. We summarize the method in Algorithm 1, and attempt to formalize the approach below. B.1.1 Orthogonality Informed Low Rank Training Theorem 4.3 establishes convergence and a maximal rank of the underlying solution. However, i...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.