Structured pruning reduces LLM inference cost by removing low-importance architectural components. This can be viewed as learning a multiplicative gate for each component under an l0 sparsity constraint. Due to the discreteness of the l0 norm, prior work typically adopts stochastic hard-concrete relaxations to enable differentiable optimization; however, this stochasticity can introduce a train--test mismatch when sampled masks are discretized for deployment and restricts masks to a bounded, near-binary range. To address this, we propose Deterministic Differentiable Pruning (DDP), a mask-only optimization method that eliminates stochasticity by directly optimizing a deterministic soft surrogate of the discrete l0 objective. Compared with prior approaches, DDP offers greater expressiveness, reduced train--test mismatch, and faster convergence. We apply our method to several dense and MoE models, including Qwen3-32B and Qwen3-30B-A3B, achieving a performance loss as small as 1% on downstream tasks while outperforming previous methods at 20% sparsity. We further demonstrate end-to-end inference speedups in realistic deployment settings with vLLM.
Figures & tables
Submodule
Attention
MLP
Masks
mattn∈RH ( ×L )
mmlp∈RC ( ×L )
Table 1: Mask variables for attention and MLP pruning.
Figure 1: Deterministic Differentiable Pruning overview. Left: Masked formulation for dense and MoE models. For dense models, we prune attention heads and MLP channels; for MoE models, we prune expert channels only. Right: Mask-only optimization with decoupled forward masks and retention scores for regularization, enabling deterministic training and an expanded mask range.
Figure 2: Deterministic surrogate mapping in DDP. Annealing μ sharpens the soft sigmoid projection, progressively approximating ℓ0 regularization.
Model
LLaMA-7B
LLaMA-2-7B
LLaMA-13B
Sparsity Ratio
20%
50%
20%
50%
20%
50%
Method
Wiki2 ↓
Mean Acc ↑
Wiki2 ↓
Mean Acc ↑
Wiki2 ↓
Mean Acc ↑
Wiki2 ↓
Mean Acc ↑
Wiki2 ↓
Mean Acc ↑
Wiki2 ↓
Mean Acc ↑
Original (Dense)
12.62
65.96
12.62
65.96
12.18
66.63
12.18
66.63
11.58
68.79
11.58
68.79
LoRAPrune
16.80
60.05
30.12
49.71
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
LoRAP
16.35
61.70
30.90
52.17
14.67
61.20
26.26
52.31
13.58
64.71
22.66
58.20
SlimLLM
15.55
62.41
26.71
53.16
15.28
61.70
27.29
52.02
13.35
64.21
25.64
54.75
Table 2: Performance of pruned dense LLMs under different methods. All baseline methods are evaluated after fine-tuning. Bold indicates the best performance at the same pruning ratio.
Model
DeepSeekMoE-16B-Base
Qwen3-30B-A3B
Sparsity Ratio
20%
40%
60%
20%
40%
60%
Method
C4 ↓
Mean Acc ↑
C4 ↓
Mean Acc ↑
C4 ↓
Mean Acc ↑
C4 ↓
Mean Acc ↑
C4 ↓
Mean Acc ↑
C4 ↓
Mean Acc ↑
Original (Dense)
9.05
62.28
9.05
62.28
9.05
62.28
12.13
71.08
12.13
71.08
12.13
71.08
NAEE
10.07
60.51
12.80
54.94
29.44
45.28
12.44
69.94
13.87
65.77
19.37
57.13
D2 -MoE
12.62
58.97
17.22
54.32
34.54
46.72
18.52
66.35
35.48
62.77
68.36
52.02
Camera-P
9.84
61.03
11.68
58.58
18.10
51.62
12.25
69.94
15.58
67.46
24.48
59.03
Table 3: Performance of pruned Mixture-of-Experts LLMs under different methods. Bold indicates the best performance at the same pruning ratio.
LLaMA-7B
DeepSeekMoE-16B
Method
PPL ↓
Mean Acc ↑
PPL ↓
Mean Acc ↑
Dense (0%)
12.62
65.96
9.05
62.28
HC
16.52
59.95
9.55
61.58
Det. HC
16.30
61.74
9.52
61.65
Det. HC + EM
15.36
63.92
9.42
61.80
Ours
15.20
64.13
9.38
61.84
Table 4: Ablation on mask-learning components at 20% sparsity. We report perplexity and zero-shot mean accuracy on LLaMA-7B and DeepSeekMoE-16B. HC: stochastic hard-concrete; Det. HC: deterministic hard-concrete; +EM: expanded-mask parameterization. Bold indicates the best performance among pruned variants at the same sparsity.
LLaMA-7B
DeepSeekMoE-16B
Metric
Layer-wise
Layer-wise
Expert-wise
Δ Perplexity ↓
+0.04
+0.47
+1.17
Δ Mean Acc. (pp) ↑
-0.48
-1.09
-1.97
Table 5: Sparsity granularity ablation at 20% sparsity. We report the change in perplexity and zero-shot mean accuracy relative to global sparsity for LLaMA-7B and DeepSeekMoE-16B.
Figure 3: Effect of different training tokens on perplexity and zero-shot mean accuracy on different models.
LLaMA-7B
DeepSeekMoE-16B
Metric
C4
LaMini
C4
LaMini
Δ WikiText-2 PPL ↓
+0.35
-0.10
+0.21
+0.11
Δ Mean Acc. (pp) ↑
-1.14
-0.53
-0.68
-0.87
Table 6: Dataset ablation at 20% sparsity. We report the change in WikiText-2 perplexity and zero-shot mean accuracy relative to training masks on our default dataset (FineWeb-Edu) for LLaMA-7B and DeepSeekMoE-16B. Negative Δ PPL and positive Δ Acc indicate improvement.
Model
Method
Tokens
PPL ↓
Mean Acc. ↑
LLaMA-2-7B
LoRAP
0M
15.02
59.44
LoRAP
30M
14.69
61.24
LoRAP
60M
14.48
62.77
LoRAP
120M
14.46
62.98
DDP (Ours)
30M
14.39
64.82
DeepSeekMoE
HEAPr
0M
9.85
60.62
Table 7: Comparison between mask-only optimization and training-free pruning followed by LoRA recovery. PPL is evaluated on WikiText-2 for LLaMA-2-7B and on C4 for DeepSeekMoE-16B. DDP uses 30M mask-optimization tokens and keeps pretrained weights frozen.
Model
Method
12.5%
25%
37.5%
50%
Wiki PPL ↓
Mean Acc. ↑
Wiki PPL ↓
Mean Acc. ↑
Wiki PPL ↓
Mean Acc. ↑
Wiki PPL ↓
Mean Acc. ↑
LLaMA-2-7B
Týr-the-Pruner
5.84
56.98
7.51
54.64
10.29
52.21
16.17
47.41
DDP (Ours)
5.72
61.99
6.87
60.29
8.17
55.98
10.34
52.17
LLaMA-2-13B
Týr-the-Pruner
5.03
62.66
5.79
61.16
7.17
58.67
9.59
54.58
DDP (Ours)
5.03
65.62
5.75
64.51
6.65
60.88
8.14
58.43
Mistral-7B-v0.3
Týr-the-Pruner
5.61
63.05
7.08
60.22
10.25
52.34
15.53
46.21
Table 8: Additional comparison with Týr-the-Pruner on dense models under different sparsity ratios. We report WikiText-2 perplexity and mean zero-shot accuracy. Bold indicates the best result at the same model and sparsity ratio.
Method
Params
Memory
FLOPs
Time / Step
DDP
0.35M
18 GB
0.97E
2.1 s
DDP (distill)
0.35M
19 GB
1.254E
2.5 s
LoRA
20M
18 GB
0.97E
2.4 s
Full FT
7B
83 GB
1.40E
2.9 s
Table 9: Per-step training cost comparison on LLaMA2-7B with global batch size 16 and sequence length 2,048. Memory denotes the sum of activation memory, model memory, and gradient/optimizer memory. For LoRA, we use rank r=8 .
Model
GPU
0%
20%
50%
LLaMA-7B
RTX 5090
Through.
10.88
14.75
23.98
Speedup
1.00×
1.36x
2.20x
LLaMA-13B
B200
Through.
27.20
32.14
38.56
Speedup
1.00×
1.18x
1.42x
Table 10: End-to-end speedup results on dense models. We report Throughput (requests per second) and speedup ratio.
Model
GPU
0%
20%
40%
60%
Qwen3 30B-A3B
B200
Through.
29.86
33.25
37.42
45.16
Speedup
1.00×
1.11x
1.25x
1.51x
Table 11: End-to-end speedup results on MoE models. We report Throughput (requests per second) and speedup ratio.
Appendix figures & tables7 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Ratio
Method
Wiki2
BoolQ
PIQA
HellaSwag
WinoGrande
ARC-e
ARC-c
OBQA
Average
LLaMA-7B
Dense
Original
12.62
76.50
79.35
76.00
69.53
72.10
44.28
44.00
65.96
20%
LoRAPrune
16.80
65.62
79.31
70.00
62.76
65.87
37.69
39.14
60.05
LoRAP
16.35
72.94
76.93
70.90
65.75
64.31
39.93
41.20
61.70
SlimLLM
15.55
74.71
76.61
71.23
66.54
66.96
40.61
40.20
62.41
Ours
15.20
74.10
77.97
73.20
69.22
69.65
42.41
42.40
64.13
Appendix
Table 12: Detailed performance of pruned dense LLMs under different pruning methods. All pruning baseline methods are evaluated after fine-tuning. Bold indicates the best performance at the same pruning ratio.
Ratio
Method
Wiki2
BoolQ
OBQA
RTE
WinoGrande
HellaSwag
PIQA
MathQA
ARC-e
ARC-c
Average
Qwen3-32B
Dense
Original
7.61
86.33
46.20
76.53
72.93
82.57
82.15
58.32
83.21
60.84
72.12
20%
Ours
7.25
81.77
46.80
76.17
75.37
80.44
80.58
52.26
83.63
62.80
71.09
50%
Ours
9.78
82.81
44.80
74.37
71.19
73.31
77.80
37.76
80.89
55.38
66.48
Qwen3-14B
Dense
Original
8.65
89.30
46.20
77.62
72.45
78.82
80.03
56.85
82.87
60.32
71.61
Appendix
Table 13: Detailed performance of pruned Qwen3 dense LLMs using our method.
Ratio
Method
C4
BoolQ
OBQA
RTE
WinoGrande
HellaSwag
PIQA
MathQA
ARC-e
ARC-c
Average
DeepSeekMoE-16B-Base
Dense
Original
9.05
72.45
44.00
63.54
70.24
77.37
80.68
31.52
72.89
47.86
62.28
20%
NAEE
10.07
67.83
42.40
62.09
69.53
74.63
78.34
30.99
72.56
46.24
60.51
D2 -MoE
12.62
69.32
41.40
61.01
69.22
69.87
76.44
29.45
71.29
42.75
58.97
Camera-P
9.84
68.01
44.00
64.62
70.17
75.02
78.62
31.46
71.80
45.56
61.03
HEAPr
9.85
64.77
44.60
56.68
70.72
76.59
79.87
31.83
73.91
46.59
60.62
Appendix
Table 14: Detailed performance of compressed Mixture of Experts LLMs under different pruning methods. Bold indicates the best performance at the same pruning ratio.
Figure 5: Dense-model sparsity patterns (LLaMA-7B, 50% sparsity). Sparsity increases toward later layers, and head pruning becomes more selective under higher compression.
Figure 6: MoE expert sparsity patterns (DeepSeekMoE-16B). Expert-wise sparsity maps at different target sparsities, showing that pruning increasingly concentrates on rarely activated experts.
Figure 7: Magnitude distributions of learned mask values. The learned masks are centered near 1 but span a wider continuous range, demonstrating the effect of DDP’s expanded mask parameterization.
Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable capabilities, but their massive scale poses significant challenges for practical deployment. Structured pruning offers a promising solution by removing entire dimensions or layers, yet existing methods face critical trade-offs: task-agnostic approaches cannot adapt to task-specific requirements, while task-aware methods require costly training to learn task adaptability. We propose DIET (Dimension-wise global pruning of LLMs via merging Task-wise importance scores), a training-free structured pruning method that combines dimension-level granularity with task-aware selection. DIET profiles activation magnitudes across tasks using only 100 samples per task, then applies majority voting to construct a single global mask. Experiments on seven zero-shot benchmarks using Gemma-2 2B and 9B models demonstrate the effectiveness of DIET. At 20% sparsity on Gemma-2 2B, DIET improves average accuracy by 2.1 percentage points over SliceGPT and by 9.2 percentage points over PuDDing. On Gemma-2 9B, DIET remains competitive with SliceGPT while consistently outperforming PuDDing at 10% and 20% sparsity.
Large Language Models (LLMs) have achieved significant success across various NLP tasks. However, their massive computational costs limit their widespread use, particularly in real-time applications. Structured pruning offers an effective solution by compressing models and directly providing end-to-end speed improvements, regardless of the hardware environment. Meanwhile, different components of the model exhibit varying sensitivities towards pruning, calling for non-uniform model compression. However, a pruning method should not only identify a capable substructure, but also account for post-compression training. To this end, we propose DarwinLM, a method for training-aware structured pruning. DarwinLM builds upon an evolutionary search process, generating multiple offspring models in each generation through mutation, and selecting the fittest for survival. To assess the effect of post-training, we incorporate a lightweight, multistep training process within the offspring population, progressively increasing the number of tokens and eliminating poorly performing models in each selection stage. We validate our method through extensive experiments on Llama-2-7B, Llama-3.1-8B and Qwen-2.5-14B-Instruct, achieving state-of-the-art performance for structured pruning. For instance, DarwinLM surpasses ShearedLlama while requiring 5x less training data during post-compression training. Code is at: https://github.com/IST-DASLab/DarwinLM
Large Language Models (LLMs) have experienced significant growth and development in recent years. However, performing inference on LLMs remains costly, especially for long-context inference or in resource-constrained devices. This motivates the development of new post-training pruning (PTP) methods. These methods reduce LLMs' requirements by removing a substantial part of the model's parameters. The discarded weights are selected depending on their impact on the models performance. Current PTP methods prune the models by removing the less informative hidden nodes from the FFN layers, and the least important attention layers. We propose Putri, a PTP method that introduces three changes to the State-of-the-art. First, we update the un-pruned weights of the FFN to compensate for the introduced pruning error. Second, the FFN layers are pruned sequentially, taking into account the updates done to the previous layers. Third, instead of removing full attention layers, we remove individual attention-heads. We extend this method such that it can also address Grouped-Query Attention. In summary, Putri is a structure pruning method which remains simple while showing SOTA performance. Pruning experiments on multiple models with a wide variety of sparsity ranges and on different datasets, validate the generality of Putri. Notably, we demonstrate that, unlike previous methods, Putri can prune LLMs on extreme sparsity ratios. The code is available at: https://github.com/Coello-dev/Putri.
Diego Coello de Portugal Mecke, Tom Hanika, Lars Schmidt-Thieme
ISMLL & DARC VWFS · University of Hildesheim · Hildesheim, Germany +1