Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 54 references

Model Compression using Progressive Channel Pruning

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

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that iteratively pruning a few channels from the least harmful layers—selected greedily by validation-accuracy drop before fine-tuning—produces compressed CNNs that beat one-shot channel pruning and automatically…

desk verdict A genuinely new iterative layer-selection mechanism for channel pruning, with consistent but small gains, held back by an untested selection proxy and a missing pseudo-label baseline in the transfer experiments. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.04792 v1 pith:MS2VUB5Z submitted 2025-07-07 cs.CV cs.AI

Jinyang Guo , Weichen Zhang , Wanli Ouyang , Dong Xu This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CVcs.AI
keywords progressivechannelpruningmodelcompressionconvolutionalneuralnetworksgreedylayerselectionunsuperviseddomainadaptationadversarialnetworkpseudo-labelingImageNet
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

This paper proposes Progressive Channel Pruning (PCP), a framework that compresses CNNs by iteratively removing a small number of channels from several layers at a time, rather than pruning each layer once in a fixed order. At every iteration the method tries pruning each candidate layer, measures the validation-accuracy drop, greedily selects the layers whose pruning hurts least, and then prunes exactly those layers. The same loop is extended to unsupervised domain adaptation by feeding a domain-adversarial network pseudo-labeled target samples during pruning. The authors report that PCP outperforms existing channel pruning methods on ImageNet for VGG-16, AlexNet, and ResNet-50, and that it preserves or improves DANN accuracy on Office-31 under compression.

What carries the argument

The attempting-selecting-pruning loop carries the argument: each iteration independently solves the LASSO channel-selection problem (Eq. (5)) and least-squares weight reconstruction (Eq. (6)) for every candidate layer to estimate its accuracy drop, then a greedy step selects the top-n layers with the smallest drops and prunes them in shallow-to-deep order via Eqs. (7)-(8), using validation accuracy before fine-tuning as a proxy for final accuracy. This loop is what converts a per-layer pruning primitive into an automatic, progressive global structure search.

What would settle it

Train a small network where all possible per-layer channel allocations at a fixed FLOPs budget can be enumerated; run PCP to the same budget, fine-tune every allocation identically, and compare. If any non-greedy allocation that PCP never selected matches or beats PCP's post-fine-tuning accuracy, the greedy selection proxy is not reliable. A cheaper check is to compare PCP's per-iteration selections against selections made with a few hundred fine-tuning steps inserted between iterations.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that compression decisions should be made progressively and globally: at each iteration, temporarily prune each candidate layer, rank layers by the resulting validation-accuracy drop before fine-tuning, and prune only the top-n least harmful layers, repeating until the target FLOPs or parameter ratio is reached (Algorithm 1, Eqs. (5)-(8)). This replaces the common practice of pruning each layer once with a pre-designed per-layer channel budget, and also replaces per-layer one-shot pruning with a loop in which shallower layers are pruned before deeper ones so that deeper layers' LASSO-based weight reconstruction sees the updated input features. Because the per-layer attempts are independent, the framework can reuse any existing channel pruning primitive, and the authors instantiate it with the LASSO-plus-least-squares method of [1]. Under the transfer-learning extension, the same loop is run on a DANN model using both labeled source samples and pseudo-labeled target samples, plus spatial positions selected for informative response variance, which the paper argues reduces domain distribution mismatch during compression. The experimental claim is that this automatically determined structure yields higher post-fine-tuning accuracy than one-shot baselines and than the reinforcement-learning-based AMC at matched compression ratios.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the accuracy of a pruned model measured before fine-tuning reliably predicts its accuracy after fine-tuning, so greedily choosing layers with the smallest pre-fine-tuning drop produces the best final compressed model.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • PCP removes the need to hand-design per-layer channel budgets: the greedy loop decides how many channels survive in each layer, and the resulting distribution matches human-designed trends such as deeper layers retaining more channels.
  • A single run yields compressed models at every intermediate compression ratio, so a deployment that later needs a smaller model does not require a new pruning run.
  • At matched compression ratios, PCP reports higher top-1/top-5 accuracy than one-shot channel pruning on VGG-16, AlexNet, and ResNet-50 on ImageNet, and higher than AMC at 5x compression.
  • In the transfer setting, pruning the DANN model with pseudo-labeled target samples keeps accuracy at or above the uncompressed DANN model at 2x-5x compression across Office-31 tasks, whereas source-only pruning degrades it.
  • Any existing channel pruning method can be plugged into the attempting and pruning steps, so improvements in the underlying pruning primitive transfer directly to PCP.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The attempting-selecting loop is a generic search wrapper: the same validation-drop oracle could schedule quantization bit-widths, block- or head-pruning, or layer dropping, since it never depends on how the candidate compression is performed.
  • The pre-fine-tuning proxy is the main empirical risk; inserting cheap partial fine-tuning between iterations would test whether the greedy selections track final accuracy, without changing the framework's structure.
  • Pseudo-label noise in the UDA extension could be mitigated by weighting target samples by prediction confidence or entropy, an option the authors do not explore.
  • Because the per-layer attempts are independent and parallelizable, the framework's overhead (about 7-12% extra wall-clock time in the paper's measurements) should shrink further on multi-GPU setups, which the authors identify as future work.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

5 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes Progressive Channel Pruning (PCP), an iterative three-step attempting-selecting-pruning framework for CNN channel pruning. In each iteration, the method estimates per-layer validation-accuracy drops after pruning a small number of channels (attempting), greedily selects the top-n layers with the smallest drops (selecting), and then prunes those layers using an existing channel-pruning solver, specifically the LASSO/least-squares method of He et al. (pruning). The framework is extended to unsupervised domain adaptation by pruning a pre-trained DANN model, using pseudo-labelled target samples and variance-based spatial-location selection. Experiments on ImageNet with VGG-16, AlexNet, and ResNet-50 compare PCP with Filter Pruning, Channel Pruning, AMC, ThiNet, and NISP-B; experiments on Office-31 compare PCP with Channel Pruning on DANN backbones. The paper claims that PCP automatically determines per-layer channel counts, produces a series of compressed models at intermediate compression ratios, and outperforms existing channel pruning methods under both supervised and transfer learning settings.

Significance. If the empirical results hold, PCP provides a simple and base-pruner-agnostic way to automate per-layer channel allocation, reducing the human effort of hand-designing per-layer channel counts. The transfer-learning extension is novel in the pruning literature and practically relevant for deploying compressed models on resource-constrained devices. The algorithm is clearly described and easy to implement, and the paper honestly reports the additional pruning time. The main limitations are that the core selection criterion is justified only by an untested heuristic assumption, the transfer-learning baseline does not isolate the pseudo-label contribution, and the experimental comparisons lack statistical significance assessments. These issues are addressable with additional ablations and reporting, so the contribution is worth further consideration after the required revisions.

major comments (5)
  1. [Sec. III-C, Algorithm 1, Eqs. (5)-(8)] The selecting step's load-bearing assumption that validation accuracy before fine-tuning predicts post-fine-tuning accuracy is asserted in one sentence ('Empirically, we find...') but never validated in this manuscript. Moreover, the top-n greedy selection assumes that the accuracy drop of jointly pruning a set of layers is well approximated by the marginal drops of individually pruned layers, and this additivity is also untested. Since the experiments report only final fine-tuned accuracies, the reader cannot check whether the proxy holds, and since selected layers are pruned jointly in shallow-to-deep order (Eqs. (7)-(8)), interactions between simultaneously pruned layers are ignored. Please add an ablation that compares the greedy selection with random selection and with selecting the largest-drop layers, reporting both pre-fine-tuning and post-fine-tuning accuracies, and a check of whether the joint drop is consistent with the marginal drops.
  2. [Sec. IV, Tables IV-VI] The comparison of PCP (w/ PL) with CP [1] does not isolate the effect of pseudo-labelling because the two methods differ in both the progressive selection mechanism and the use of pseudo-labelled target samples; there is no CP-with-pseudo-labels baseline. Consequently, large gains attributed to pseudo-labelling (e.g., ResNet-50 at 5x, A→W: 78.4 vs. 71.8 in Table VI) could be due to the self-training/pseudo-label component rather than the progressive pruning framework. Please add a CP + pseudo-labels baseline or an ablation in which PCP (w/o PL) is fine-tuned with pseudo-labels only at the fine-tuning stage.
  3. [Tables I-VI] All reported accuracies are from single runs with no standard deviations, confidence intervals, or significance tests. Several margins are small (e.g., VGG-16 at 2x: 90.0 vs. 89.9; 4x: 89.3 vs. 88.9 in Table I), so the claim that PCP 'consistently outperforms' existing methods is not statistically supported. Please report results over multiple seeds or at least include standard deviations and state whether differences are significant.
  4. [Sections I and II-A] The claim that PCP is 'the first channel pruning framework that can automatically decide the network structure' is contradicted by the paper's own description of AMC [39], which uses reinforcement learning to decide the number of remaining channels per layer, and by NISP-B [54], which prunes channels based on global importance scores across layers. The novelty claim should be qualified (e.g., 'first progressive greedy framework that automatically decides per-layer channel counts for UDA') or the positioning should be revised.
  5. [Sec. IV] The two domain-adaptation-specific mechanisms are under-specified: the 'highly confident' threshold for assigning pseudo-labels and the 'empirically defined threshold' for spatial-location variance are never given numerical values, and no sensitivity analysis is provided. Since these thresholds are free parameters that can materially affect the transfer-learning results, please specify the values and report ablations over them.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Index Terms] The Index Terms contain the typo 'Pruining' and should be 'Pruning'.
  2. [Table I and Sec. V-A] The caption of Table I says 'IMAGE NET' and should be 'ImageNet'; the same misspelling appears in the heading of Section V-A.
  3. [Introduction and Sec. III-C] The phrase 'optimal network structure' is too strong for a greedy heuristic and should be 'effective network structure' or 'good network structure'.
  4. [Sec. V-A] The hyperparameter sensitivity discussion reports variations of 88.7-89.2 for top n and 88.8-89.2 for f_t, which supports 'not very sensitive,' but this should be accompanied by the number of runs used to compute those numbers.
  5. [Sec. III-C and Algorithm 1] The attempting step is described in Sec. III-C as 'can be performed in parallel' but is implemented as a sequential for-loop in Algorithm 1; since parallelism is mentioned as future work in Sec. VI, the wording in Sec. III-C should be aligned with the current implementation to avoid confusion.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: PCP's per-layer accuracy-drop heuristic is tested against held-out post-fine-tuning accuracy rather than being defined as that quantity.

full rationale

The derivation chain is an empirical greedy search: Eq. (5)-(8) produce candidate pruned models, and the validation accuracy drop of each single-layer candidate is used only to rank layers in Sec. III-C; the final compressed model is then fine-tuned and its accuracy is measured on the held-out ImageNet and Office-31 test sets in Tables I-VI. Nothing in the paper defines the reported post-fine-tuning accuracy as equal to the attempting-step accuracy drop: the proxy statement 'Empirically, we find a model with higher accuracy before the fine-tuning process usually leads to better performance after the fine-tuning process' is an inductive heuristic, cited to external works [1], [39], and is not an equation forcing the outcome. The use of validation samples for model selection and pseudo-labelled target samples for self-training is standard practice and does not constitute definitional circularity. The references to the authors' own prior works [27]-[33] appear only in related-work enumerations, and no load-bearing premise is justified by self-citation. The main risk is that the pre-fine-tuning proxy may be an imperfect predictor of joint post-fine-tuning utility, but that is an empirical correctness concern rather than circularity.

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

The method does not introduce new physical entities. It relies on the standard assumptions of the channel-pruning literature and on several task-specific hyperparameters that are tuned empirically. The main burden is the validation-proxy assumption, which is the core of the selecting step, and the greedy additivity assumption that per-layer accuracy drops combine linearly.

free parameters (4)
  • f_t (number of channels pruned per layer per iteration) = e.g., max{30% of current channels, 40} for VGG/ResNet; schedule decreases from 30% to 10% as compression ratio grows
    Hand-designed to trade off speed and accuracy; chosen by experiments on the validation set.
  • top n (number of layers selected per iteration) = VGG: 4, AlexNet: 2, ResNet-50: 32
    Set empirically; sensitivity shown but not optimized.
  • variance threshold for spatial location selection = not specified
    Defined empirically in Section IV-B to select informative features; no value given.
  • pseudo-label confidence threshold = not specified
    Mentioned as 'highly confident' but no numerical threshold is provided; used to generate pseudo-labels.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption LASSO-based channel pruning from [1] effectively identifies prunable channels
    The PCP framework relies on the inner solver from [1] in both attempting and pruning steps; Eq. (5)-(8) directly use it.
  • domain assumption Validation accuracy before fine-tuning is a reliable proxy for post-fine-tuning accuracy
    Stated in Section III-C: 'Empirically, we find a model with higher accuracy before the fine-tuning process usually leads to better performance after the fine-tuning process.' This premise underlies the selection step.
  • domain assumption Greedy selection of top-n layers with smallest validation accuracy drops yields a good final network structure
    The selecting step assumes that per-layer validation drops are independent and additive; this is not proven.
  • domain assumption Pseudo-labelled target samples from a DANN model are reliable enough for pruning and fine-tuning
    Used in Section IV; if pseudo-labels are noisy, the transfer-learning results could be misleading.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Model Compression using Progressive Channel Pruning." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/MS2VUB5Z

@misc{pith2026250704792,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Model Compression using Progressive Channel Pruning},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/MS2VUB5Z}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.04792}
}
read the original abstract

In this work, we propose a simple but effective channel pruning framework called Progressive Channel Pruning (PCP) to accelerate Convolutional Neural Networks (CNNs). In contrast to the existing channel pruning methods that prune channels only once per layer in a layer-by-layer fashion, our new progressive framework iteratively prunes a small number of channels from several selected layers, which consists of a three-step attempting-selecting-pruning pipeline in each iteration. In the attempting step, we attempt to prune a pre-defined number of channels from one layer by using any existing channel pruning methods and estimate the accuracy drop for this layer based on the labelled samples in the validation set. In the selecting step, based on the estimated accuracy drops for all layers, we propose a greedy strategy to automatically select a set of layers that will lead to less overall accuracy drop after pruning these layers. In the pruning step, we prune a small number of channels from these selected layers. We further extend our PCP framework to prune channels for the deep transfer learning methods like Domain Adversarial Neural Network (DANN), in which we effectively reduce the data distribution mismatch in the channel pruning process by using both labelled samples from the source domain and pseudo-labelled samples from the target domain. Our comprehensive experiments on two benchmark datasets demonstrate that our PCP framework outperforms the existing channel pruning approaches under both supervised learning and transfer learning settings.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.04792 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Illustration of pruning one residual block. Left: Original residual block. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Illustration of the three-step pipeline in our PCP method at the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Percentages of the remained channels (i.e., the number of remained [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

54 extracted references · 44 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Channel pruning for accelerating very deep neural networks,

    Y . He, X. Zhang, and J. Sun, “Channel pruning for accelerating very deep neural networks,” in ICCV, 2017, pp. 1398–1406

    work page 2017

  2. [39]

    AMC: Automl for model compression and acceleration on mobile devices,

    Y . He, J. Lin, Z. Liu, H. Wang, L.-J. Li, and S. Han, “AMC: Automl for model compression and acceleration on mobile devices,” in ECCV, 2018, pp. 815–832

    work page 2018

  3. [54]

    NISP: Pruning networks using neuron importance score propagation,

    R. Yu, A. Li, C.-F. Chen, J.-H. Lai, V . I. Morariu, X. Han, M. Gao, C.-Y . Lin, and L. S. Davis, “NISP: Pruning networks using neuron importance score propagation,” in CVPR, 2018. Jinyang Guo received the BE degree in School of Electrical Engineering and Telecommunications from the University of New South Wales in 2017. He is currently pursuing the PhD d...

    work page 2018

  4. [2]

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

    J.-H. Luo, J. Wu, and W. Lin, “Thinet: A filter level pruning method for deep neural network compression,” in ICCV, 2017, pp. 5068–5076

    work page 2017

  5. [3]

    Imagenet large scale visual recognition challenge,

    O. Russakovsky, J. Deng, H. Su, J. Krause, S. Satheesh, S. Ma, Z. Huang, A. Karpathy, A. Khosla, M. Bernstein et al., “Imagenet large scale visual recognition challenge,” IJCV, vol. 115, no. 3, pp. 211–252, 2015

    work page 2015

  6. [4]

    Adapting visual category models to new domains,

    K. Saenko, B. Kulis, M. Fritz, and T. Darrell, “Adapting visual category models to new domains,” in ECCV, 2010, pp. 213–226

    work page 2010

  7. [5]

    Domain-adversarial training of neural networks,

    Y . Ganin, E. Ustinova, H. Ajakan, P. Germain, H. Larochelle, F. Lavio- lette, M. Marchand, and V . Lempitsky, “Domain-adversarial training of neural networks,” JMLR, vol. 17, no. 59, pp. 1–35, 2016

    work page 2016

  8. [6]

    Speeding-up convolutional neural networks using fine-tuned cp- decomposition,

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

    arXiv 2014

Show all 54 references
  1. [7]

    Speeding up convolutional neural networks with low rank expansions,

    M. Jaderberg, A. Vedaldi, and A. Zisserman, “Speeding up convolutional neural networks with low rank expansions,” in BMVC, 2014

    2014

  2. [8]

    Compression of deep convolutional neural networks for fast and low power mobile applications,

    Y .-D. Kim, E. Park, S. Yoo, T. Choi, L. Yang, and D. Shin, “Compression of deep convolutional neural networks for fast and low power mobile applications,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1511.06530 , 2015

    2015 arXiv

  3. [9]

    Compressing deep convolutional networks using vector quantization,

    Y . Gong, L. Liu, M. Yang, and L. Bourdev, “Compressing deep convolutional networks using vector quantization,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1412.6115, 2014

    2014 arXiv

  4. [10]

    Restructuring of deep neural network acoustic models with singular value decomposition

    J. Xue, J. Li, and Y . Gong, “Restructuring of deep neural network acoustic models with singular value decomposition.” in Interspeech, 2013

    2013

  5. [11]

    Xnor-net: Imagenet classification using binary convolutional neural networks,

    M. Rastegari, V . Ordonez, J. Redmon, and A. Farhadi, “Xnor-net: Imagenet classification using binary convolutional neural networks,” in ECCV, 2016, pp. 525–542

    2016

  6. [12]

    Compressing large language models by joint sparsification and quantization,

    J. Guo, J. Wu, Z. Wang, J. Liu, G. Yang, Y . Ding, R. Gong, H. Qin, and X. Liu, “Compressing large language models by joint sparsification and quantization,” in Forty-first International Conference on Machine Learning, 2024

    2024

  7. [13]

    Ptq4sam: Post-training quantization for segment anything,

    C. Lv, H. Chen, J. Guo, Y . Ding, and X. Liu, “Ptq4sam: Post-training quantization for segment anything,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , 2024, pp. 15 941–15 951

    2024

  8. [14]

    Llmcbench: Benchmarking large language model compression for efficient deployment,

    G. Yang, C. He, J. Guo, J. Wu, Y . Ding, A. Liu, H. Qin, P. Ji, and X. Liu, “Llmcbench: Benchmarking large language model compression for efficient deployment,” NeurIPS, 2024

    2024

  9. [15]

    Lcnn: Lookup-based convolutional neural network,

    H. Bagherinezhad, M. Rastegari, and A. Farhadi, “Lcnn: Lookup-based convolutional neural network,” in CVPR, 2017

    2017

  10. [16]

    Fast algorithms for convolutional neural net- works,

    A. Lavin and S. Gray, “Fast algorithms for convolutional neural net- works,” in CVPR, 2016, pp. 4013–4021

    2016

  11. [17]

    Fast training of convolutional networks through ffts,

    M. Mathieu, M. Henaff, and Y . Lecun, “Fast training of convolutional networks through ffts,” in ICLR, 2014

    2014

  12. [18]

    Fast convolutional nets with fbfft: A gpu performance evaluation,

    N. Vasilache, J. Johnson, M. Mathieu, S. Chintala, S. Piantino, and Y . LeCun, “Fast convolutional nets with fbfft: A gpu performance evaluation,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1412.7580 , 2014

    2014 arXiv

  13. [19]

    Mobilenets: Efficient convo- lutional neural networks for mobile vision applications,

    A. G. Howard, M. Zhu, B. Chen, D. Kalenichenko, W. Wang, T. Weyand, M. Andreetto, and H. Adam, “Mobilenets: Efficient convo- lutional neural networks for mobile vision applications,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1704.04861, 2017

    2017 arXiv

  14. [20]

    Shufflenet: An extremely efficient convolutional neural network for mobile devices

    X. Zhang, X. Zhou, M. Lin, and J. Sun, “Shufflenet: An extremely efficient convolutional neural network for mobile devices.” in CVPR, 2018

    2018

  15. [21]

    Lta-pcs: Learnable task-agnostic point cloud sampling,

    J. Liu, J. Li, K. Wang, H. Guo, J. Yang, J. Peng, K. Xu, X. Liu, and J. Guo, “Lta-pcs: Learnable task-agnostic point cloud sampling,” in CVPR, 2024

    2024

  16. [22]

    EIE: Efficient inference engine on compressed deep neural network,

    S. Han, X. Liu, H. Mao, J. Pu, A. Pedram, M. A. Horowitz, and W. J. Dally, “EIE: Efficient inference engine on compressed deep neural network,” in Computer Architecture (ISCA), 2016 ACM/IEEE 43rd Annual International Symposium on , 2016, pp. 243–254

    2016

  17. [23]

    Network trimming: A data- driven neuron pruning approach towards efficient deep architectures,

    H. Hu, R. Peng, Y .-W. Tai, and C.-K. Tang, “Network trimming: A data- driven neuron pruning approach towards efficient deep architectures,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1607.03250 , 2016

    2016 arXiv

  18. [24]

    Pruning filters for efficient convnets,

    H. Li, A. Kadav, I. Durdanovic, H. Samet, and H. P. Graf, “Pruning filters for efficient convnets,” ICLR, 2016. IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON CIRCUITS AND SYSTEMS FOR VIDEO TECHNOLOGY , VOL.XX, NO.XX, XXXX,XXXX 11

    2016

  19. [25]

    Pruning convolutional neural networks for resource efficient inference,

    P. Molchanov, S. Tyree, T. Karras, T. Aila, and J. Kautz, “Pruning convolutional neural networks for resource efficient inference,” ICLR, 2017

    2017

  20. [26]

    Learning both weights and connections for efficient neural network,

    S. Han, J. Pool, J. Tran, and W. Dally, “Learning both weights and connections for efficient neural network,” in NIPS, 2015, pp. 1135–1143

    2015

  21. [27]

    Multi-dimensional pruning: A unified framework for model compression,

    J. Guo, W. Ouyang, and D. Xu, “Multi-dimensional pruning: A unified framework for model compression,” in CVPR, 2020

    2020

  22. [28]

    Multidimensional pruning and its exten- sion: A unified framework for model compression,

    J. Guo, D. Xu, and W. Ouyang, “Multidimensional pruning and its exten- sion: A unified framework for model compression,” IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems , 2023

    2023

  23. [29]

    Channel pruning guided by classifica- tion loss and feature importance,

    J. Guo, W. Ouyang, and D. Xu, “Channel pruning guided by classifica- tion loss and feature importance,” in AAAI, 2020

    2020

  24. [30]

    Ptsbench: A comprehensive post-training sparsity benchmark towards algorithms and models,

    Z. Wang, J. Guo, R. Gong, Y . Yong, A. Liu, Y . Huang, J. Liu, and X. Liu, “Ptsbench: A comprehensive post-training sparsity benchmark towards algorithms and models,” in ACM Multimedia 2024

    2024

  25. [31]

    Jointpruning: Pruning networks along multi- ple dimensions for efficient point cloud processing,

    J. Guo, J. Liu, and D. Xu, “Jointpruning: Pruning networks along multi- ple dimensions for efficient point cloud processing,” IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology , 2021

    2021

  26. [32]

    Cbanet: Towards complexity and bitrate adaptive deep image compression using a single network,

    J. Guo, D. Xu, and G. Lu, “Cbanet: Towards complexity and bitrate adaptive deep image compression using a single network,” IEEE Trans- actions on Image Processing , 2023

    2023

  27. [33]

    3d-pruning: A model compression framework for efficient 3d action recognition,

    J. Guo, J. Liu, and D. Xu, “3d-pruning: A model compression framework for efficient 3d action recognition,” IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology, vol. 32, no. 12, pp. 8717–8729, 2022

    2022

  28. [34]

    Exploiting linear structure within convolutional networks for efficient evaluation,

    E. L. Denton, W. Zaremba, J. Bruna, Y . LeCun, and R. Fergus, “Exploiting linear structure within convolutional networks for efficient evaluation,” in NIPS, 2014, pp. 1269–1277

    2014

  29. [35]

    Fast R-CNN,

    R. Girshick, “Fast R-CNN,” in ICCV, 2015, pp. 1440–1448

    2015

  30. [36]

    Variational convolutional neural network pruning,

    C. Zhao, B. Ni, J. Zhang, Q. Zhao, W. Zhang, and Q. Tian, “Variational convolutional neural network pruning,” in CVPR, 2019

    2019

  31. [37]

    Towards optimal structured cnn pruning via generative adversarial learning,

    S. Lin, R. Ji, C. Yan, B. Zhang, L. Cao, Q. Ye, F. Huang, and D. Doermann, “Towards optimal structured cnn pruning via generative adversarial learning,” in CVPR, 2019

    2019

  32. [38]

    Collaborative channel pruning for deep networks,

    H. Peng, J. Wu, S. Chen, and J. Huang, “Collaborative channel pruning for deep networks,” in ICML, 2019

    2019

  33. [40]

    Cooperative pruning in cross-domain deep neural network compression,

    S. Chen, W. Wang, and S. J. Pan, “Cooperative pruning in cross-domain deep neural network compression,” in IJCAI. AAAI Press, 2019

    2019

  34. [41]

    Learning transferable features with deep adaptation networks,

    M. Long, Y . Cao, J. Wang, and M. Jordan, “Learning transferable features with deep adaptation networks,” in ICML, 2015, pp. 97–105

    2015

  35. [42]

    Unsupervised domain adaptation with residual transfer networks,

    M. Long, H. Zhu, J. Wang, and M. I. Jordan, “Unsupervised domain adaptation with residual transfer networks,” in NIPS, 2016, pp. 136–144

    2016

  36. [43]

    Deep coral: Correlation alignment for deep domain adaptation,

    B. Sun and K. Saenko, “Deep coral: Correlation alignment for deep domain adaptation,” in ECCV, 2016, pp. 443–450

    2016

  37. [44]

    Deep domain confusion: Maximizing for domain invariance,

    E. Tzeng, J. Hoffman, N. Zhang, K. Saenko, and T. Darrell, “Deep domain confusion: Maximizing for domain invariance,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1412.3474, 2014

    2014 arXiv

  38. [45]

    Unsupervised pixel-level domain adaptation with generative adversarial networks,

    K. Bousmalis, N. Silberman, D. Dohan, D. Erhan, and D. Krishnan, “Unsupervised pixel-level domain adaptation with generative adversarial networks,” in CVPR, 2017, pp. 3722–3731

    2017

  39. [46]

    Domain separation networks,

    K. Bousmalis, G. Trigeorgis, N. Silberman, D. Krishnan, and D. Erhan, “Domain separation networks,” in NIPS, 2016, pp. 343–351

    2016

  40. [47]

    Unsupervised domain adaptation by backpropagation,

    Y . Ganin and V . Lempitsky, “Unsupervised domain adaptation by backpropagation,” in ICML, 2015, pp. 1180–1189

    2015

  41. [48]

    Coupled generative adversarial networks,

    M.-Y . Liu and O. Tuzel, “Coupled generative adversarial networks,” in NIPS, 2016, pp. 469–477

    2016

  42. [49]

    Adversarial discrim- inative domain adaptation,

    E. Tzeng, J. Hoffman, K. Saenko, and T. Darrell, “Adversarial discrim- inative domain adaptation,” in CVPR, 2017, pp. 2962–2971

    2017

  43. [50]

    Collaborative and adversarial network for unsupervised domain adaptation,

    W. Zhang, W. Ouyang, W. Li, and D. Xu, “Collaborative and adversarial network for unsupervised domain adaptation,” inCVPR, 2018, pp. 3801– 3809

    2018

  44. [51]

    Very deep convolutional networks for large-scale image recognition,

    K. Simonyan and A. Zisserman, “Very deep convolutional networks for large-scale image recognition,” arXiv, 2014

    2014

  45. [52]

    Deep residual learning for image recognition,

    K. He, X. Zhang, S. Ren, and J. Sun, “Deep residual learning for image recognition,” in CVPR, 2016, pp. 770–778

    2016

  46. [53]

    Imagenet classification with deep convolutional neural networks,

    A. Krizhevsky, I. Sutskever, and G. E. Hinton, “Imagenet classification with deep convolutional neural networks,” in NIPS, 2012, pp. 1097– 1105

    2012

Pith tools

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