Post-training LLM compression often relies on low-rank approximations, which force all columns of a projection matrix to share a single low-dimensional subspace. We propose CoSpaDi, a training-free compression framework that replaces this single-subspace assumption with a union-of-subspaces model via sparse dictionary learning. CoSpaDi factorizes each weight matrix into a dense dictionary and column-sparse coefficients, allowing different columns to select different subsets of dictionary atoms at the same storage budget. To preserve model behavior, we use calibration activations to transform functional reconstruction into a standard dictionary learning problem. Across LLaMA and Qwen models, CoSpaDi improves accuracy-compression and perplexity-compression trade-offs over SVD-based and structured pruning baselines at 20-40% compression ratios, while naturally supporting sparse-dense computation and post-training quantization of sparse coefficients.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Left: low-rank factorization represents W in a single r -dimensional subspace via two dense factors. Right: CoSpaDi represents W as DS where D is a dictionary of k atoms and S is column-sparse (at most s nonzeros per column), yielding a union-of-subspaces model. Dictionaries may be undercomplete ( k<d1 ), complete ( k=d1 ), or overcomplete ( k>d1 ).
Figure 2
Accuracy ↑
Perplexity ↓
Method
CR
PIQA
HellaSwag
LAMBADA
ARC-e
ARC-c
SciQ
RACE
MMLU
Avg.
WikiText
LAMBADA
LLaMA-3-8B
–
80.7
79.1
75.6
77.7
53.5
93.9
40.3
62.2
70.4
7.3E+00
3.1E+00
SVD-LLM
71.1
58.4
59.3
55.5
34.0
86.4
35.5
32.6
54.1
4.1E+01
1.1E+01
CoSpaDi
0.2
75.2
66.5
73.8
66.5
41.6
89.5
38.2
42.8
61.8
2.0E+01
4.3E+0 0
SVD-LLM
65.8
46.4
38.1
41.9
27.7
70.0
31.8
27.2
43.6
1.5E+02
6.1E+01
CoSpaDi
0.3
70.5
56.2
61.3
54.2
33.5
85.7
36.2
32.2
53.7
4.5E+01
9.2E+00
Table 3: Performance comparison of CoSpaDi and SVD-LLM on LLaMA-3-8B and Qwen3-8B across compression ratios and evaluation benchmarks. Best results are provided in bold .
Accuracy ↑
Perplexity ↓
Method
CR
PIQA
HellaSwag
LAMBADA
ARC-e
ARC-c
SciQ
RACE
MMLU
Avg.
WikiText
LAMBADA
LLaMA-3-8B
80.7
79.1
75.6
77.7
53.5
93.9
40.3
62.2
70.4
7.3E+00
3.1E+00
ReplaceMe
0.22
73.1
65.7
42.1
65.9
43.7
86.4
35.4
51.7
58.0
3.4E+01
2.0E+01
LLM-Pruner
75.5
67.5
51.0
62.1
36.6
87.8
35.1
25.0
55.1
1.6E+01
1.1E+01
CoSpaDi
0.2
75.2
66.5
73.8
66.5
41.6
89.5
38.2
42.8
61.8
2.0E+01
4.3E+00
ReplaceMe
0.31
66.6
53.8
24.0
50.7
37.9
77.3
34.0
30.6
46.9
6.7E+01
1.3E+02
Table 4: Comparison of the proposed CoSpaDi method with state-of-the-art structured pruning methods ReplaceMe Shopkhoev et al. (2025) and LLM-Pruner Ma et al. (2023) on LLaMA-3-8B under different compression ratios. We report accuracy on different benchmarks as well as its average and perplexity. Best results are provided in bold .
Method
CR
Accuracy ↑ (% (unnorm))
Perplexity ↓
PIQA
HellaSwag
LAMBADA
ARC-e
ARC-c
SciQ
RACE
MMLU
Avg.
WikiText
LAMBADA
LLaMA-2-7B
–
78.9 (78.0)
76.1 (57.3)
73.8
74.2 (76.0)
45.8 (42.7)
91.4 (93.9)
39.7
40.8
65.1 (62.8)
8.70
3.38
SVD-LLM
0.2
73.1 (72.1)
60.3 (44.4)
63.9
55.0 (62.0)
32.0 (29.1)
79.5 (89.2)
36.6
25.5
53.2 (52.9)
20.18
6.33
CoSpaDi (per-layer)
74.5 (73.6)
64.5 (47.7)
70.0
61.5 (67.2)
35.2 (34.0)
85.4 (91.3)
39.2
28.0
57.3 (56.4)
15.97
4.58
Basis Sharing
71.1 (70.2)
60.0 (43.4)
62.8
60.5 (65.5)
37.8 (33.5)
85.0 (90.8)
34.7
25.0
54.6 (53.2)
15.17
7.03
CoSpaDi (grouped)
75.3 (74.5)
66.3 (48.8)
71.1
68.1 (71.3)
39.3 (37.3)
88.5 (92.2)
38.5
27.0
59.3 (57.6)
11.73
4.42
Table 5: Performance comparison of CoSpaDi vs Basis Sharing ( Wang et al., 2025a ) and per-layer counterparts on LLaMA-2-7B under different CRs on various benchmarks. Best results are provided in bold . Unnormalized accuracies are shown in parentheses for direct comparison with ( Wang et al., 2025a ) .
Method
Global CR
UG CR
Avg. ↑
Wiki ↓
LAMB. ↓
Tok/s ↑
Dense baseline
–
–
70.4
7.3
3.1
44.0
SVD-LLM UG
0.22
0.40
53.5
56.2
8.5
53.3
CoSpaDi UG
0.22
0.40
61.9
25.0
2.8
48.0
SVD-LLM UG
0.27
0.50
43.8
213.0
54.5
52.5
CoSpaDi UG
0.27
0.50
54.8
52.0
5.8
50.5
Table 6: Selective up / gate compression on LLaMA-3-8B. Throughput is averaged over prompt lengths 1 – 256 in synchronous generation; higher is better.
Method
1 user
4 users
8 users
16 users
Dense baseline
77
290
589
1344
SVD-LLM UG
99
386
798
1332
CoSpaDi UG
96
376
758
1515
Table 7: Asynchronous serving throughput on LLaMA-3-8B for prompt length 1 . SVD-LLM UG and CoSpaDi UG use UG CR =0.60 ; higher is better.
Appendix figures & tables17 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Method
Perplexity ↓
WikiText
C4
LLaMA-7B
5.67
7.33
SVD-LLM V2, reported
7.12
10.47
SVD-LLM V2, reproduced
8.09
16.29
CoSpaDi
8.12
10.26
Appendix
Table 8: Comparison with SVD-LLM V2 on LLaMA-7B at CR =0.2 . “Reported” denotes the values reported in the SVD-LLM V2 paper, while “reproduced” denotes our implementation. Lower perplexity is better.
Method
Target CR
Remapping
WikiText-2 ↓
C4 ↓
Avg. Acc. ↑
LLaMA-7B
–
–
5.67
7.33
0.550
Dobi-SVD ∗ , reported
0.2
No
8.54
10.01
0.456
Dobi-SVD, reported
0.2
Yes
6.08
7.83
0.507
Dobi-SVD, reproduced
0.2
Yes
6.08
8.49
0.533
CoSpaDi
0.2
No
8.12
10.26
0.508
Dobi-SVD ∗ , reported
0.4
No
13.54
23.54
0.380
Appendix
Table 9: Comparison with Dobi-SVD on LLaMA-7B. Dobi-SVD ∗ denotes Dobi-SVD without remapping, as reported in the original paper. “Reproduced” denotes our evaluation of the released remapped checkpoints. Average accuracy is computed over OpenBookQA, ARC-easy, Winogrande, HellaSwag, ARC-challenge, PIQA, and MathQA. Dobi-SVD remapping changes the relation between factorization rank and final storage and is therefore indicated separately rather than expressed as a separate factorization compression ratio. For a square projection, the same remapped storage budget can correspond to a negative conventional factorization compression ratio; see Eq. ( 61 ).
Hyperparameter
Value
Random seed
42
K-SVD iterations T
60
Ratio ρ=k/s
2.0
Dictionary update solver
power-iteration K-SVD
Power iterations
8
OMP batch size
8192
Appendix
Table 10: Main hyperparameters used in the experiments unless otherwise specified. The dictionary size k and sparsity level s are determined from the target compression ratio and the ratio ρ=k/s via Eq. ( 11 ).
Accuracy ↑
Perplexity ↓
Calibration data
Method
PIQA
HellaSwag
LAMBADA
ARC-e
ARC-c
SciQ
RACE
MMLU
Avg.
WikiText
LAMBADA
SVD-LLM
62.13
36.43
24.43
36.03
25.09
64.90
29.00
22.98
37.62
1.69E+02
1.70E+02
RefinedWeb
CoSpaDi
66.05
42.88
38.39
39.94
26.02
71.60
31.67
24.83
42.67
6.37E+01
3.51E+01
SVD-LLM
63.50
36.20
12.70
46.20
25.80
67.50
26.50
24.00
37.80
2.82E+02
9.24E+02
Alpaca
CoSpaDi
65.50
40.10
21.20
48.10
27.60
74.70
29.60
25.40
41.53
1.79E+02
2.60E+02
SVD-LLM
58.30
35.50
23.10
40.60
25.30
69.50
24.80
23.10
37.53
1.04E+02
1.91E+02
Appendix
Table 11: Sensitivity to the calibration domain on LLaMA-3.2-1B at CR=0.2 . All calibration sets contain 256 sequences of length 1024. We report accuracy on different benchmarks as well as its average and perplexity on WikiText and LAMBADA. Best results are provided in bold .
Accuracy ↑
Perplexity ↓
# Calib. samples
Method
PIQA
HellaSwag
LAMBADA
ARC-e
ARC-c
SciQ
RACE
MMLU
Avg.
WikiText
LAMBADA
SVD-LLM
59.30
35.30
19.80
35.10
24.10
58.80
28.30
23.10
35.48
2.03E+02
3.04E+02
64
CoSpaDi
62.00
39.20
33.90
40.10
25.30
71.10
30.30
23.30
40.65
1.15E+02
6.38E+01
SVD-LLM
60.00
35.80
19.00
35.30
24.30
60.20
27.10
23.00
35.59
1.95E+02
3.16E+02
128
CoSpaDi
62.80
39.80
31.20
39.00
25.20
68.30
30.40
23.20
39.99
1.15E+02
7.84E+01
SVD-LLM
62.13
36.43
24.43
36.03
25.09
64.90
29.00
22.98
37.62
1.69E+02
1.70E+02
Appendix
Table 12: Sensitivity to the number of calibration samples on LLaMA-3.2-1B at CR=0.2 using RefinedWeb calibration data. All calibration sequences have length 1024. We report accuracy on different benchmarks as well as its average and perplexity on WikiText and LAMBADA. Best results are provided in bold .
CR
SVD-LLM Avg.
CoSpaDi Avg.
Gain
Gain / SEΔ
0.2
0.3762
0.4267
+0.0505
9.6×
0.3
0.3022
0.3367
+0.0346
6.6×
0.4
0.2621
0.2753
+0.0132
2.6×
Appendix
Table 13: Average-accuracy gains relative to the combined standard error estimated from task-level lm-evaluation-harness outputs on LLaMA-3.2-1B. The displayed average accuracies are rounded to four decimal places; gains are computed from the underlying unrounded averages.
Figure 4: Average benchmark accuracy and WikiText perplexity with respect to the number of K-SVD iterations (left) and the number of power iterations (right) for LLaMA-3.2-1B with ρ=2
Component
Time (min)
Share (%)
Sparse coding (OMP)
178.5
27.6
Dictionary update (K-SVD)
467.6
72.3
Misc. overhead
0.7
0.1
Total
646.8
100.0
Appendix
Table 14: Runtime breakdown of CoSpaDi on a 1B-scale model for end-to-end compression of all targeted projection matrices under the current solver configuration.
Model / Setting
Applied eq.
Quant. coeff.
Dictionary
Coeff. values
Mask / indices
Full total
LLaMA-3.2-1B
–
No
–
–
–
1856
CoSpaDi, CR=20%
Eq. 10
No
990
438
54
1484
Eq. 11
Yes
1018
408
58
1484
CoSpaDi, CR=30%
Eq. 10
No
866
383
47
1298
Eq. 11
Yes
890
357
51
1298
CoSpaDi, CR=40%
Eq. 10
No
743
329
41
1113
Appendix
Table 15: Memory footprint breakdown (MiB) for storing all compressed linear layers (excluding embeddings, lm_head , and normalization layers) under CoSpaDi at different compression ratios.
Figure 5: Average benchmark accuracy and WikiText perplexity for LLaMA-3.2-1B and Qwen3-0.6B using SVD-LLM and CoSpaDi with respect to compression ratio.
Accuracy ↑
Perplexity ↓
Method
CR
PIQA
HellaSwag
LAMBADA
ARC-e
ARC-c
SciQ
RACE
MMLU
Avg.
WikiText
LAMBADA
Qwen3-14B
–
79.9
78.9
67.9
82.8
60.2
96.5
43.3
77.2
73.3
1.1E+01
3.7E+00
SVD-LLM
76.2
67.6
69.1
69.8
46.8
91.0
42.9
62.5
65.8
1.8E+01
4.1E+00
CoSpaDi
0.2
77.3
71.7
72.0
73.3
51.3
91.9
43.1
65.8
68.3
1.6E+01
3.4E+00
SVD-LLM
72.0
59.7
61.5
62.6
39.3
88.9
41.5
52.0
59.7
2.3E+01
6.5E+00
CoSpaDi
0.3
74.6
64.2
69.0
65.3
43.6
90.7
42.5
58.0
63.5
2.0E+01
4.2E+00
Appendix
Table 16: Performance comparison of CoSpaDi vs SVD-LLM on Qwen3-14B at different compression levels on different benchmarks. Best results are provided in bold .
Accuracy ↑
Perplexity ↓
Method
CR
PIQA
HellaSwag
LAMBADA
ARC-e
ARC-c
SciQ
RACE
MMLU
Avg.
WikiText
LAMBADA
LLaMA-3-8B
–
80.7
79.1
75.6
77.7
53.5
93.9
40.3
62.2
70.4
7.3E+00
3.1E+00
SVD-LLM
0.4
60.3
34.5
11.4
32.4
24.5
44.2
25.7
23.1
32.0
5.5E+02
1.3E+03
Wanda 2:4
0.44
62.4
39.7
0.8
41.9
25.6
74.7
26.8
23.4
36.9
2.1E+02
5.7E+03
CoSpaDi
0.4
63.7
41.4
30.3
39.1
26.6
68.5
30.5
25.4
40.7
1.8E+02
1.2E+02
Appendix
Table 17: Performance comparison on LLaMA-3-8B between SVD-LLM, CoSpaDi, and Wanda 2:4 at compression ratio 0.4. Best compressed result in each column is highlighted in bold .
Model
CR
IFEval
BBH
MATH
GPQA
MUSR
MMLU-Pro
(%)
(%)
(%)
(%)
(%)
(%)
Qwen3-8B
—
39.2
60.9
52.6
36.2
43.1
47.7
SVD-LLM
25.5
41.0
1.1
28.4
39.8
26.3
CoSpaDi
0.2
28.9
45.3
2.0
28.6
42.1
31.5
SVD-LLM
22.9
34.4
1.0
25.6
41.4
18.8
CoSpaDi
0.3
25.2
38.2
1.0
24.8
38.4
22.8
Appendix
Table 18: Performance comparison of CoSpaDi vs SVD-LLM on Qwen3-8B and Qwen3-14B at different compression levels on different benchmarks. Best results are provided in bold .
Method
Global CR
Accuracy ↑
Perplexity ↓
PIQA
HellaSwag
LAMBADA
ARC-e
ARC-c
SciQ
Race
MMLU
Avg.
Wiki
LAMBADA
LLaMA-3-8B
–
80.7
79.1
75.6
77.7
53.5
93.9
40.3
62.2
70.4
7.3E+00
3.1E+00
CoSpaDi
0.20
75.2
66.5
73.8
66.5
41.6
89.5
38.2
42.8
61.8
2.0E+01
4.3E+00
CoSpaDi UG
0.22
75.3
63.2
76.7
67.8
42.1
92.5
37.3
40.2
61.9
2.5E+01
2.8E+00
SVD-LLM UG
0.22
71.9
51.9
56.7
58.8
33.5
87.7
33.8
33.9
53.5
5.6E+01
8.5E+00
CoSpaDi
0.30
70.5
56.2
61.3
54.2
33.5
85.7
36.2
32.2
53.7
4.5E+01
9.2E+00
Appendix
Table 19: Quality of selective up / gate compression on LLaMA-3-8B. Superscript UG denotes compressing only the MLP up and gate projections.
Prompt
UG CR
SVD-LLM UG
CoSpaDi UG
1
0.3
51.2
46.8
16
50.3
46.8
32
51.3
45.9
64
50.3
45.3
128
50.0
44.8
256
49.5
44.0
Appendix
Table 20: Synchronous generation throughput on LLaMA-3-8B using an RTX 3090. Throughput is reported in tokens/s; higher is better.
Method
1 user
4 users
8 users
16 users
Dense baseline
77.0
290.0
589.0
1344.0
SVD-LLM UG
99.4
386.0
798.0
1332.0
CoSpaDi UG
95.6
375.6
758.0
1515.0
Appendix
Table 21: Asynchronous serving throughput on LLaMA-3-8B for prompt length 1 . SVD-LLM UG and CoSpaDi UG use UG CR =0.60 and ρ=2 ; higher is better.
Users
Prompt 1
Prompt 16
Prompt 32
Prompt 64
Prompt 128
1
95.6
93.5
92.4
101.0
98.0
4
375.6
374.8
372.4
393.0
401.0
8
758.0
742.0
749.4
802.0
792.0
16
1515.0
1479.6
1472.0
1521.0
1573.0
Appendix
Table 22: Asynchronous serving throughput of CoSpaDi UG on LLaMA-3-8B with UG CR =0.60 and ρ=2 . Throughput is reported in tokens/s; higher is better.
Efficient deployment of large language models (LLMs) on mobile devices requires balancing performance with compute and memory constraints. Post-training compression is an effective approach to managing this trade-off, while requiring much less computation than in-training counterparts. We propose DictLLM, a dictionary-based compression scheme in which weight matrices within grouped layers are decomposed into a shared dictionary and layer-specific sparse coefficients, directly obtained from a pre-trained model without further training. Specifically, we cast DictLLM as a four-step post-training optimization. First, we obtain shared dictionaries via singular value decomposition (SVD) of input-scaled weight matrices, amortizing rank across grouped layers; second, we sparsify the layer-specific coefficients to the target compression ratio using a dictionary-aware Hessian; and third, we refine the dictionaries given the resulting sparse coefficients. Finally, we aggressively quantize both components using factor-specific Hessian information: input covariance for the dictionaries and the dictionary-aware Hessian for the coefficients. The resulting representation reduces memory footprint by storing a single shared dictionary per layer group, along with sparse layer-specific coefficients. On language modeling and zero-shot reasoning benchmarks, DictLLM consistently outperforms existing post-training low-rank compression methods and pushes the Pareto frontier between model size and performance. DictLLM compresses the original LLaMA-7B model by 5.1x with only a 2.9-point increase in WikiText-2 perplexity, achieving a 3.6x higher compression ratio than the state-of-the-art low-rank method.
Post-training compression of transformer models commonly relies on truncated singular value decomposition (SVD) strategies leading to low-rank approximations of the original model weights. However, the underlying single shared subspace modeling can degrade accuracy even at moderate compression. Sparse dictionary learning provides a more flexible union-of-subspaces representation, but existing approaches often suffer from costly iterative dictionary and coefficient updates. We propose COMPOT (Calibration-Optimized Matrix Procrustes Orthogonalization for Transformers), a training-free compression framework that uses a small calibration dataset to estimate a sparse weight factorization. COMPOT employs orthogonal dictionaries that enable closed-form Procrustes updates for the dictionary and analytical single-step sparse coding for the coefficients, reducing significantly the overall optimization cost. To handle heterogeneous layer sensitivity under a global compression budget, COMPOT further introduces a one-shot dynamic allocation strategy that adaptively redistributes layer-wise compression rates. Extensive experiments across diverse architectures and tasks show that COMPOT consistently delivers a superior quality-compression trade-off over strong low-rank and sparse baselines, while remaining fully compatible with post-training quantization for extreme compression.
This study presents an ensemble technique, SPQ (SVD-Pruning-Quantization), for large language model (LLM) compression that combines variance-retained singular value decomposition (SVD), activation-based pruning, and post-training linear quantization. Each component targets a different source of inefficiency: i) pruning removes redundant neurons in MLP layers, ii) SVD reduces attention projections into compact low-rank factors, iii) and 8-bit quantization uniformly compresses all linear layers. At matched compression ratios, SPQ outperforms individual methods (SVD-only, pruning-only, or quantization-only) in perplexity, demonstrating the benefit of combining complementary techniques. Applied to LLaMA-2-7B, SPQ achieves up to 75% memory reduction while maintaining or improving perplexity (e.g., WikiText-2 5.47 to 4.91) and preserving accuracy on downstream benchmarks such as C4, TruthfulQA, and GSM8K. Compared to strong baselines like GPTQ and SparseGPT, SPQ offers competitive perplexity and accuracy while using less memory (6.86 GB vs. 7.16 GB for GPTQ). Moreover, SPQ improves inference throughput over GPTQ, achieving up to a 1.9x speedup, which further enhances its practicality for real-world deployment. The effectiveness of SPQ's robust compression through layer-aware and complementary compression techniques may provide practical deployment of LLMs in memory-constrained environments. Code is available at: https://github.com/JiaminYao/SPQ_LLM_Compression/
Jiamin Yao, Eren Gultepe
Dept. of Computer Science, Southern Illinois University Edwardsville, Edwardsville, USA