Pith. sign in

REVIEW

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 2209.08554 v1 pith:JEVBYQ67 submitted 2022-09-18 cs.LG cs.AI

Pruning Neural Networks via Coresets and Convex Geometry: Towards No Assumptions

classification cs.LG cs.AI
keywords assumptionscoresetsnetworkspruningmethodneuralachievedapproaches
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
read the original abstract

Pruning is one of the predominant approaches for compressing deep neural networks (DNNs). Lately, coresets (provable data summarizations) were leveraged for pruning DNNs, adding the advantage of theoretical guarantees on the trade-off between the compression rate and the approximation error. However, coresets in this domain were either data-dependent or generated under restrictive assumptions on both the model's weights and inputs. In real-world scenarios, such assumptions are rarely satisfied, limiting the applicability of coresets. To this end, we suggest a novel and robust framework for computing such coresets under mild assumptions on the model's weights and without any assumption on the training data. The idea is to compute the importance of each neuron in each layer with respect to the output of the following layer. This is achieved by a combination of L\"{o}wner ellipsoid and Caratheodory theorem. Our method is simultaneously data-independent, applicable to various networks and datasets (due to the simplified assumptions), and theoretically supported. Experimental results show that our method outperforms existing coreset based neural pruning approaches across a wide range of networks and datasets. For example, our method achieved a $62\%$ compression rate on ResNet50 on ImageNet with $1.09\%$ drop in accuracy.

discussion (0)

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