The Fragility and Dynamics of LLM Pruning-Recovery Steps
Authors: Luis Frentzen Salim, Komang Rinartha, Chia-Chun Wu, Tran Van Nhiem, Lun-Wei Ku, Yung-Hui Li
Organizations: Institute of Information Science, Academia Sinica · National Taiwan University of Science and Technology · AI Research Center, Hon Hai Research Institute
Structural pruning followed by a recovery stage is the standard recipe for compressing large language models (LLMs), yet the two stages are typically designed and tuned in isolation. In this work, we study how their interaction shapes the compressed model, sweeping ordering, the data that drives each stage, and the alignment of their training objectives. We find that instruction-following is the first capability to collapse under pruning, well before knowledge, reasoning, or core language modeling, and that much of the pruning in-domain loss is likely not knowledge loss but a domain-agnostic failure to respond coherently to the prompt. We find in our setting that in-domain data is the strongest pruning signal, whereas instruction-style data recovers the most. Stage order matters little, but only marginally. We further analyze how the importance ranking drifts before and after pruning. Together these results give practitioners a concrete recipe for composing pruning and recovery.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Performance over pruning ratios for Llama 3.1 8B Instruct. Instruction following degrades earlier.
Figure 2: Performance on the domain and general tasks over pruning r , with one line for each configuration.
Figure 3: Spearman correlation of moving weight rankings before and after pruning with r0.1 and 0.5 . It is observed that the most and least important weights tend to stay as the model is pruned.
Figure 4: Recovery gain by data, for P -first ( P→D ) sequences. Each bar is the change in a metric relative to the matched pruning-only model with no recovery, averaged over pruning corpora and ratios.
Pruning corpus
Δ
p
All
−0.009
<0.001
Single-source
−0.003
0.22
Mixed
−0.020
<0.001
Table 1: Pipeline ordering result averaged over tasks, order and pruning ratios. \Delta=(\text{D-first})-(\text{P-first}) , negative values favor pruning-first.
Metric
Aligned
Misaligned
p
GSM8K
0.075
0.075
0.98
General
0.379
0.385
0.13
Average
0.387
0.393
0.12
Table 2: Alignment performances over pruning r .
Appendix figures & tables20 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Hyperparameter
GOLD
SFT
Precision
bf16
bf16
Max length
2048
2048
batch size
2
4
Gradient accumulation
16
8
Global batch size
256
32
Learning rate
1×10−6
1×10−6
Appendix
Table 3: Training hyperparameters used.
Hyperparameter
Value
Pruner type
first-order Taylor
Granularity
block-wise
Pruned blocks
all layers
Iterative steps
1 (one-shot)
Group aggregation
sum
Pruning scope
local (per-block)
Appendix
Table 4: Pruning hyperparameters used. The default calibration loss is CLM. The GOLD loss (bottom block) use the Gemma 3 Instruct 12B as the teacher.
Figure 5: GSM8K outcome decomposition for prune-only models as a function of pruning ratio, faceted by the data used for pruning. Each item is classified as correct, wrong but coherent, or degenerate / non-responsive. The degenerate share grows with sparsity and appears under every pruning-data kind, including in-domain pruning.
Figure 6: Degenerate-response rate for prune-only models versus pruning ratio, on the in-domain task (GSM8K, left) and the instruction-following task (IFEval, right), with one line per pruning-data kind. On IFEval the curves are nearly independent of the pruning data, indicating a domain-agnostic collapse in the model’s ability to follow the prompt.
Figure 7: Evaluation performance isolating two major sequences showing little to no effect on final performance.
Figure 8: Before- versus after-pruning importance percentile of each surviving attention head, colored by layer, for the Taylor and Fisher importance criteria at pruning ratios r=0.1 and r=0.5 . The diagonal marks unchanged rank.
Figure 9: Before- versus after-pruning importance percentile of each surviving MLP channel, colored by layer, for the Taylor and Fisher importance criteria at pruning ratios r=0.1 and r=0.5 . The diagonal marks unchanged rank.
Figure 10: Before- versus after-pruning importance percentile of surviving attention heads, colored by layer, for the Taylor and Fisher criteria across pruning ratios r=0.1 to r=0.5 .
Figure 11: Before- versus after-pruning importance percentile of surviving MLP channels, colored by layer, for the Taylor and Fisher criteria across pruning ratios r=0.1 to r=0.5 .
Figure 12: Band-transition matrices of attention-head importance before versus after pruning, shown for the Taylor and Fisher importance criteria at pruning ratios r=0.1 and r=0.5 . Each cell gives the fraction of heads moving from a before-pruning importance quintile (row) to an after-pruning quintile (column).
Figure 13: Attention-head importance band-transition matrices for the Taylor (top row) and Fisher (bottom row) criteria across pruning ratios r=0.1 to r=0.5 (columns).
Figure 14: MLP-channel importance band-transition matrices for the Taylor (top row) and Fisher (bottom row) criteria across pruning ratios r=0.1 to r=0.5 (columns).
Figure 15: Per-quintile mean absolute importance movement and retention for attention heads, for the Taylor and Fisher criteria across pruning ratios r=0.1 to r=0.5 .
Figure 16: Per-quintile mean absolute importance movement and retention for MLP channels, for the Taylor and Fisher criteria across pruning ratios r=0.1 to r=0.5 .
Figure 17: Per-quintile retention of attention-head importance as a function of pruning ratio, faceted by importance criterion (Taylor and Fisher), with one line per before-pruning quintile.
Figure 18: Per-quintile retention of MLP-channel importance as a function of pruning ratio, faceted by importance criterion (Taylor and Fisher), with one line per before-pruning quintile.
Figure 19: Spearman rank correlation between before- and after-pruning attention-head importance as a function of pruning ratio, resolved per before-pruning quintile and faceted by importance criterion.
Figure 20: Spearman rank correlation between before- and after-pruning MLP-channel importance as a function of pruning ratio, resolved per before-pruning quintile and faceted by importance criterion.
Loss
Recov
r
GSM8K
Gen
Avg
Loss
Recov
r
GSM8K
Gen
Avg
CLM
KD
0.1
0.171
0.519
0.525
GOLD
KD
0.1
0.208
0.476
0.483
CLM
KD
0.2
0.074
0.442
0.451
GOLD
KD
0.2
0.108
0.443
0.454
CLM
KD
0.3
0.032
0.387
0.395
GOLD
KD
0.3
0.049
0.364
0.375
CLM
KD
0.4
0.024
0.322
0.326
GOLD
KD
0.4
0.027
0.310
0.320
CLM
KD
0.5
0.017
0.296
0.302
GOLD
KD
0.5
0.026
0.288
0.292
CLM
SFT
0.1
0.185
0.506
0.515
GOLD
SFT
0.1
0.227
0.497
0.507
Appendix
Table 5: Loss-alignment runs. Loss is the pruning calibration objective (CLM or GOLD), Recov is the recovery method (none = pruning-only, SFT, or KD/GOLD distillation), r is the pruning ratio. IFEval was not evaluated for these runs. Rows continue in the right-hand block.
Seq
P
D
r
GSM8K
Gen
IFE
Avg
Seq
P
D
r
GSM8K
Gen
IFE
Avg
base
–
–
–
0.723
0.545
0.764
0.656
D→P
Mix
Gen
0.2
0.552
0.461
0.663
0.551
P
Dom
–
0.1
0.708
0.511
0.709
0.622
D→P
Mix
Gen
0.3
0.420
0.395
0.521
0.448
P
Dom
–
0.2
0.630
0.453
0.644
0.561
D→P
Mix
Gen
0.4
0.281
0.329
0.403
0.349
P
Dom
–
0.3
0.506
0.399
0.546
0.476
D→P
Mix
Gen
0.5
0.112
0.292
0.288
0.259
P
Dom
–
0.4
0.369
0.343
0.377
0.361
D→P
Mix
Mix
0.1
0.663
0.509
0.741
0.625
P
Dom
–
0.5
0.196
0.295
0.309
0.283
D→P
Mix
Mix
0.2
0.542
0.457
0.645
0.540
Appendix
Table 6: Full per-configuration results, reporting aggregate metrics only. Seq is the stage order ( D→P , P→D ), P / D are the pruning/distillation data kinds, r is the pruning ratio. GSM8K is flexible-extract, General is the mean of MMLU and ARC-easy/challenge, IFE is the mean of the four IFEval splits, and Avg is the overall average. Rows continue in the right-hand block.
Large language models achieve strong performance across diverse tasks, but deployment remains costly because of memory, latency, and energy demands. Structured pruning reduces these costs by removing architectural components, yet its recovery stage is often limited by a mismatch between the recovery module's representational capacity and the complexity of the removed knowledge. We call this bottleneck the capacity-knowledge asymmetry and propose OverRep, an Overcomplete Reparameterization framework for structured LLM pruning. Following the principle of "train overcomplete, deploy compact", OverRep temporarily overparameterizes the recovery module during training to absorb complex knowledge distilled from the original model. After recovery, the overcomplete re-parameterization is algebraically merged into a mathematically equivalent compact module, preserving the pruned model's inference-time architecture and computational cost. OverRep further introduces an annealed activation that enables nonlinear training dynamics while converging to a linear regime for exact algebraic merging. Across three backbone families, OverRep improves retained reasoning performance over strong recovery baselines by up to 5.5 and 8.4 points at 25% and 50% pruning, respectively, while keeping memory usage and TFLOPs comparable to existing recovery methods. Our code is available at https://github.com/mmai-laboratory/OverRep.
Different low-rank compression methods can produce compressed LLMs that respond differently to the same post-compression recovery procedure, and relative advantages observed between methods at the compression endpoint may shrink, grow, or even reverse after recovery. We ask whether this recovery heterogeneity reflects functional structure beyond scalar loss evolution, and how that structure evolves throughout recovery. Our results establish that this heterogeneity reflects a reproducible compression-induced functional structure, which we formalize as recovery pressure. To characterize this structure consistently throughout recovery, we develop a standardized functional characterization within each backbone that is applicable across heterogeneous low-rank methods. The primary backward characterization reveals reproducible module-wise structure across independent probes, while a complementary forward-only characterization recovers related structure without loss or backpropagation. We further find that recovery pressure measured at the endpoint is associated with subsequent recovery response; during recovery, its module-wise structure is reorganized non-uniformly, and localized updates induce distributed responses beyond directly updated modules. Further evidence indicates that tracking this evolving structure provides a complementary functional view of recovery progress alongside scalar loss.
Zishan Shao, Liang Tian, Georgiy Zemlevskiy +10
Duke University · Wake Forest University · Carnegie Mellon University +2
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
Yardi School of Artificial Intelligence, Indian Institute of Technology Delhi · Department of Electrical Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Delhi · Microsoft Research (MSR) India