Cited by 29Advanced Neural Network ApplicationsAdvanced Data Compression TechniquesMachine Learning and Data Classification

Minimal random code learning: Getting bits back from compressed model parameters

Open access
Havasi, M, Peharz, R, Hernández-Lobato, JM·2019·Apollo - University of Cambridge Repository

Abstract

While deep neural networks are a highly successful model class, their large memory footprint puts considerable strain on energy consumption, communication bandwidth, and storage requirements.Consequently, model size reduction has become an utmost goal in deep learning.A typical approach is to train a set of deterministic weights, while applying certain techniques such as pruning and quantization, in order that the empirical weight distribution becomes amenable to Shannon-style coding schemes.However, as shown in this paper, relaxing weight determinism and using a full variational distribution over weights allows for more efficient coding schemes and consequently higher compression rates.In particular, following the classical bits-back argument, we encode the network weights using a random sample, requiring only a number of bits corresponding to the Kullback-Leibler divergence between the sampled variational distribution and the encoding distribution.By imposing a constraint on the Kullback-Leibler divergence, we are able to explicitly control the compression rate, while optimizing the expected loss on the training set.The employed encoding scheme can be shown to be close to the optimal information-theoretical lower bound, with respect to the employed variational family.Our method sets new state-of-the-art in neural network compression, as it strictly dominates previous approaches in a Pareto sense: On the benchmarks LeNet-5/MNIST and VGG-16/CIFAR-10, our approach yields the best test performance for a fixed memory budget, and vice versa, it achieves the highest compression rates for a fixed test performance.a variational posterior.However, in order to realize this effective cost, one needs to encode both the network weights and the training targets, while it remains unclear whether it can also be achieved for network weights alone.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.17863/cam.50683

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Algorithms 3 and 4 depend on a procedure such as minimal random coding [20], which is not tractable for high dimensional data.

    “Our lossy compression argument in Section 4.3 is only a proof of concept, because Algorithms 3 and 4 depend on a procedure such as minimal random coding [20], which is not tractable for high dimensional data.”

    From Denoising Diffusion Probabilistic Models (2020) · cites this paper as [20]

    Section 3.1 says the basic minimal random coding algorithm requires a number of samples that grows exponentially with KL divergence, making it infeasible for encoding a practical neural network. But Section 3.3 describes a block-wise implementation to address that obstacle, so the paper does not establish that minimal random coding is generally intractable for high-dimensional data. The source cannot verify the citing paper’s separate statement about its Algorithms 3 and 4. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • The lossy compression argument in Section 4.3 is only a proof of concept.

    “Our lossy compression argument in Section 4.3 is only a proof of concept, because Algorithms 3 and 4 depend on a procedure such as minimal random coding [20], which is not tractable for high dimensional data.”

    From Denoising Diffusion Probabilistic Models (2020) · cites this paper as [20]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 16

  1. S. Chatterjee and P. Diaconis. The sample size required in importance sampling. The Annals of Applied Probability, 28(2):1099-1135, 2018.
  2. W. Chen, J. Wilson, S. Tyree, K. Weinberger, and Y. Chen. Compressing neural networks with the hashing trick. In Proceedings of ICML, pp. 2285-2294, 2015.
  3. B. J. Frey and G. E. Hinton. Efficient stochastic source coding and an application to a bayesian network source model. The Computer Journal, 40(2 and 3):157-165, 1997.
  4. P. D. Grünwald. The minimum description length principle. MIT press, 2007.
  5. Song Han, Jeff Pool, John Tran, and William Dally. Learning both weights and connections for efficient neural network. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NIPS), pp. 1135-1143, 2015.
  6. Song Han, Huizi Mao, and William J Dally. Deep compression: Compressing deep neural networks with pruning, trained quantization and huffman coding. International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR), 2016.
  7. P. Harsha, R. Jain, D. McAllester, and J. Radhakrishnan. The communication complexity of corre- lation. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, 1(56):438-449, 2010.
  8. I. Higgins, L. Matthey, A. Pal, C. Burgess, X. Glorot, M. Botvinick, S. Mohamed, and A. Lerchner. Beta-VAE: Learning basic visual concepts with a constrained variational framework. In ICLR, 2017.
  9. G. E. Hinton and D. Van Camp. Keeping the neural networks simple by minimizing the description length of the weights. In Proceedings of the sixth annual conference on Computational learning theory, pp. 5-13. ACM, 1993.
  10. G. E. Hinton and R. S. Zemel. Autoencoders, minimum description length and helmholtz free energy. In Proceedings of NIPS, pp. 3-10, 1994.
  11. David A Huffman. A method for the construction of minimum-redundancy codes. Proceedings of the IRE, 40(9):1098-1101, 1952.
  12. D. P. Kingma and J. Ba. Adam: A method for stochastic optimization. arXiv preprint arXiv:1412.6980, 2014. · arXiv
  13. Y. LeCun, J. S. Denker, and S. A. Solla. Optimal brain damage. In Proceedings of NIPS, pp. 598-605, 1990.
  14. C. Louizos, K. Ullrich, and M. Welling. Bayesian compression for deep learning. In Proceedings of NIPS, pp. 3288-3298, 2017.
  15. C. E. Shannon. A mathematical theory of communication. Bell System Technical Journal, 27(3): 379-423, 1948.
  16. P. M. B. Vitanyi and M. Li. An introduction to Kolmogorov complexity and its applications, vol- ume 34. Springer Heidelberg, 1997.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Havasi, M., Peharz, R., & Hernández-Lobato, J.
Affiliations
  • University of Cambridge (GB)
  • Eindhoven University of Technology (NL)
Venue
Apollo - University of Cambridge Repository
Publisher
Apollo - University of Cambridge Repository
Published
2019-01-01
OpenAlex
W2963629521
Cited by
29
References
0
Citations by year
2025: 2 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 4 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 2
FWCI
1.47
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Apollo (University of Cambridge) (submittedVersion)
  • Cambridge University Engineering Department Publications Database (submittedVersion)
  • TU/e Research Portal (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
  • Apollo
Funders
  • European Commission (HORIZON2020, 797223)
  • Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Advanced Neural Network Applications
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Advanced Data Compression Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Machine Learning and Data Classification
Keywords
neural network compression, variational inference, Kullback-Leibler divergence, model size reduction, memory-efficient deep learning

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review