Organizations: Institute of Automation, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China · School of Artificial Intelligence, University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China · Guangzhou University, Guangzhou, China
Large Language Models (LLMs) exhibit strong reasoning abilities, but their high computational costs limit their practical deployment. Recent studies reveal significant redundancy in LLMs layers, making layer pruning an active research topic. Layer pruning research primarily focuses on two aspects: measuring layer importance and recovering performance after pruning. Unfortunately, the present works fail to simultaneously maintain pruning performance and efficiency. In this study, we propose GradMAP, a faster layer pruning method with Gradient Metric And Projection compensation, which consists of two stages. In the first stage, we introduce a novel metric based on gradient magnitudes, enabling a global assessment of layer importance. Note that, it requires only a single backward propagation step per pruning decision, substantially enhancing pruning efficiency. In the second stage, we first analyze the layers with the largest mean shift resulting from pruning, and then incorporate a simple yet effective projection compensation matrix to correct this drift in one step. In this way, the degradation of model performance caused by layer pruning is effectively alleviated. Extensive experiments show that GradMAP outperforms previous layer pruning methods in both pruning speed (achieving an average 4× speedup) and performance.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Comparison of pruning time and accuracy across different methods on the Vicuna-7B.
Figure 2: The Stage 1 of GradMAP introduces a novel gradient-based metric for estimating layer importance in LLMs, which quantifies each layer’s contribution by analyzing gradient magnitudes. This metric enables the iterative identification and pruning of unimportant layers.
Figure 3: The Stage 2 of GradMAP. To mitigate capacity loss, we introduce a learnable projection compensation matrix that optimizes reconstruction on a small calibration dataset.
Ratio
Method
Average Accuracy ↑
PPL ↓
Pruning Time ↓
LLaMA2-7B
LLaMA2-13B
Vicuna-7B
LLaMA2-7B
LLaMA2-13B
Vicuna-7B
LLaMA2-7B
LLaMA2-13B
Vicuna-7B
0%
Dense
66.79
69.31
66.85
12.18
10.98
16.23
–
–
–
12.50%
LLM-Pruner
58.96
63.55
60.64
16.27
14.67
20.47
–
–
–
Subcloning
59.92
61.25
61.48
24.26
19.91
27.55
–
–
–
SLEB
60.87
60.60
62.79
16.68
14.63
21.68
503.98
1638.51
506.11
ShortGPT
62.32
64.14
63.21
16.85
14.78
21.63
519.33
1682.42
523.34
Table 1: Zero-shot evaluations of different pruning methods with 12.5%, 25%, and 40.63% pruning ratios across various LLMs. ‘PPL’ means perplexity on Wikitext2. ‘bold’ indicates the best performance. † denotes models pruned using only Stage 1 (layer selection), while ‡ indicates models further refined by Stage 2 (projection compensation). Pruning time in seconds.
Type
Method
Ratio
Throughput (Tokens/s)
Latency (ms)
–
Dense
0%
299 (1.00 × )
1718.4 (1.00 × )
Unstructured
Wanda
50%
293 (0.98 × )
1555.5 (1.10 × )
SparseGPT
50%
293 (0.98 × )
1555.5 (1.10 × )
Structured
LLM-Pruner
20%
314 (1.05 × )
1534.3 (1.12 × )
SliceGPT
20%
314 (1.05 × )
1658.7 (1.04 × )
SliceGPT
25%
331 (1.11 × )
1440.7 (1.19 × )
Table 2: Throughput and latency comparison under different pruning types on LLaMA2-7B.
Figure 4: Perplexity of LLaMA2-7B under varying compression ratios.
Model
Method
Ratio
Benchmarks
Average
C3
CMNLI
CHID
BoolQ
WSC
HeSW
PIQA
CoQA
Race-M
Race-H
MMLU
CMMLU
LLaMA3.1-8B
Dense
0.00%
54.08
32.98
36.99
69.79
71.10
74.66
80.96
71.42
70.61
63.15
66.74
50.87
59.07
SLEB
25.0%
37.15
33.10
11.79
54.43
62.50
48.96
70.46
39.72
21.31
21.38
25.29
25.29
37.62
ShortGPT
25.0%
43.23
33.13
7.09
57.86
63.50
55.71
69.21
54.22
35.17
35.17
56.69
35.12
45.50
GradMAP †
25.0%
47.07
32.72
26.07
53.15
63.50
58.54
73.45
59.13
40.60
35.48
54.98
39.60
48.68
GradMAP ‡
25.0%
47.67
33.43
26.97
53.79
62.50
60.05
72.91
58.72
40.74
33.85
55.63
40.77
48.92
Table 3: Accuracy of different pruning methods across classification benchmarks on LLaMA3.1-8B, Baichuan2-7B, and OPT-6.7B.
Figure 5: GPU memory consumption and running time of GradMAP during Stage 1 (importance estimation) and Stage 2 (projection compensation) under a 25% compression ratio.
Model
Method
BoolQ ↑
PIQA ↑
HellaS. ↑
WinoG. ↑
ARC-e ↑
ARC-c ↑
OBQA ↑
Avg. ↑
Δ
LLaMA2-7B
SLEB
61.38
72.25
62.27
60.85
63.34
33.53
38.00
55.96
+0.79
w/ Ours Stage2
67.55
71.98
62.30
60.69
63.05
33.87
37.80
56.75
ShortGPT
53.64
68.17
62.50
65.98
55.77
34.64
38.60
54.19
+0.84
w/ Ours Stage2
58.62
68.44
62.15
65.59
56.78
34.81
38.80
55.03
GradMAP ‡
70.46
70.95
63.91
65.35
64.02
37.46
38.00
58.59
–
Vicuna-7B
SLEB
66.64
70.29
60.17
55.96
62.54
33.79
34.80
54.88
+0.09
Table 4: Performance of integrating our projection compensation matrix with existing layer pruning methods on LLaMA2-7B and Vicuna-7B under 25% compression ratio. Δ indicates improvement after applying our Stage 2.
Figure 6: Comparison of layer selection strategies for GradMAP and other baselines across different compression ratios.
Method
MMLU ↑
CMMLU ↑
GSM8k ↑
XSum ↑
StrategyQA ↑
Avg. ↑
SLEB
25.42
22.36
0.89
0.15
18.47
13.46
ShortGPT
28.59
40.62
7.89
1.67
20.13
19.78
GradMAP †
30.77
48.89
11.45
1.67
40.74
26.70
GradMAP ‡
30.17
51.84
11.51
2.12
40.79
27.20
Table 5: Performance comparison on additional datasets and generative tasks using Baichuan2-7B.
Figure 7: Distribution of first-order moment offsets before and after pruning for OPT-6.7B and OPT-2.7B.
Figure 8: Distribution of first-order moment offsets before and after pruning for LLaMA2-7B and Vicuna-7B.
Figure 9: Accuracy comparison on different MMLU dataset subjects during pruning. Subjects: A: High School European History, B: High School Government and Politics, C: Medical Genetics, D: Management, E: High School Geography.
Figure 10: Performance comparison of GradMAP using different calibration datasets across multiple benchmarks.
Component
Variant
LLaMA2-7B
Vicuna-7B
Layer Selection
One-Shot
50.07
50.92
GradMAP †
56.08
55.88
Compensation
Local
56.66
55.57
Top-5
57.95
56.31
Top-2
58.21
57.70
GradMAP ‡
58.59
58.15
Table 6: Ablation study of layer selection and compensation strategies.
Types
PPL ↓
BoolQ ↑
PIQA ↑
HellaS. ↑
WinoG. ↑
ARC-e ↑
ARC-c ↑
OBQA ↑
Avg. ↑
MHA Weights
WQ
28.49
50.98
70.73
61.17
61.80
63.01
37.80
38.20
54.81
WK
28.49
50.98
70.73
61.17
61.80
63.01
37.80
38.20
54.81
WV
28.54
51.65
70.51
61.10
61.80
63.09
38.31
38.20
54.95
WO
27.94
56.36
70.67
61.00
61.72
63.09
37.88
37.40
55.45
FFN Weights
Table 7: Ablation of compensation on different weight matrices for Vicuna-7B at 25% compression ratio.
Model
LMSE
Lreg
Avg. ↑
LLaMA2-7B
✓
✗
56.54
✗
✓
56.66
✓
✓
58.59
Vicuna-7B
✓
✗
56.98
✗
✓
55.32
✓
✓
58.15
Table 8: Ablation study of loss functions.
Model
Type
Time ↓
Accuracy ↑
LLaMA2-7B
Right
1475.1
58.70
Left
54.0
58.59
LLaMA2-13B
Right
2758.3
59.48
Left
93.1
59.49
Vicuna-7B
Right
1487.2
58.05
Left
80.6
58.15
Table 9: Comparison of different calibration types on zero-shot performance.
Large Language Models (LLMs) with billions of parameters are prime targets for network pruning, which removes some model weights without hurting performance. Prior approaches such as magnitude pruning, SparseGPT, and Wanda either concentrated solely on weights or integrated weights with activations for sparsity. However, they overlooked the informative gradients derived from pretrained LLMs. In this paper, we present a novel sparsity-centric pruning method for pretrained LLMs, termed Gradient-based Language Model Pruner (GBLM-Pruner). GBLM-Pruner leverages the first-order term of the Taylor expansion, operating in a training-free manner by harnessing properly normalized gradients from a few calibration samples to determine the pruning metric, and substantially outperforms competitive counterparts like SparseGPT and Wanda in multiple benchmarks. Intriguingly, by incorporating gradients, unstructured pruning with our method tends to reveal some structural patterns, which mirrors the geometric interdependence inherent in the LLMs' parameter structure. Additionally, GBLM-Pruner functions without any subsequent retraining or weight updates to maintain its simplicity as other counterparts. Extensive evaluations on LLaMA-series, Qwen-Series and Deepseek models across zero-shot, STEM-Reasoning and Coding benchmarks show that GBLM-Pruner surpasses magnitude pruning and Wanda by significant margins and performs competitively against SparseGPT which involves intensive weight updates. We further extend our approach on Vision Transformer and Vision Language Models. Our code and models are available at https://github.com/VILA-Lab/GBLM-Pruner.
Rocktim Jyoti Das, Mukul Ranjan, Mingjie Sun +2
Mohamed bin Zayed University of AI · Carnegie Mellon University
Depth pruning improves the deployment efficiency of large language models (LLMs) by identifying and removing redundant layers. A widely accepted standard for this identification process is to measure the similarity between layers using cosine distance. However, we find that methods relying solely on this one-dimensional heuristic can exhibit unpredictable performance and even catastrophic collapse across different architectures. To address this issue, we propose SimDiff, a novel layer importance criterion that jointly evaluates layers from two orthogonal perspectives: representational similarity and transformation difference. The difference is quantified using two distinct metrics: MSSD, which is sensitive to outliers and identifies layers that make decisive corrections, and MASD, which robustly measures a layer's average contribution. Extensive experiments on multiple models ranging from 0.5B to 13B parameters demonstrate that SimDiff significantly outperforms state-of-the-art baselines across various pruning ratios. Notably, our method retains over 91% of LLaMA2-7B's performance at a 25% pruning ratio and achieves up to a 1.49x inference speedup when pruning 12 layers on LLaMA3.1-8B. We also show that pruned models can be effectively recovered with minimal fine-tuning.
Layer-level pruning is attractive for large language model (LLM) deployment as it reduces the model size while preserving a dense architecture that can be efficiently executed on standard hardware. Current methods typically follow a one-shot paradigm, which first removes selected layers to reach a target model size and then performs additional training to recover model capabilities. However, pruning directly to the target size can substantially degrade reasoning capabilities, making subsequent recovery more difficult under a limited training budget. Moreover, this paradigm separates layer selection from recovery, limiting the use of recovery information to guide selection and potentially hindering the recovery of reasoning capabilities. To address these limitations, we propose LOOP, a Layer-level Recovery-Oriented On-Policy Pruning framework that interleaves pruning and recovery across multiple shots. In each shot, LOOP removes a single layer and performs short on-policy distillation, mitigating the abrupt degradation in reasoning capabilities associated with one-shot pruning. To guide layer selection in subsequent shots, LOOP reuses on-policy trajectories and optimization signals from recovery to jointly assess each remaining layer's reasoning contribution and recovery sensitivity, thereby making layer selection recovery-aware. Evaluations on several benchmarks show that LOOP consistently outperforms one-shot baselines in average accuracy across different model scales and pruning ratios.
Liang Xu, Shufan Shen, Zhongni Hou +4
State Key Lab. of AI Safety, Institute of Computing Technology, Chinese Academy of Sciences · University of Chinese Academy of Sciences · Meituan