Large language models (LLM) have achieved remarkable performance across a wide range of tasks. However, their substantial parameter sizes pose significant challenges for deployment on edge devices with limited computational and memory resources. Low-rank compression is a promising approach to address this issue, as it reduces both computational and memory costs, making LLM more suitable for resource-constrained environments. Nonetheless, naïve low-rank compression methods require a significant reduction in the retained rank to achieve meaningful memory and computation savings. For a low-rank model, the ranks need to be reduced by more than half to yield efficiency gains. Such aggressive truncation, however, typically results in substantial performance degradation. To address this trade-off, we propose SkipCat, a novel low-rank compression framework that enables the use of higher ranks while achieving the same compression rates. First, we introduce an intra-layer shared low-rank projection method, where multiple matrices that share the same input use a common projection. This reduces redundancy and improves compression efficiency. Second, we propose a block skipping technique that omits computations and memory transfers for selected sub-blocks within the low-rank decomposition. These two techniques jointly enable our compressed model to retain more effective ranks under the same compression budget. Experimental results show that, without any additional fine-tuning, our method outperforms previous low-rank compression approaches by 7% accuracy improvement on zero-shot tasks under the same compression rate. These results highlight the effectiveness of our rank-maximized compression strategy in preserving model performance under tight resource constraints.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Computational cost (FLOPs) and memory footprint (MB) of the LLaMA2-7B attention module versus retained rank r . The black dotted line represents the original computational cost and memory footprint of the module. The gray dashed line corresponds to a naïve SVD compression, which only achieves effective compression when the retained rank is reduced to less than half of the full rank. In contrast, SkipCat maximizes the ranks and reduces the computational and memory cost, resulting in better trade-offs between efficiency and performance.
Figure 2: An illustration comparing our proposed method SkipCat with naïve low-rank compression. (a) The original model layer. (b) The model structure after applying naïve SVD low-rank compression. (c) Our Cat technique, which shares low-rank projection matrices across modules, enabling more ranks to be preserved without changing the compression rate. (d) Our Skip technique, applied on top of the Cat architecture, skips submatrix computations for all low-rank projections and further increases the number of preserved ranks.
Figure 3: The output activation distribution of low-rank projections in LLaMA2-7B after applying block skipping. Left: Without column permutation, activation outliers cause FP16 overflow. Right: Column permutation stabilizes the distribution, preventing overflow in low-precision inference.
Model
Comp. Rate
Method
Perplexity ↓
Zero-shot Task Accuracy (%) ↑
Avg. (%)
Drop (%)
Wiki2
C4
ARC-e
ARC-c
Hella
OBQA
Wino
MathQA
PIQA
↑
↓
LLaMA2-7B
-
Dense
5.47
7.26
76.30
43.34
57.14
31.40
69.14
28.17
78.07
54.79
-
20%
ASVD
9.06
11.66
67.80
34.56
48.25
29.60
63.77
25.49
72.20
48.81
5.98
Basis Sharing
9.39
23.30
59.18
27.82
38.22
24.20
66.54
23.89
66.54
43.77
11.02
Dobi-SVD
9.39
19.46
54.25
23.29
38.80
22.80
58.56
22.75
65.34
40.83
13.97
SVD-LLM
8.82
13.42
58.67
27.65
43.10
26.20
64.25
23.85
70.18
44.84
9.95
Table 1: Perplexity and zero-shot accuracy of low-rank compression methods.
Model
Comp. Rate
Method
Zero-shot Task Accuracy
Avg. (%) ↑
Drop (%) ↓
LLaMA2-13B
-
Dense
58.07
-
20%
SVD-LLM
50.09
7.98
SkipCat
54.15
3.92
30%
SVD-LLM
46.15
11.93
SkipCat
49.29
8.78
Table 2: Zero-short accuracy of compressed larger models.
Comp. Rate
Ablation Settings
Perplexity ↓
Cat
Skip
Quant.
Wiki2
C4
20%
✗
✗
✗
8.82
13.42
✓
✗
✗
7.84
11.99
✗
✓
✗
6.71
9.32
✓
✓
✗
6.29
8.95
✓
✓
✓
6.29
8.96
Table 3: Ablation study results on LLaMA2-7B.
Comp. Rate
Method
Zero-shot Task Accuracy
Avg. (%) ↑
Drop (%) ↓
-
Dense
54.79
-
20%
SVD-LLM
51.02
3.78
SkipCat
54.41
0.39
40%
SVD-LLM
46.91
7.88
SkipCat
48.65
6.15
Table 4: Zero-shot accuracy of fine-tuned compressed models based on LLaMA2-7B.
Appendix figures & tables12 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Figure 4: Visualization comparing the weights after applying Block Skipping, with and without column permutation. Applying column permutation before Block Skipping reduces outliers and improves numerical stability.
Comp. Rate
Data Type
Wiki2 Perplexity ↓
10%
FP32
5.68
FP16
13.34
BF16
31628.76
20%
FP32
6.19
FP16
Overflow
BF16
11294.57
Appendix
Table 5: Comparison of perplexity across different data types for LLaMA2-7B with Block Skipping applied without prior column permutation.
Comp. Rate
Ablation Settings
Perplexity ↓
Quant
Hadamard
Scaling
Wiki2
C4
20%
✗
✗
✗
6.29
8.95
✓
✗
✗
6.36
9.06
✓
✓
✗
6.32
8.97
✓
✗
✓
6.30
8.98
✓
✓
✓
6.29
8.96
Appendix
Table 6: Ablation study on quantization stabilization.
Figure 5: Perplexity and zero-shot accuracy of compressed LLaMA2-7B using different calibration datasets for whitening.
Figure 6: Effect of calibration dataset size on zero-shot accuracy after whitening.
Model
Comp. Rate
Method
Perplexity ↓
Zero-shot Task Accuracy (%) ↑
Avg. (%)
Drop (%)
Wiki2
C4
ARC-e
ARC-c
Hella
OBQA
Wino
MathQA
PIQA
↑
↓
LLaMA2-13B
-
Dense
4.88
6.73
79.42
48.29
60.07
35.20
72.22
32.19
79.11
58.07
-
20%
SVD-LLM
6.83
10.80
69.49
36.18
47.63
28.80
68.11
25.29
75.14
50.09
7.98
SkipCat
5.79
8.50
74.96
39.93
53.72
32.20
72.14
28.68
77.42
54.15
3.92
30%
SVD-LLM
8.43
14.39
63.51
29.18
42.03
25.60
67.32
24.05
71.33
46.15
11.93
SkipCat
6.99
11.19
67.42
33.79
45.78
27.80
69.69
25.76
74.81
49.29
8.78
Appendix
Table 7: Perplexity and zero-shot accuracy of compressed larger models.
Comp. Rate
Method
Zero-shot Task Accuracy (%) ↑
Avg. (%)
Drop (%)
ARC-e
ARC-c
Hella
OBQA
Wino
MathQA
PIQA
↑
↓
-
Dense
76.30
43.34
57.14
31.40
69.14
28.17
78.07
54.79
-
20%
SVD-LLM
70.03
38.23
52.88
29.60
65.19
25.29
75.90
51.02
3.78
SkipCat
75.08
42.83
56.00
33.80
68.11
27.54
77.48
54.41
0.39
40%
SVD-LLM
63.76
33.11
47.05
26.40
61.96
23.95
72.14
46.91
7.88
SkipCat
66.71
33.62
49.92
28.60
62.27
24.66
74.76
48.65
6.15
Appendix
Table 8: Zero-shot accuracy of fine-tuned compressed models.
Comp. Rate
Method
Zero-shot Task Accuracy (%) ↑
Avg. (%)
Drop (%)
ARC-e
ARC-c
Hella
OBQA
Wino
MathQA
PIQA
↑
↓
-
Dense
81.48
51.19
60.01
33.40
73.64
39.60
80.25
59.94
-
20%
SVD-LLM
58.80
28.58
41.40
19.60
61.40
25.06
68.99
43.40
16.53
SkipCat
68.90
36.60
50.13
25.60
65.67
29.82
74.86
50.23
9.71
30%
SVD-LLM
45.58
22.18
33.36
17.60
56.20
23.55
62.19
37.24
22.70
SkipCat
51.22
23.55
38.60
19.00
56.91
24.49
65.45
39.89
20.05
Appendix
Table 9: Zero-shot accuracy of compressed LLaMA3.1-8B.
Comp. Rate
Method
Zero-shot Task Accuracy (%) ↑
Avg. (%)
Drop (%)
ARC-e
Hella
OBQA
Wino
MathQA
PIQA
↑
↓
-
Dense
75
57
34
70
27
79
57
-
20%
SVD-LLM V2
72
52
32
70
24
75
54
3
SkipCat
75
56
35
68
26
78
56
1
Appendix
Table 10: Comparison of zero-shot accuracy between SVD-LLM V2 and our method on LLaMA-7B at a 20% compression rate. The results for SVD-LLM V2 are taken from the original paper.
Method
Comp. Rate
TTFT (sec)
Speedup
Dense
-
1.14
-
SkipCat
20%
0.99
1.15x
40%
0.79
1.44x
60%
0.57
2.00x
80%
0.35
3.26x
Appendix
Table 11: Time to First Token (TTFT) of LLaMA2-7B with SkipCat compression at varying compression rates.
Figure 7: Throughput of LLaMA2-7B under different compression rates with varying batch sizes and input sequence lengths. Top: Throughput results with a fixed input sequence length of 32 and varying batch sizes. Bottom: Throughput results with a fixed batch size of 64 and varying input sequence lengths.
Method
Comp. Rate
Throughput (tokens/sec)
Speedup
Dense
-
8.63
-
SkipCat
20%
16.10
1.87x
40%
20.84
2.41x
60%
33.99
3.94x
80%
58.05
6.73x
Appendix
Table 12: Throughput of LLaMA2-7B under model offloading with varying SkipCat compression rates.
Low-rank decomposition is a promising compression paradigm for large language models (LLMs), yet its effectiveness hinges on rank budget allocation across weight matrices: uniform or hand-crafted rules ignore module-wise importance, while learning-based allocation incurs substantial training overhead. We formulate rank allocation as a global sorting-and-truncation pipeline that scores every singular component by combining local singular energy with global functional importance, estimated via layer-wise input--output cosine similarity on a tiny calibration set. We show, both geometrically and empirically, that high input--output cosine similarity implies low effective rank. We further propose rank-preserving fine-tuning (RPFT), which adapts only a small subset of retained singular components so that the allocated rank stays bounded without re-decomposition. Experimental results show that UniRank cuts zero-shot perplexity by up to 50%, improves average reasoning accuracy by 3.0% over LoRAP at 25% sparsity, and boosts four SVD-based decomposition methods as a plug-and-play module.
Chao Han, Yongjie Du, Junjie Tan +1
Ningbo Institute of Digital Twin, Eastern Institute of Technology, Ningbo
Large language models (LLM) and vision-language models (VLM) have achieved state-of-the-art performance, but they impose significant memory and computing challenges in deployment. We present a novel low-rank compression framework to address this challenge. First, we upper bound the change of network loss via layer-wise activation-based compression errors, filling a theoretical gap in the literature. We then formulate low-rank model compression as a bi-objective optimization and prove that a single uniform tolerance yields surrogate Pareto-optimal heterogeneous ranks. Based on our theoretical insights, we propose Pareto-Guided Singular Value Decomposition (PGSVD), a zero-shot pipeline that improves activation-aware compression via Pareto-guided rank selection and alternating least-squares implementation. We apply PGSVD to both LLM and VLM, showing better accuracy at the same compression levels and inference speedup.
Ryan Solgi, Parsa Madinei, Jiayi Tian +4
University of California-Santa Barbara, USA · Amazon, USA
Prohibitive computational and environmental costs impede the scalable deployment of Large Language Models (LLMs). Traditional compression techniques (sparsity, quantization, low-rank approximations) are typically applied in isolation, and each hits an accuracy-efficiency wall. This thesis proposes the "Compression Trinity," a unified framework that applies the three pillars jointly: sparsity to reduce computation, quantization to minimize memory bandwidth, and low-rank approximations to recover accuracy. To accelerate pretraining, we apply the Trinity to the optimizer and model architecture. MKOR approximates curvature via block-diagonal sparsity and low-rank inversion, maintaining numerical stability for quantized states; it reduces curvature update complexity from O(d3) to O(d2) and accelerates convergence by up to 1.85x over KFAC. SLoPe accelerates training by up to 1.25x via a double-pruned backward pass for N:M sparsity, using low-rank "lazy" adapters in the final 1% of training to recover accuracy. For post-training compression, OPTIMA stabilizes static masks in a zero-training regime by formulating weight reconstruction as globally optimal column-wise quadratic programs, improving zero-shot accuracy by up to 3.97%. Given a fine-tuning budget, PATCH breaks the ceiling of static masks by learning a dynamic hybrid sparsity ratio between 0% and 50%, yielding up to 1.38x speedups. Finally, SLiM realizes the full Compression Trinity in one shot, using mathematically derived low-rank adapters to recover information lost to quantization and sparsity, improving accuracy by up to 5.66% over state-of-the-art methods and outperforming uncompressed dense models at equal parameter budgets by 0.6%. Together, these results show that jointly applying the Compression Trinity is essential for efficient, scalable, high-performance LLMs.
Mohammad Mozaffari
Department of Computer Science University of Toronto