Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

An Information-Theoretic Justification for Model Pruning

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 2102.08329 v4 pith:MBE6ORYH submitted 2021-02-16 cs.LG cs.ITeess.SPmath.ITstat.ML

An Information-Theoretic Justification for Model Pruning

classification cs.LG cs.ITeess.SPmath.ITstat.ML
keywords compressionpruningmodeldistortionformulationinformation-theoreticadditionalgorithm
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
read the original abstract

We study the neural network (NN) compression problem, viewing the tension between the compression ratio and NN performance through the lens of rate-distortion theory. We choose a distortion metric that reflects the effect of NN compression on the model output and derive the tradeoff between rate (compression) and distortion. In addition to characterizing theoretical limits of NN compression, this formulation shows that \emph{pruning}, implicitly or explicitly, must be a part of a good compression algorithm. This observation bridges a gap between parts of the literature pertaining to NN and data compression, respectively, providing insight into the empirical success of model pruning. Finally, we propose a novel pruning strategy derived from our information-theoretic formulation and show that it outperforms the relevant baselines on CIFAR-10 and ImageNet datasets.

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. QuantiBias: Benchmarking Quantization-Induced Bias in LLMs

    cs.CL 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0

    Quantization leaves refusal and multiple-choice bias checks flat while open-ended stereotype endorsement remains high (~24–27% under an independent judge), a gap standard safety evaluations miss.