ArticleSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2026
Gradient-Free Filter Importance for Structured Pruning of Compact EEG Networks.
Article in Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Deploying EEG classification networks on resource-constrained brain-computer interface (BCI) hardware motivates structured filter pruning, yet which importance criterion to trust in already-compact architectures is unclear. We present a leakage-free, physically materialized comparison of five filter-importance criteria-ablation-based structural sensitivity analysis (SSA), first-order Taylor, L1-norm, geometric median, and random-across four datasets, two paradigms (motor imagery and ERP), two architectures, multiple capacities, and with and without fine-tuning. On EEGNet, after fine-tuning, SSA and Taylor are statistically equivalent: pooled over the four datasets their accuracy difference falls within a ±1 percentage-point margin (TOST, p=0.01), and on ShallowConvNet SSA is never worse than Taylor; both criteria significantly outperform the weight-based and random ones. SSA's value is therefore not a more accurate ranking but its formulation: on a weight-quantized (8-bit) EEGNet, where the loss gradient-and hence Taylor-is undefined on the quantized graph used here, SSA is the best gradient-free criterion, significantly beating L1, geometric-median, and random pruning in aggregate-extending structured pruning to the quantized, gradient-free but editable deployment regime. We further show that the pruning schedule and fine-tuning matter more than the choice between strong criteria, and that training large then pruning with fine-tuning recovers accuracy equivalent to a directly trained smaller model. The results clarify where the importance criterion does and does not matter for compact EEG decoders.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.