Pith. sign in

REVIEW

Pruning by Active Attention Manipulation

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 2210.11114 v1 pith:CSUZNDJV submitted 2022-10-20 cs.CV cs.AIcs.LGcs.NE

classification cs.CVcs.AIcs.LGcs.NE
keywords paampruningattentionfilternetworkfilterslayerscores
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

0 comments
read the original abstract

Filter pruning of a CNN is typically achieved by applying discrete masks on the CNN's filter weights or activation maps, post-training. Here, we present a new filter-importance-scoring concept named pruning by active attention manipulation (PAAM), that sparsifies the CNN's set of filters through a particular attention mechanism, during-training. PAAM learns analog filter scores from the filter weights by optimizing a cost function regularized by an additive term in the scores. As the filters are not independent, we use attention to dynamically learn their correlations. Moreover, by training the pruning scores of all layers simultaneously, PAAM can account for layer inter-dependencies, which is essential to finding a performant sparse sub-network. PAAM can also train and generate a pruned network from scratch in a straightforward, one-stage training process without requiring a pre-trained network. Finally, PAAM does not need layer-specific hyperparameters and pre-defined layer budgets, since it can implicitly determine the appropriate number of filters in each layer. Our experimental results on different network architectures suggest that PAAM outperforms state-of-the-art structured-pruning methods (SOTA). On CIFAR-10 dataset, without requiring a pre-trained baseline network, we obtain 1.02% and 1.19% accuracy gain and 52.3% and 54% parameters reduction, on ResNet56 and ResNet110, respectively. Similarly, on the ImageNet dataset, PAAM achieves 1.06% accuracy gain while pruning 51.1% of the parameters on ResNet50. For Cifar-10, this is better than the SOTA with a margin of 9.5% and 6.6%, respectively, and on ImageNet with a margin of 11%.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Pith tools