Overview
Clear engineering value: strong empirical gains for quantization and moderate pruning wins. Dependence on LLM reliability and specific hardware means some adaptation is needed before wide production rollout.
Citations0
Evidence Strength0.70
Confidence0.78
Risk Signals10
Trust Signals
Findings with numeric evidence: 5/5
Findings with evidence refs: 5/5
Results with explicit delta: 5/5
Reproducibility
Status: Partial assets available
Open source: Partial
At A Glance
Cost impact: 70%
Production readiness: 60%
Novelty: 70%
Why It Matters For Business
Profiling-guided, LLM-driven compression automates model tuning for latency and memory limits. It reduces manual trial-and-error and can make large vision models viable on CPU- or memory-constrained edge servers with minimal accuracy loss.
Who Should Care
Summary TLDR
ProfilingAgent is a modular system that uses runtime profiling and LLM-based agents to pick layer-specific structured pruning and dynamic post-training quantization. On vision models (ResNet-101, ViT/DeiT, Swin) the method keeps accuracy near baseline while cutting memory up to ~74% and speeding CPU inference up to ~1.74×. The system is practical for CPU-bound deployments and for iteratively finding pruning/quantization trade-offs without exhaustive grid search.
Problem Statement
Pruning and quantization are often applied uniformly or with simple heuristics. That ignores per-layer runtime bottlenecks (latency, memory) and architectural heterogeneity, leading to suboptimal accuracy-latency-memory trade-offs. Manual tuning is slow and brittle across model families.
Main Contribution
A modular pipeline that collects static (MACs, params) and dynamic (latency, memory) profiling traces and feeds them to LLM agents.
An LLM-guided Analysis Agent that returns structured, layerwise pruning and dynamic quantization recommendations.
Key Findings
ProfilingAgent's quantization achieves large memory savings with tiny accuracy loss.
Quantization yields clear CPU inference speedups vs ONNX baseline.
Results
| Metric | Value | Baseline | Delta | Split / Dataset | Evidence | Evidence Ref |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Quantization memory reduction | ≈74% (best models) | ONNX PTQ ~73% | +~1–2% vs ONNX | ImageNet-1K (Table 3) | ProfilingAgent achieves ~74% Mem.Red across ViT/DeiT/Swin, slightly higher than ONNX. | Table 3 |
| Quantization inference speedup | up to 1.74× | ONNX PTQ | 1.36–1.74× across models | ImageNet-1K (Table 3,4) | Measured average inference time reduced vs ONNX, giving up to 1.74× on ViT-B/16. | Table 3, Table 4 |
What To Try In 7 Days
Run PyTorch Profiler on your model to gather per-layer latency and memory traces.
Apply full dynamic quantization (qint8) to Linear layers and measure model file size and CPU latency.
Prototype a small agent loop: feed profiling JSON to a prompt (as in Fig.4) and validate suggested layerwise quantization/pruning on a held-out subset.
Agent Features
Memory
Planning
Tool Use
Frameworks
Is Agentic
Yes
Architectures
LLM-guided multi-agent pipeline
Modular agents: Acquisition, Profiling, Analysis, Pruning, Quantization, Evaluation, Iterative Pruni
Collaboration
Optimization Features
Infra Optimization
Model Optimization
System Optimization
Training Optimization
Inference Optimization
Reproducibility
Data URLs
Risks & Boundaries
Limitations
Depends on LLM quality: weaker models can produce overly aggressive/pruning plans (Table 5).
Reported gains measured on specific hardware (A100, H200) and CPU setups; effects may differ on other platforms.
When Not To Use
When you cannot run layerwise profiling (no privileged runtime access).
When you require extremely aggressive pruning that must be followed by retraining.
Failure Modes
LLM returns overly aggressive pruning plan and causes sudden accuracy collapse (observed with GPT-4-Turbo).
Channel misalignment after structured pruning increases runtime overhead and slows inference (ResNet example).