Below are the abstract, introduction, and conclusion of a computer science research paper. Please summarize the main contribution of the work in a single sentence. Your response should include the summary and no additional text.

Paper text:

Pruning is a popular technique for compressing a neural network: a large pre-trained network is fine-tuned while connections are successively removed.
However, the value of pruning has largely evaded scrutiny.
In this extended abstract, we examine residual networks obtained through Fisher-pruning and make two interesting observations.
First, when time-constrained, it is better to train a simple, smaller network from scratch than prune a large network.
Second, it is the architectures obtained through the pruning process  --- not the learnt weights --- that prove valuable.
Such architectures are powerful when trained from scratch.
Furthermore, these architectures are easy to approximate without any further pruning: we can prune once and obtain a family of new, scalable network architectures for different memory requirements.
Deep neural networks excel at a multitude of tasks BID11 , but are typically cumbersome, and difficult to deploy on embedded devices.
This can be rectified by compressing the network; specifically, reducing the number of parameters it uses in order to reduce its runtime memory.
This also reduces the number of operations that have to be performed; making the network faster.A popular means of doing this is through pruning.
One trains a large network and fine-tunes it while removing connections in succession.
This is an expensive procedure that often takes longer than simply training a smaller network from scratch.
Does a pruned-and-tuned network actually outperform a simpler, smaller counterpart?
If not, is there any benefit to pruning?In
this work, we show that for a given parameter budget, pruned-and-tuned networks are consistently beaten by networks with simpler structures (e.g. a linear rescaling of channel widths) trained from scratch. This
indicates that there is little value in the weights learnt through pruning. However
, when the architectures obtained through pruning are trained from scratch (i.e. when all weights are reinitialised at random and the network is trained anew) they surpass their fine-tuned equivalents and the simpler networks. Moreover
, these architectures are easy to approximate; we can look at which connections remain after pruning and derive a family of copycat architectures that when trained from scratch display similar performance. This gives
us a new set of compact, powerful architectures.
Pruning is a very expensive procedure, and should be avoided when one is time-constrained.
We show that under such constraints it is preferable to train a smaller, simpler network from scratch.
Our work supports the view that pruning should be seen as a form of architecture search; it is the resulting structure -not the learnt weights -that is important.
Pruned architectures trained from scratch perform well, and are easily emulated, as demonstrated by our copycat networks.
These are a step towards a more efficient architecture for residual networks.
Future work could entail expanding this analysis to other network types, datasets, and pruning schema.
It would also be possible to use distillation techniques BID21 between our pruned architectures and the original architecture to further boost performance .
Training small networks beats pruning, but pruning finds good small networks to train that are easy to copy.