Model compression makes large language models deployable, but today's evaluation tells an incomplete story. Standard practice measures retained task performance and stops there. This misses a critical fact: compression perturbs the distributed knowledge embedded across billions of weights, and task scores alone cannot reveal which underlying abilities survive and which quietly collapse. To solve this question, we introduce ACE-Compression, an ability-centric evaluation framework. Instead of asking only "does the compressed model still answer correctly?", we ask "which of its core abilities remain intact?" Our framework probes four deployment-facing dimensions: procedural reasoning and constraint execution, knowledge grounding and truthfulness, social cognition and affective understanding, and persona fidelity and stylistic consistency. Across more than 35 compressed checkpoints from six open-weight LLMs-covering quantization and pruning-we find that compression redistributes ability profiles. Coarse, local, and surface-level signals often persist, while fine-grained, long-tail, and context-dependent abilities become fragile. Quantization consistently outperforms pruning in retention, but the practical meaning of that gap depends entirely on which ability an application requires. Based on our findings, deployers can choose compression methods by the ability profile their application needs, not just by a leaderboard average. And algorithm designers gain diagnostic signals to build compression methods that preserve what matters. We believe that ACE-Compression turns compression from a black-box accuracy drop into an interpretable intervention-one we can measure, understand, and ultimately improve.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Motivating scenario for ability-centric compression evaluation. A single role-grounded request requires the LLM to interact with abilities including persona grounding, clue extraction, response planning, knowledge grounding, contextual reasoning, and trustworthiness.
Figure 2: Evaluation design. We compare quantization methods (BnB-4bit, AWQ-INT4, GPTQ-INT4) and pruning methods (2:4 structured sparsity and unstructured sparsity) across six base models. Ten benchmarks are mapped to four ability dimensions so that pre/post-compression changes can be read as procedural, knowledge, social, or persona profile shifts.
Dimension
Benchmark Main Diagnostic Readout
Procedural reasoning and constraint execution
IFEval ( Zhou et al., 2023 ) Prompt-/instruction-level strict and loose compliance GSM8K ( Cobbe et al., 2021 ) Strict versus flexible answer matching HumanEval ( Chen et al., 2021 ) pass@k and sampling recoverability
Knowledge grounding and truthfulness
TruthfulQA ( Lin et al., 2022 ) MC1/MC2 and generation-side BLEURT behavior C-Eval ( Huang et al., 2023 ) Accuracy retention RoleEval ( Shen et al., 2023 ) Role-grounded knowledge retention over shot and language slices
Social cognition and affective understanding
ToMBench ( Chen et al., 2024 ) ToM profiles across task, ability, and subability views EQ-Bench ( Paech, 2023 ) Benchmark score and parseability as auxiliary affective evidence
Persona fidelity and stylistic consistency
CharacterEval ( Tu et al., 2024 ) role-play quality across grouped persona metrics PsychoBench ( Huang et al., 2024 ) psychometric drift and 16P dominant-type stability
Table 1: Ability dimensions, benchmarks, and native readouts in ACE-Compression. We preserve benchmark-native views when a single aggregate score would hide diagnostically important distinctions.
Figure 3: Procedural reasoning and constraint execution. (a) IFEval instruction-level strict retention minus prompt-level strict retention, diagnosing local constraint recognition versus full-response coordination. (b) GSM8K flexible-match retention. (c) GSM8K flexible-versus-strict retention gap shift, diagnosing answer-form brittleness. (d) HumanEval greedy pass@ 1 retention by base model and compression method. (e) HumanEval pass@ 100 minus pass@ 1 retention, diagnosing sampling-based recoverability; hatched cells mark unavailable combinations.
Figure 4: Knowledge grounding and truthfulness. (a) TruthfulQA generation-side BLEURT-accuracy retention. (b) TruthfulQA generation-selection divergence, computed as generation-side BLEURT-accuracy retention minus MC1 retention. (c) Generic knowledge versus role-grounded knowledge retention, using C-Eval and RoleEval-ZH.
Figure 5: Social cognition and affective understanding. (a) ToMBench ability retention by base model, with one radar plot per FP16 parent and compression-method traces relative to that parent. (b) Most compression-sensitive ToMBench subabilities, averaged by method and displayed as retention percentages; abbreviated labels denote subabilities such as location false beliefs, irony/sarcasm, second-order beliefs, intentions explanations, and belief-action links. Compression primarily affects hidden-state, belief-, intention-, and ambiguity-centered reasoning.
Figure 6: Persona fidelity and stylistic consistency. (a) PsychoBench latent drift fingerprint from each FP16 parent; light segments summarize the quantization mean and darker extensions indicate additional sparse-setting drift. (b) Representative psychometric scales grouped by DTDD, BFI, ECR-R, LMS, and Empathy, with the line marking mean normalized drift by method. (c) 16P stability: stacked bars indicate axis-level drift/risk and the red line labels dominant-type stability. The panels connect visible persona flattening to latent psychometric and identity-profile movement.
Figure 7: Overall findings of ACE-Compression. Bar length indicates the mean FP16-relative retention R for each ability layer under quantization or pruning.
Appendix figures & tables15 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Model Group
Variant
Prompt-level Strict Loose
Instruction-level Strict Loose
Qwen2.5-7B
FP16
0.7172 ± 0.0194
0.7394 ± 0.0189
0.7926
0.8106
BnB-4bit
0.7209 ± 0.0193
0.7449 ± 0.0188
0.7962
0.8177
AWQ
0.7098 ± 0.0195
0.7246 ± 0.0192
0.7866
0.8046
GPTQ-INT4
0.7079 ± 0.0196
0.7264 ± 0.0192
0.7950
0.8118
2:4-Sparse
0.4547 ± 0.0214
0.4824 ± 0.0215
0.5863
0.6139
Unstructured-Sparse
0.6359 ± 0.0207
0.6765 ± 0.0201
0.7302
0.7650
Appendix
Table 3: Full IFEval results for the procedural reasoning and constraint execution dimension. Prompt-level and instruction-level scores are reported under strict and loose evaluation, separating whole-response coordination from local instruction recognition.
Model Group
Variant
Strict Match
Flexible Match
Qwen2.5-7B
FP16
0.3351 ± 0.0130
0.7597 ± 0.0118
BnB-4bit
0.2434 ± 0.0118
0.7377 ± 0.0121
AWQ
0.1971 ± 0.0110
0.7202 ± 0.0124
GPTQ-INT4
0.1691 ± 0.0103
0.7225 ± 0.0123
2:4-Sparse
0.3995 ± 0.0135
0.5019 ± 0.0138
Unstructured-Sparse
0.4367 ± 0.0137
0.7036 ± 0.0126
Appendix
Table 4: Full GSM8K results for the procedural reasoning and constraint execution dimension. Strict and flexible matching are reported together to distinguish canonical answer realization from recoverable numeric correctness.
Model Group
Variant
Greedy p@1
Sampling p@1 ( n=20 )
Sampling p@10 ( n=20 )
Qwen2.5-7B
FP16
0.7927 ± 0.0318
0.7034 ± 0.0315
0.8172 ± 0.0294
BnB-4bit
0.7683 ± 0.0330
0.7034 ± 0.0315
0.8172 ± 0.0294
AWQ
0.7744 ± 0.0327
0.6424 ± 0.0326
0.7837 ± 0.0312
GPTQ-INT4
0.7683 ± 0.0330
0.6598 ± 0.0320
0.7966 ± 0.0306
2:4-Sparse
0.3354 ± 0.0370
0.1692 ± 0.0268
0.2636 ± 0.0329
Unstructured-Sparse
0.6890 ± 0.0363
0.4936 ± 0.0339
0.6757 ± 0.0349
Appendix
Table 5: HumanEval results for the procedural reasoning and constraint execution dimension under greedy decoding and low-budget sampling. Greedy pass@1 captures first-sample executable consistency, while n=20 sampling reports short-budget recoverability.
Model Group
Variant
Sampling p@1 ( n=100 )
Sampling p@10 ( n=100 )
Sampling p@100 ( n=100 )
Qwen2.5-7B
FP16
0.7021 ± 0.0315
0.8173 ± 0.0283
0.8598 ± 0.0272
BnB-4bit
0.7029 ± 0.0315
0.8157 ± 0.0283
0.8598 ± 0.0272
AWQ
0.6453 ± 0.0325
0.7791 ± 0.0306
0.8293 ± 0.0295
GPTQ-INT4
0.6549 ± 0.0321
0.7920 ± 0.0305
0.8476 ± 0.0282
2:4-Sparse
0.1745 ± 0.0268
0.2665 ± 0.0322
0.3780 ± 0.0380
Unstructured-Sparse
0.4926 ± 0.0335
0.6767 ± 0.0340
0.7622 ± 0.0333
Appendix
Table 6: HumanEval high-budget sampling results for the procedural reasoning and constraint execution dimension. The n=100 pass@k views audit whether correct programs remain recoverable beyond the first decoded solution.
Model Group
Variant
0-shot MC1 MC2 Gen-BLEURT-max
3-shot MC1 MC2
Qwen2.5-7B
FP16
0.4737 ± 0.0175
0.6306 ± 0.0160
-0.6324 ± 0.0135
0.4712 ± 0.0044
0.6362 ± 0.0017
BnB-4bit
0.4663 ± 0.0175
0.6229 ± 0.0160
-0.6418 ± 0.0134
0.4716 ± 0.0043
0.6317 ± 0.0021
AWQ
0.4480 ± 0.0174
0.6149 ± 0.0160
-0.6234 ± 0.0140
0.4598 ± 0.0062
0.6294 ± 0.0004
GPTQ-INT4
0.4688 ± 0.0175
0.6309 ± 0.0160
-0.6224 ± 0.0134
0.4639 ± 0.0056
0.6271 ± 0.0042
2:4-Sparse
0.4284 ± 0.0173
0.5913 ± 0.0162
-0.6436 ± 0.0128
0.4186 ± 0.0032
0.5873 ± 0.0049
Unstructured-Sparse
0.4296 ± 0.0173
0.5931 ± 0.0161
-0.5756 ± 0.0133
0.4353 ± 0.0049
0.6014 ± 0.0028
Appendix
Table 7: Selected TruthfulQA results for the knowledge grounding and truthfulness dimension. MC1/MC2 report selection-side truthfulness, while Gen-BLEURT-max reports generation-side reference compatibility; the 3-shot columns audit selection behavior under few-shot context.
Model Group
Variant
Valid Acc.
Test Acc.
Qwen2.5-7B
FP16
0.7964 ± 0.0105
0.7931 ± 0.0035
BnB-4bit
0.7868 ± 0.0108
0.7787 ± 0.0036
AWQ
0.7868 ± 0.0108
0.7804 ± 0.0036
GPTQ-INT4
0.7779 ± 0.0109
0.7785 ± 0.0036
2:4-Sparse
0.4985 ± 0.0133
0.4736 ± 0.0044
Unstructured-Sparse
0.6746 ± 0.0124
0.6674 ± 0.0041
Appendix
Table 8: C-Eval accuracy results for the knowledge grounding and truthfulness dimension. Validation and test splits are reported together to audit broad exam-knowledge retention under quantization and sparsity.
Model Group
Variant
0-shot mean EN ZH
5-shot mean EN ZH
Across-shot mean EN ZH Overall
Qwen2.5-7B
FP16
0.5032
0.5249
0.5032
0.5249
0.5032
0.5249
0.5141
BnB-4bit
0.5025
0.4826
0.5025
0.4826
0.5025
0.4826
0.4926
AWQ
0.4959
0.5184
0.4976
0.5184
0.4967
0.5184
0.5076
GPTQ-INT4
0.4895
0.5012
0.4895
0.5012
0.4895
0.5012
0.4954
2:4-Sparse
0.3391
0.3139
0.3391
0.3139
0.3391
0.3139
0.3265
Unstructured-Sparse
0.4125
0.4135
0.4125
0.4135
0.4125
0.4135
0.4130
Appendix
Table 9: RoleEval grouped slice means for the knowledge grounding and truthfulness dimension. Shot-specific and across-shot EN/ZH means show how role-grounded knowledge retention varies by language and compression setting.
Model Group
Variant
Benchmark Score
Parseable Answers
Qwen2.5-7B
FP16
72.86
169.0
BnB-4bit
74.57
169.0
AWQ
70.76
170.0
GPTQ-INT4
70.07
170.0
2:4-Sparse
57.22
167.0
Unstructured-Sparse
65.11
170.5
Appendix
Table 10: EQ-Bench results for the social cognition and affective understanding dimension. Benchmark score measures affective judgment quality, while parseable-answer count tracks whether compressed models remain within the expected emotion-label output format.
Model Group
Variant
Belief
Desire
Emotion
Intention
Knowledge
Non-literal Comm.
Qwen2.5-7B
FP16
0.7642
0.5286
0.6666
0.6631
0.4914
0.6996
BnB-4bit
0.7391
0.4750
0.6614
0.6736
0.4707
0.7047
AWQ
0.7500
0.5535
0.6625
0.6397
0.4672
0.6862
GPTQ-INT4
0.7550
0.5465
0.6844
0.6841
0.4689
0.6939
2:4-Sparse
0.4983
0.4643
0.4896
0.4948
0.3759
0.6240
Unstructured-Sparse
0.6100
0.5143
0.6156
0.6175
0.4362
0.6675
Appendix
Table 11: ToMBench ability-level scores for the social cognition and affective understanding dimension. EN/ZH scores are averaged within each official ability group to show broad social-cognitive profiles under compression.
Task (EN/ZH mean)
BnB
AWQ
GPTQ
2:4
Unstructured
Faux-pas Recognition
0.974
0.980
0.986
0.849
0.905
Unexpected Outcome
0.973
0.987
1.008
0.721
0.915
Persuasion Story
0.969
0.977
1.006
0.783
0.925
False Belief Task
0.982
0.986
1.004
0.682
0.825
Ambiguous Story
0.989
0.983
0.993
0.675
0.862
Strange Story
0.991
0.987
0.999
0.812
0.920
Appendix
Table 12: ToMBench task-level retention ratios for the social cognition and affective understanding dimension. Values are FP16-relative retention ratios after averaging EN/ZH within each task and base model, then averaging by compression method.
Subability
BnB
AWQ
GPTQ
2:4
Unstructured
Belief
Content false beliefs
0.976
1.018
1.020
0.762
0.895
Location false beliefs
0.986
0.957
0.988
0.612
0.768
Identity false beliefs
1.007
0.980
0.997
0.771
0.920
Second-order beliefs
0.963
0.975
0.981
0.608
0.724
Beliefs based action/emotions
0.990
0.986
0.988
0.700
0.864
Appendix
Table 13: ToMBench subability-level retention ratios for the social cognition and affective understanding dimension. Values are FP16-relative retention ratios R , so the FP16 parent is omitted and corresponds to R=1 .
Model Group
Variant
Character Consistency KE KA KH PB PU Avg.
Conversational Ability Flu. Coh. Cons. Avg.
Role-playing Attractiveness HL CS ED Emp. Avg.
Qwen2.5-7B
FP16
2.419
2.977
3.009
3.183
3.049
2.927
3.533
3.936
3.612
3.694
3.325
3.494
2.547
3.257
3.155
BnB-4bit
2.372
2.902
2.976
3.131
3.008
2.878
3.571
3.899
3.517
3.662
3.258
3.433
2.547
3.172
3.103
AWQ
2.388
2.901
2.956
3.128
3.040
2.883
3.531
3.901
3.544
3.659
3.252
3.454
2.540
3.213
3.115
GPTQ-INT4
2.412
2.944
2.970
3.185
3.042
2.910
3.539
3.913
3.539
3.664
3.217
3.519
2.600
3.199
3.134
2:4-Sparse
1.995
2.749
2.379
2.269
2.421
2.363
2.737
3.040
2.533
2.770
2.459
2.630
1.728
2.702
2.380
Unstructured-Sparse
2.217
2.809
2.679
2.565
2.711
2.596
3.180
3.545
3.094
3.273
2.905
3.084
2.030
2.963
2.746
Appendix
Table 14: CharacterEval full official grouped results for the persona fidelity and stylistic consistency dimension. The appendix restores the released grouped breakdown, including KE, KH, and Emp., together with workbook-provided group averages.
Model Group
Variant
DTDD Mach. Psych.
BFI Extra. Agree. Consc. Neuro. Open.
ECR-R Anx. Avoid.
LMS Rich Motiv. Import.
Empathy
Qwen2.5-7B
FP16
3.3 ± 1.6
3.5 ± 0.4
2.8 ± 0.1
3.8 ± 0.7
3.5 ± 0.1
3.2 ± 0.4
3.8 ± 0.8
3.4 ± 0.4
4.5 ± 0.1
2.5 ± 1.2
3.3 ± 0.7
4.3 ± 0.3
3.8 ± 0.4
BnB-4bit
3.8 ± 1.0
4.9 ± 0.6
3.1 ± 0.2
3.7 ± 0.7
2.9 ± 0.8
3.6 ± 0.8
3.7 ± 0.6
4.1 ± 0.2
4.9 ± 0.1
2.0 ± 0.3
3.7 ± 0.3
4.7 ± 0.0
3.1 ± 0.7
AWQ
4.8 ± 0.3
5.1 ± 0.4
2.4 ± 0.5
3.6 ± 0.9
2.8 ± 1.0
3.6 ± 0.8
3.2 ± 0.1
3.6 ± 0.3
4.5 ± 0.2
2.7 ± 1.4
3.3 ± 0.7
3.7 ± 0.7
3.7 ± 0.0
GPTQ-INT4
5.0 ± 0.5
5.9 ± 0.4
3.1 ± 0.2
4.1 ± 0.4
3.9 ± 0.1
3.2 ± 0.4
3.0 ± 0.2
3.4 ± 0.9
4.4 ± 0.1
2.5 ± 0.2
4.2 ± 0.5
4.2 ± 0.5
3.2 ± 0.2
2:4-Sparse
3.5 ± 1.0
3.5 ± 1.0
3.6 ± 1.7
3.0 ± 0.9
2.5 ± 0.1
4.4 ± 0.2
3.4 ± 0.5
3.8 ± 0.6
3.8 ± 0.2
3.2 ± 0.9
3.3 ± 0.0
3.3 ± 1.0
3.6 ± 0.2
Unstructured-Sparse
3.2 ± 1.8
3.8 ± 0.4
2.7 ± 0.4
2.5 ± 0.7
4.0 ± 0.3
2.8 ± 0.1
3.1 ± 0.4
3.8 ± 0.5
3.8 ± 0.3
3.3 ± 1.0
3.7 ± 0.0
3.3 ± 1.0
3.7 ± 0.1
Appendix
Table 15: PsychoBench representative-scale raw outputs for the persona fidelity and stylistic consistency dimension. The table groups DTDD, BFI, ECR-R, LMS, and Empathy in a unified view. Because the released file does not provide DTDD Narcissism or LMS Overall, only the available subscale and factor outputs are reported.
Model Group
Variant
Top-1 type
Count
Top-2 type
Count
Top-3 type
Count
Qwen2.5-7B
FP16
ENTJ-T
10
ESTP-T
10
–
–
BnB-4bit
ESFJ-A
10
ESFP-T
9
ESTP-T
1
AWQ
ESTP-T
10
ISTJ-T
10
–
–
GPTQ-INT4
ESTP-T
10
ISTJ-T
10
–
–
2:4-Sparse
ESTP-A
10
ISFJ-T
10
–
–
Unstructured-Sparse
INFP-T
10
ISFJ-T
10
–
–
Appendix
Table 16: 16P aggregated dominant-type distribution for the persona fidelity and stylistic consistency dimension. Values are taken directly from the released aggregated file; each row reports the top personality types and counts for a model variant.
Model Group
Variant
Extraverted
Intuitive
Thinking
Judging
Assertive
Axis MAE vs FP16
Qwen2.5-7B
FP16
69.0
51.5
63.5
46.5
41.5
0.000
BnB-4bit
70.3
38.6
40.3
55.3
48.5
0.106
AWQ
58.0
45.0
58.5
48.0
38.5
0.054
GPTQ-INT4
59.5
36.3
53.4
45.6
43.5
0.075
2:4-Sparse
51.5
42.0
52.0
51.5
50.0
0.104
Unstructured-Sparse
36.5
46.5
30.5
51.0
39.5
0.154
Appendix
Table 17: 16P weighted axis means for the persona fidelity and stylistic consistency dimension. The table reports count-weighted axis percentages and an appendix-side Axis MAE against each FP16 parent; this derived readout summarizes axis-level drift from the released aggregated file.
Model compression techniques such as quantization and pruning are widely used to reduce the deployment cost of large language models (LLMs), with existing evaluations focusing almost exclusively on accuracy preservation. However, in safety-critical applications, a model's ability to reliably quantify its own uncertainty is equally important. We ask: does compression preserve this ability? To answer this question, we benchmark 12 LLMs under various compression configurations across five NLP tasks, using conformal prediction to provide a rigorous, distribution-free measure of uncertainty. Our experiments reveal that: (I) compression frequently decouples accuracy from uncertainty; (II) larger models absorb compression-induced uncertainty far more effectively than smaller ones; and (III) uncertainty inflation is often threshold-like rather than gradual. These results suggest that accuracy-only evaluation is insufficient for assessing the deployment readiness of compressed LLMs, and that uncertainty-aware benchmarking should be a standard component of model compression pipelines.
Yujia Tong, Yuxi Wang, Yunyang Wan +3
Wuhan University of Technology · Nanyang Technological University
Large language models (LLMs) compression reduces deployment costs, but standard aggregate metrics like perplexity and accuracy often mask underlying behavioral shifts. In this work, we systematically evaluate 3 LLMs across 11 compression methods to investigate the effects of compression on knowledge retention, model confidence, and social bias. We find that compression disproportionately reduces the relative retention of head knowledge compared to tail knowledge. Furthermore, compressed models often remain substantially confident in their incorrect answers on newly lost knowledge. Finally, we demonstrate that stable aggregate bias scores can conceal substantial, opposing shifts in stereotypical preferences across demographic subgroups. Together, these findings reveal asymmetric behavioral changes that aggregate performance measures fail to capture, highlighting the need for granular evaluation of compressed models before deployment.
Large language model compression has made substantial progress through pruning, quantization, and low-rank decomposition, yet a fundamental limitation persists across all existing methods: compression budgets are allocated without any representation of what individual model components functionally encode. We term this the capability-blind compression problem and argue it is a root cause of two well-documented failures -- the insensitivity of perplexity-based evaluation to reasoning capability loss, and the abrupt phase transitions in model performance recently characterized by Ma et al. (2026). We propose Capability-Guided Compression (CGC), a framework that addresses this by using Sparse Autoencoder (SAE)-derived capability density maps to allocate differential compression budgets across transformer components. Capability density is a formally defined scalar measure combining the feature breadth, activation entropy, and cross-input consistency of a component's SAE feature activation distribution. We prove theoretically that components with higher capability density exhibit lower structural redundancy and reach their individual phase transition points at lower compression ratios, providing the first pre-compression mechanism for component-level phase transition prediction. Experiments on GPT-2 Medium confirm that capability density is statistically independent of Wanda importance scores (Spearman rho = -0.054, n = 384 heads), establishing it as a genuinely novel compression signal orthogonal to all existing importance metrics. We report a negative result on PPL-based compression comparison and provide a principled diagnosis identifying GPT-2 Medium as an insufficient test bed for the full CGC hypothesis. The theoretical framework, density formalism, and orthogonality finding constitute a foundation for capability-aware compression research.