What happens when multiple compression methods are combined-does the order in which they are applied matter? Joint model compression has emerged as a powerful strategy to achieve higher efficiency by combining multiple methods such as pruning and quantization. A central but underexplored factor in joint model compression is the compression order, or the sequence of different methods within the compression pipeline. Most prior studies have either sidestepped the issue by assuming orthogonality between techniques, while a few have examined them only in highly constrained cases. Consequently, the broader role of compression order in shaping model performance remains poorly understood. In this paper, we address the overlooked problem of compression order and provide both theoretical and empirical analysis. We formulate the problem of optimizing the compression order and introduce the Progressive Intensity Hypothesis, which states that weaker perturbations should precede stronger ones. We provide theoretical guarantees showing that the relative benefit of one order increases with the underlying performance gap. Extensive experiments on both language and vision models validate the hypothesis, and further show its generality to broader setups such as multi-stage compression and mixed-precision quantization.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: The Progressive Intensity Hypothesis: Given two compression techniques, we conjecture that compressed models perform better if the stronger method is applied after the weaker one. That said, the optimal order between pruning and quantization varies with their compression ratios.
Figure 2: A case study of pruning P(⋅) and quantization Q(⋅) on model ϕ . (a) if pruning granularity (green) is coarser or equal to quantization granularity (orange), disjoint selectivity holds. (b) Otherwise, partial removal of quantization units by pruning introduces extra error, termed interference Δ .
Figure 3: Across diverse language models, the compression order advantage A(Q→P) increases monotonically with the CER difference CP∗−CQ . See Section 5.2 for details.
Figure 4: Compression order advantage A(Q→P) against CER difference CP∗−CQ for three pruning P(⋅) and four quantization Q(⋅) methods on a LLaMA 3 8B model. Our hypothesis consistently holds for language models regardless of pruning granularity, rotation, and weight updates.
Figure 5: Rotation impact on pruning. See Section 5.2 for details.
CQ(BQ)
SparseGPT
SLEB
1.78 (9)
0.002
0
2.00 (8)
0.001
0
2.28 (7)
-0.003
0
2.68 (6)
-0.013
0
3.20 (5)
-0.017
-0.057
4.00 (4)
-49.899
-9.379
Table 1: A(Q→P) by quantization ratio CQ .
Figure 7Figure 8
Appendix figures & tables9 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Symbol
Description
ϕ
A pre-trained model
ϕ′
A compressed model
f(⋅)∈F
Compression method from a set F
C
Compression ratio
M(⋅)
Performance metric
Wi,Xi
Weight and activation matrices of layer li , respectively
Appendix
Table 2: Frequently used notations.
Figure 11: We partition all units u into four disjoint groups. Only groups G1 and G2 influence A(f1→f2) .
Compression
Modality
Target Models
Baseline Methods
Pruning P(⋅)
Language models
Decoder-only models
SparseGPT ( Frantar and Alistarh, 2023 ) , Wanda ( Sun et al., 2024 ) , SLEB ( Song et al., 2024 )
Encoder-based models
K-prune ( Park et al., 2024 )
Vision models
CNNs
PRACTISE ( Wang and Wu, 2023 )
ViTs
SAViT ( Chuanyang et al., 2022 )
Quantization Q(⋅)
Language models
Decoder-only models
RTN ( Gupta et al., 2015 ) , OPTQ ( Frantar et al., 2023 ) , QuaRoT ( Ashkboos et al., 2024b )
Encoder-based models
UniQuanF ( Park et al., 2025a )
Appendix
Table 3: Baseline methods covered in our experiments across different settings.
Figure 12: The compression order advantage A(Q→P) increases monotonically with the CER difference CP∗−CQ also for Mistral herd models. See Appendix D.1 for details.
Figure 13: The hypothesis holds for encoder-based language models. See Appendix D.2 for details.
Figure 14: Commonsense reasoning task performance of a LLaMA 3 8B model for SparseGPT and QuaRot. See Appendix D.3 for details.
Pruning Ratio
SLEB
SparseGPT
No rotation
Rotation
Difference
No rotation
Rotation
Difference
Original
6.137
0.05
6.857
6.871
0.014
6.140
6.154
0.014
0.1
8.792
8.828
0.036
6.159
6.205
0.046
0.15
12.603
12.615
0.012
6.213
6.352
0.139
0.2
25.289
25.295
0.006
6.330
6.629
0.299
Appendix
Table 4: WikiText-2 perplexity comparison of a LLaMA 3 8B model pruned by SLEB ( Song et al., 2024 ) and SparseGPT ( Frantar and Alistarh, 2023 ) under varying pruning ratios, with and without rotation following QuaRot ( Ashkboos et al., 2024b ) . See Section D.4 for details.
Figure 15: Two cases of errors when pruning rotated units. See Section D.4 for details.
Figure 16: If the number of pruned units increases by one, the change in unit allocation across groups fall into three distinct cases. See Appendix D.6 for details.
Modern deployment often requires trading accuracy for efficiency under tight CPU and memory constraints, yet common compression proxies such as parameter count or FLOPs do not reliably predict wall-clock inference time. In particular, unstructured sparsity can reduce model storage while failing to accelerate (and sometimes slightly slowing down) standard CPU execution due to irregular memory access and sparse kernel overhead. Motivated by this gap between compression and acceleration, we study a practical, ordered pipeline that targets measured latency by combining three widely used techniques: unstructured pruning, INT8 quantization-aware training (QAT), and knowledge distillation (KD). Empirically, INT8 QAT provides the dominant runtime benefit, while pruning mainly acts as a capacity-reduction pre-conditioner that improves the robustness of subsequent low-precision optimization; KD, applied last, recovers accuracy within the already constrained sparse INT8 regime without changing the deployment form. We evaluate on CIFAR-10/100 using three backbones (ResNet-18, WRN-28-10, and VGG-16-BN). Across all settings, the ordered pipeline achieves a stronger accuracy-size-latency frontier than any single technique alone, reaching 0.99-1.42 ms CPU latency with competitive accuracy and compact checkpoints. Controlled ordering ablations with a fixed 20/40/40 epoch allocation further confirm that stage order is consequential, with the proposed ordering generally performing best among the tested permutations. Overall, our results provide a simple guideline for edge deployment: evaluate compression choices in the joint accuracy-size-latency space using measured runtime, rather than proxy metrics alone.
Longsheng Zhou, Yu Shen
Institute of Advanced Technology University of Science and Technology of China Hefei, China · Supercomputing Center University of Science and Technology of China Hefei, China
Recently, the efficiency of Large Language Models (LLMs) deployment has become a critical concern in practical applications. While post-training quantization (PTQ) and structural pruning are established techniques for reducing memory footprint and inference latency, most existing PTQ approaches optimize quantization errors on a per-layer basis, overlooking how errors accumulate and propagate through the network, often resulting in suboptimal solutions. Traditional pipelines also tend to apply pruning and quantization in isolation or sequentially, further compounding sub-optimality. We introduce a novel end-to-end framework that addresses these limitations in two key ways. First, we propose a novel mixed-precision PTQ strategy that directly minimizes global error propagation across the entire model, rather than isolating layer-wise errors. Building on this, we develop a novel joint optimization approach that simultaneously learns structural pruning decisions and mixed-precision quantization policies within a unified search space. Extensive experiments show that, at ultra-low precisions (1-3 bits), our quantization method reduces WikiText perplexity by up to 21% compared to state-of-the-art (SoTA) weight-activation quantization baselines. Against leading weight-only quantization methods, it achieves up to 59% and 85% lower perplexity on WikiText and C4, respectively. Compared to the SoTA joint pruning-and-quantization techniques, our proposed method delivers superior perplexity and reasoning performance at ultra-low bits.
Hoang-Loc La, Truong-Thanh Le, Amir Taherkordi +1
UiT The Arctic University of Norway · University of Oslo, Norway
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