Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 cited by

Is C4 Dataset Optimal for Pruning? An Investigation of Calibration Data for LLM Pruning

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2410.07461 v1 pith:AY7F6BMH submitted 2024-10-09 cs.CL

classification cs.CL
keywords pruningdatadatasetscalibrationdownstreamchoicedatasetpre-training
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

Network pruning has emerged as a potential solution to make LLMs cheaper to deploy. However, existing LLM pruning approaches universally rely on the C4 dataset as the calibration data for calculating pruning scores, leaving its optimality unexplored. In this study, we evaluate the choice of calibration data on LLM pruning, across a wide range of datasets that are most commonly used in LLM training and evaluation, including four pertaining datasets as well as three categories of downstream tasks encompassing nine datasets. Each downstream dataset is prompted with In-Context Learning (ICL) and Chain-of-Thought (CoT), respectively. Besides the already intriguing observation that the choice of calibration data significantly impacts the performance of pruned LLMs, our results also uncover several subtle and often unexpected findings, summarized as follows: (1) C4 is not the optimal choice for LLM pruning, even among commonly used pre-training datasets; (2) arithmetic datasets, when used as calibration data, performs on par or even better than pre-training datasets; (3) pruning with downstream datasets does not necessarily help the corresponding downstream task, compared to pre-training data; (4) ICL is widely beneficial to all data categories, whereas CoT is only useful on certain tasks. Our findings shed light on the importance of carefully selecting calibration data for LLM pruning and pave the way for more efficient deployment of these powerful models in real-world applications. We release our code at: https://github.com/abx393/llm-pruning-calibration-data.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 4 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Frequency Matters: Fast Model-Agnostic Data Curation for Pruning and Quantization

    cs.CL 2026-03 unverdicted novelty 6.0 of 10

    ZipCal curates calibration data for LLM pruning and quantization by maximizing lexical diversity via Zipfian power laws, outperforming random sampling and matching perplexity-based methods at 240x speed.

  2. Reasoning Models Can be Accurately Pruned Via Chain-of-Thought Reconstruction

    cs.AI 2025-09 unverdicted novelty 6.0 of 10

    A pruning technique called Reasoning-Aware Compression (RAC) jointly reconstructs input and chain-of-thought activations to preserve reasoning performance better than standard methods when compressing models like DeepSeek-R1.

  3. Condense, Don't Just Prune: Enhancing Efficiency and Performance in MoE Layer Pruning

    cs.LG 2024-11 unverdicted novelty 6.0 of 10

    CD-MoE condenses fine-grained MoE layers with shared experts into dense layers, retaining 90% accuracy with 27.5% memory cut and 1.26x speedup on DeepSeekMoE-16B, recovering 98% via brief fine-tuning.

  4. Frequency Matters: Fast Model-Agnostic Data Curation for Pruning and Quantization

    cs.CL 2026-03 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    ZipCal curates calibration sets for LLM pruning and quantization by maximizing Zipfian lexical diversity, matching model-perplexity methods at ~240× lower cost.

Pith tools