Abstract
A stable compression score can still select the worse model. In our dense study, a split-half reliable path-quadratic score predicted a 16.1% gain, while the selected endpoints were 6.0--7.7% worse than two controls. We ask what a compression statistic can justify when deployment cares about the worst supplied group. We treat each statistic as an information interface. Its observation leaves a fiber of compatible endpoint-risk tables, and only orders fixed across that fiber are identified. Cone and fiber identities quantify the remaining uncertainty, while matched observations reverse endpoint order for pooled moments, group-local moments, and reference-path curvature. Sequential composition adds one state variable: the slack from each group risk to the current maximum. This vector determines every unrestricted one-step response, and a margin condition keeps the active group fixed along paths with bounded relative drift. The experiments follow the same ladder. Across three dense LLMs, an early-preserving allocation reduces worst-group perplexity inflation by 12.6--20.9%; target-matched complete-menu selection improves over its references by 2.7--8.0%. Across all 16 routed layers of OLMoE, pooled endpoint refresh lowers held-out worst-group teacher KL by 15.8% over the best static score. A compute-matched hard-max trajectory ends 32.7% worse than pooled, and neither adaptive trajectory improves excess NLL. Local evidence can narrow a menu. Complete endpoints rank that menu, while multistep claims also require control of the evolving active face and future candidates.
Explore similar work
Jun 16, 2026cs.CL
Compressing large language models reduces memory use and inference cost, but it can also create failures that standard benchmarks miss. A pruned model may still perform well on multiple-choice evaluations, yet fail to answer the same question in open generation. We ask what pruning changes: does it erase the correct answer, or does it make the answer harder to produce as the top output? We study this question with multilingual question answering, tracking the same questions before and after pruning. We find a benchmark illusion. Under high-sparsity pruning, especially Wanda, models often fail in greedy open generation while still selecting the correct answer under multiple-choice scoring. In these recognition-only errors, the answer is usually not gone, but demoted: it often reappears with beam search, sampling, or one in-context example. Overall, multiple-choice benchmarks can overstate the usability of compressed LLMs, creating an evaluation blind spot. Compressed models should be tested on what they can produce, not only on what they can recognize.
Rui Wen, Lu Sun, Jiayang Liu +3
Jun 26, 2026cs.CL
Training-free compression methods for large language models (LLMs) often use calibration data to guide compression decisions. ROCKET, a recent method combining sparse-dictionary factorization with multi-choice knapsack problem (MCKP) allocation, derives its per-layer factorization from an output reconstruction objective but uses weight-space Frobenius error as the MCKP allocation cost. We investigate whether aligning the allocation cost with the output-space objective improves compressed model fidelity. On Qwen3-8B at 50% compression, our ROCKET-ActCost achieves +0.8 percentage points higher average accuracy across 8 zero-shot benchmarks (53.1% vs 52.3%), but increases WikiText perplexity by 16% (61.46 vs 52.98). This accuracy-perplexity tradeoff reveals that different allocation objectives favor different downstream metrics. The high correlation (
>0.99) between weight-space and output-space errors limits allocation divergence, explaining the modest effect size. On Llama-3.2-1B at 20% compression, the two methods produce near-identical results (53.3% vs 53.5% accuracy, 14.45 vs 14.66 PPL), suggesting that the effect of the cost function is minor at lower compression ratios.
Qiong Tang, Xiangkun Hu, Xiangyang Liu +2
Aug 13, 2026cs.CL
Structured pruning is a promising approach for compressing large language models (LLMs), yet existing methods rely heavily on greedy heuristics that produce myopic decisions, and often fail to precisely meet target compression budgets. We present SNIPER, a two-stage structured pruning framework that solves a knapsack optimization over coarse-granularity components to yield conditionally optimal parameter allocations with respect to fixed importance estimates, followed by a fine-grained pruning stage to meet strict budget constraints. We introduce the Compression Ratio Adherence Factor (CRAFT) to quantify budget fidelity, showing that while existing pruners deviate from target compression ratios by up to 33%, SNIPER achieves near-exact adherence with a CRAFT score of 0.98. Evaluations across four diverse architectures over a set of 18 tasks spanning five domains demonstrate SNIPER's consistent improvements in average performance retention and task-level stability over six state-of-the-art pruners. Across all pruning configurations, SNIPER achieves an excellent mean rank of 1.25, indicating its robust cross-architectural generalizability and excellent reliability.
Palaash Goel, Ayan Sengupta, Akshay Nambi +1