Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 6 minor 82 references

APQF: Agentic Profiling-Guided Structured Pruning and Mixed-Precision Quantization with Adaptive Fine-Tuning

T0 review · 5 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-08 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read A profiling-guided pipeline in which an LLM assigns per-layer pruning ratios and bit-widths from measured sensitivity can compress CNNs and vision transformers to under 8 percent of baseline bit-operations while nearly preserving accuracy.

desk verdict A plausible agentic compression pipeline with a real novelty in LLM-chosen per-layer plans, but profiling-grounding for quantization and several baseline comparisons are weaker than the claims suggest. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.05499 v1 pith:2MXRIUQT submitted 2026-08-06 cs.CV cs.AIcs.LG

Sadegh Jafari , Mohiuddin Bilwal , Fan Zhou , Brian Gelder , Ali Jannesari This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CVcs.AIcs.LG
keywords structuredpruningmixed-precisionquantizationquantization-awaretrainingknowledgedistillationLLM-guidedmodelcompressionprofiling-guidedoptimizationvisiontransformersparameter-efficientfine-tuning
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

APQF claims that model compression can be driven automatically by measurement instead of expert trial and error. A profiling stage measures how much accuracy is lost when each structural group of a pretrained network is pruned, and an LLM planner reads that table to choose per-layer pruning ratios and per-layer bit-widths, followed by adaptive fine-tuning and knowledge-distillation recovery. The paper's central assertion is that this profiling-grounded, LLM-guided decision chain, combined with structured pruning and quantization-aware training, works across both convolutional networks and vision transformers without architecture-specific rules. If correct, it means a new model can be compressed by letting measured sensitivity decide where to cut, rather than relying on a human to tune each layer by hand. The reported results cut ImageNet compute to 5.6-7.7 percent of original bit-operations while keeping accuracy close, and the pipeline retains roughly 17 points more Top-1 accuracy than a data-hungry joint pruning-quantization baseline under a 200K-image budget.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the per-group pruning sensitivity sweep: using dependency-graph structured pruning, each architecture-aware group is pruned at several ratios on the original model and the resulting Top-1 drop is recorded, producing a table of accuracy cost versus parameter and MAC reduction for every group. This table, together with a compact architecture brief of where parameters and computation sit, is the evidence from which the LLM planners choose per-group pruning ratios and per-layer bit-widths. The remaining mechanisms are cumulative replay of pruning decisions from the original checkpoint so early stages do not stall, threshold-triggered adaptive recovery that skips fine-tuning for small drops and uses PEFT or two-stage fine-tuning for larger drops, and mixed-precision quantization-aware training under a knowledge-distillation objective with an optional post-quantization recovery pass.

What would settle it

On a fixed model and dataset (for example, ResNet-50 on ImageNet-1k), build the profiling sweep's per-group sensitivity ranking, then run the full prune-quantize-recover pipeline twice at matched compute: once protecting the most-sensitive groups and once deliberately pruning and quantizing those groups hardest. If the inverted plan matches or beats the sensitivity-guided plan in final Top-1 after the same training schedule, the profiling table does not transfer to the combined pipeline and the decision chain fails. A weaker quantitative version is to measure the rank correlation between per-group pre-quantization pruning drops and final post-QAT accuracy drops; near-zero correlation would falsify the transferability assumption.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that empirically measured per-group pruning sensitivity can be turned into LLM-planned per-layer compression decisions that survive the full training-aware pipeline, and that this combination is new: APQF claims to be the first framework to join LLM-guided, profiling-grounded decisions with sequential structured pruning and mixed-precision quantization-aware training with recovery across both CNNs and vision transformers. APQF first builds a sensitivity table by pruning each dependency group at several ratios and recording the Top-1 drop, then has LLM planners propose which groups to prune and at what bit-width each surviving layer should be quantized. The pruned model is recovered between stages by parameter-efficient or full fine-tuning, and the quantized model is trained by knowledge distillation from a frozen full-precision teacher. The paper reports this yields an ImageNet compute reduction to 5.6-7.7 percent of baseline bit-operations with modest accuracy loss, lower relative bit-operations than the competing joint method on four of five CIFAR-10 models, and 93.15 percent accuracy on VGG7 at only 0.41 percent of baseline bit-operations. Ablations show uniform compression loses the most accuracy at matched compute and that withholding the profiling data hurts every tested model.

Load-bearing premise

The sensitivity table, measured by pruning each group of the original uncompressed model and watching the Top-1 drop, accurately predicts how those same groups will behave after the model is also quantized and fine-tuned, so the pruning ratios and bit-widths chosen from that table remain valid in the combined pipeline.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • On ImageNet, models compressed by the pipeline run at 5.6-7.7 percent of original bit-operations, a 13-18x compute reduction, with accuracy close to baseline and DeiT-Tiny even improving.
  • Under a 200K-image training budget the pipeline keeps roughly 17 points higher Top-1 accuracy than a joint pruning-and-quantization method that re-optimizes the entire network, so it is substantially more data-efficient.
  • On CIFAR-10 the pipeline reaches lower relative bit-operations than the competing joint method on four of five architectures and surpasses its own full-precision baseline on three of them.
  • On VGG7 it reaches 93.15 percent accuracy at 0.41 percent of baseline bit-operations, the only method at that compression level that improves on its full-precision baseline.
  • The pipeline's accuracy stays in a 97.4-97.9 percent band across six different LLM planners on Swin-Tiny, so the framework does not depend on a single premium planner.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same profiling-to-LLM-planning loop should transfer to segmentation, detection, and language or vision-language models, because the sensitivity measurement and plan validation do not depend on the classification head; the paper lists these as future directions, not as established results.
  • A direct stress test of the LLM's role would compare its chosen groups against a greedy selection of the least-sensitive groups from the same table; if greedy selection matches the LLM's accuracy at equal cost, the measured table rather than the planner's reasoning is doing the work.
  • The sensitivity table is built from pruning alone, yet it is also used to choose quantization bit-widths; an analogous per-layer quantization sensitivity sweep, measuring accuracy drop when each layer is quantized alone, could strengthen or correct those bit-width choices.
  • The remaining manual settings, such as the fine-tuning thresholds and the conservative-versus-aggressive quantization prompt, could be selected automatically by a small validation-driven search, extending the framework's autonomy beyond what the paper demonstrates.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

5 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper introduces APQF, an agentic compression framework that combines structured pruning, mixed-precision quantization-aware training, knowledge distillation, and adaptive fine-tuning. A ProfilingAgent builds a per-group pruning-sensitivity table and an architecture brief; a PrunerAgent and a QuantAgent ask an LLM to propose per-layer pruning ratios and bit-widths from that evidence, with validation before execution; a FineTuningAgent chooses PEFT/full fine-tuning or KD recovery; an EvaluationAgent measures Top-1 accuracy and relative BOPs. Experiments cover ResNet, VGG7, ViT, DeiT, and Swin on ImageNet-1k and CIFAR-10, with comparisons to GETA and earlier compression methods, plus ablations on uniform compression and on withholding profiling data.

Significance. The contribution is potentially useful: it is an architecture-agnostic, LLM-based pipeline with explicit validation of LLM proposals, a profiling-to-decision loop, and a six-LLM robustness study on Swin-Tiny. The reported data-efficiency advantage over GETA under a 200K-image budget, if confirmed at matched compute, would be a practical result. However, the paper's central empirical claims rest on transfer assumptions—pruning sensitivity measured on the unpruned model is used to choose quantization bit-widths—that are not validated, and several comparisons are made at unmatched BOPs or with different baselines. These issues do not invalidate the framework, but they currently prevent the results from supporting the advertised claims.

major comments (5)
  1. [§3.3] The QuantAgent's bit-width assignments are drawn from the ProfilingAgent's structured-pruning sensitivity table rather than from any measured quantization sensitivity. Equations (1)–(2) describe the QAT objective, but nothing in §3.3 or Figure 4 measures per-layer accuracy as a function of bit-width, so a layer that tolerates channel removal but is sensitive to 4-bit weights or activations would be mis-ranked. Because the central claim is that decisions are 'profiling-grounded' for both pruning and quantization, this is load-bearing; the w/o-profiling ablation in §4.4.2 removes all profiling and cannot distinguish pruning-sensitivity transfer from quantization-sensitivity transfer. I request either a per-bit-width sensitivity measurement or a direct validation that pruning sensitivity predicts quantization sensitivity on at least one architecture.
  2. [§3.2] Algorithm 1 and the text state that the ProfilingAgent data are 'produced once' and 'reused across all stages' in the first paragraph of §3.2. After the first pruning stage, surviving channels and the effective dependency structure change, so the sensitivity ranks measured on the unpruned original may no longer hold. The cumulative replay from the original model mitigates the stalling issue but does not re-measure sensitivity. Since the LLM's per-stage group selections are conditioned on this stale table, the pruning decision chain contains an unverified transfer step. Please either update the sensitivity table after each stage or provide evidence that sensitivity ranks are stable across cumulative pruning.
  3. [§4.3, Table 2] The GETA comparison in Table 2 is not at matched compute: APQF has Rel. BOPs of 5.73–7.23 while GETA's are 16.95–21.84. The text's statement that APQF 'matches GETA's accuracy to within a few points' is therefore a comparison at different compression levels, and it is not surprising that the more compressed model has a larger accuracy gap on some rows. The trade-off claim in Figure 5 should be re-plotted as a curve over matched BOP values or otherwise controlled for compute.
  4. [§4.4.1, Table 4] The VGG7 comparison is made against different FP32 baselines: published methods use 93.05, while APQF's ΔAcc and Rel. BOPs are computed from the authors' 92.95 reproduction, as stated in the table footnote. This changes the headline claim that APQF is 'the only method ... to improve on its full-precision baseline': relative to the published 93.05 baseline, APQF's 93.15 is +0.10, not +0.20, and the relative BOP denominator also shifts. Please report APQF against the published baseline, or justify why the reproduction baseline is the correct reference.
  5. [§4.3, Table 1] The DeiT-Tiny baseline of 66.52 is far below the standard ImageNet accuracy for DeiT-Tiny (about 72), so the reported +1.38 improvement is not evidence that compression improves accuracy; it is likely an artifact of a weak baseline checkpoint or evaluation protocol. Since Table 1 is the main ImageNet accuracy evidence, please use the standard DeiT-Tiny checkpoint and report its baseline, or explain the discrepancy.
minor comments (6)
  1. [§1.2] The phrase 'The main contributions of this thesis' should be 'The main contributions of this paper'.
  2. [References] Reference [12] is malformed: 'Determine Filters’Importance' appears as an author name; the entry should be corrected.
  3. [Table 4] The entry 'W AGE' should be written as 'WAGE' (the method name) for consistency with the related-work discussion.
  4. [Figure 6] The caption notes that the left axis starts from 78%, which visually exaggerates the differences between bars; please start the axis at 0 or clearly indicate the truncated range.
  5. [§4.4.3 / §6] The paper acknowledges in §6 that LLM planners are stochastic, but the main tables report a single run per configuration; please report variance or repeated runs for at least the primary CIFAR-10 and ImageNet configurations.
  6. [§4.1 / Reproducibility] No code release or reproducibility statement is provided, which is important given the many custom components, the GETA reruns, and the LLM API dependence; please add an availability statement.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No material circularity: APQF's reported accuracies are measured outcomes of an empirical pipeline, not analytic consequences of its profiling inputs.

full rationale

The central claims are empirical rather than derived. The ProfilingAgent measures per-group Top-1 accuracy drops after structured pruning on the original model and records them in a sensitivity CSV (Section 3.1). The PrunerAgent and QuantAgent condition their LLM proposals on that CSV and the architecture brief (Sections 3.2 and 3.3), and the reported final accuracies come from actually applying the proposed pruning, quantization, fine-tuning, and evaluation pipeline (Sections 3.4-3.5). No equation maps the sensitivity table to the final accuracies, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The only self-citation is to the authors' earlier ProfilingAgent work in the related-work section; that citation is not load-bearing because the APQF pipeline is specified independently in Section 3 and relies on external components such as DepGraph, Brevitas, and standard distillation and PEFT methods. The skeptic's concern that pruning sensitivity measured on the unpruned model may not transfer to the quantized pipeline, and that bit-widths are chosen from a pruning-sensitivity proxy rather than per-bit-width measurements, is a validity or transferability question, not circularity: the reported numbers are not equal to the profiling table by construction, and the ablation in Section 4.4.2 is an independent empirical test of profiling's contribution. The central claim is externally falsifiable, so no circular step is present; the small nonzero score reflects only the non-load-bearing self-citation.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper's empirical results rest on several user-set and LLM-chosen parameters (bit-widths, pruning ratios, thresholds, KD weights, prompt types) and on domain assumptions about sensitivity transfer and DepGraph grouping. No new physical or mathematical entities are introduced.

free parameters (5)
  • per-layer bit-widths = chosen by LLM from {2,4,6,8,16,32}
    The QuantAgent prompts the LLM to assign bit-widths; no principled optimizer, and the policy varies by prompt type and LLM.
  • per-group pruning ratios = proposed by LLM per stage
    The PrunerAgent asks the LLM to close the gap to the target; ratios are not derived from a closed-form objective.
  • thresholds tau1=2%, tau2=4% = 2% and 4% Top-1 drop
    User-defined thresholds that trigger PEFT or two-stage recovery (Section 3.2).
  • KD temperature T and weight alpha = user-selected
    Equation (2) combines KD and CE; the text says temperature and KD weight can be selected by the user (Section 3.3).
  • prompt type (conservative/balanced/aggressive) = user-selected
    Controls how strongly the quantizer favors low bit-widths (Section 3.3).
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The per-group sensitivity measured by pruning at each ratio and evaluating on the validation set is a reliable proxy for the final accuracy after QAT.
    The ProfilingAgent builds the sensitivity CSV by pruning each group and measuring accuracy drop (Section 3.1); this assumes the measured drop transfers to the combined prune+quantize setting.
  • domain assumption LLM planners can produce valid per-layer pruning and quantization strategies from the architecture brief and sensitivity table.
    The whole pipeline depends on the LLM's proposals being reasonable; failures are acknowledged in Section 6.
  • domain assumption DepGraph dependency grouping correctly captures coupled channels for all target architectures.
    APQF builds on DepGraph [14]; if the grouping is wrong, pruning invalidates the model.
  • standard math The BOPs metric (Eq. 4) is a faithful proxy for inference cost across architectures.
    Bit-operations weight MACs by bit-widths; ignores memory access, latency, and hardware efficiency.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of APQF: Agentic Profiling-Guided Structured Pruning and Mixed-Precision Quantization with Adaptive Fine-Tuning." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2MXRIUQT

@misc{pith2026260805499,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: APQF: Agentic Profiling-Guided Structured Pruning and Mixed-Precision Quantization with Adaptive Fine-Tuning},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2MXRIUQT}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.05499}
}
read the original abstract

Modern deep neural networks achieve strong performance, but their scale makes them costly and slow, especially on resource-constrained edge devices. Pruning and quantization address this, but rely on manual, expert choices and on algorithms that are hard to apply across architectures. Uniform settings also ignore how differently individual layers respond to compression, which costs accuracy. We introduce APQF, an agentic profiling-guided framework that combines structured pruning, mixed-precision quantization-aware training, and accuracy recovery in one automated pipeline. A profiling agent measures how cost is distributed across the model and how sensitive each part is to pruning, and this evidence drives per-layer pruning ratios, per-layer bit-widths, and the recovery strategy, all proposed by LLM planners and validated before execution. To our knowledge, APQF is the first framework to combine LLM-guided, profiling-grounded decisions with a fully training-aware pruning and quantization pipeline for both CNNs and vision transformers. We evaluate APQF on ResNet, VGG7, ViT, DeiT, and Swin using ImageNet-1k and CIFAR-10. On ImageNet it cuts compute to 5.6-7.7 percent of the original bit-operations, a 13-18x reduction, while keeping accuracy close to the baseline, and under a 200K-image budget it stays roughly 17 points higher in Top-1 than existing joint pruning and quantization methods. On CIFAR-10 it compresses further than that method on four of five architectures. On VGG7 it reaches 93.15 percent using only 0.41 percent of baseline bit-operations, the only method at that compression level to improve on its full-precision baseline. Ablations show that uniform compression loses the most accuracy at matched compute, and that withholding profiling data from the planner hurts every model. Six LLM planners, including free open-weight ones, all reach 97.4-97.9 percent on Swin-Tiny.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.05499 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Overall workflow of the APQF framework This section describes each component of the APQF framework in detail. It explains the role of each agent, how information flows between agents, and how the overall pipeline combines profiling, pruning, recovery, quantization, and evaluation to study the accuracy-compression trade-off of vision models. 6 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. ProfilingAgent workflow producing the sensitivity CSV and architecture brief [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Multi-stage target-seeking pruning with adaptive fine-tuning [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: QuantAgent workflow for LLM-guided mixed-precision quantization [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Accuracy–compute trade-off on ImageNet under a 200K training budget. Each model has an APQF point [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The full method is compared against two reduced variants at roughly matched relative BOPs, so accuracy is [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_6.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: CIFAR-10 ablation. Bars are Top-1 accuracy (left axis); dots are Rel. BOPs (right axis). [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Effect of the LLM planner (Swin-Tiny, CIFAR-10). Each point is one LLM, colored by accuracy–efficiency [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

82 extracted references · 41 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Deep residual learning for image recognition

    Kaiming He, Xiangyu Zhang, Shaoqing Ren, and Jian Sun. Deep residual learning for image recognition. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 770–778, 2016

    2016

  2. [2]

    Bert: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding

    Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. Bert: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. InProceedings of the 2019 conference of the North American chapter of the association for computational linguistics: human language technologies, volume 1 (long and short papers), pages 4171–4186, 2019

    2019

  3. [3]

    Identification of plant-parasitic nematode genera in turfgrass using deep learning algorithms.Scientific Reports, 2025

    Vikram Rangarajan, Fereshteh Shahoveisi, Benjamin D Waldo, and Sadegh Jafari. Identification of plant-parasitic nematode genera in turfgrass using deep learning algorithms.Scientific Reports, 2025

    work page 2025

  4. [4]

    Deep learning in agriculture: A survey.Computers and electronics in agriculture, 147:70–90, 2018

    Andreas Kamilaris and Francesc X Prenafeta-Boldú. Deep learning in agriculture: A survey.Computers and electronics in agriculture, 147:70–90, 2018

    work page 2018

  5. [5]

    A survey on deep learning in medical image analysis.Medical image analysis, 42:60–88, 2017

    Geert Litjens, Thijs Kooi, Babak Ehteshami Bejnordi, Arnaud Arindra Adiyoso Setio, Francesco Ciompi, Mohsen Ghafoorian, Jeroen Awm Van Der Laak, Bram Van Ginneken, and Clara I Sánchez. A survey on deep learning in medical image analysis.Medical image analysis, 42:60–88, 2017

    2017

  6. [6]

    White blood cell classification: Convolutional neural network (cnn) and vision transformer (vit) under medical microscope.Algorithms, 16(11):525, 2023

    Mohamad Abou Ali, Fadi Dornaika, and Ignacio Arganda-Carreras. White blood cell classification: Convolutional neural network (cnn) and vision transformer (vit) under medical microscope.Algorithms, 16(11):525, 2023

    work page 2023

  7. [7]

    Model compression for deep neural networks: A survey.Computers, 12(3):60, 2023

    Zhuo Li, Hengyi Li, and Lin Meng. Model compression for deep neural networks: A survey.Computers, 12(3):60, 2023

    work page 2023

  8. [8]

    Md Maruf Hossain Shuvo, Syed Kamrul Islam, Jianlin Cheng, and Bashir I. Morshed. Efficient acceleration of deep learning inference on resource-constrained edge devices: A review.Proceedings of the IEEE, 111(1):42–91, 2022

    work page 2022

Show all 82 references
  1. [9]

    Incremental network quantization: Towards lossless cnns with low-precision weights.arXiv preprint arXiv:1702.03044, 2017

    Aojun Zhou, Anbang Yao, Yiwen Guo, Lin Xu, and Yurong Chen. Incremental network quantization: Towards lossless cnns with low-precision weights.arXiv preprint arXiv:1702.03044, 2017

    2017 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Distilling the knowledge in a neural network

    Geoffrey Hinton, Oriol Vinyals, and Jeff Dean. Distilling the knowledge in a neural network. InNIPS Deep Learning and Representation Learning Workshop, 2015

    2015

  3. [11]

    Learning both weights and connections for efficient neural network.Advances in neural information processing systems, 28, 2015

    Song Han, Jeff Pool, John Tran, and William Dally. Learning both weights and connections for efficient neural network.Advances in neural information processing systems, 28, 2015

    2015

  4. [12]

    Pruning filters for efficient convnets.arXiv preprint arXiv:1608.08710, 3, 2016

    Determine Filters’Importance. Pruning filters for efficient convnets.arXiv preprint arXiv:1608.08710, 3, 2016

    2016 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Hongrong Cheng, Miao Zhang, and Javen Qinfeng Shi. A survey on deep neural network pruning: Taxonomy, comparison, analysis, and recommendations.IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 46(12):10558–10578, 2024

    2024

  6. [14]

    Depgraph: Towards any structural pruning

    Gongfan Fang, Xinyin Ma, Mingli Song, Michael Bi Mi, and Xinchao Wang. Depgraph: Towards any structural pruning. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 16091– 16101, 2023

    2023

  7. [15]

    Mahoney, and Kurt Keutzer

    Zhen Dong, Zhewei Yao, Amir Gholami, Michael W. Mahoney, and Kurt Keutzer. HAWQ: Hessian AWare quantization of neural networks with mixed-precision. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV), pages 293–302, 2019

    2019

  8. [16]

    Automatic joint structured pruning and quantization for efficient neural network training and compression

    Xiaoyi Qu, David Aponte, Colby Banbury, Daniel P Robinson, Tianyu Ding, Kazuhito Koishida, Ilya Zharkov, and Tianyi Chen. Automatic joint structured pruning and quantization for efficient neural network training and compression. InProceedings of the Computer Vision and Pattern...

    2025

  9. [17]

    Profiling the real world potential of neural network compression

    Joe Lorentz, Assaad Moawad, Thomas Hartmann, and Djamila Aouada. Profiling the real world potential of neural network compression. In2022 IEEE International Conference on Omni-layer Intelligent Systems (COINS), pages 1–6. IEEE, 2022

    2022

  10. [18]

    dpro: A generic performance diagnosis and optimization toolkit for expediting distributed dnn training

    Hanpeng Hu, Chenyu Jiang, Yuchen Zhong, Yanghua Peng, Chuan Wu, Yibo Zhu, Haibin Lin, and Chuanxiong Guo. dpro: A generic performance diagnosis and optimization toolkit for expediting distributed dnn training. Proceedings of Machine Learning and Systems, 4:623–637, 2022

    2022

  11. [19]

    A comprehensive review of network pruning based on pruning granularity and pruning time perspectives.Neurocomputing, 626:129382, 2025

    Kehan Zhu, Fuyi Hu, Yuanbing Ding, Wei Zhou, and Ruxin Wang. A comprehensive review of network pruning based on pruning granularity and pruning time perspectives.Neurocomputing, 626:129382, 2025

    2025

  12. [20]

    Edge intelligence: A review of deep neural network inference in resource-limited environments.Electronics, 14(12):2495, 2025

    Dat Ngo, Hyun-Cheol Park, and Bongsoon Kang. Edge intelligence: A review of deep neural network inference in resource-limited environments.Electronics, 14(12):2495, 2025

    2025

  13. [21]

    Sparsegpt: Massive language models can be accurately pruned in one-shot

    Elias Frantar and Dan Alistarh. Sparsegpt: Massive language models can be accurately pruned in one-shot. In International conference on machine learning, pages 10323–10337. PMLR, 2023

    2023

  14. [22]

    Mitigating carbon footprint for knowledge distillation based deep learning model compression.Plos one, 18(5):e0285668, 2023

    Kazi Rafat, Sadia Islam, Abdullah Al Mahfug, Md Ismail Hossain, Fuad Rahman, Sifat Momen, Shafin Rahman, and Nabeel Mohammed. Mitigating carbon footprint for knowledge distillation based deep learning model compression.Plos one, 18(5):e0285668, 2023

    2023

  15. [23]

    Efficient and controllable model compression through sequential knowledge distillation and pruning.Big Data and Cognitive Computing, 7(3):154, 2023

    Leila Malihi and Gunther Heidemann. Efficient and controllable model compression through sequential knowledge distillation and pruning.Big Data and Cognitive Computing, 7(3):154, 2023

    2023

  16. [24]

    Measuring and improving the energy efficiency of large language models inference.IEEE Access, 12:80194–80207, 2024

    Mauricio Fadel Argerich and Marta Patiño-Martínez. Measuring and improving the energy efficiency of large language models inference.IEEE Access, 12:80194–80207, 2024

    2024

  17. [25]

    Parameter-efficient fine-tuning methods for pretrained language models: A critical review and assessment.IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 2026

    Lingling Xu, Haoran Xie, S Joe Qin, Xiaohui Tao, and Fu Lee Wang. Parameter-efficient fine-tuning methods for pretrained language models: A critical review and assessment.IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 2026

    2026

  18. [26]

    Xprof: An open, scalable, and extensible profiling system for the modern ml stack

    Robert Hundt, Naveen Kumar, Jose Baiocchi Paredes, Scott Goodson, Clive Verghese, Prasanna Rengasamy, Kelvin Le, Jiya Zhang, Charles Alaras, Yin Zhang, et al. Xprof: An open, scalable, and extensible profiling system for the modern ml stack. InNinth Conference on Machine Learn...

    2026

  19. [27]

    Xsp: Across-stack profiling and analysis of machine learning models on gpus

    Cheng Li, Abdul Dakkak, Jinjun Xiong, Wei Wei, Lingjie Xu, and Wen-mei Hwu. Xsp: Across-stack profiling and analysis of machine learning models on gpus. In2020 IEEE International Parallel and Distributed Processing Symposium (IPDPS), page 326–327. IEEE, May 2020

    2020

  20. [28]

    Floating point operations in matrix-vector calculus

    Raphael Hunger. Floating point operations in matrix-vector calculus. Technical report, Associate Institute for Signal Processing, 2005

    2005

  21. [29]

    Pytorch profiler

    PyTorch Team. Pytorch profiler. https://pytorch.org/docs/stable/profiler.html, 2024. Accessed: 2025-05-09

    2024

  22. [30]

    Tensorflow profiler guide

    TensorFlow Team. Tensorflow profiler guide. https://www.tensorflow.org/tensorboard/tensorboard_ profiling_keras, 2024. Accessed: 2025-05-03

    2024

  23. [31]

    CUDA Profiler User’s Guide

    NVIDIA Corporation. CUDA Profiler User’s Guide. https://docs.nvidia.com/cuda/ profiler-users-guide/index.html, 2024. Accessed: 2025-05-03

    2024

  24. [32]

    Cuda profiling tools interface (cupti) documentation

    NVIDIA Corporation. Cuda profiling tools interface (cupti) documentation. https://docs.nvidia.com/ cupti/index.html, 2024. Accessed: 2025-05-03

    2024

  25. [33]

    ptflops: a flops counting tool for neural networks in pytorch framework, 2018-2024

    Vladislav Sovrasov. ptflops: a flops counting tool for neural networks in pytorch framework, 2018-2024

    2018

  26. [34]

    Structured pruning for deep convolutional neural networks: A survey.IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence, 46(5):2900–2919, 2023

    Yang He and Lingao Xiao. Structured pruning for deep convolutional neural networks: A survey.IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence, 46(5):2900–2919, 2023

    2023

  27. [35]

    Post-training quantization or quantization-aware training? that is the question

    Xiaotian Zhao, Ruge Xu, and Xinfei Guo. Post-training quantization or quantization-aware training? that is the question. In2023 China Semiconductor Technology International Conference (CSTIC), pages 1–3. IEEE, 2023

    2023

  28. [36]

    Pd-quant: Post-training quantization based on prediction difference metric

    Jiawei Liu, Lin Niu, Zhihang Yuan, Dawei Yang, Xinggang Wang, and Wenyu Liu. Pd-quant: Post-training quantization based on prediction difference metric. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 24427–24437, 2023

    2023

  29. [37]

    Efficientqat: Efficient quantization-aware training for large language models

    Mengzhao Chen, Wenqi Shao, Peng Xu, Jiahao Wang, Peng Gao, Kaipeng Zhang, and Ping Luo. Efficientqat: Efficient quantization-aware training for large language models. InProceedings of the 63rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Pape...

    2025

  30. [38]

    Ternary weight networks.arXiv preprint arXiv:1605.04711, 2016

    Fengfu Li, Bin Liu, Xiaoxing Wang, Bo Zhang, and Junchi Yan. Ternary weight networks.arXiv preprint arXiv:1605.04711, 2016. 20 APREPRINT- AUGUST7, 2026

    2016 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Learning discrete weights using the local reparameterization trick

    Oran Shayer, Dan Levi, and Ethan Fetaya. Learning discrete weights using the local reparameterization trick. arXiv preprint arXiv:1710.07739, 2017

    2017 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Relaxed quantiza- tion for discretized neural networks.arXiv preprint arXiv:1810.01875, 2018

    Christos Louizos, Matthias Reisser, Tijmen Blankevoort, Efstratios Gavves, and Max Welling. Relaxed quantiza- tion for discretized neural networks.arXiv preprint arXiv:1810.01875, 2018

    2018 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Training and inference with integers in deep neural networks

    Shuang Wu, Guoqi Li, Feng Chen, and Luping Shi. Training and inference with integers in deep neural networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1802.04680, 2018

    2018 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Mixed precision dnns: All you need is a good parametrization.arXiv preprint arXiv:1905.11452, 2019

    Stefan Uhlich, Lukas Mauch, Fabien Cardinaux, Kazuki Yoshiyama, Javier Alonso Garcia, Stephen Tiedemann, Thomas Kemp, and Akira Nakamura. Mixed precision dnns: All you need is a good parametrization.arXiv preprint arXiv:1905.11452, 2019

    1905 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Differentiable joint pruning and quantization for hardware efficiency

    Ying Wang, Yadong Lu, and Tijmen Blankevoort. Differentiable joint pruning and quantization for hardware efficiency. InEuropean Conference on Computer Vision, pages 259–277. Springer, 2020

    2020

  36. [44]

    Bayesian bits: Unifying quantization and pruning.Advances in neural information processing systems, 33:5741–5752, 2020

    Mart Van Baalen, Christos Louizos, Markus Nagel, Rana Ali Amjad, Ying Wang, Tijmen Blankevoort, and Max Welling. Bayesian bits: Unifying quantization and pruning.Advances in neural information processing systems, 33:5741–5752, 2020

    2020

  37. [45]

    Xil- inx/brevitas, 2026

    Giuseppe Franco, Pablo Monteagudo-Lago, Ian Colbert, Alessandro Pappalardo, and Nicholas J Fraser. Xil- inx/brevitas, 2026

    2026

  38. [46]

    PhD thesis, Nanyang Technological University, 2026

    Qing Xu.Deep model compression via knowledge distillation for time-series data analytics: from in-domain to cross-domain scenarios. PhD thesis, Nanyang Technological University, 2026

    2026

  39. [47]

    Feature alignment and representation transfer in knowledge distillation for large language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.13825, 2025

    Junjie Yang, Junhao Song, Xudong Han, Ziqian Bi, Tianyang Wang, Chia Xin Liang, Xinyuan Song, Yichao Zhang, Qian Niu, Benji Peng, et al. Feature alignment and representation transfer in knowledge distillation for large language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.13825, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  40. [48]

    A survey on knowledge distillation: Recent advancements.Machine Learning with Applications, 18:100605, 2024

    Amir Moslemi, Anna Briskina, Zubeka Dang, and Jason Li. A survey on knowledge distillation: Recent advancements.Machine Learning with Applications, 18:100605, 2024

    2024

  41. [49]

    Parameter-efficient fine-tuning for foundation models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.13787, 2025

    Dan Zhang, Tao Feng, Lilong Xue, Yuandong Wang, Yuxiao Dong, and Jie Tang. Parameter-efficient fine-tuning for foundation models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.13787, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Parameter-efficient fine-tuning in large language models: a survey of methodologies.Artificial Intelligence Review, 58(8):227, 2025

    Luping Wang, Sheng Chen, Linnan Jiang, Shu Pan, Runze Cai, Sen Yang, and Fei Yang. Parameter-efficient fine-tuning in large language models: a survey of methodologies.Artificial Intelligence Review, 58(8):227, 2025

    2025

  43. [51]

    Efficientllm: Efficiency in large language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.13840, 2025

    Zhengqing Yuan, Weixiang Sun, Yixin Liu, Huichi Zhou, Rong Zhou, Yiyang Li, Zheyuan Zhang, Wei Song, Yue Huang, Haolong Jia, et al. Efficientllm: Efficiency in large language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.13840, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Lora: Low-rank adaptation of large language models.Iclr, 1(2):3, 2022

    Edward J Hu, Yelong Shen, Phillip Wallis, Zeyuan Allen-Zhu, Yuanzhi Li, Shean Wang, Liang Wang, Weizhu Chen, et al. Lora: Low-rank adaptation of large language models.Iclr, 1(2):3, 2022

    2022

  45. [53]

    Dora: Weight-decomposed low-rank adaptation

    Shih-Yang Liu, Chien-Yi Wang, Hongxu Yin, Pavlo Molchanov, Yu-Chiang Frank Wang, Kwang-Ting Cheng, and Min-Hung Chen. Dora: Weight-decomposed low-rank adaptation. InForty-first International Conference on Machine Learning, 2024

    2024

  46. [54]

    Pissa: Principal singular values and singular vectors adaptation of large language models.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 37:121038–121072, 2024

    Fanxu Meng, Zhaohui Wang, and Muhan Zhang. Pissa: Principal singular values and singular vectors adaptation of large language models.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 37:121038–121072, 2024

    2024

  47. [55]

    A rank stabilization scaling factor for fine-tuning with lora.arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.03732, 2023

    Damjan Kalajdzievski. A rank stabilization scaling factor for fine-tuning with lora.arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.03732, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Lora+: Efficient low rank adaptation of large models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.12354, 2024

    Soufiane Hayou, Nikhil Ghosh, and Bin Yu. Lora+: Efficient low rank adaptation of large models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.12354, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  49. [57]

    Agentic reasoning: Reasoning llms with tools for the deep research

    Junde Wu, Jiayuan Zhu, and Yuyuan Liu. Agentic reasoning: Reasoning llms with tools for the deep research. arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.04644, 9, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Chain-of-thought prompting elicits reasoning in large language models.Advances in neural information processing systems, 35:24824–24837, 2022

    Jason Wei, Xuezhi Wang, Dale Schuurmans, Maarten Bosma, Fei Xia, Ed Chi, Quoc V Le, Denny Zhou, et al. Chain-of-thought prompting elicits reasoning in large language models.Advances in neural information processing systems, 35:24824–24837, 2022

    2022

  51. [59]

    Text and patterns: For effective chain of thought, it takes two to tango

    Aman Madaan and Amir Yazdanbakhsh. Text and patterns: For effective chain of thought, it takes two to tango. arXiv preprint arXiv:2209.07686, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  52. [60]

    React: Synergizing reasoning and acting in language models

    Shunyu Yao, Jeffrey Zhao, Dian Yu, Nan Du, Izhak Shafran, Karthik Narasimhan, and Yuan Cao. React: Synergizing reasoning and acting in language models. InInternational Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR), 2023. 21 APREPRINT- AUGUST7, 2026

    2023

  53. [61]

    Star: Bootstrapping reasoning with reasoning

    Eric Zelikman, Yuhuai Wu, Jesse Mu, and Noah Goodman. Star: Bootstrapping reasoning with reasoning. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 35:15476–15488, 2022

    2022

  54. [62]

    Do as i can, not as i say: Grounding language in robotic affordances.arXiv preprint arXiv:2204.01691, 2022

    Michael Ahn, Anthony Brohan, Noah Brown, Yevgen Chebotar, Omar Cortes, Byron David, Chelsea Finn, Chuyuan Fu, Keerthana Gopalakrishnan, Karol Hausman, et al. Do as i can, not as i say: Grounding language in robotic affordances.arXiv preprint arXiv:2204.01691, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  55. [63]

    Swiftsage: A generative agent with fast and slow thinking for complex interactive tasks.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36:23813–23825, 2023

    Bill Yuchen Lin, Yicheng Fu, Karina Yang, Faeze Brahman, Shiyu Huang, Chandra Bhagavatula, Prithviraj Ammanabrolu, Yejin Choi, and Xiang Ren. Swiftsage: A generative agent with fast and slow thinking for complex interactive tasks.Advances in Neural Information Processing Syste...

    2023

  56. [64]

    Generative agents: Interactive simulacra of human behavior

    Joon Sung Park, Joseph O’Brien, Carrie Jun Cai, Meredith Ringel Morris, Percy Liang, and Michael S Bernstein. Generative agents: Interactive simulacra of human behavior. InProceedings of the 36th annual acm symposium on user interface software and technology, pages 1–22, 2023

    2023

  57. [65]

    Toolformer: Language models can teach themselves to use tools

    Timo Schick, Jane Dwivedi-Yu, Roberto Dessì, Roberta Raileanu, Maria Lomeli, Eric Hambro, Luke Zettlemoyer, Nicola Cancedda, and Thomas Scialom. Toolformer: Language models can teach themselves to use tools. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36:68539–68551, 2023

    2023

  58. [66]

    Llm-based agentic reasoning frameworks: A survey from methods to scenarios.arXiv preprint arXiv:2508.17692, 2025

    Bingxi Zhao, Lin Geng Foo, Ping Hu, Christian Theobalt, Hossein Rahmani, and Jun Liu. Llm-based agentic reasoning frameworks: A survey from methods to scenarios.arXiv preprint arXiv:2508.17692, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  59. [67]

    Chatgpt and open-ai models: A preliminary review.Future Internet, 15(6):192, 2023

    Konstantinos I Roumeliotis and Nikolaos D Tselikas. Chatgpt and open-ai models: A preliminary review.Future Internet, 15(6):192, 2023

    2023

  60. [68]

    Scalable microservices for llm-vs-llm interaction in board games

    Paulina Morillo, Kevin Bastidas, Bryan Guevara, Alex Terreros, and Julio Proaño. Scalable microservices for llm-vs-llm interaction in board games. InMODELSWARD, pages 300–306, 2026

    2026

  61. [69]

    Profilingagent: Profiling-guided agentic reasoning for adaptive model optimization.arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.05584, 2025

    Sadegh Jafari, Aishwarya Sarkar, Mohiuddin Bilwal, and Ali Jannesari. Profilingagent: Profiling-guided agentic reasoning for adaptive model optimization.arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.05584, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  62. [70]

    Llms can compress llms: Adaptive pruning by agents.arXiv preprint arXiv:2601.09694, 2026

    Sai Varun Kodathala and Rakesh Vunnam. Llms can compress llms: Adaptive pruning by agents.arXiv preprint arXiv:2601.09694, 2026

    2026

  63. [71]

    An image is worth 16x16 words: Transformers for image recognition at scale.arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.11929, 2020

    Alexey Dosovitskiy, Lucas Beyer, Alexander Kolesnikov, Dirk Weissenborn, Xiaohua Zhai, Thomas Unterthiner, Mostafa Dehghani, Matthias Minderer, Georg Heigold, Sylvain Gelly, et al. An image is worth 16x16 words: Transformers for image recognition at scale.arXiv preprint arXiv:...

    2010 arXiv

  64. [72]

    Training data-efficient image transformers & distillation through attention

    Hugo Touvron, Matthieu Cord, Matthijs Douze, Francisco Massa, Alexandre Sablayrolles, and Hervé Jégou. Training data-efficient image transformers & distillation through attention. InInternational conference on machine learning, pages 10347–10357. PMLR, 2021

    2021

  65. [73]

    Swin transformer: Hierarchical vision transformer using shifted windows

    Ze Liu, Yutong Lin, Yue Cao, Han Hu, Yixuan Wei, Zheng Zhang, Stephen Lin, and Baining Guo. Swin transformer: Hierarchical vision transformer using shifted windows. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision, pages 10012–10022, 2021

    2021

  66. [74]

    Imagenet: A large-scale hierarchical image database

    Jia Deng, Wei Dong, Richard Socher, Li-Jia Li, Kai Li, and Li Fei-Fei. Imagenet: A large-scale hierarchical image database. In2009 IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 248–255. Ieee, 2009

    2009

  67. [75]

    Learning multiple layers of features from tiny images

    Alex Krizhevsky, Geoffrey Hinton, et al. Learning multiple layers of features from tiny images. 2009

    2009

  68. [76]

    On information and sufficiency.The annals of mathematical statistics, 22(1):79–86, 1951

    Solomon Kullback and Richard A Leibler. On information and sufficiency.The annals of mathematical statistics, 22(1):79–86, 1951

    1951

  69. [77]

    Imagenet large scale visual recognition challenge.International journal of computer vision, 115(3):211–252, 2015

    Olga Russakovsky, Jia Deng, Hao Su, Jonathan Krause, Sanjeev Satheesh, Sean Ma, Zhiheng Huang, Andrej Karpathy, Aditya Khosla, Michael Bernstein, et al. Imagenet large scale visual recognition challenge.International journal of computer vision, 115(3):211–252, 2015

    2015

  70. [78]

    An empirical study on hugging face trends, topics and challenges on stack overflow

    Hatem Feki, Manel Abdellatif, and Mohammed Sayagh. An empirical study on hugging face trends, topics and challenges on stack overflow. In2025 IEEE 49th Annual Computers, Software, and Applications Conference (COMPSAC), pages 1297–1307. IEEE, 2025

    2025

  71. [79]

    PhD thesis, UNIVERSITY OF KASDI MERBAH OUARGLA

    Charaf Eddine Mechalkh and Marya Douniazad Fennouh.Exploring the Use of Large Language Models for Lossless Text Compression. PhD thesis, UNIVERSITY OF KASDI MERBAH OUARGLA

  72. [80]

    A comparative study of resnet-pretrained models for computer vision

    Thode Sai Prajwal and Ilavarasi AK. A comparative study of resnet-pretrained models for computer vision. In Proceedings of the 2023 Fifteenth International Conference on Contemporary Computing, pages 419–425, 2023

    2023

  73. [81]

    Very deep convolutional networks for large-scale image recognition

    Karen Simonyan and Andrew Zisserman. Very deep convolutional networks for large-scale image recognition. arXiv preprint arXiv:1409.1556, 2014

    2014 arXiv

  74. [82]

    End-to-end discrete cosine transform integration in spectral convolutional neural networks for resource-efficient deep learning.Applied Soft Computing, page 114599, 2026

    Ibrahim Yousef Alshareef, Ab Al-Hadi Ab Rahman, Nuzhat Khan, and Hasan Alqaraghuli. End-to-end discrete cosine transform integration in spectral convolutional neural networks for resource-efficient deep learning.Applied Soft Computing, page 114599, 2026. 22

    2026

Pith tools

Reviewed August 8, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.