Large language models (LLMs) are often considered fragile under aggressive sparsification, and maintaining reliable performance typically requires sticking to moderate sparsity levels. However, recent studies suggest that LLMs are more resilient to high sparsity than previously thought, reframing the problem as a design challenge rather than a fundamental limitation. In this work, we challenge the perceived limits of unstructured post-training LLM pruning by revisiting elementary pruning strategies that have remained relatively underexplored at this scale. Through a progressive sparsification framework with second-order saliency and continued training coordinated with sparsity progression, we show that pretrained LLMs can retain strong performance far beyond commonly studied sparsity regimes. Across LLaMA-2 and Qwen-3 model families, our approach improves perplexity and downstream accuracy up to 99% sparsity, surpassing both the current state-of-the-art and representative baselines. Precisely, on LLaMA-2-7B, our approach achieves WikiText-2 perplexities of 13.48 and 19.67 at 95% and 99% sparsity, respectively, while delivering 3.23× decoding speedup and 6.21× memory savings at 95% sparsity. Taken together, our results show that LLMs can be pushed into extreme sparsity while retaining strong performance, providing a foundation for further improving sparse models in this regime.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: WikiText-2 perplexity of LLaMA-2-7B pruned across a range of sparsity levels. We show that extreme sparsity is more realistically attainable than previously suggested. See Section A.1 for configuration details of the prior pruning approaches shown here.
LLaMA-2
Qwen-3
7B
13B
4B-Base
8B-Base
Sparsity
Method
Wiki
C4
Wiki
C4
Wiki
C4
Wiki
C4
0%
Dense
5.47
7.26
4.88
6.73
7.82
11.58
6.93
10.41
70%
Magnitude
4.4e4
3.3e4
212.6
163.7
5.8e5
5.6e5
2.2e6
1.1e6
Wanda
69.91
81.88
44.41
46.24
60.77
71.14
50.17
58.61
SparseGPT
26.02
29.85
21.28
21.30
27.95
32.93
20.43
24.74
Table 1: Perplexities ( ↓ ) of LLaMA-2 and Qwen-3-Base models pruned to various sparsity levels using different methods. Best consistently outperforms baselines across all settings, with the margin widening at higher sparsity.
Figure 2: Qwen3-8B zero-shot accuracy across seven tasks at each sparsity. Best outperforms one-shot methods followed by retraining on most tasks. Full numerical results are provided in Section D.5 .
Table 4
Figure 3: (a) End-to-end decoding throughput ( ↑ ) and memory footprint ( ↓ ) of LLaMA-2-7B. (b) WikiText-2 perplexity of Qwen-3-8B-Base after RTN quantization (dense BF16: 6.93 ); INT8 is lossless, while INT4 causes only minor degradation.
Figure 4: (a) Per-module weight distributions in OPT-125M first block, shown as a ridgeline with one row per module; different scales make magnitude unreliable as an importance proxy. (b) Per-module sparsity at 70% across saliency criteria; magnitude assigns excessive sparsity to attention projections, nearly collapsing them.
Appendix figures & tables16 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Hyperparameter
Best
one-shot+retrain
LR schedule
Linear decay
Linear decay
Pruning interval k
40
–
Adam (β1,β2)
(0.9,0.999)
(0.9,0.999)
Batch size
64
64
Training steps
4000
4000
Warm-up steps
400
400
Appendix
Table 4: Global hyperparameters of Best and one-shot+retrain strategy shared across all models.
Sparsity
OPT-125M
LLaMA-2-7B
LLaMA-2-13B
Qwen3-4B-Base
Qwen3-8B-Base
70%
5e−4
5e−5
5e−5
5e−5
1e−4
90%
1e−3
1e−4
1e−4
5e−4
5e−4
95%
–
5e−4
1e−4
5e−4
5e−4
99%
–
5e−4
1e−4
5e−4
1e−3
Appendix
Table 5: Learning rate ( η ) configurations of Best across sparsity levels.
Sparsity
OPT-125M
LLaMA-2-7B
LLaMA-2-13B
Qwen3-4B-Base
Qwen3-8B-Base
70%
5e−4
1e−4
5e−5
1e−4
1e−4
90%
1e−3
1e−4
1e−4
5e−4
5e−4
95%
–
5e−4
1e−4
5e−4
5e−4
99%
–
5e−4
1e−4
5e−4
1e−3
Appendix
Table 6: Learning rate ( η ) configurations of one-shot+retrain strategy across sparsity levels.
(a) Sparsity: 70%
(b) Sparsity: 90%
Figure 12Figure 13
Schedule
Sparsity
70%
90%
Wiki
C4
Wiki
C4
Cubic
30.77
29.16
43.84
39.15
Linear
31.64
30.40
47.51
42.70
Appendix
Table 7: Final perplexity on Wikitext-2 and C4 for OPT-125M under cubic vs linear sparsity schedule.
Figure 7: Training loss curves on LLaMA-2-7B at each sparsity level, with the resulting WikiText-2 perplexity on the right. The comparison between Best and 2nd-order + isolates the gradual schedule. The advantage of the gradual schedule grows with sparsity, with Best pulling further ahead at each higher level.
Table 16
Method
Sparsity
70%
90%
95%
99%
ELSA
13.20
26.97
38.91
55.94
Best ‡
12.58
18.84
24.34
41.05
Best
7.52
11.60
13.48
19.67
Appendix
Table 10: WikiText-2 perplexity of LLaMA-2-7B across sparsity levels. Best ‡ denotes Best under ELSA’s training setting.
Table 18
Sparsity
Method
ARC-C
ARC-E
BoolQ
HellaSwag
OBQA
RTE
Winogrande
Avg
0%
Dense
43.35
76.26
77.68
57.14
31.40
62.82
69.06
59.67
70%
Magnitude
22.70
27.82
37.95
25.92
17.00
53.07
49.09
33.36
Wanda
18.52
30.93
47.65
28.11
13.20
52.71
49.01
34.30
SparseGPT
21.84
44.61
65.02
34.53
16.80
52.71
59.12
42.09
L-ADMM
23.81
50.63
63.21
36.57
20.40
54.15
60.77
44.22
ALPS
25.51
52.78
63.46
37.54
20.8
53.43
61.72
45.03
Appendix
Table 14: Zero-shot accuracy (%) of LLaMA-2-7B across multiple tasks under different sparsity regimes. Numbers for L-ADMM, ALPS, SAFE, SparseLLM, and ELSA are taken from Lee et al. (2026) .
Sparsity
Method
ARC-C
ARC-E
BoolQ
HellaSwag
OBQA
RTE
Winogrande
Avg
0%
Dense
48.46
79.38
80.55
60.04
35.20
65.34
72.14
63.02
70%
Magnitude
20.65
31.27
38.65
27.53
14.60
52.71
49.33
33.54
Wanda
18.94
40.15
62.17
29.96
14.60
52.71
52.72
38.75
SparseGPT
24.74
52.82
68.10
36.73
19.80
52.71
61.25
45.16
Magnitude +
36.26
70.45
71.35
52.85
28.20
61.37
66.14
55.23
Wanda +
34.39
68.43
71.04
51.75
27.20
57.76
63.06
53.38
Appendix
Table 15: Zero-shot accuracy (%) of LLaMA-2-13B across multiple tasks under different sparsity regimes.
Sparsity
Method
ARC-C
ARC-E
BoolQ
HellaSwag
OBQA
RTE
Winogrande
Avg
0%
Dense
48.38
79.17
83.12
54.50
31.60
76.90
70.56
63.46
70%
Magnitude
22.18
25.29
49.27
25.69
16.80
53.43
50.59
34.75
Wanda
19.03
43.22
62.14
29.31
12.00
52.71
50.67
38.44
SparseGPT
25.68
55.18
62.26
35.71
17.80
54.51
57.14
44.04
Magnitude +
35.58
69.57
70.40
45.48
26.40
59.93
61.17
52.65
Wanda +
34.13
69.57
67.19
44.85
26.20
57.76
58.96
51.24
Appendix
Table 16: Zero-shot accuracy (%) of Qwen3-4B-Base across multiple tasks under different sparsity regimes.
Sparsity
Method
ARC-C
ARC-E
BoolQ
HellaSwag
OBQA
RTE
Winogrande
Avg
0%
Dense
52.56
81.69
83.09
58.80
32.40
74.73
72.38
65.09
70%
Magnitude
21.84
27.48
44.31
25.84
17.20
53.43
49.96
34.30
Wanda
20.31
48.99
62.17
30.47
16.00
52.71
53.67
40.62
SparseGPT
29.78
62.04
65.66
38.75
21.80
58.84
60.69
48.22
Magnitude +
42.06
75.80
72.17
49.63
28.20
63.90
62.83
56.37
Wanda +
42.49
74.49
71.65
49.05
27.20
62.09
63.30
55.75
Appendix
Table 17: Zero-shot accuracy (%) of Qwen3-8B-Base across multiple tasks under different sparsity regimes.