PreprintCited by 328Advanced Neural Network ApplicationsMachine Learning and Data ClassificationDomain Adaptation and Few-Shot Learning

Rethinking the Smaller-Norm-Less-Informative Assumption in Channel Pruning of Convolution Layers

Open access
Ye, Jianbo, Lu, Xin, Lin, Zhe, Wang, James Z.·2018·arXiv

Abstract

Model pruning has become a useful technique that improves the computational efficiency of deep learning, making it possible to deploy solutions in resource-limited scenarios. A widely-used practice in relevant work assumes that a smaller-norm parameter or feature plays a less informative role at the inference time. In this paper, we propose a channel pruning technique for accelerating the computations of deep convolutional neural networks (CNNs) that does not critically rely on this assumption. Instead, it focuses on direct simplification of the channel-to-channel computation graph of a CNN without the need of performing a computationally difficult and not-always-useful task of making high-dimensional tensors of CNN structured sparse. Our approach takes two stages: first to adopt an end-to- end stochastic training method that eventually forces the outputs of some channels to be constant, and then to prune those constant channels from the original neural network by adjusting the biases of their impacting layers such that the resulting compact model can be quickly fine-tuned. Our approach is mathematically appealing from an optimization perspective and easy to reproduce. We experimented our approach through several image learning benchmarks and demonstrate its interesting aspects and competitive performance.

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 · 10.48550/arxiv.1802.00124

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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?

  • For ResNet101, the authors' compact version uses 0.32 × 10 7 parameters, compared to 1.78 × 10 7 in previous work [14] and 1.73 × 10 7 in another study [22].

    “For instance, in the case of ResNet101, our compact version utilizes 0.32 × 10 7 parameters, whereas in the previous work [14], this count is 1.78 × 10 7 , and in another study [22], it is 1.73 × 10 7 .”

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

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 20

  1. Jose M Alvarez and Mathieu Salzmann. Learning the number of neurons in deep networks. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , pp. 2270-2278, 2016.
  2. Sajid Anwar, Kyuyeon Hwang, and Wonyong Sung. Structured pruning of deep convolutional neural networks. ACM Journal on Emerging Technologies in Computing Systems (JETC) , 13(3):32, 2017.
  3. Amir Beck and Marc Teboulle. A fast iterative shrinkage-thresholding algorithm for linear inverse problems. SIAM Journal on Imaging Sciences , 2(1):183-202, 2009.
  4. Laurent Dinh, Razvan Pascanu, Samy Bengio, and Yoshua Bengio. Sharp minima can generalize for deep nets. In Proceedings of International Conference on Machine Learning , 2017.
  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 , pp. 1135-1143, 2015.
  6. Babak Hassibi and David G Stork. Second order derivatives for network pruning: Optimal brain surgeon. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , pp. 164-171, 1993.
  7. Zehao Huang and Naiyan Wang. Data-driven sparse structure selection for deep neural networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1707.01213 , 2017. · arXiv
  8. Sergey Ioffe and Christian Szegedy. Batch normalization: Accelerating deep network training by reducing internal covariate shift. In International Conference on Machine Learning , pp. 448-456, 2015.
  9. Vadim Lebedev and Victor Lempitsky. Fast convnets using group-wise brain damage. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , pp. 2554-2564, 2016.
  10. Yann LeCun, John S Denker, and Sara A Solla. Optimal brain damage. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , pp. 598-605, 1990.
  11. Hao Li, Asim Kadav, Igor Durdanovic, Hanan Samet, and Hans Peter Graf. Pruning filters for efficient convnets. In International Conference on Learning Representations , 2017.
  12. Tsung-Yi Lin, Michael Maire, Serge Belongie, James Hays, Pietro Perona, Deva Ramanan, Piotr Doll´ ar, and C Lawrence Zitnick. Microsoft coco: Common objects in context. In European conference on computer vision , pp. 740-755. Springer, 2014.
  13. Tie Liu, Zejian Yuan, Jian Sun, Jingdong Wang, Nanning Zheng, Xiaoou Tang, and Heung-Yeung Shum. Learning to detect a salient object. IEEE Transactions on Pattern analysis and machine intelligence , 33(2): 353-367, 2011.
  14. Zhuang Liu, Jianguo Li, Zhiqiang Shen, Gao Huang, Shoumeng Yan, and Changshui Zhang. Learning efficient convolutional networks through network slimming. arXiv preprint arXiv:1708.06519 , 2017. · arXiv
  15. Pavlo Molchanov, Stephen Tyree, Tero Karras, Timo Aila, and Jan Kautz. Pruning convolutional neural networks for resource efficient transfer learning. In International Conference on Learning Representations , 2017.
  16. Xiaoyong Shen, Aaron Hertzmann, Jiaya Jia, Sylvain Paris, Brian Price, Eli Shechtman, and Ian Sachs. Automatic portrait segmentation for image stylization. In Computer Graphics Forum , volume 35, pp. 93-102. Wiley Online Library, 2016.
  17. Wei Wen, Chunpeng Wu, Yandan Wang, Yiran Chen, and Hai Li. Learning structured sparsity in deep neural networks. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , pp. 2074-2082, 2016.
  18. Chuan Yang, Lihe Zhang, Huchuan Lu, Xiang Ruan, and Ming-Hsuan Yang. Saliency detection via graphbased manifold ranking. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition , pp. 3166-3173, 2013.
  19. Xiangyu Zhang, Jianhua Zou, Kaiming He, and Jian Sun. Accelerating very deep convolutional networks for classification and detection. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence , 38(10): 1943-1955, 2016.
  20. Hao Zhou, Jose M Alvarez, and Fatih Porikli. Less is more: Towards compact cnns. In European Conference on Computer Vision , pp. 662-677. Springer, 2016.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Ye, J., Lu, X., Lin, Z., & Wang, J. Z.
Affiliations
  • Pennsylvania State University (US)
  • Adobe Systems (United States) (US)
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2018
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2786054724
Cited by
328
References
2
Citations by year
2025: 8 · 2024: 21 · 2023: 47 · 2022: 42 · 2021: 77 · 2020: 70 · 2019: 50 · 2018: 13
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Advanced Neural Network Applications
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Machine Learning and Data Classification
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Domain Adaptation and Few-Shot Learning
Keywords
channel pruning, convolutional neural networks, model compression, computational efficiency, bias correction, fine-tuning, structured sparsity, inference acceleration

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