mlsanityData to 13 Oct 2026

Input-Layer Starvation: Why Per-Layer Pruning Breaks IoT Intrusion Detectors

arXiv 2609.30729 ↗First posted 25 Sep 2026cs.CR cs.LGcited by 0

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Intrusion detectors for small Internet-of-Things (IoT) devices are usually compressed by pruning and judged by overall accuracy. We show that this hides a severe class-level failure, find its cause, and give low-overhead prevention and repair. On CICIoT2023, a two-layer convolutional detector pruned with uniform layer-wise magnitude pruning at 80% sparsity loses 16 points of accuracy but half of its macro-F1, the mean per-class F1 (0.542 to 0.271 over five independently trained models); 17 of 34 classes are materially damaged. Remaining weight count does not explain it: a perceptron and a transformer pruned to the same or fewer weights lose at most 0.096. The first layer does. It has 192 weights; uniform pruning leaves 38, 46% of its 64 filters lose every input weight, and fine-tuning under that starvation leaves the running means of the first normalisation layer displaced by up to 0.8 standard deviations in a few surviving channels, on which the deployed model collapses. Protecting those 192 weights, or pruning globally at the same sparsity, prevents the collapse (loss 0.013); recomputing the normalisation statistics on unlabelled training data, with no weight changed, repairs it (loss 0.039) and returns the false-alert rate to 33% (dense 29%). Damage shows a strong increasing dose-response in first-layer sparsity, starving a perceptron's input layer reproduces the collapse, and the pattern holds on TON_IoT. The failure is misattribution and false alerts, not silent evasion: on validation-selected blind spots, uniformly pruned detectors misattribute 72% of the traffic, against 50% with the first layer protected and 47% for the dense model.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 13 Oct 2026). Builds on 20 of its 30 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 25 Sep 2026.

Builds on

20 of 30 references.

References · 20

  1. 2015Learning both Weights and Connections for Efficient Neural Networkscited by 2,017
  2. 2017To prune, or not to prune: exploring the efficacy of pruning for model compressioncited by 602
  3. 2020What is the State of Neural Network Pruning?cited by 582
  4. 2019Rigging the Lottery: Making All Tickets Winnerscited by 493
  5. 2020Pruning neural networks without any data by iteratively conserving synaptic flowcited by 476
  6. 2019The State of Sparsity in Deep Neural Networkscited by 474
  7. 2019What Do Compressed Deep Neural Networks Forget?cited by 169
  8. 2020Characterising Bias in Compressed Modelscited by 166
  9. 2021Rethinking "Batch" in BatchNormcited by 44
  10. 2022Pruning has a disparate impact on model accuracycited by 44
  11. 2022Why Random Pruning Is All We Need to Start Sparsecited by 26
  12. 2020Prune Responsiblycited by 20
8 more
  1. 2022Is Complexity Required for Neural Network Pruning? A Case Study on Global Magnitude Pruningcited by 13
  2. 2022Recall Distortion in Neural Network Pruning and the Undecayed Pruning Algorithmcited by 9
  3. 2022A Tale of Two Models: Constructing Evasive Attacks on Edge Modelscited by 6
  4. 2025Signal Collapse in One-Shot Pruning: When Sparse Models Fail to Distinguish Neural Representationscited by 5
  5. 2020Streamlining Tensor and Network Pruning in PyTorchcited by 4
  6. 2025Pruning-Based TinyML Optimization of Machine Learning Models for Anomaly Detection in Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructurecited by 2
  7. 2025Adaptive Pruning of Deep Neural Networks for Resource-Aware Embedded Intrusion Detection on the Edgecited by 1
  8. 2026Reliable Federated TinyML Deployment for IoT Securitycited by 1

Built on by

Not cited yet.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2026Weight Pruning Amplifies Bias: A Multi-Method Study of Compressed LLMs for Edge AI
  2. 2026LUT-Compiled Kolmogorov-Arnold Networks for Lightweight DoS Detection on IoT Edge Devices
  3. 2025Designing Object Detection Models for TinyML: Foundations, Comparative Analysis, Challenges, and Emerging Solutions
  4. 2026Robustness Analysis of Machine Learning Models for IoT Intrusion Detection Under Data Poisoning Attacks
  5. 2026Semantic Multi-Agent Intrusion Detection for IoT:Zero-Day and Adversarial Threats with Risk-Aware Reasoning
  6. 2025TensorShield: Safeguarding On-Device Inference by Shielding Critical DNN Tensors with TEE
  7. 2025Energy and Memory-Efficient Federated Learning With Ordered Layer Freezing
  8. 2026Unlearning to Protect: A Distilled Reinforcement Learning Framework with Privacy-Preserving Feature Unlearning and XAI for IoT Security