Surprisingly, we find that most of the studied methods yield similar results.

Channel pruning is a popular technique for compressing convolutional neural networks (CNNs), where various pruning criteria have been proposed to remove the redundant filters. From our comprehensive experiments, we found two blind spots of pruning criteria: (1) Similarity: There are some strong similarities among several primary pruning criteria that are widely cited and compared. According to these criteria, the ranks of filters' Importance Score are almost identical, resulting in similar pruned structures.

Neural network sparsification is a promising avenue to save computational time and memory costs, especially in an age where many successful AI models are becoming too large to naïvely deploy on consumer hardware.

In this work, we conduct our investigation on a variety of pruning criteria.

Surprisingly, we find that most of the studied methods yield similar results.

Pruning is a core technique for compressing neural networks to improve computational efficiency. This process is typically approached in two ways: one-shot pruning, which involves a single pass of training and pruning, and iterative pruning, where pruning is performed over multiple cycles for potentially finer network refinement. Although iterative pruning has historically seen broader adoption, this preference is often assumed rather than rigorously tested. Our study presents one of the first systematic and comprehensive comparisons of these methods, providing rigorous definitions, benchmarking both across structured and unstructured settings, and applying different pruning criteria and modalities. We find that each method has specific advantages: one-shot pruning proves more effective at lower pruning ratios, while iterative pruning performs better at higher ratios. Building on these findings, we advocate for patience-based pruning and introduce a hybrid approach that can outperform traditional methods in certain scenarios, providing valuable insights for practitioners selecting a pruning strategy tailored to their goals and constraints.

In this work, we conduct our investigation on a variety of pruning criteria.

Pruning is a widely used method for compressing Deep Neural Networks (DNNs), where less relevant parameters are removed from a DNN model to reduce its size. However, removing parameters reduces model accuracy, so pruning is typically combined with fine-tuning, and sometimes other operations such as rewinding weights, to recover accuracy. A common approach is to repeatedly prune and then fine-tune, with increasing amounts of model parameters being removed in each step. While straightforward to implement, pruning pipelines that follow this approach are computationally expensive due to the need for repeated fine-tuning. In this paper we propose ICE-Pruning, an iterative pruning pipeline for DNNs that significantly decreases the time required for pruning by reducing the overall cost of fine-tuning, while maintaining a similar accuracy to existing pruning pipelines. ICE-Pruning is based on three main components: i) an automatic mechanism to determine after which pruning steps fine-tuning should be performed; ii) a freezing strategy for faster fine-tuning in each pruning step; and iii) a custom pruning-aware learning rate scheduler to further improve the accuracy of each pruning step and reduce the overall time consumption. We also propose an efficient auto-tuning stage for the hyperparameters (e.g., freezing percentage) introduced by the three components. We evaluate ICE-Pruning on several DNN models and datasets, showing that it can accelerate pruning by up to 9.61x. Code is available at https://github.com/gicLAB/ICE-Pruning

Channel pruning is a popular technique for compressing convolutional neural networks (CNNs), where various pruning criteria have been proposed to remove the redundant filters. From our comprehensive experiments, we found two blind spots of pruning criteria: (1) Similarity: There are some strong similarities among several primary pruning criteria that are widely cited and compared. According to these criteria, the ranks of filters' Importance Score are almost identical, resulting in similar pruned structures. In this paper, we analyze the above blind spots on different types of pruning criteria with layer-wise pruning or global pruning. We also break some stereotypes, such as that the results of \ell_1 and \ell_2 pruning are not always similar.