Large language models (LLMs) have revolutionized natural language processing. Understanding their internal mechanisms is crucial for developing more interpretable and optimized architectures. Mechanistic interpretability has led to the development of various methods for assessing layer relevance, with cosine similarity being a widely used tool in the field. On this work, we demonstrate that cosine similarity is a poor proxy for the actual performance degradation caused by layer removal. Our theoretical analysis shows that a layer can exhibit an arbitrarily low cosine similarity score while still being crucial to the model's performance. On the other hand, empirical evidence from a range of LLMs confirms that the correlation between cosine similarity and actual performance degradation is often weak or moderate, leading to misleading interpretations of a transformer's internal mechanisms. We propose a more robust metric for assessing layer relevance: the actual drop in model accuracy resulting from the removal of a layer. Even though it is a computationally costly metric, this approach offers a more accurate picture of layer importance, allowing for more informed pruning strategies and lightweight models. Our findings have significant implications for the development of interpretable LLMs and highlight the need to move beyond cosine similarity in assessing layer relevance.
Pruning Large Language Models (LLMs) reduces memory and inference costs by removing parts of the network, producing smaller models that retain most of their accuracy. As attention layers are the most resource-intensive parts of LLMs, pruning them is a promising compression strategy. Prior work shows that up to 33% of attention layers can be pruned with minimal accuracy loss. Nevertheless, the impact of attention pruning on model interpretability, specifically faithfulness and confidence calibration, remains unstudied. To address this gap, we study how pruning attention layers affects explanation faithfulness and confidence calibration across five LLMs and eight datasets. While the pruned models often maintain high accuracy, we find that their faithfulness and calibration often degrade. Notably, faithfulness and calibration can fluctuate significantly, even when accuracy remains stable, highlighting a misalignment between model confidence, interpretability, and accuracy. Our findings suggest that layer pruning can affect LLMs' interpretability and reliability in ways not captured by accuracy and efficiency measures alone. We recommend including explainability and calibration metrics when evaluating pruned models.
Pietro Tropeano, Maria Maistro, Tuukka Ruotsalo +1
Layer pruning efficiently reduces Large Language Model (LLM) computational costs but often triggers sudden performance collapse. Existing representation-based analyses struggle to explain this mechanism. We propose studying pruning through decision representation. Focusing on multiple-choice tasks, we introduce two metrics, Decision Margin and Option Frequency, and an Iterative Pruning method to analyze layer-wise decision dynamics. Our findings reveal a sharp decision transition that partitions the network into two stages: a Silent Phase, where the model cannot yet predict the correct answer, and a Decisive Phase, where the correct prediction emerges. We also find that pruning the Decisive Phase has minimal impact, whereas pruning the Silent Phase triggers immediate performance collapse, highlighting its extreme sensitivity to structural changes. Therefore, we conclude that pruning-induced collapse stems from disrupting the Silent Phase, which prevents the critical decision transition from occurring.
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.