Deep Learning Meets Projective Clustering
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
A common approach for compressing NLP networks is to encode the embedding layer as a matrix A∈ℝn× d, compute its rank-j approximation Aj via SVD, and then factor Aj into a pair of matrices that correspond to smaller fully-connected layers to replace the original embedding layer. Geometrically, the rows of A represent points in ℝd, and the rows of Aj represent their projections onto the j-dimensional subspace that minimizes the sum of squared distances ("errors") to the points. In practice, these rows of A may be spread around k>1 subspaces, so factoring A based on a single subspace may lead to large errors that turn into large drops in accuracy. Inspired by projective clustering from computational geometry, we suggest replacing this subspace by a set of k subspaces, each of dimension j, that minimizes the sum of squared distances over every point (row in A) to its closest subspace. Based on this approach, we provide a novel architecture that replaces the original embedding layer by a set of k small layers that operate in parallel and are then recombined with a single fully-connected layer. Extensive experimental results on the GLUE benchmark yield networks that are both more accurate and smaller compared to the standard matrix factorization (SVD). For example, we further compress DistilBERT by reducing the size of the embedding layer by 40% while incurring only a 0.5% average drop in accuracy over all nine GLUE tasks, compared to a 2.8% drop using the existing SVD approach. On RoBERTa we achieve 43% compression of the embedding layer with less than a 0.8% average drop in accuracy as compared to a 3% drop previously. Open code for reproducing and extending our results is provided.
Key facts. Cited by 10 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). First posted on arXiv 8 Oct 2020.
Builds on
No reference list yet.
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2021: 4; 2022: 3; 2023: 0; 2024: 0; 2025: 1; 2026: 2.
10 papers.
- 2021Compressing Neural Networks: Towards Determining the Optimal Layer-wise Decompositioncited by 33
- 2022Pruning Neural Networks via Coresets and Convex Geometry: Towards No Assumptionscited by 20
- 2021A Unified Approach to Coreset Learningcited by 18
- 2021Sparse Flows: Pruning Continuous-depth Modelscited by 13
- 2021Model Preserving Compression for Neural Networkscited by 9
- 2022Coresets for Data Discretization and Sine Wave Fittingcited by 6
- 2022Deep Learning on Home Drone: Searching for the Optimal Architecturecited by 4
- 2025Compress to Impress: Efficient LLM Adaptation Using a Single Gradient Step on 100 Samplescited by 1
- 2026Hierarchical Spatio-Channel Clustering for Efficient Model Compression in Medical Image Analysiscited by 0
- 2026SlimSpec: Low-Rank Draft LM-Head for Accelerated Speculative Decodingcited by 0
- 2026SlimSpec: Low-Rank Draft LM-Head for Accelerated Speculative Decoding11 May 2026
- 2026Hierarchical Spatio-Channel Clustering for Efficient Model Compression in Medical Image Analysis25 Apr 2026
- 2025Compress to Impress: Efficient LLM Adaptation Using a Single Gradient Step on 100 Samples23 Oct 2025
- 2022Deep Learning on Home Drone: Searching for the Optimal Architecture21 Sep 2022
- 2022Pruning Neural Networks via Coresets and Convex Geometry: Towards No Assumptions18 Sep 2022
- 2022Coresets for Data Discretization and Sine Wave Fitting6 Mar 2022
- 2021A Unified Approach to Coreset Learning4 Nov 2021
- 2021Model Preserving Compression for Neural Networks30 Jul 2021
- 2021Compressing Neural Networks: Towards Determining the Optimal Layer-wise Decomposition23 Jul 2021
- 2021Sparse Flows: Pruning Continuous-depth Models24 Jun 2021