Prune&Comp: Free Lunch for Layer-Pruned LLMs via Iterative Pruning with Magnitude Compensation

Chun Yuan; Fanyi Zeng; Guanghao Li; Hongxing Zhang; Xinrui Chen; Xitong Ling; Yizhi Wang; Yongxian Wei

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 39 references

Prune&Comp: Free Lunch for Layer-Pruned LLMs via Iterative Pruning with Magnitude Compensation

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that deleting a layer from an LLM mainly damages the model by shrinking the scale of hidden states, and that folding a single calibration-derived scalar into the remaining earlier weights recovers most of the loss with no…

desk verdict Simple, well-specified rescaling trick that delivers large and likely real gains for layer-pruned LLMs, but the magnitude-gap mechanism is asserted rather than tested. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.18212 v1 pith:HOPXQ4AL submitted 2025-07-24 cs.CL

Xinrui Chen , Hongxing Zhang , Fanyi Zeng , Yongxian Wei , Yizhi Wang , Xitong Ling , Guanghao Li , Chun Yuan This is my paper

classification cs.CL

keywords layerpruningdepthmagnitudecompensationiterativetraining-freecompressionlargelanguagemodelsperplexityrecoveryweightrescaling

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Layer pruning speeds up large language models by deleting whole Transformer layers, but it typically costs accuracy. This paper argues that most of that cost has a single, overlooked cause: every layer in these models amplifies the magnitude of the hidden states it carries, so splicing a layer out leaves downstream layers receiving inputs that are too small. The proposed remedy, Prune&Comp, measures that amplification on a small calibration set and folds it into the weights of the remaining earlier layers as one scalar, so the repair costs nothing at inference time. Applied iteratively, choosing one layer per round and compensating immediately, the scheme improves every layer-pruning metric tested: for example, with 5 of 32 layers removed from LLaMA-3-8B under the block-influence metric (a similarity score that flags a layer as redundant when its output closely matches its input), average perplexity on three datasets drops from 28.73 to 14.56 and question-answering relative performance rises from 89.18% to 93.19%.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the layer-wise magnitude gain ratio, defined as $\delta^{(\ell)} = \mathbb{E}_{(X^{(\ell)},X^{(\ell+1)}) \in D} \big( \frac{1}{C}\sum_k \|X^{(\ell+1)}_{:,k}\|_1 / \|X^{(\ell)}_{:,k}\|_1 - 1\big)\times 100\%$, and the compensation scalar $\alpha$ from the same ratio without the $-1$. Because normalization layers in these models are scale-invariant, multiplying the input by $\alpha$ is equivalent to multiplying the preceding attention output and MLP output projections by $\alpha$; the paper exploits this to fold $\alpha$ into existing weights, leaving the architecture and runtime unchanged. The iterative loop, Metric -> Prune -> Comp, is what turns the compensation from a one-shot patch into an improved layer-selection procedure.

What would settle it

Take a model pruned by Prune&Comp, then on a held-out set scan multipliers in a range around the estimated $\alpha$ for the first removed layer. If a multiplier clearly different from $\alpha$ yields lower perplexity, the specific magnitude estimate is not doing the causal work. Equally, deleting a layer with near-identical input and output (low block influence) and then compensating should still close most of the performance gap; if it does not, the magnitude gap is not the dominant failure mode.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Removing any Transformer layer from a pre-trained LLM creates a magnitude gap: because each layer multiplies the scale of its residual stream, the layer that follows the removed one suddenly receives hidden states at a smaller scale than it was trained on, and this gap alone accounts for a large share of the performance drop. Prune&Comp estimates the gap by computing, from a small calibration set, the channel-averaged ratio of output to input hidden-state norms for the layer to be removed, giving a scalar $\alpha$. It then fuses that scalar into the embedding layer and into the multi-head attention output and MLP down projections of all earlier layers, so the pruned model's forward pass is mathematically equivalent to rescaling the hidden states but costs no extra operations online. Iterating this prune-and-compensate loop yields the best results, because each compensation step leaves the model in a healthier state for the next importance assessment. The authors claim this works across different pruning metrics, model families, and sparsity levels, with the compensation applied before evaluating importance and without retraining.

Load-bearing premise

The whole method rests on one premise: a single scalar, measured from 128 WikiText-2 sequences and applied uniformly to every channel, is the correct and sufficient repair for removing a layer, rather than a per-channel correction or the removed layer's learned transformation itself.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Prune&Comp improves every layer-pruning baseline tested without retraining: with Taylor+ and 5 of 32 LLaMA-3-8B layers removed, average perplexity falls from 512.78 to 16.34.
Because the repair is fused into existing weights, the pruned model runs at the same speed as a naively pruned one, so depth-pruning acceleration is preserved exactly.
The benefit grows with pruning pressure: at 7 of 32 layers removed, Prune&Comp models beat the 5-layer naively pruned baseline on average perplexity across WikiText-2, C4, and PTB.
The compensation is metric-agnostic, improving block-influence, contiguous-layer cosine similarity, perplexity-based, Taylor, and magnitude-based importance scores on LLaMA-2, LLaMA-3, and Qwen3.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

The paper does not test per-channel or per-token compensation, so its results leave open whether a single scalar is optimal; per-channel scaling might close the remaining gap further.
If the magnitude-gap explanation is right, the repair should transfer across calibration domains only when the average layer gain is stable, a claim that could be tested by estimating $\alpha$ on different small calibration sets.
A natural extension is to record a separate compensation scalar per pruned layer and fuse all of them into the remaining weights, which would make the scheme directly combinable with quantization or width pruning.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Quick take: Prune&Comp is a simple, clearly specified trick—estimate a scalar magnitude gain per layer, then fuse that scalar into the weights of the layers before the pruned one—and it produces large, consistent perplexity and QA gains across LLaMA-2/3 and Qwen3 under several pruning metrics. The effect is probably real. The causal story attached to it is not established.

What's new: the explicit diagnosis of a magnitude gap from layer removal and the scalar-rescaling recipe are not in ShortGPT, SLEB, Shortened LLaMA, or LLM-Streamline, as far as I can tell. The weight-fusion trick that makes it zero-overhead at inference is neat. The ablation in Table 4 does separate iterative pruning from magnitude compensation, so the components are individually quantified.

Where it gets soft: the paper claims the gap is the cause of degradation and that Eq. (9) is the optimal repair, but it never tests that. There is no alpha sweep, no per-channel alternative, and no control for the possibility that the improvement comes from a generic reweighting of the residual vs. the transformer branch—which, because of scale-invariant norms, is exactly what the compensation does on the first remaining layer. The stress-test note is right that this is a real confound. Also, most tables compare one-shot baselines against iterative pruning plus compensation, so the headline numbers overstate the margin attributable to compensation alone. No error bars, no code, and the calibration set is also the WikiText-2 eval set, which is a minor leakage.

Still, this deserves a serious referee. The method is simple, reproducible (if they release code), and the empirical gains are large enough that the community will want to know whether they hold up. The right fix is a causal analysis and an alpha sensitivity study.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper identifies a 'magnitude gap' in hidden states after layer pruning—each Transformer layer increases the norm of the residual stream, so removing a layer leaves the downstream input at a smaller scale—and proposes PRUNE&COMP, a training-free method that estimates a scalar compensation factor α from 128 calibration sequences and fuses it into the weights of all preceding layers (embedding, MHA output projections, MLP down projections) so that the input to the first unpruned layer is scaled by α with zero online overhead. The method is combined with an iterative pruning loop, and the paper reports large improvements in perplexity, commonsense QA, and MMLU for LLaMA-2-7B/13B, LLaMA-3-8B, and Qwen3-8B across five layer-pruning importance metrics. The headline example is LLaMA-3-8B with 5/32 layers removed under the Block Influence metric, where average PPL drops from 28.73 to 14.56 and QA relative performance rises from 89.18% to 93.19%.

Significance. If the mechanism claim were supported, this would be a practically valuable result: a scalar rescaling with no inference-time overhead that recovers a large fraction of the quality lost when removing up to about 20% of layers. The empirical work is extensive, the tables are internally consistent, and the ablation in Table 4 is a useful first step. The paper is clearly written and the method is reproducible in principle from the description. However, the central causal attribution—that the magnitude gap is what causes the degradation and that the Eq. (9) scalar is the right repair—is not yet established. The headline comparisons conflate iterative layer selection with magnitude compensation, no sensitivity analysis of α is given, and the mechanism is not isolated from the removed layer's function. These are load-bearing gaps that require additional experiments before the paper's main claim can be accepted.

major comments (3)

[Methods: Magnitude Compensation, Eq. (9)] The scalar α is called 'optimal' but there is no optimization or sensitivity analysis. The paper reports only the α estimated from 128 calibration sequences; it never sweeps α, never runs the same iterative procedure with α=1 (no compensation), and never tests per-channel scaling, even though the magnitude ratio in Eq. (9) is computed per channel before averaging. Without these controls, the improvement attributed to the specific formula could be produced by any residual reweighting. Please add an α-sweep (e.g., 0.5–2.0), an α=1 arm for the iterative loop, and a per-channel variant, at least for the Table 4 configuration.
[Experiments: Tables 1–4] The headline results (e.g., LLaMA-3-8B 5/32 CosSim(BI) PPL 28.73→14.56) compare one-shot baselines with the full iterative prune-and-compensate loop, so the gain conflates iterative layer selection with magnitude compensation. Table 4 isolates +IterPrune and +MagComp for one configuration (LLaMA-3-8B, 7/32, CosSim(BI)), but it lacks the arm 'IterPrune + α=1' (iterative pruning with the same layer choices and no rescaling); therefore the marginal contribution of α over iterative pruning alone is not established. Please report this control across at least the PPL and QA benchmarks.
[Motivation: Layer Pruning Produces Magnitude Gap] The paper asserts that the 'magnitude gap' is the cause of degradation, but the causal role of the gap is never isolated from the removed layer's function. In pre-norm transformers, the layer function is not homogeneous in its input: because Norm(αX)=Norm(X), the attention branch is unchanged by the rescaling while the residual branch is multiplied by α, so Eq. (10) changes the residual-to-branch balance rather than restoring the original hidden-state trajectory. The manuscript provides no hidden-state norm measurements of the compensated model and no control such as scaling only the residual connection at the pruned layer or replacing the removed layer with a zero function. Without these, the 'magnitude gap' explanation is untested; a generic reweighting story would explain the same numbers.

minor comments (5)

[Results on PPL Benchmark, Table 1] The sentence 'when pruning 7 out of 32 layers with CosSim(BI) metric... from 23.57 to 19.88' actually corresponds to the PPL metric row in Table 1, not the CosSim(BI) row; the metric name should be corrected.
[Table 1 layout] The sparsity labels (7/32, 9/32 for LLaMA-2-7B; 5/32, 7/32 for LLaMA-3-8B) are interleaved in a way that is easy to misread; please insert explicit row separators or split the table into separate sub-tables per model.
[Eq. (3)] The channel index notation X_{:,k} for a 3D hidden-state tensor of shape B×T×C is ambiguous; please define whether the norm is taken over the token dimension after averaging over batch, or specify the axes explicitly.
[Experimental Setup] Please specify which split of WikiText-2 is used for the 128 calibration sequences, since WikiText-2 also appears in the evaluation set; if the same split is used, state this explicitly and discuss the implications for the PPL-based importance scores in Eq. (6).
[References and caption] The reference list duplicates Chen, Hu, and Zhang 2024 under two different titles (both arXiv:2403.19135), and the Table 4 caption uses 'Magnitude compression' where 'magnitude compensation' is meant.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: α is measured on calibration activations and evaluated on held-out benchmarks; the core derivation is self-contained.

full rationale

Prune&Comp's derivation chain is self-contained. The magnitude-gap estimate α (Eq. 9) is computed from calibration-set hidden states, and the compensation forward pass (Eq. 10) with offline weight fusion (Eqs. 11–13) is a fixed rescaling recipe; α is not fit to the evaluation objectives (PPL, QA, MMLU), so the reported gains on held-out benchmarks are empirical rather than forced by construction. The layer-selection and α-estimation share the same calibration sequences, but that is a standard hyperparameter/selection protocol and does not make the evaluation metric an input to the fit. Some cited pruning metrics (e.g., CosSim(CL) from Chen, Hu, and Zhang 2024) may stem from the same group, but they are used only as baselines and are not load-bearing for the compensation derivation. The paper does not isolate whether the improvement comes from restoring the norm gap or from a generic reweighting of residual versus branch contributions; that is an experimental-rigor/mechanism question, not a circularity. No equation or definition reduces the claimed result to its own inputs, and no prediction is a renamed fit of the target benchmark.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The method's entire effect rests on the estimated scalar alpha and the transfer of that calibration measurement to the evaluation distribution. No new entities are postulated. The architecture-level assumptions (pre-norm, scale-invariant normalization) are standard for the tested models, but the sufficiency of one scalar is a domain assumption supported only by empirical gains in a few settings.

free parameters (1)

alpha (magnitude compensation scalar per pruned layer) = not reported in paper; estimated via Eq. (9) on 128x2048 WikiText-2 sequences
The central operation of Prune&Comp is rescaling hidden states by this scalar, which is measured from calibration data. The paper calls it optimal but performs no optimization or sensitivity search.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption Pre-norm transformer layers with residual connections as in Eq. (1), so that each layer can be skipped by connecting input directly to the next layer (Eq. 2).
The entire pruning and compensation derivation assumes this architecture; the paper validates only on Llama and Qwen models.
standard math Normalization layers are scale-invariant, so scaling preceding output projection weights by alpha exactly scales hidden states before the pruned layer.
Used in Methods (Weight Modification, Steps 1-3) to justify fusing alpha into W_embed, W_o, and W_down.
domain assumption The average magnitude gain ratio over 128 calibration sequences generalizes to the evaluation distribution and suffices as a compensation factor.
Eq. (9) uses a single calibration set; no error bars or sensitivity analysis are given, yet the method's success depends on this transfer.
domain assumption The magnitude gap, rather than the removed layer's learned function, is the principal cause of performance degradation and can be repaired by one scalar.
The paper's motivation section asserts this based on Figure 2, but no controlled experiment separates scale from direction.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Prune&Comp: Free Lunch for Layer-Pruned LLMs via Iterative Pruning with Magnitude Compensation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/HOPXQ4AL

@misc{pith2026250718212,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Prune&Comp: Free Lunch for Layer-Pruned LLMs via Iterative Pruning with Magnitude Compensation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/HOPXQ4AL}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.18212}
}

read the original abstract

Layer pruning has emerged as a promising technique for compressing large language models (LLMs) while achieving acceleration proportional to the pruning ratio. In this work, we identify that removing any layer induces a significant magnitude gap in hidden states, resulting in substantial performance degradation. To address this issue, we propose Prune&Comp, a novel plug-and-play layer pruning scheme that leverages magnitude compensation to mitigate such gaps in a training-free manner. Specifically, we first estimate the magnitude gap caused by layer removal and then eliminate this gap by rescaling the remaining weights offline, with zero runtime overhead incurred. We further demonstrate the advantages of Prune&Comp through an iterative pruning strategy. When integrated with an iterative prune-and-compensate loop, Prune&Comp consistently enhances existing layer pruning metrics. For instance, when 5 layers of LLaMA-3-8B are pruned using the prevalent block influence metric, Prune&Comp nearly halves the perplexity and retains 93.19\% of the original model's question-answering performance, outperforming the baseline by 4.01%.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.18212 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** Average perplexity (↓) of pruned LLaMA-3-8B on WikiText-2, C4, and PTB. Our 7-layer-pruned model outperforms the 5-layer-pruned baseline. Baseline: naive pruning using BI metric (Men et al. 2024); +MagComp: magnitude compensation; +IterPrune: iterative pruning. which irregularly eliminate weights or modules and therefore introduce irregular memory access, structured pruning avoids reliance on specialized hardware… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Visualization on the channel-wise averaged magnitude gain ratio of each layer. All layers produce magnitude gain. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Comparison on conventional pruning strategy and the proposed P [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (1 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Magnitude compensation applied to LLM. HS: hidden states; MHA: multi-head attention; FFN: feed-forward network; [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

39 extracted references · 6 canonical work pages

[1]

, " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter edition editor eid eprint howpublished institution isbn journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts #0 'before.a...
[2]

write newline

" write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in bbl.in capitalize " " * FUNCT...
[3]

L.; Almeida, D.; Altenschmidt, J.; Altman, S.; Anadkat, S.; et al

Achiam, J.; Adler, S.; Agarwal, S.; Ahmad, L.; Akkaya, I.; Aleman, F. L.; Almeida, D.; Altenschmidt, J.; Altman, S.; Anadkat, S.; et al. 2023. Gpt-4 technical report. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.08774

arXiv 2023
[4]

An, Y.; Zhao, X.; Yu, T.; Tang, M.; and Wang, J. 2024. Fluctuation-based adaptive structured pruning for large language models. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 38, 10865--10873

2024
[5]

L.; Nascimento, M

Ashkboos, S.; Croci, M. L.; Nascimento, M. G. d.; Hoefler, T.; and Hensman, J. 2024 a . Slicegpt: Compress large language models by deleting rows and columns. arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.15024

arXiv 2024
[6]

L.; Li, B.; Jaggi, M.; Alistarh, D.; Hoefler, T.; and Hensman, J

Ashkboos, S.; Mohtashami, A.; Croci, M. L.; Li, B.; Jaggi, M.; Alistarh, D.; Hoefler, T.; and Hensman, J. 2024 b . Quarot: Outlier-free 4-bit inference in rotated llms. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.00456

arXiv 2024
[7]

Bisk, Y.; Zellers, R.; Gao, J.; Choi, Y.; et al. 2020. Piqa: Reasoning about physical commonsense in natural language. In Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence, 7432--7439

2020
[9]

Chen, X.; Hu, Y.; Zhang, J.; Wang, Y.; Li, C.; and Chen, H. 2024. Streamlining redundant layers to compress large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.19135

arXiv 2024

Show all 39 references

[10]

Clark, C.; Lee, K.; Chang, M.-W.; Kwiatkowski, T.; Collins, M.; and Toutanova, K. 2019. BoolQ: Exploring the surprising difficulty of natural yes/no questions. arXiv preprint arXiv:1905.10044

2019 arXiv
[11]

Clark, P.; Cowhey, I.; Etzioni, O.; Khot, T.; Sabharwal, A.; Schoenick, C.; and Tafjord, O. 2018. Think you have solved question answering? try arc, the ai2 reasoning challenge. arXiv preprint arXiv:1803.05457

2018 arXiv
[12]

Dubey, A.; Jauhri, A.; Pandey, A.; Kadian, A.; Al-Dahle, A.; Letman, A.; Mathur, A.; Schelten, A.; Yang, A.; Fan, A.; et al. 2024. The llama 3 herd of models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.21783

2024 arXiv
[13]

Gromov, A.; Tirumala, K.; Shapourian, H.; Glorioso, P.; and Roberts, D. 2024. The Unreasonable Ineffectiveness of the Deeper Layers. In NeurIPS 2024 Workshop on Scientific Methods for Understanding Deep Learning

2024
[14]

Guo, D.; Yang, D.; Zhang, H.; Song, J.; Zhang, R.; Xu, R.; Zhu, Q.; Ma, S.; Wang, P.; Bi, X.; et al. 2025. Deepseek-r1: Incentivizing reasoning capability in llms via reinforcement learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.12948

2025 arXiv
[15]

Hendrycks, D.; Burns, C.; Basart, S.; Zou, A.; Mazeika, M.; Song, D.; and Steinhardt, J. 2020. Measuring massive multitask language understanding. arXiv preprint arXiv:2009.03300

2020 arXiv
[16]

Hu, Y.; Zhang, J.; Zhao, Z.; Zhao, C.; Chen, X.; Li, C.; and Chen, H. 2024. SP3: Enhancing Structured Pruning via PCA Projection. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics ACL 2024, 3150--3170

2024
[17]

Q.; Sablayrolles, A.; Mensch, A.; Bamford, C.; Chaplot, D

Jiang, A. Q.; Sablayrolles, A.; Mensch, A.; Bamford, C.; Chaplot, D. S.; Casas, D. d. l.; Bressand, F.; Lengyel, G.; Lample, G.; Saulnier, L.; et al. 2023. Mistral 7B. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.06825

2023 arXiv
[18]

Kim, B.-K.; Kim, G.; Kim, T.-H.; Castells, T.; Choi, S.; Shin, J.; and Song, H.-K. 2024. Shortened llama: A simple depth pruning for large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.02834, 11

2024 arXiv
[19]

Lai, G.; Xie, Q.; Liu, H.; Yang, Y.; and Hovy, E. 2017. Race: Large-scale reading comprehension dataset from examinations. arXiv preprint arXiv:1704.04683

2017 arXiv
[20]

Levesque, H.; Davis, E.; and Morgenstern, L. 2012. The winograd schema challenge. In Thirteenth international conference on the principles of knowledge representation and reasoning

2012
[21]

Liu, A.; Feng, B.; Xue, B.; Wang, B.; Wu, B.; Lu, C.; Zhao, C.; Deng, C.; Zhang, C.; Ruan, C.; et al. 2024. Deepseek-v3 technical report. arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.19437

2024 arXiv
[22]

Ma, X.; Fang, G.; and Wang, X. 2023. Llm-pruner: On the structural pruning of large language models. Advances in neural information processing systems, 36: 21702--21720

2023
[23]

P.; Santorini, B.; and Marcinkiewicz, M

Marcus, M. P.; Santorini, B.; and Marcinkiewicz, M. A. 1993. Building a Large Annotated Corpus of E nglish: The P enn T reebank. Computational Linguistics, 19(2): 313--330

1993
[24]

Men, X.; Xu, M.; Zhang, Q.; Wang, B.; Lin, H.; Lu, Y.; Han, X.; and Chen, W. 2024. Shortgpt: Layers in large language models are more redundant than you expect. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.03853

2024 arXiv
[25]

Merity, S.; Xiong, C.; Bradbury, J.; and Socher, R. 2016. Pointer sentinel mixture models. arXiv preprint arXiv:1609.07843

2016 arXiv
[26]

Muralidharan, S.; Turuvekere Sreenivas, S.; Joshi, R.; Chochowski, M.; Patwary, M.; Shoeybi, M.; Catanzaro, B.; Kautz, J.; and Molchanov, P. 2024. Compact language models via pruning and knowledge distillation. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 37: 41076--41102

2024
[27]

Raffel, C.; Shazeer, N.; Roberts, A.; Lee, K.; Narang, S.; Matena, M.; Zhou, Y.; Li, W.; and Liu, P. J. 2020. Exploring the limits of transfer learning with a unified text-to-text transformer. Journal of machine learning research, 21(140): 1--67

2020
[28]

Sakaguchi, K.; Le Bras, R.; Bhagavatula, C.; and Choi, Y. 2020. Winogrande: An adversarial winograd schema challenge at scale. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 8732--8740

2020
[29]

N.; Szankin, M.; and Sundaresan, S

Sarah, A.; Sridhar, S. N.; Szankin, M.; and Sundaresan, S. 2024. LLaMA-NAS: Efficient Neural Architecture Search for Large Language Models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.18377

2024 arXiv
[30]

Sarlin, P.-E.; DeTone, D.; Malisiewicz, T.; and Rabinovich, A. 2020. Superglue: Learning feature matching with graph neural networks. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 4938--4947

2020
[31]

Song, J.; Oh, K.; Kim, T.; Kim, H.; Kim, Y.; and Kim, J.-J. 2024. SLEB: Streamlining LLMs through Redundancy Verification and Elimination of Transformer Blocks. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.09025

2024 arXiv
[32]

T.; Muralidharan, S.; Joshi, R.; Chochowski, M.; Mahabaleshwarkar, A

Sreenivas, S. T.; Muralidharan, S.; Joshi, R.; Chochowski, M.; Mahabaleshwarkar, A. S.; Shen, G.; Zeng, J.; Chen, Z.; Suhara, Y.; Diao, S.; et al. 2024. Llm pruning and distillation in practice: The minitron approach. arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.11796

2024 arXiv
[33]

Sun, M.; Liu, Z.; Bair, A.; and Kolter, J. Z. 2023. A simple and effective pruning approach for large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.11695

2023 arXiv
[34]

Sun, Y.; Liu, R.; Bai, H.; Bao, H.; Zhao, K.; Li, Y.; Hu, J.; Yu, X.; Hou, L.; Yuan, C.; et al. 2024. Flatquant: Flatness matters for llm quantization. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.09426

2024 arXiv
[35]

Team, K.; Du, A.; Gao, B.; Xing, B.; Jiang, C.; Chen, C.; Li, C.; Xiao, C.; Du, C.; Liao, C.; et al. 2025. Kimi k1. 5: Scaling reinforcement learning with llms. arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.12599

2025 arXiv
[36]

Team, Q. 2025. Qwen3 Technical Report. arXiv:2505.09388

2025 arXiv
[37]

Touvron, H.; Martin, L.; Stone, K.; Albert, P.; Almahairi, A.; Babaei, Y.; Bashlykov, N.; Batra, S.; Bhargava, P.; Bhosale, S.; et al. 2023. Llama 2: Open foundation and fine-tuned chat models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.09288

2023 arXiv
[38]

F.; Nagel, M.; Van Baalen, M.; Asano, Y

van der Ouderaa, T. F.; Nagel, M.; Van Baalen, M.; Asano, Y. M.; and Blankevoort, T. 2023. The llm surgeon. arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.17244

2023 arXiv
[39]

Xia, M.; Gao, T.; Zeng, Z.; and Chen, D. 2023. Sheared llama: Accelerating language model pre-training via structured pruning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.06694

2023 arXiv
[40]

Zellers, R.; Holtzman, A.; Bisk, Y.; Farhadi, A.; and Choi, Y. 2019. Hellaswag: Can a machine really finish your sentence? arXiv preprint arXiv:1905.07830

2019 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

, " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter edition editor eid eprint howpublished institution isbn journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts #0 'before.a...

[2] [2]

write newline

" write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in bbl.in capitalize " " * FUNCT...

[3] [3]

L.; Almeida, D.; Altenschmidt, J.; Altman, S.; Anadkat, S.; et al

Achiam, J.; Adler, S.; Agarwal, S.; Ahmad, L.; Akkaya, I.; Aleman, F. L.; Almeida, D.; Altenschmidt, J.; Altman, S.; Anadkat, S.; et al. 2023. Gpt-4 technical report. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.08774

arXiv 2023

[4] [4]

An, Y.; Zhao, X.; Yu, T.; Tang, M.; and Wang, J. 2024. Fluctuation-based adaptive structured pruning for large language models. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 38, 10865--10873

2024

[5] [5]

L.; Nascimento, M

Ashkboos, S.; Croci, M. L.; Nascimento, M. G. d.; Hoefler, T.; and Hensman, J. 2024 a . Slicegpt: Compress large language models by deleting rows and columns. arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.15024

arXiv 2024

[6] [6]

L.; Li, B.; Jaggi, M.; Alistarh, D.; Hoefler, T.; and Hensman, J

Ashkboos, S.; Mohtashami, A.; Croci, M. L.; Li, B.; Jaggi, M.; Alistarh, D.; Hoefler, T.; and Hensman, J. 2024 b . Quarot: Outlier-free 4-bit inference in rotated llms. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.00456

arXiv 2024

[7] [7]

Bisk, Y.; Zellers, R.; Gao, J.; Choi, Y.; et al. 2020. Piqa: Reasoning about physical commonsense in natural language. In Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence, 7432--7439

2020

[8] [9]

Chen, X.; Hu, Y.; Zhang, J.; Wang, Y.; Li, C.; and Chen, H. 2024. Streamlining redundant layers to compress large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.19135

arXiv 2024