PapersWithELO
← ICLR 2024 leaderboard

FIITED: Fine-grained embedding dimension optimization during training for recommender systems

Qinyi Luo, Penghan Wang, Wei Zhang, Fan Lai, Jiachen Mao, Xiaohan Wei, Jun Song, Wei-Yu Tsai, Yuxi Hu, Xuehai Qian

infrastructure & systemsModel PruningEmbedding Dimension SearchRecommendation ModelsMachine Learning Training
73.50100
Fused
band ≈ ±15 pct pts (from σ = 0.31)
75.70100
Mimo
band ≈ ±22 pct pts (from σ = 0.44)
71.60100
DeepSeek
band ≈ ±22 pct pts (from σ = 0.43)

OpenReview ground truth

Rejected

TL;DR — This paper proposes a during-training embedding dimension search method that adjusts the length of each embedding vector at the training time and is able to effectively reduce the training memory footprint of huge recommender models.

Abstract

Huge embedding tables in modern Deep Learning Recommender Models (DLRM) require prohibitively large memory during training and inference. Aiming to reduce the memory footprint of training, this paper proposes FIne-grained In-Training Embedding Dimension optimization (FIITED). Given the observation that embedding vectors are not equally important, FIITED adjusts the dimension of each individual embedding vector continuously during training, assigning longer dimensions to more important embeddings while adapting to dynamic changes in data. A novel embedding storage system based on virtually hashed physically indexed hash tables is designed to efficiently implement the embedding dimension adjustment and effectively enable memory saving. Experiments on two industry models show that FIITED is able to reduce the size of embeddings by more than 65% while maintaining the trained model’s quality, saving significantly more memory than a state-of-the-art in-training embedding pruning method. On public click-through rate prediction datasets, FIITED is able to prune up to 93.75%-99.75% embeddings without significant accuracy loss. Given the same embedding size reduction, FIITED is able to achieve better model quality than the baselines.

Author context

Most prolific author: 1 submissions (credibility 1.00).

No mass-submission penalty for this paper (authors within normal submission volume).

Aggregate statistics only — no individual author rankings.

Ranking trajectory

Percentile by tournament round — convergence indicates rating stability.

Judge assessments

Mean overall score 0.0 ± 0.0 (n = 34)