user: text: Write a concise one-sentence TLDR summary of the scientific paper content below.

Title: To Prune, or Not to Prune: Exploring the Efficacy of Pruning for Model Compression

Paper content:
Model pruning seeks to induce sparsity in a deep neural network's various connection matrices, thereby reducing the number of nonzero-valued parameters in the model.
Recent reports (Han et al., 2015; Narang et al., 2017) prune deep networks at the cost of only a marginal loss in accuracy and achieve a sizable reduction in model size.
This hints at the possibility that the baseline models in these experiments are perhaps severely over-parameterized at the outset and a viable alternative for model compression might be to simply reduce the number of hidden units while maintaining the model's dense connection structure, exposing a similar trade-off in model size and accuracy.
We investigate these two distinct paths for model compression within the context of energy-efficient inference in resource-constrained environments and propose a new gradual pruning technique that is simple and straightforward to apply across a variety of models/datasets with minimal tuning and can be seamlessly incorporated within the training process.
We compare the accuracy of large, but pruned models (large-sparse) and their smaller, but dense (small-dense) counterparts with identical memory footprint.
Across a broad range of neural network architectures (deep CNNs, stacked LSTM, and seq2seq LSTM models), we find large-sparse models to consistently outperform small-dense models and achieve up to 10x reduction in number of non-zero parameters with minimal loss in accuracy.
Over the past few years, deep neural networks have achieved state-of-the-art performance on several challenging tasks in the domains of computer vision, speech recognition, and natural language processing.
Driven by increasing amounts of data and computational power, deep learning models have become bigger and deeper to better learn from data.
While these models are typically deployed in a datacenter back-end, preserving user privacy and reducing user-perceived query times mandate the migration of the intelligence offered by these deep neural networks towards edge computing devices.
Deploying large, accurate deep learning models to resource-constrained computing environments such as mobile phones, smart cameras etc. for on-device inference poses a few key challenges.
Firstly, state-of-the-art deep learning models routinely have millions of parameters requiring~MBs of storage, whereas on-device memory is limited.
Furthermore, it is not uncommon for even a single model inference to invoke~billions of memory accesses and arithmetic operations, all of which consume power and dissipate heat which may drain the limited battery capacity and/or test the device's thermal limits.Confronting these challenges, a growing body of work has emerged that intends to discover methods for compressing neural network models while limiting any potential loss in model quality.
Latencysensitive workloads relying on energy-efficient on-device neural network inference are often memory bandwidth-bound, and model compression offers the two-fold benefit of reducing the total number of energy-intensive memory accesses as well as improving the inference time due to an effectively higher memory bandwidth for fetching compressed model parameters.
Within the realm of model compression techniques, pruning away (forcing to zero) the less salient connections (parameters) in the neural network has been shown to reduce the number of nonzero parameters in the model with little to no loss in the final model quality.
Model pruning enables trading off a small degradation in model quality for a reduction in model size, potentially reaping improvements in inference time and energy-efficiency.
The resulting pruned model typically has sparse connection matrices, so efficient inference using these sparse models requires purpose-built hardware capable of loading sparse matrices and/or performing sparse matrix-vector operations BID30 BID23 .
Also, representing sparse matrices carries with it an additional storage overhead increasing the model's net memory footprint which must also be taken into consideration.In this work, we perform a closer examination of the effectiveness of model pruning as a means for model compression.
From the perspective of on-device neural network inference, given a bound on the model's memory footprint, how can we arrive at the most accurate model?
We aim to answer this question by comparing the quality of the models obtained through two distinct methods: (1) training a large model, but pruned to obtain a sparse model with a small number of nonzero parameters (large-sparse); and (2) training a small-dense model with size comparable to the large-sparse model.
Both of these methods expose a model accuracy and size tradeoff, but differ remarkably in terms of their implications on the design of the underlying hardware architecture.
For this comparative study, we pick models across a diverse set of application domains: InceptionV3 BID26 and MobileNets BID13 for image recognitions tasks, stacked LSTMs for language modeling, and seq2seq models used in Google's Neural Machine Translation BID28 system.
In the process of this investigation, we also develop a simple gradual pruning approach that requires minimal tuning and can be seamlessly incorporated within the training process and demonstrate its applicability and performance on an assortment of neural network architectures.
The net memory footprint of a sparse model includes the storage for the nonzero parameters and any auxiliary data structures needed for indexing these elements.
Pruning models helps reduce the number of nonzero-valued connections in the network; however the overhead in sparse matrix storage inevitably diminishes the achievable compression ratio.
The bit-mask sparse matrix representation requires 1 bit per matrix element indicating whether the element is nonzero, and a vector containing all the nonzero matrix elements.
This representation incurs a constant overhead regardless of the model sparsity.
In the compressed sparse row (column) storage (CSR(C)) adopted in BID23 , each nonzero parameter in the sparse matrix is associated with a count (usually stored as a 4 or 5 bit integer) of the number of zeros preceding it.
The overhead in this case is proportional to the NNZ in the model.
TAB5 compares these two representations for sparse-MobileNets.
The CSR(C) representation can enable higher compression ratio for networks with high sparsity.
Note, however, that the bit-mask representation offers marginally lower overhead at smaller sparsity levels.In spite of this overhead, large-sparse models appear to achieve higher accuracy than small-dense models with comparable memory footprint.
For instance, MobileNet with width multiplier 1 and sparsity 50% has similar footprint as MobileNet with width multiplier 0.75, but obtains higher accuracy.
TAB6 further highlights the trade-off between model size and accuracy for dense and sparse models.
The performance gap between large-sparse and small-dense models widens for larger models such as as the PTB language models and NMT (see TAB2 and TAB3 ).
It is worth noting that the results presented in this work were obtained by training neural networks using 32-bit floating point representation.
For neural networks trained to perform inference using reduced precision (8-bit integer, for instance) arithmetic, the memory overhead of sparse matrix storage represents a bigger fraction of the total memory footprint.
Quantization of the parameters to a reduced precision number representation is also an effective method for model compression, and the interplay between model quantization and pruning and their collective impact on model accuracy merits a closer examination.
We defer that investigation to a future extension to this work.
This work sheds light on the model size and accuracy trade-off encountered in pruned deep neural networks.
We demonstrate that large-sparse models outperform comparably-sized small-dense models across a diverse set of neural network architectures.
We also present a gradual pruning technique that can be applied with ease across these different architectures.
We believe these results will encourage the adoption of model pruning as a tool for compressing neural networks for deployment in resource-constrained environments.
At the same time, we hold the opinion that our results will provide further impetus to the hardware architecture community to customize the next generation of deep learning accelerator architectures to efficiently handle sparse matrix storage and computations.

assistant: text: We demonstrate that large, but pruned models (large-sparse) outperform their smaller, but dense (small-dense) counterparts with identical memory footprint.