This report details the creation of Bielik-Minitron-7B, a compressed 7.35B parameter version of the Bielik-11B-v3.0 model, specifically optimized for European languages. By leveraging a two-stage compression methodology inspired by the NVIDIA Minitron approach, we combined structured hybrid pruning and knowledge distillation to reduce the model's parameter count by 33.4%, from 11.04B to 7.35B. We utilized the NVIDIA Model Optimizer for structural pruning and the NVIDIA NeMo Framework for logit-based distillation for quality recovery. Following distillation, the model underwent a rigorous alignment pipeline consisting of Supervised Fine-Tuning (SFT), Direct Preference Optimization (DPO-P), and Reinforcement Learning (GRPO). Our final model successfully recovered approximately 90% of the baseline model's performance while providing up to 50% inference speedup. This approach demonstrates an efficient pathway to create language models for less-represented languages, preserving the original model quality while reducing inference deployment costs.
Figures & tables
Method
Granularity
Importance Metric
Retraining
One-Shot
Hardware-Friendly
Magnitude [ 8 ]
Unstructured
∣w∣
Required
No
No
SparseGPT [ 9 ]
Unstructured/Semi
Hessian-based
No
Yes
Partial (2:4)
Wanda [ 10 ]
Unstructured/Semi
∣w∣⋅∥x∥
No
Yes
Partial (2:4)
ShortGPT [ 11 ]
Structured (Depth)
Block Influence
Optional
Yes
Yes
LLM-Pruner [ 12 ]
Structured
Taylor / ℓ1 / ℓ2
Light (LoRA)
Yes
Yes
Sheared LLaMA [ 14 ]
Structured
Learned ℓ0 masks
Integrated
No
Yes
Table 1: Comparison of LLM pruning methods.
Experiment ID
Hidden size
Intermediate size
Layers
Total Parameters [B]
Original model
4096
14336
50
11.04
EXP_001
3072
—
—
8.28
EXP_002
—
9216
—
7.90
EXP_003
—
—
36
7.99
EXP_004
—
12288
40
7.85
EXP_005
—
10240
—
8.52
Table 2: Model pruning scenarios.
Experiment
Parameters
Reduction
Structural Modifications
Status
Original (11B-v3)
11.04B
—
Baseline Configuration
Baseline
EXP_006
8.07B
26.9%
Layers: 50 → 44, Intermediate: 14336 → 11264
Sub-optimal
EXP_009
7.26B
34.2%
Intermediate: 14336 → 8192
Unstable
EXP_010
7.35B
33.4%
Layers: 40, Intermediate: 11264
Selected
Table 3: Systematic Search: Comparison of Key Pruning Candidates.
Figure 1: Training convergence profiles of distillation loss. The legend indicates the three architectural variants evaluated during the search phase - EXP_006, EXP_009 and EXP_010.
Task Category
Recovery %
Evaluation Metric
Overall Aggregate Score
90.1%
Avg. Benchmark Accuracy
Open PL LLM Leaderboard
94.7%
Average Score
Polish EQ-Bench
90.0%
Average Score
CPTUB
90.6%
Average Score
Polish Medical Leaderboard
88.3%
Accuracy
INCLUDE-base-44
88.6%
Regional Knowledge
Table 4: Performance Recovery Analysis: Student (7.35B) vs. Teacher (11.04B).
Model
Parameters (B)
Average
Mistral-Large-Instruct-2411
123.0
69.84
Meta-Llama-3.1-405B-Instruct-FP8
405.0
69.44
Mistral-Large-Instruct-2407
123.0
69.11
Qwen2.5-72B-Instruct
72.7
67.92
QwQ-32B-Preview
32.8
67.01
Llama-3.3-70B-Instruct
70.6
66.40
Table 5: Open PL LLM Leaderboard results for instruction-tuned models (5-shot evaluation)
Model
Parameters (B)
Score
Mistral-Large-Instruct-2407 †
123.0
78.07
Mistral-Large-Instruct-2411 †
123.0
77.29
Meta-Llama-3.1-405B-Instruct-FP8
405.0
77.23
gpt-4o-2024-08-06
Unknown
75.15
gpt-4-turbo-2024-04-09
Unknown
74.59
Bielik-11B-v2.6-Instruct
11.2
73.8
Table 6: Polish EQ-Bench results for various models.
Model
Params (B)
Overall
Implicatures
Senti-
Language
Phrase-
Tricky
Average
Average
ment
Understanding
ology
Questions
gemini-2.0-flash-001
Unknown
4.29
4.39
4.52
4.32
4.34
3.99
DeepSeek-R1
685.0
4.14
4.14
4.49
4.35
3.60
4.12
gemini-2.0-flash-lite-001
Unknown
4.09
4.17
4.23
4.05
4.24
3.85
DeepSeek-V3-0324
685.0
4.03
4.03
4.36
4.20
3.54
4.02
Mistral-Large-Instruct-2411 †
123.0
4.00
4.10
4.33
3.98
3.99
3.72
Table 7: Complex Polish Text Understanding Benchmark (CPTUB) results across different evaluation categories
Model
Parameters (B)
Average (%)
Meta-Llama-3.1-405B-Instruct-FP8
405.0
69.20
Mistral-Large-Instruct-2407 †
123.0
64.28
Qwen2.5-72B-Instruct
72.7
63.89
Meta-Llama-3.1-70B-Instruct
70.6
61.75
Qwen2-72B-Instruct
72.7
61.35
Meta-Llama-3-70B-Instruct
70.6
57.51
Table 8: Polish Medical Leaderboard results (5-shot setting) showing model performance on Polish Board Certification Examinations.
Model
Params (B)
AVG
Polish
Bielik-11B-v3-Instruct
11
64.8
69.0
Qwen2.5-14B-Instruct
14
61.7
58.9
Bielik-11B-v3.0
11
60.6
63.9
phi-4
15
58.8
49.6
Apertus-8B-Instruct-2509
8
57.9
49.6
Bielik-Minitron-7B-v3.0-Instruct
7
57.4
59.3
Table 9: INCLUDE-base-44 benchmark results showing average performance across European languages (20 language subset) and Polish-specific scores.
Model
Params (B)
Score
Qwen2.5-14B-Instruct
14
85.91
Bielik-11B-v3.0-Instruct
11
82.98
phi-4
15
81.71
Bielik-Minitron-7B-v3.0-Instruct
7
78.03
Qwen2.5-7B
7
74.60
Mistral-Nemo-Instruct-2407
12
74.14
Table 10: Belebele benchmark results showing model performance on reading comprehension across European languages (28 language subset).
Model
Params (B)
AVG
to Polish
from Polish
EuroLLM-9B-Instruct ∗
9
20.61
19.28
21.95
Bielik-11B-v3.0-Instruct
11
19.22
18.54
19.91
Bielik-11B-v3.0
11
17.85
17.60
18.11
phi-4 (15B)
15
15.58
14.55
16.61
Bielik-Minitron-7B-v3.0-Instruct
7
15.53
15.74
15.32
Qwen3-14B
14
15.37
14.18
16.56
Table 11: FLORES machine translation benchmark results showing translation performance across European languages (20 language pairs) measured by BLEU scores.
Category
Metric
Teacher (11B)
Student (7.35B)
Δ
Recovery %
Common-sense reasoning
Test MCC
48.77
36.44
-12.33
74.71%
Test Accuracy
69.85
62.70
-7.15
89.75%
European values
Test European values
11.52
10.28
-1.24
89.24%
Knowledge
Test MCC
49.75
38.39
-11.35
77.18%
Test Accuracy
62.30
53.81
-8.49
86.37%
Linguistic acceptability
Test MCC
45.10
39.83
-5.27
88.32%
Table 12: Detailed Knowledge Recovery Analysis: Bielik-Minitron-7B-v3.0-Instruct vs. Bielik-11B-v3.0-Instruct parent model across EuroEval categories.
Model
Params (B)
Average (%)
Bielik-11B-v3.0-Instruct
11.2
65.93
Bielik-Minitron-7B-v3.0-Instruct
7.35
62.46
Bielik-Minitron-7B-v3.0-Instruct.Q6_K.gguf
7.35
62.29
Bielik-Minitron-7B-v3.0-Instruct.Q8_0.gguf
7.35
62.06
Bielik-Minitron-7B-v3.0-Instruct.Q4_K_M.gguf
7.35
61.89
Bielik-Minitron-7B-v3.0-Instruct FP8
7.35
61.53
Table 13: Open PL LLM benchmark results for Bielik-Minitron-7B-v3.0-Instruct across different quantization methods, compared to other models. Higher scores are better.
Stage
Open LLM EN
Open LLM PL
Pruning & Distillation
60.04
50.67
SFT
66.3
62.26
DPO-P
66.54
62.5
GRPO
66.6
62.46
Table 14: Bielik-Minitron-7B-v3.0 performance across training stages. Higher scores are better.
Model
Params
Non-Live
Non-Live
Non-Live
Live
Live
Live
Live Parallel
(B)
Multiple
Parallel
Parallel
Simple
Multiple
Parallel
Parallel Multiple
AST
AST
Multiple AST
AST
AST
AST
AST
Bielik-4.5B-v3.0-Instruct (FC)
4.6
92.50%
82.00%
86.00%
70.16%
68.66%
50.00%
54.17%
Bielik-Minitron-7B
7.3
94.50%
92.00%
85.00%
71.32%
71.51%
31.25%
66.67%
Bielik-11B-v2.6-Instruct
11.0
94.50%
87.50%
86.00%
75.97%
76.07%
37.50%
66.67%
Bielik-11B-v2.3-Instruct (Prompt)
11.0
93.50%
47.00%
50.00%
72.87%
69.71%
43.75%
54.17%
Table 15: Berkeley Function-Calling Leaderboard (BFCL) results. Comparison of family of Bielik models against the student, Bielik-Minitron, 11B teacher Bielik-11B-v3 and industry baselines.
Model Variant
Throughput
Median TTFT
Median TPOT
(tok/s) ↑
(ms) ↓
(ms) ↓
Bielik-11B-v3 (bf16)
54.42
24.64
18.28
Bielik-minitron-7B-v3 (bf16)
81.41
27.29
12.32
Table 16: Hardware Performance Comparison: Throughput (Tokens per Second), Time to First Token (TTFT), and Time per Output Token (TPOT).
We propose a resource-efficient framework for compressing large language models through knowledge distillation, combined with guided chain-of-thought reinforcement learning. Using Qwen 3B as the teacher and Qwen 0.5B as the student, we apply knowledge distillation across English Dolly-15k, Spanish Dolly-15k, and code BugNet and PyTorrent datasets, with hyperparameters tuned in the English setting to optimize student performance. Across tasks, the distilled student retains a substantial portion of the teacher's capability while remaining significantly smaller: 70% to 91% in English, up to 95% in Spanish, and up to 93.5% Rouge-L in code. For coding tasks, integrating chain-of-thought prompting with Group Relative Policy Optimization using CoT-annotated Codeforces data improves reasoning coherence and solution correctness compared to knowledge distillation alone. Post-training 4-bit weight quantization further reduces memory footprint and inference latency. These results show that knowledge distillation combined with chain-of-thought guided reinforcement learning can produce compact, efficient models suitable for deployment in resource-constrained settings.
Alejandro Paredes La Torre, Barbara Flores, Diego Rodriguez
We present ELMOD - Efficient Language Model for On-Device Deployment - a compact (2.7B) German language model designed for efficient inference on resource-constrained hardware. ELMOD was trained on a limited computational budget (55k H100 GPU hours) using exclusively publicly available data. We developed a suite of German-specific data pre-processing, which differ from English-oriented counterparts in their handling of morphological variation, compounding, and orthographic conventions. Furthermore, we introduced a quality filtering and rephrasing step, which increased the instructional quality of the data, improved performance during the annealing phase, and reduced overall compute requirements. Thanks to our architectural model and data choices, including prefiltering, our educational-quality filtering and rephrasal to raise the educational-quality, ELMOD is the strongest performer in its size class (<3B), matching the performance of 7B-parameter models in German.
Structured pruning and knowledge distillation (KD) are typical techniques for compressing large language models, but it remains unclear how they should be applied at pretraining scale, especially to recent mixture-of-experts (MoE) models. In this work, we systematically study MoE compression in large-scale pretraining, focusing on three key questions: whether pruning provides a better initialization than training from scratch, how expert compression choices affect the final model after continued training, and which training strategy is most effective. We have the following findings: First, across depth, width, and expert compression, pruning a pretrained MoE consistently outperforms training the target architecture from scratch under the same training budget. Second, different one-shot expert compression methods converge to similar final performance after large-scale continual pretraining. Motivated by this, we introduce a simple partial-preservation expert merging strategy that improves downstream performance across most benchmarks. Third, combining KD with the language modeling loss outperforms KD alone, particularly on knowledge-intensive tasks. We further propose multi-token prediction (MTP) distillation, which yields consistent gains. Finally, given the same training tokens, progressive pruning schedules outperform one-shot compression, suggesting that gradual architecture transitions lead to better optimization trajectories. Putting it all together, we compress Qwen3-Next-80A3B to a 23A2B model that retains competitive performance. These results offer practical guidance for efficient MoE compression at scale.