SVD-based low-rank compression has become a fast-growing direction for reducing the memory and computational cost of large language models (LLMs). However, meaningful comparison across existing studies remains difficult as prior evaluations use varied benchmarks, inconsistent ratios, and diverse setups, often failing to isolate low-rank effects from auxiliary techniques. As a result, it remains unclear whether reported gains reflect method-level improvements or differences in evaluation protocol. This lack of comparability highlights the need for a unified, reproducible evaluation platform. To address this problem, we present LowRankArena, a standardized evaluation platform for SVD-based LLM compression. LowRankArena unifies task versions, uniform-precision compression budgets, comparison regimes, and inference measurements, and provides a reproducible pipeline with over 3 TiB released compressed checkpoints. Using LowRankArena, our aligned audit of five representative SVD methods reveals that prior findings are highly conditional under standardized protocols: clear leaders and performance tiers shift across backbones and keep ratios, multiple-choice accuracy can hide large perplexity degradation, and nominal low-rank savings yield workload-dependent and often limited end-to-end speedups. Our code is available at: https://github.com/Zishan-Shao/lowrankarena.git.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Overview of LowRankArena . Left: The current evaluation of SVD-based LLM compression suffers from inconsistent settings and high reproduction costs. Middle: LowRankArena addresses this by providing a standardized, fully reproducible evaluation platform with over 3 TiB of released checkpoints. Right: By auditing representative publicly reproducible methods under this unified protocol, we characterize the reproducible SVD-compression frontier, highlighting unstable rankings, no consistent advantage over structured pruning, and a mismatch between theoretical and practical end-to-end speedups. Checkpoints: https://huggingface.co/Duke-CEI-SVD/LowRankArena .
Figure 2: Recurring reviewer concerns in recent SVD evaluations. Bars show the share of public OpenReview reviewer/Area Chair notes ( n=76 ) mentioning each concern category, highlighting systematic evaluation fragmentation and motivating LowRankArena.
Figure 3: Evaluation scope of LowRankArena. Our platform standardizes SVD assessment across five tracks: (1) Main leaderboard for reasoning/PPL; (2) Literature alignment for prior claims; (3) Broader evaluations for architecture and baseline scaling; (4) inference for end-to-end speed; and (5) Feasibility for compression costs. All tracks utilize a unified setup with matched budgets.
Figure 4: Method Performance Ranking Shifts Across Model Families. Method rankings shift substantially when moving from legacy backbones (Llama-1) to modern model families (Llama-3.1 and Qwen3). These shifts show that the apparent superiority of a given SVD-based method is architecture-dependent and does not consistently transfer across model families or keep ratios.
PPL ↓
General MCQ ↑
MCQ ↑
Math ↑
Ret. ↑
Model
Budget
Method
WikiT.
C4
BoolQ
ARC-E
ARC-C
WinoG.
PIQA
HellaS.
OBQA
Avg.
MathQA
MMLU-M
Q. Ret.
Llama-1-7B
Dense FP
5.67
7.20
0.737
0.726
0.445
0.693
0.786
0.749
0.408
0.649
0.261
0.278
1.000
80%
ASVD
8.60
11.04
0.743
0.628
0.388
0.669
0.750
0.696
0.392
0.609
0.241
0.211
0.787
SVD-LLM v1
7.88
16.42
0.633
0.481
0.317
0.584
0.681
0.477
0.332
0.501
0.224
0.291
0.767
DoBi-SVD
9.23
19.01
0.620
0.500
0.305
0.635
0.665
0.570
0.385
0.526
0.229
0.272
0.732
Basis Sharing
7.74
15.51
0.645
0.614
0.367
0.645
0.711
0.633
0.400
0.574
0.239
0.205
0.747
Table 1: Main standardized leaderboard. SVD-style compression methods are evaluated across keep ratios on Llama and Qwen anchor models under matched task versions, evaluation scripts, and budget definitions. The table highlights that method rankings are not intrinsic: the strongest recipe changes across backbone families, compression budgets, and metric groups.
Figure 5: The capability cliff in zero-shot low-rank compression. SVD vs. structured pruning on Llama-3.1-8B under matched ratios (no added post-compression recovery, uniform-choice macro floor 35.7%). Left: SVD remains competitive with pruning in reasoning accuracy (MCQ Avg). Right: Several SVD methods show severe language-modeling degradation in C4 PPL at aggressive keep ratios, while pruning degrades more gradually.
Figure 6: Inference speedup across diverse request profiles. End-to-end gains are evaluated across the representative workloads defined in Sec. A.2 . While SVD reduces nominal computation, empirical throughput gains remain marginal and inconsistent, especially during decode-heavy generation.
Method
WikiText-2
C4
Pile-Val
MoDeGPT
0.7699±0.0039
0.7782
0.7801
Basis Sharing
0.5369±0.0037
0.4980
0.5150
SVD-LLM
0.5212±0.0025
0.5033
0.4919
ASVD
0.3278±0.0145
0.3033
0.3320
Table 2: Calibration sensitivity on Llama-3.1-8B at an 80% keep ratio ( RQ , higher is better). WikiText-2 uses 3 resamples.
Profile
TTFT speedup
E2E speedup
Prefill-heavy
3.37 × ( 3417→1013 ms)
1.06 × ( 4925→4659 ms)
Balanced
3.80 × ( 1668→439 ms)
0.80 × ( 5905→7358 ms)
Decode-heavy
0.91 × ( 187→205 ms)
0.68 × ( 15136→22359 ms)
Table 3: Fixed-setting speedup audit. Llama-3.1-8B, SVD-LLM v1, 0.6 keep ratio on RTX A5000.
Appendix figures & tables14 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Item
Configuration
Benchmark suite
LowRankArena speed/serve_e2e .
Inference backend
vllm serve ; backend version recorded as vLLM 0.18.1 in the normalized outputs.
Client driver
vllm bench serve with --backend openai and --endpoint /v1/completions .
Tensor parallelism
tensor_parallel_size=1 ; one GPU per server.
Precision
Fixed within each table. The A100 launch script uses float16 . BF16 reruns set bfloat16 for every method in the same table.
KV cache and scheduler
vLLM defaults for the chosen dtype and engine settings; no method-specific scheduler options.
Appendix
Table 4: Inference configuration. Primary LowRankArena online inference settings are taken from benchmark/speed/serve_e2e.yaml and the corresponding inference-summary launch scripts.
Profile
Input tokens
Output tokens
Purpose
Prefill-heavy
4096
32
Measures prompt processing with a long input and short output.
Balanced
2048
128
Measures a mixed prompt-processing and generation setting.
Decode-heavy
512
512
Measures autoregressive generation with a long output.
Appendix
Table 5: Inference profiles. Each method in a inference table is evaluated on the same prefill-heavy, balanced, and decode-heavy profiles with the same request count, request arrival process, and engine settings.
Paper
Core idea
Speed evidence
How we classify it
SAES-SVD
Jointly optimizes local reconstruction and accumulated cross-layer error compensation (CEALC + ACES).
Single A6000 speedup plot on LLaMA-3-8B; workload shape under-specified.
Real hardware speedup exists, but protocol is too incomplete for strong tokens/s comparison.
Table 8: A100 end-to-end serving summary for the Llama-3.1-8B keep-ratio-0.8 bf16 benchmark. Lower TTFT/E2E is better; higher prompt and generation throughput is better.
Prefill-heavy ( 4096→32 )
Balanced ( 2048→128 )
Decode-heavy ( 512→512 )
Method
TTFT ↓
E2E ↓
In tok/s ↑
Out tok/s ↑
TTFT ↓
E2E ↓
In tok/s ↑
Out tok/s ↑
TTFT ↓
E2E ↓
In tok/s ↑
Out tok/s ↑
Dense BF16
932.72
3793.12
10583.97
82.71
433.55
4179.39
4592.98
287.20
85.81
11919.05
393.47
394.24
ASVD
1046.45
4248.33
9467.95
73.99
406.70
4612.59
4188.58
261.91
75.98
14164.50
335.53
336.19
SVD-LLM v1
1027.94
4111.04
9788.40
76.49
392.13
3883.31
4940.85
308.95
82.92
11251.31
417.29
418.11
SVD-LLM v2
1093.06
4436.42
9060.56
70.80
434.85
4859.52
3966.78
248.04
76.79
14803.03
320.04
320.66
DoBi-SVD
1001.48
4006.10
10045.33
78.50
384.81
3781.46
5074.26
317.30
77.27
10897.85
430.63
431.48
Appendix
Table 9: L40S end-to-end serving summary for the Llama-3.1-8B keep-ratio-0.8 bf16 benchmark. Lower TTFT/E2E is better; higher prompt and generation throughput is better.
Prefill-heavy ( 4096→32 )
Balanced ( 2048→128 )
Decode-heavy ( 512→512 )
Method
TTFT ↓
E2E ↓
In tok/s ↑
Out tok/s ↑
TTFT ↓
E2E ↓
In tok/s ↑
Out tok/s ↑
TTFT ↓
E2E ↓
In tok/s ↑
Out tok/s ↑
Dense BF16
2426.34
8668.29
4722.81
36.90
1509.29
7298.74
2717.86
169.87
623.80
14447.66
328.66
328.66
ASVD
2544.26
10977.00
3739.81
29.22
1934.54
9760.96
2025.96
126.62
957.00
20533.82
230.95
230.95
SVD-LLM v1
2231.26
9636.49
4254.03
33.23
1677.82
8998.35
2180.49
136.28
797.32
20901.97
224.94
224.94
SVD-LLM v2
2639.96
11344.07
3625.66
28.33
2000.00
9878.82
1996.81
124.80
980.79
21198.33
222.23
222.23
DoBi-SVD
2123.16
9163.42
4470.79
34.93
1593.67
8790.49
2239.36
139.96
725.63
20962.44
224.96
224.96
Appendix
Table 10: RTX A5000 end-to-end serving. Lower TTFT/E2E is better; higher prompt and generation throughput is better.
Method
Source-model scope
7B/8B
Peak VRAM
70B one-H200 evidence
ASVD
Hugging Face AutoModel ; Llama-style scripts
Ready
74.2 GiB
Loads Llama-3.1-70B under the H200 memory cap, but stops on a legacy lm_eval.base import inside the sensitivity path before artifact export.
SVD-LLM v1
LLaMA/OPT components
Ready
139.1 GiB
Enters the low-resource whitening path, then OOMs during whitening/eigendecomposition near the H200 memory ceiling; no artifact is produced.
Basis Sharing
LLaMA/OPT/Mistral configs
Ready
15.8 GiB
Enters the local low-resource profiling path, then fails in the same CUDA eigensolver path as SVD-LLM v2 before artifact export.
MoDeGPT
Llama/OPT/Qwen adapters
Ready
123.6 GiB
Loads Llama-3.1-70B, then fails when moving an Accelerate-offloaded model to GPU before compression; no artifact is produced.
DoBi-SVD
AutoModel updater for decoder LMs
Ready
139.1 GiB
The outer wrapper exits successfully, but the internal trainer reaches the H200 memory ceiling and records trainer OOM before training/export, so no artifact is counted.
Appendix
Table 11: Released-code artifact-generation readiness for 70B on one H200. Rows audit whether the available implementation can directly produce a standardized LowRankArena artifact for Llama-3.1-70B at keep ratio 0.6, using one H200-141GB accelerator and no multi-GPU sharding or method-specific repair.
Perplexity ↓
General MCQ ↑
MCQ Avg. ↑
Math ↑
Model
Budget
Method
WikiT.
C4
BoolQ
ARC-E
ARC-C
WinoG.
PIQA
HellaS.
OBQA
MCQ Avg.
MathQA
MMLU-M
Llama-2-7B
Dense FP
5.47
7.11
0.794
0.738
0.450
0.694
0.787
0.762
0.440
0.666
0.283
0.288
80%
ASVD
10.82
15.04
0.685
0.562
0.333
0.639
0.709
0.620
0.382
0.561
0.248
0.304
SVD-LLM v1
8.39
20.20
0.430
0.490
0.295
0.622
0.671
0.550
0.356
0.488
0.234
0.251
SVD-LLM v2
9.77
24.76
0.485
0.421
0.282
0.606
0.631
0.505
0.328
0.465
0.227
0.297
DoBi-SVD
10.06
25.27
0.463
0.470
0.283
0.618
0.645
0.477
0.336
0.470
0.228
0.259
Appendix
Table 12: Llama-2-7B leaderboard. All methods are evaluated from normalized summaries under the primary full-precision comparison scope with matched task versions, evaluation scripts, and budget definition. The table reports the full 80/70/60/50/40 keep-ratio grid with perplexity, MCQ Avg., and base-math metrics.
Perplexity ↓
General MCQ ↑
MCQ Avg. ↑
Math ↑
Model
Budget
Method
WikiT.
C4
BoolQ
ARC-E
ARC-C
WinoG.
PIQA
HellaS.
OBQA
MCQ Avg.
MathQA
MMLU-M
Qwen3-8B-Base
Dense FP
7.00
11.78
0.830
0.800
0.570
0.727
0.793
0.787
0.420
0.704
0.542
0.729
80%
ASVD
11.88
20.54
0.792
0.758
0.483
0.651
0.745
0.641
0.414
0.641
0.420
0.460
SVD-LLM v1
11.08
33.90
0.688
0.649
0.424
0.669
0.712
0.616
0.408
0.595
0.330
0.355
SVD-LLM v2
11.59
35.63
0.669
0.618
0.411
0.654
0.715
0.609
0.398
0.582
0.321
0.352
DoBi-SVD
51.21
236.65
0.460
0.335
0.284
0.519
0.550
0.388
0.262
0.400
0.206
0.264
Appendix
Table 13: Qwen3-8B-Base leaderboard. All methods are evaluated from normalized summaries under the primary full-precision comparison scope with matched task versions, evaluation scripts, and budget definition. The table reports the full 80/70/60/50/40 keep-ratio grid with perplexity, MCQ Avg., and base-math metrics.
Model
Budget
Method
IFEval Strict ↑
GSM8K EM ↑
MMLU-Pro ↑
Avg ↑
Llama-3.1-8B-Instruct
FP
Dense FP
0.756
0.767
0.374
0.632
80%
ASVD
0.113
0.000
0.112
0.075
SVD-LLM v1
0.128
0.027
0.122
0.092
SVD-LLM v2
0.109
0.024
0.109
0.081
DoBi-SVD
0.111
0.000
0.105
0.072
Basis Sharing
0.107
0.047
0.137
0.097
Appendix
Table 14: Llama-3.1-8B-Instruct auxiliary evaluation. Methods are evaluated across keep ratios with matched task versions and evaluation scripts. Avg. is the macro mean over the displayed instruction-style metrics.
Model
Budget
Method
IFEval Strict ↑
GSM8K EM ↑
MMLU-Pro ↑
Avg ↑
Qwen3-8B
FP
Dense FP
0.344
0.883
0.477
0.568
80%
ASVD
0.220
0.119
0.217
0.185
SVD-LLM v1
0.115
0.192
0.246
0.184
SVD-LLM v2
0.124
0.249
0.228
0.200
DoBi-SVD
0.129
0.000
0.115
0.081
Basis Sharing
0.104
0.318
0.258
0.227
Appendix
Table 15: Qwen3-8B instruction-style auxiliary evaluation. Methods are evaluated across keep ratios with matched task versions and evaluation scripts. Avg. is the macro mean over the displayed instruction-style metrics.
Calibration sequences
BoolQ range
Other-6 range
128
0.2691
0.0030
256
0.1505
0.0020
Appendix
Table 16: Calibration-draw sensitivity for MoDeGPT on Llama-3.1-8B at an 80% keep ratio. Each range is the maximum minus the minimum score across three WikiText-2 sampling keys. “Other-6” denotes the average over ARC-Easy, ARC-Challenge, WinoGrande, PIQA, HellaSwag, and OpenBookQA.
Figure 7: LowRankArena repository organization. Benchmark policy is specified declaratively in benchmark/, checkpoint metadata is centralized in checkpoints/, reusable execution logic lives in src/, and all runners emit normalized JSON results for downstream analysis.
The deployment of Large Language Models is constrained by the memory and bandwidth demands of static weights and dynamic Key-Value cache. SVD-based compression provides a hardware-friendly solution to reduce these costs. However, existing methods suffer from two key limitations: some are suboptimal in reconstruction error, while others are theoretically optimal but practically inefficient. In this paper, we propose Swift-SVD, an activation-aware, closed-form compression framework that simultaneously guarantees theoretical optimum, practical efficiency and numerical stability. Swift-SVD incrementally aggregates covariance of output activations given a batch of inputs and performs a single eigenvalue decomposition after aggregation, enabling training-free, fast, and optimal layer-wise low-rank approximation. We employ effective rank to analyze local layer-wise compressibility and design a dynamic rank allocation strategy that jointly accounts for local reconstruction loss and end-to-end layer importance. Extensive experiments across six LLMs and eight datasets demonstrate that Swift-SVD outperforms state-of-the-art baselines, achieving optimal compression accuracy while delivering 3-70X speedups in end-to-end compression time. Our code is available at https://github.com/hiahei/Swift-SVD.
Ruoling Qi, Yirui Liu, Xuaner Wu +6
Institute of Artificial Intelligence (TeleAI), China Telecom · Shanghai Jiao Tong University · University of Maryland +2
Low-rank SVD-based compression offers a powerful strategy to reduce the computational costs of LLMs. However, existing methods face two key limitations: (i) global rank allocation, where uncalibrated error proxies fail to capture complex error propagation, and (ii) decomposition quality, where Fisher-based estimators suffer from severe rank collapse. In this work, we address these limitations by introducing Layer-wise Error Modeling Search (LEMS) and KFAC-SVD. LEMS advances rank allocation by introducing a layer-wise error surrogate that integrates local and global layer importance alongside a propagation bias, enabling effective global rank allocation via an ILP formulation. KFAC-SVD improves decomposition quality by utilizing token-wise statistics, mitigating the rank deficiency observed in prior Fisher-based SVD approaches. Across Mistral, Qwen3, and Llama 3 model families, we show that LEMS consistently outperforms existing search strategies, delivering significant zero-shot accuracy gains of up to 4.7 p.p. that generalize to model sizes of 70B parameters, while KFAC-SVD achieves an average perplexity improvement of 19%. Project page and code: https://lems-svd.github.io
Moritz Thoma, Maximilian Groezinger, Maximilian Forstenhäusler +8
Technical University of Munich, Germany · BMW Group, Germany · University of Glasgow, United Kingdom +1
The rapid growth in the parameter scale of large language models (LLMs) has created a strong demand for efficient compression techniques. As a hardware-agnostic and highly compatible approach, low-rank compression has been widely adopted to reduce both memory footprint and computational cost. However, existing SVD-based methods are still largely driven by local reconstruction objectives, overlooking two critical limitations: rank budgets are often allocated without explicitly considering layer-wise loss sensitivity, and local approximation errors can propagate and accumulate through the residual stream, leading to amplified global deviations from the original model. To address these issues, we propose LACE-SVD, a Loss-Aware SVD framework with Cumulative Error correction for LLM compression. LACE-SVD first estimates the calibration negative-log-likelihood increase induced by candidate layer-wise compression ratios and solves a budget-constrained allocation problem to assign rank budgets. It then refines the compressed model with closed-form local updates and introduces a propagation-aware correction for residual-stream output modules, reducing layer-output discrepancy as a proxy for cumulative error propagation. Experimental results demonstrate that at a high compression ratio (0.6), the WikiText-2 PPL of our method on LLaMA-7B (32.57) is significantly better than that of Dobi-SVD (46.18).