Structured pruning is a promising approach for reducing the substantial inference costs of Large Language Models (LLMs) while maintaining hardware efficiency. Many existing methods assess the importance of prunable units (e.g., channels or heads) in isolation, implicitly assuming that pruning errors are additive. This independence assumption is often invalidated by the non-orthogonality of model weights and strong correlations between unit activations, potentially leading to performance degradation. To address this, we propose a Correlation-Aware Structured Pruning method. We formulate the pruning objective as a cardinality-constrained binary quadratic program that explicitly models cross-unit dependencies in the reconstruction error. Since this binary quadratic program is NP-hard and difficult to solve exactly, we develop a greedy interaction algorithm based on dependency-aware marginal costs to optimize unit selection. Furthermore, we incorporate a gradient-based strategy to achieve adaptive layer-wise sparsity allocation across the entire model. Extensive experiments on mainstream LLMs demonstrate that incorporating correlation information yields competitive accuracy-efficiency trade-offs compared to representative structured pruning baselines.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: The Correlation-Aware Structured Pruning (CASP) workflow. Linear pipeline (left-right): (1) Layer-Wise Allocation generates a sparsity profile; (2) Correlation-Aware Modeling builds interaction matrix Q ; (3) Greedy Algorithm selects optimal units to yield the pruned LLM.
Ratio
Method
WikiText2 ↓
PTB ↓
BoolQ ↑
PIQA ↑
HellaSwag ↑
WinoGrande ↑
ARC-e ↑
ARC-c ↑
OBQA ↑
Average ↑
0%
Ground Truth
6.9413
23.0732
0.8058
0.7617
0.5800
0.6835
0.7264
0.4172
0.3200
0.6135
10%
LLM-Pruner
8.3402
31.7846
0.7037
0.7693
0.5526
0.6780
0.7306
0.4249
0.3000
0.5942
FLAP
19.0166
64.8369
0.6630
0.7595
0.5594
0.6725
0.6570
0.3788
0.2300
0.5600
LoRAP
7.5938
27.6150
0.7621
0.7655
0.5685
0.6819
0.7155
0.4070
0.3120
0.6018
CASP
7.3818
25.5896
0.7820
0.7699
0.5671
0.6827
0.7247
0.4130
0.3200
0.6085
20%
LLM-Pruner
12.5446
51.5916
0.5633
0.7476
0.5194
0.6606
0.7033
0.4087
0.3060
0.5584
Table 1: Zero-shot performance of the compressed LLaMA2-7B. The average score is computed across seven datasets. The " bolded " represents the best result under the same pruning ratio.
Ratio
Method
WikiText2 ↓
PTB ↓
BoolQ ↑
PIQA ↑
HellaSwag ↑
WinoGrande ↑
ARC-e ↑
ARC-c ↑
OBQA ↑
Average ↑
0%
Ground Truth
4.8838
28.9402
0.8214
0.7943
0.6019
0.7238
0.7896
0.4735
0.3460
0.6501
10%
LLM-Pruner
5.6887
34.9768
0.7333
0.7845
0.5838
0.7088
0.7748
0.4599
0.3460
0.6273
FLAP
12.1349
59.7305
0.7673
0.7802
0.5688
0.7072
0.7386
0.4215
0.3420
0.6179
LoRAP
5.9488
32.8577
0.8208
0.7878
0.6000
0.7206
0.7786
0.4590
0.3460
0.6447
CASP
5.1634
32.7983
0.8196
0.7927
0.5971
0.7293
0.7824
0.4710
0.3420
0.6477
20%
LLM-Pruner
6.6494
45.8865
0.6514
0.7884
0.5619
0.7009
0.7580
0.4428
0.3320
0.6051
Table 2: Zero-shot performance of the compressed LLaMA2-13B. The average score is computed across seven datasets. The " bolded " represents the best result under the same pruning ratio.
Figure 2: Off-diagonal energy ratio across layers in LLaMA2-7B. We report the proportion of interaction (off-diagonal) terms in the reconstruction energy for both attention-head pruning and FFN-channel pruning. The consistently high ratio demonstrates that cross-unit interactions dominate the pruning error in most layers, invalidating the independence assumption.
Ratio
Method
WikiText2 ↓
PTB ↓
Avg.
30%
w/o Greedy
10.40
31.11
0.5211
w/o Allocation
11.45
32.47
0.4114
CASP
9.73
33.18
0.5493
50%
w/o Greedy
22.94
72.63
0.4088
w/o Allocation
58.81
159.88
0.3399
CASP
18.18
67.95
0.4492
Table 3: Ablation study of different components in our proposed method (CASP) at 30% and 50% pruning ratios. The " bolded " represents the best result under the same pruning ratio.
Figure 3: Comparison of Optimization Methods. Reconstruction error ( L ) on the first FFN layer of LLaMA2-7B under varying pruning ratios ( r ). We plot the Diagonal baseline (blue), the theoretical Relaxation Lower Bound (black dotted), the projected Relaxation solution (green solid), and our Greedy interaction algorithm (red dashed).
Appendix figures & tables7 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Figure 4: Layer-wise gradient sensitivity in LLaMA2-7B. We compute each layer’s sensitivity as the squared ℓ2 norm of the gradient of the final objective with respect to the layer output, and report it across depth (linear and log scales). The sensitivity generally decreases with depth, motivating an increasing pruning ratio for deeper layers.
Ratio
Time (s)
10%
184.45
20%
185.33
30%
185.35
50%
186.59
Appendix
Table 4: Average pruning time of our method on LLaMA2-7B under different pruning ratios. Each result is averaged over 10 runs.
Ratio
Method
Params (B)
MACs(G)
Prefilling(s)
Decoding(s)
0%
Dense
6.74
845.71
0.321
2.694
20%
CASP
5.44
624.80
0.260
2.243
50%
CASP
3.51
397.62
0.175
1.870
Appendix
Table 5: Inference latency and parameter counts for LLaMA2-7B at different sparsity levels.
Ratio
Method
WikiText2 ↓
PTB ↓
BoolQ ↑
PIQA ↑
HellaSwag ↑
WinoGrande ↑
ARC-e ↑
ARC-c ↑
OBQA ↑
Average ↑
50% w/o tune
LoRAP
22.9549
129.2947
0.6058
0.6235
0.3591
0.5556
0.4141
0.2509
0.1960
0.4293
CASP
18.1812
67.9484
0.6034
0.6572
0.3762
0.5541
0.4596
0.2577
0.2360
0.4492
50% w/ tune
LoRAP
12.9873
59.5412
0.6181
0.6975
0.4226
0.5951
0.5610
0.2841
0.2460
0.4892
CASP
12.5192
42.4517
0.6386
0.6757
0.4349
0.5635
0.6232
0.2711
0.2480
0.4936
Appendix
Table 6: Performance recovery via fine-tuning on LLaMA2-7B at 50% sparsity. The average score is computed across seven datasets. The " bolded " represents the best result under the same pruning ratio.
Value
WikiText2
PTB
Avg.
α=0.5
17.45
76.70
0.4074
α=1.0
18.18
67.95
0.4492
α=1.5
24.51
80.38
0.4255
α=2.0
25.49
78.82
0.4384
Appendix
Table 7: Ablation study of temperature parameter α in our proposed method (CASP) at 50% pruning ratios. The " bolded " represents the best result under the same pruning ratio.
Ratio
Method
WikiText2 ↓
PTB ↓
BoolQ ↑
PIQA ↑
HellaSwag ↑
WinoGrande ↑
ARC-e ↑
ARC-c ↑
OBQA ↑
Average ↑
0%
Ground Truth
6.7805
26.7653
0.8162
0.7688
0.5657
0.7080
0.7597
0.4428
0.3500
0.6302
10%
LLM-Pruner
8.3728
30.8669
0.7095
0.7535
0.5444
0.6772
0.7487
0.4300
0.3400
0.6005
FLAP
18.1103
67.1568
0.7306
0.7524
0.5457
0.6827
0.7214
0.3993
0.3460
0.5969
LoRAP
7.3890
29.7425
0.7991
0.7633
0.5609
0.6788
0.7472
0.4352
0.3380
0.6175
CASP
7.2673
28.3805
0.7936
0.7715
0.5589
0.6819
0.7500
0.4394
0.3260
0.6173
20%
LLM-Pruner
11.4220
38.4145
0.6453
0.7503
0.5136
0.6314
0.7218
0.3899
0.3020
0.5649
Appendix
Table 8: Zero-shot performance of the compressed Vicuna-7B. The average score is computed across seven datasets. The " bolded " represents the best result under the same pruning ratio.
Ratio
Method
WikiText2 ↓
PTB ↓
BoolQ ↑
PIQA ↑
HellaSwag ↑
WinoGrande ↑
ARC-e ↑
ARC-c ↑
OBQA ↑
Average ↑
0%
Ground Truth
6.1367
10.5469
0.8226
0.8063
0.7922
0.7364
0.7752
0.5410
0.4480
0.7031
10%
LLM-Pruner
8.7911
13.9107
0.6881
0.7671
0.7231
0.7151
0.6881
0.4437
0.4200
0.6350
LoRAP
7.5508
12.4922
0.7783
0.7780
0.7503
0.7017
0.7369
0.5009
0.4240
0.6672
CASP
7.1484
12.0156
0.8040
0.7878
0.7595
0.7261
0.7353
0.5000
0.4140
0.6752
50%
LLM-Pruner
60.0247
94.5353
0.5180
0.5696
0.3351
0.5130
0.3729
0.2432
0.2900
0.4060
LoRAP
92.8750
188.3750
0.5138
0.6507
0.4229
0.5399
0.3906
0.2594
0.2980
0.4393
Appendix
Table 9: Zero-shot performance of the compressed LLaMA3-8B. The average score is computed across seven datasets. The " bolded " represents the best result under the same pruning ratio.
Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable capabilities, but their massive scale poses significant challenges for practical deployment. Structured pruning offers a promising solution by removing entire dimensions or layers, yet existing methods face critical trade-offs: task-agnostic approaches cannot adapt to task-specific requirements, while task-aware methods require costly training to learn task adaptability. We propose DIET (Dimension-wise global pruning of LLMs via merging Task-wise importance scores), a training-free structured pruning method that combines dimension-level granularity with task-aware selection. DIET profiles activation magnitudes across tasks using only 100 samples per task, then applies majority voting to construct a single global mask. Experiments on seven zero-shot benchmarks using Gemma-2 2B and 9B models demonstrate the effectiveness of DIET. At 20% sparsity on Gemma-2 2B, DIET improves average accuracy by 2.1 percentage points over SliceGPT and by 9.2 percentage points over PuDDing. On Gemma-2 9B, DIET remains competitive with SliceGPT while consistently outperforming PuDDing at 10% and 20% sparsity.
Structured pruning is widely applied to compress large language models (LLMs), but its performance depends heavily on how neuron importance is estimated. Most existing methods rely on activation statistics from a single calibration set, which introduces calibration bias and degrades downstream cross-task generalization. We observe that neurons exhibit heterogeneous distribution sensitivity, ranging from maintaining relatively stable rankings across calibration datasets to showing substantially larger cross-dataset variation. Ignoring this heterogeneity, existing methods rank all neurons in shared spaces with a uniform scoring source, so calibration-specific neurons dominate the ranking and weakly-activated neurons are scored unreliably. To address this, we propose GPrune-LLM, a structured pruning framework that reduces calibration bias by measuring and exploiting the cross-distribution behavior of neurons for fair comparison. Specifically, we restructure the neuron ranking space into behavior-consistent local spaces, adapt the scoring source where the calibration signal is unreliable, and learn per-module sparsity allocation under a global budget. Experiments across multiple models and downstream tasks show that GPrune-LLM improves the generalization of its base pruning metrics, with gains most pronounced at high sparsity, and reduces dependence on the choice of importance metric.
Xiaoyun Liu, Divya Saxena, Jiannong Cao +3
Department of Computing, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong · School of Artificial Intelligence and Data Science, IIT Jodhpur, Jodhpur 342030, India
Structured pruning reduces the inference cost of large language models (LLMs) by permanently removing neurons and weight rows, yielding dense, hardware-agnostic speedup. Existing post-training methods couple neuron selection and weight reconstruction through a shared calibration dataset, introducing domain bias and out-of-memory failures at high sparsity. We propose SARATHI, a framework that decouples these two stages. A data-free NMF Residual Subspace Probe scores neurons using intrinsic weight geometry, without accessing any calibration data, and carries a formal connection to Robust PCA. Adaptive OBS then reconstructs the pruned weights with a localized calibration batch, operating in O(d2) peak memory per layer and eliminating the global memory bottleneck of coupled methods. A Bias Shift Compensation step corrects systematic activation drift in post-LayerNorm architectures that would otherwise cause perplexity collapse at high sparsity. Experiments across six models from two architecture families (gated and non-gated FFN) at 15--40% sparsity show that SARATHI achieves competitive perplexity and matches or exceeds existing structured pruning baselines on zero-shot accuracy.
Sankar Behera, Dhruv Singh, Satyadev Ahlawat +1
Department of Computer Science and Engineering, IIT Jammu · Department of Mathematics, IIT Jammu · Department of Electrical Engineering, IIT Jammu