Randomized trial demonstrates class-aware pruning improves efficiency in vision transformers, suggesting effective deployment in resource-limited settings.
ViTs have achieved excellent performance in image recognition tasks, but their large parameter counts and high computational complexity limit their deployment on resource-constrained devices. Most existing ViT pruning methods adopt class-agnostic pruning strategies, which fail to distinguish the diverse structural requirements of different target classes. As a result, they are prone to removing critical features, leading to class-wise accuracy imbalance in practical deployment. To address this issue, this paper proposes a class-aware joint pruning framework for ViTs, which collaboratively compresses the model from two orthogonal dimensions: MLP neurons and visual tokens. Specifically, (1) based on first-order Taylor expansion, we quantify the contribution of each MLP neuron to the target classes and adaptively prune redundant neurons to achieve structured compression, followed by lightweight fine-tuning on the target class subset; (2) we propose a Class-Guided Token Selection (CGTS) method, which constructs class prototype vectors using a few support samples of the target classes and then dynamically selects patch tokens that are semantically highly relevant to the target classes during inference in a zero-shot manner, requiring no additional training or fine-tuning. The two modules complement each other, achieving dual compression from the parameter dimension and the inference data dimension. Experiments on CIFAR-100 and TinyImageNet datasets using DeiT-Tiny/Small models demonstrate that, compared with state-of-the-art pruning methods, our method reduces GMACs on target class subsets by up to 48%, improves inference speed by nearly 50%, and requires only 0.8 KB of additional storage overhead per subset, ultimately achieving a superior trade-off among accuracy, computational efficiency, and storage overhead.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Li et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: