Damage Predicts Recovery: When Calibration Data Matters in Compressing Financial LLMs
Authors: Junyi Ye, Mengjia Yu, Debapriya Hazra, Guiling Wang
Organizations: School of Computing, Montclair State University Montclair, New Jersey, USA · Department of Computer Science, New Jersey Institute of Technology Newark, New Jersey, USA
Post-training quantization and pruning rely on a small calibration corpus. Whether specialized domains such as finance require domain-matched calibration data remains unsettled. We argue that the answer depends on the task-level damage caused by compression rather than on domain mismatch. If compression preserves the target capability, changing the calibration corpus has little effect. If compression causes large losses, task-formatted calibration can recover part of the loss. We test this hypothesis across two model families, six compression configurations, three token-matched calibration corpora, and ten financial classification and numerical question-answering tasks. The results support this hypothesis. Quantization largely preserves task performance, and calibration choice has little effect in this case. Pruning reduces numerical QA accuracy by over 40 points. In these damaged settings, another generic corpus does not help, while FinMix, a mixture of financial task examples, recovers a large part of the loss. The link between damage and recovery holds across model families and scales. These findings support a practical rule. Measure task-specific compression damage first, and construct specialized calibration data only when the damage is large.
Figures & tables
Corpus
Content
Role
Seqs
Tokens
WikiText
encyclopedia text
reference
128
262k
C4
web text
generic control
128
262k
FinMix
financial tasks
matched corpus
2042
260k
Table 1. Calibration corpora used in the experiments. All calibration-based methods consume each corpus in full.
Task
Type
n
Balance
Num.
Metric
FPB ( 9 )
3-cls sentiment
970
59/29/12
none
wF1
FOMC ( 11 )
3-cls stance
496
49/26/25
none
wF1
Headlines ( 13 )
binary attribute
1500
67/33
low
wF1
FinRED ( 12 )
29-cls relation
1500
max 13
none
wF1
FinCausal ( 10 )
2-cls causality
1500
94/6
low
mF1
BigData22 ( 14 )
2-cls movement
1472
55/45
low
wF1
Table 2. Evaluation tasks. n = canonical test-set size. Balance = class distribution (%); for FinRED (29 relation types) we report only the largest class share, and the three free-form QA tasks have no fixed label set (–). Num. = degree of numerical dependence. Classification tasks report weighted F1, except FinCausal, which reports macro-F1. QA tasks report accuracy (judge-verified for the generative tasks, marked † ).
Calibration: WikiText
Classification
Numerical QA
Method
PPL ↓
FPB ↑
FOMC ↑
Headlines ↑
FinRED ↑
FinCausal ↑
BigData22 ↑
Avg. ↑
CFA ↑
FinQA ↑
ConvFinQA ↑
TAT-QA ↑
Avg. ↑
BF16
7.22
79.0
51.3
67.9
75.2
53.5
49.6
65.4
68.1
43.9
64.7
74.1
62.7
Quantization
RTN
7.96
78.7
50.4
58.1 ∗
73.8
47.4 ∗
43.4 ∗
61.7 ( Δ 3.7)
62.4 ∗
39.6 ∗
59.1 ∗
69.5 ∗
57.6 ( Δ 5.1)
GPTQ
7.49
77.9
51.9
68.0
72.0 ∗
53.8
58.3 ∗
64.7 ( Δ 0.7)
62.8 ∗
36.9 ∗
58.6 ∗
70.5 ∗
57.2 ( Δ 5.5)
AWQ
7.62
76.4 ∗
49.2
68.2
74.0
52.7
49.3
64.1 ( Δ 1.3)
64.8 ∗
45.8
59.8 ∗
73.5
61.0 ( Δ 1.7)
SmoothQuant
7.33
79.0
53.1 ∗
67.7
73.7 ∗
54.3
50.5
65.6 ( Δ−0.2 )
66.8
44.8
63.1
73.0
61.9 ( Δ 0.8)
Table 3. Performance of Llama-3.1-8B under WikiText calibration, with BF16 as the reference (RTN is calibration-free). Higher task scores are better. Lower PPL is better. Avg. is the unweighted mean within each task family. The parenthetical Δ gives the damage relative to BF16 (BF16 − compressed), so positive values indicate a loss. The classification mean excludes BigData22. Stars denote significant differences from BF16 ( ∗p<.05 ).
Figure 1. Compression damage under WikiText calibration (left), and the change after replacing WikiText with C4 (middle) or FinMix (right). Positive values indicate damage in the left panel and recovery in the other two panels. Stars indicate paired-test significance ( ∗p<.05 , ∗∗p<.01 , ∗∗∗p<.001 ).
Method
Classification
Numerical QA
Overall
SparseGPT
8/9
9/9
17/18
Wanda
9/9
9/9
18/18
Table 4. Pruning recovery across three WikiText draws. Entries give significantly positive comparisons over all task–seed comparisons ( p<.05 ). All 36 recovery values are positive.
FinMix repair rate (%)
Method
BF16 correct
BF16 wrong
OR [95% CI]
GPTQ
62.1
15.2
9.08 [6.95, 11.86]
SparseGPT
48.0
16.1
4.62 [3.69, 5.80]
Overall
53.2
15.6
6.07 [5.11, 7.22]
Table 5. FinMix repair rates among errors under WikiText calibration, grouped by whether BF16 answers the same sample correctly. The higher rate for BF16-correct samples indicates recovery of performance lost during compression.
GPTQ
SparseGPT
Overall
Error type
Errors
Repair (%)
Errors
Repair (%)
Errors
Repair (%)
reasoning
184
63
249
51
433
56
unit/scale
106
66
106
48
212
57
arithmetic
69
52
256
43
325
45
extraction
32
62
89
48
121
52
format
23
61
9
89
32
69
Table 6. Counts and FinMix repair rates for manually categorized, compression-introduced errors across the two numerical tasks. The Errors columns give category counts, and the Repair columns give the percentage corrected by FinMix . Overall combines GPTQ and SparseGPT.
Figure 2. Compression damage and recovery across model families and scales. Panel (a) fits Llama-3.1-8B, panel (b) tests held-out Qwen3-8B, and panel (c) checks Llama-3.1-70B. The black dashed line and shaded area show the fit and its 95% prediction band. The gray dotted line marks full repair.
Method
Llama-3.1-8B
Qwen3-8B
Llama-3.1-70B
Classification
BF16 score
65.4
66.8
70.7
GPTQ
+0.7/+0.9
−0.3/−0.4
+0.8/+0.6
AWQ
+1.3/+0.3
−0.1/+0.3
+0.2/−0.5
SmoothQuant
−0.2/+0.1
+0.1/0.0
+0.6/+0.2
SparseGPT
+13.6/+11.9
+3.5/+3.3
+1.0/−0.4
Table 7. Average BF16 performance and compression damage/recovery (D / R, pp) by method and model. Higher BF16 scores are better.
Post-training model compression is essential for enhancing the portability of Large Language Models (LLMs) while preserving their performance. While several compression approaches have been proposed, less emphasis has been placed on selecting the most suitable set of data (the so-called calibration data) for finding the compressed model configuration. The choice of calibration data is a critical step in preserving model capabilities both intra- and inter-tasks. In this work, we address the challenge of identifying high-performance calibration sets for both pruning and quantization by analyzing intrinsic data properties rather than model-specific signals. We introduce ZipCal, a model-agnostic data curation strategy that maximizes lexical diversity based on Zipfian power laws. Experiments demonstrate that our method outperforms standard uniform random sampling across various pruning benchmarks. Notably, it also performs on par, in terms of downstream performance, with a state-of-the-art method that relies on model perplexity. The latter becomes prohibitively expensive for large-scale models and datasets, while ZipCal is on average ∼240× faster due to its tractable linear complexity. We make the code and the experiments available at https://github.com/FrancescoMonaco/ZipCal.
Francesco Pio Monaco, Elia Cunegatti, Flavio Vella +1
Large Language Models (LLMs) achieve strong performance across a growing range of domains, yet their scale poses deployment challenges in applications where latency and cost constraints are critical. This paper derives empirical scaling laws for domain-specific LLM compression, quantifying how in-domain and general knowledge performance scale with dataset size, compression ratio, supervision format, and iterative pruning schedule. Using quantitative finance as our application domain, we compare logit-based and LoRA-based distillation under iterative structural pruning, introducing a blended chain-of-thought supervision loss that stabilizes KL-divergence distillation over reasoning traces. In-domain task quality degrades predictably under compression while general-knowledge benchmarks collapse well before the same point; supervision format is the key driver of this tradeoff, with chain-of-thought supervision actively recovering general knowledge that pruning erases. We release the headline dataset FinHeadlineMix, scaling law results, and practical recommendations to provide a reusable framework for domain-specific compression decisions.
LLM compression reduces inference costs and memory requirements, but selecting a method and configuration remains largely empirical because comparable resource reductions can produce different capability losses. We systematically investigate capability scaling-down laws for LLM compression across pruning, quantization, and distillation. Our framework measures capability loss in mathematics, code generation, and question answering, and relates these measurements to model size, training stage, compression settings, data availability, and training exposure. We develop simple predictive relations and evaluate their accuracy, measurement efficiency, and generalization to unseen configurations and model states. Sharing the density response across pruning levels halves the configuration measurements needed to fit a pruning predictor: on new Pythia states, on pre-registered OLMo-2 test states and under Wanda pruning, the compact relation matches a regression fitted with all measurements on math and code to within 0.020 nats per token, with coefficients refitted for each setting. Controlled distillation experiments show that the cost of heavy data reuse recurs across question-answering distributions, while the net benefit depends on the evaluation distribution. We further evaluate the decision value of these predictions by comparing numerical selection with configuration medians and fixed method priorities. Independent evaluations across two model families show that selection captures most of the available cross-method benefit for question answering within the tested candidate sets, where a fixed method priority attains the same regret, with smaller opportunities for mathematics and code. These results clarify the predictive scope of capability scaling-down laws and their use in compression method selection. Our code is publicly available at: https://github.com/LabRAI/scaling_down_law.