human: Given a node-centered hypergraph: <hypergraph>, where nodes represent papers and hyperedges represent sets of papers co-cited by a source paper.

Details of the hypergraph:
Center node: "non structured dnn weight pruning is it beneficial in any platform"
  Abstract: Large deep neural network (DNN) models pose the key challenge to energy efficiency due to the significantly higher energy consumption of off-chip DRAM accesses than arithmetic or SRAM operations. It motivates the intensive research on model compression with two main approaches. Weight pruning leverages the redundancy in the number of weights and can be performed in a non-structured, which has higher flexibility and pruning rate but incurs index accesses due to irregular weights, or structured manner, which preserves the full matrix structure with lower pruning rate. Weight quantization leverages the redundancy in the number of bits in weights. Compared to pruning, quantization is much more hardware-friendly, and has become a "must-do" step for FPGA and ASIC implementations. This paper provides a definitive answer to the question for the first time. First, we build ADMM-NN-S by extending and enhancing ADMM-NN, a recently proposed joint weight pruning and quantization framework. Second, we develop a methodology for fair and fundamental comparison of non-structured and structured pruning in terms of both storage and computation efficiency. Our results show that ADMM-NN-S consistently outperforms the prior art: (i) it achieves 348x, 36x, and 8x overall weight pruning on LeNet-5, AlexNet, and ResNet-50, respectively, with (almost) zero accuracy loss; (ii) we demonstrate the first fully binarized (for all layers) DNNs can be lossless in accuracy in many cases. These results provide a strong baseline and credibility of our study. Based on the proposed comparison framework, with the same accuracy and quantization, the results show that non-structrued pruning is not competitive in terms of both storage and computation efficiency. Thus, we conclude that non-structured pruning is considered harmful. We urge the community not to continue the DNN inference acceleration for non-structured sparsity.

Question: Please tell me which class the center node belongs to. The 40 classes are: cs.NA(Numerical Analysis), cs.MM(Multimedia), cs.LO(Logic in Computer Science), cs.CY(Computers and Society), cs.CR(Cryptography and Security), cs.DC(Distributed, Parallel, and Cluster Computing), cs.HC(Human-Computer Interaction), cs.CE(Computational Engineering, Finance, and Science), cs.NI(Networking and Internet Architecture), cs.CC(Computational Complexity), cs.AI(Artificial Intelligence), cs.MA(Multiagent Systems), cs.GL(General Literature), cs.NE(Neural and Evolutionary Computing), cs.SC(Symbolic Computation), cs.AR(Hardware Architecture), cs.CV(Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition), cs.GR(Graphics), cs.ET(Emerging Technologies), cs.SY(Systems and Control), cs.CG(Computational Geometry), cs.OH(Other Computer Science), cs.PL(Programming Languages), cs.SE(Software Engineering), cs.LG(Machine Learning), cs.SD(Sound), cs.SI(Social and Information Networks), cs.RO(Robotics), cs.IT(Information Theory), cs.PF(Performance), cs.CL(Computation and Language), cs.IR(Information Retrieval), cs.MS(Mathematical Software), cs.FL(Formal Languages and Automata Theory), cs.DS(Data Structures and Algorithms), cs.OS(Operating Systems), cs.GT(Computer Science and Game Theory), cs.DB(Databases), cs.DL(Digital Libraries), cs.DM(Discrete Mathematics). Directly output the class name.

gpt: cs.LG(Machine Learning)