Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 31 references

EGGS-PTP: An Expander-Graph Guided Structured Post-training Pruning Method for Large Language Models

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read EGGS-PTP claims that N:M pruning guided by expander-graph connectivity preserves LLM accuracy better than existing one-shot structured pruning methods.

desk verdict A modest, credible N:M pruning heuristic that consistently beats RIA/Wanda, but the expander-graph theory is a dressed-up min-degree observation and should be treated as motivation, not proof. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.09471 v1 pith:DQPAZDPT submitted 2025-08-13 cs.LG

Omar Bazarbachi , Zijun Sun , Yanning Shen This is my paper
classification cs.LG
keywords structuredpruningN:Msparsitypost-traininglargelanguagemodelsexpandergraphsbipartiteinformationflowLLMcompression
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

EGGS-PTP is a post-training pruning method for large language models that removes weights in the N:M hardware pattern while trying to keep the surviving connections expander-like, so information can still flow through the pruned layer. The paper claims that a diagonal-selection step, which guarantees each input and output channel keeps at least one connection in the low-importance parts of each pruning group, is what preserves this flow, on top of an RIA importance metric that saves the most critical weights. Across LLaMA2, LLaMA3, and LLaMA-34B models, the method reports lower perplexity than magnitude pruning, Wanda, and RIA at both 2:4 and 4:8 sparsity, and zero-shot accuracy that sometimes beats the dense model. The reported gains over RIA are consistent but small, and the expansion theorem covers only very small subsets of channels.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the bipartite-graph view of a linear layer together with a degree floor. In each low-importance $M \times M$ block the algorithm splits the block into quadrants, sums weight magnitudes along the two diagonals of each quadrant, and keeps the diagonal pair with the larger total; this guarantees every input neuron retains at least $B$ surviving connections. Because each output neuron also keeps exactly $M-N$ connections per pruning group under the N:M mask, every small subset of input or output neurons has a neighborhood larger than itself -- the two-sided expansion property. On top of that floor, RIA-based selection picks the remaining highest-importance weights p

What would settle it

Take LLaMA2-7B at 2:4 sparsity and replace EGGS-PTP's diagonal selection in the connectivity blocks with a random matching that still gives every input channel the same minimum degree, keeping RIA top-selection for the remaining weights. If perplexity stays at 10.32 or close to it, the expander-guided selection is not the active ingredient. A complementary check is to compute the spectral gap of the pruned layer adjacency matrices and see whether accuracy tracks expansion constants across layers.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a structured pruning mask for a linear layer can be built as a two-sided expander graph without abandoning the N:M sparsity that GPUs can accelerate. The paper models each linear layer as a bipartite graph whose adjacency submatrix is the weight matrix, then applies two complementary selections per pruning group: importance-aware selection keeps the top $M-N$ RIA-scored weights in each row, while connectivity-aware selection applies magnitude-based diagonal selection to the lowest-importance $M \times M$ blocks so every input channel keeps at least one edge. The resulting mask is provably a two-sided $(c, a_I, a_O)$-expander for small channel subsets, and empiricall

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that guaranteeing each channel keeps at least B connections -- rather than any measured spectral or information-flow property -- is what preserves accuracy; the paper's expansion proof holds only for channel subsets smaller than B and no experiment isolates the connectivity effect.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • EGGS-PTP reports lower perplexity than RIA and Wanda on all tested LLaMA models under both 2:4 and 4:8 sparsity, with gains such as 10.32 vs 10.41 on LLaMA2-7B and 20.88 vs 21.47 on LLaMA3-8B.
  • Because the mask keeps the N:M structure and requires no retraining, it inherits the measured 1.64x inference speedup on LLaMA2-13B (31.82s vs 52.14s for the dense model).
  • On LLaMA-34B zero-shot benchmarks, the pruned model matches or exceeds the dense baseline on several tasks, including BoolQ and RTE under both sparsity patterns.
  • The optimal number of connectivity-aware blocks grows with model size, suggesting that larger models can afford more structural protection before importance-aware selection loses its edge.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Not tested in the paper: the expansion guarantee applies only to channel subsets smaller than $B$, a tiny fraction of a layer, so the empirical gains may come from the minimum-degree floor rather than from genuine spectral expansion.
  • A clean ablation would replace diagonal selection with any degree-preserving random mask while keeping RIA top-selection; if perplexity stays essentially unchanged, the expander-guided selection is not the active ingredient.
  • A natural extension is to measure the spectral gap of the pruned bipartite graphs and correlate it with layer-wise accuracy loss; the paper proves only a degree-based small-set property, not spectral expansion.
  • The authors themselves note that a dense 7B model can beat a pruned 13B model, implying the practical value of N:M pruning is mainly hardware cost savings, not accuracy recovery.
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.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. EGGS-PTP proposes a post-training N:M structured pruning method for LLMs. The method computes RIA scores, permutes input channels via round-robin allocation, computes RRI row importance, partitions each pruning group into row-blocks, and then applies two strategies: a 'connectivity-aware' diagonal selection on the B blocks with lowest aggregated RRI, followed by RIA-based top-weight selection, while all other blocks use RIA-based selection. The paper claims that the resulting pruned linear layers are two-sided expanders (Lemma 1), which is said to preserve information flow. Experiments on LLaMA2-7B/13B, LLaMA3-8B, LLaMA-34B, and LLaMA3.2-1B report consistently lower Wikitext2 perplexity than Magnitude, Wanda, and RIA under 2:4 and 4:8 sparsity, as well as improved zero-shot accuracy on several benchmarks for LLaMA-34B, with a 1.64x runtime speedup.

Significance. If the empirical results hold, the paper offers a modest but consistent practical improvement over existing N:M post-training pruning methods across five model sizes and two sparsity patterns. The comparison to Wanda and RIA is useful, and the runtime analysis confirms the hardware benefit of the structured mask. However, the theoretical contribution is not established: Lemma 1 proves only a minimum-degree property in a negligible size regime, not an expander guarantee that can justify the 'information flow' claims. The paper provides no mechanism-level ablation linking the diagonal-selection structure to the observed gains. The value of the work is therefore as a heuristic with reproducible-looking gains, not as a validated graph-theoretic pruning principle.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 6, Lemma 1, Eq. (7)-(10)] The theorem is technically correct but is a restatement of minimum degree, not a meaningful expander guarantee. Eq. (7) follows only from the fact that every input neuron retains at least B connections; no property of the diagonal-selection pattern beyond degree is used. The proof then restricts to subsets of size smaller than B via c < B/F_{\ell-1}. With F_{\ell-1} in the thousands and B in [1,20], the input-side expansion is guaranteed only for subsets of size at most B-1; for 2:4 sparsity with B=2 this covers only singletons. The output side, Eq. (9), is the standard exact degree of an output node. Thus the lemma does not establish expansion for any set of realistic size, and the abstract/introduction claim that expansion 'ensures information flow' is unsupported. Please either prove a constant-fraction expansion property or revise the claims to describe a minimum-connectivity heurist
  2. [Sections 5.3-5.4, Algorithm 1] The causal role of the expander-inspired construction is not tested. The empirical gains over RIA could come from the added hyperparameter B, from the RRI-based row partitioning, or from the channel permutation, rather than from the diagonal selection per se. I request ablations that isolate the mechanism: (i) EGGS-PTP with B=0, i.e., importance-aware selection on all blocks; (ii) diagonal selection on randomly chosen low-RRI blocks; (iii) random diagonal selection instead of the magnitude-weighted quadrant selection; and (iv) direct measurement of graph properties after pruning, such as actual vertex expansion for subsets of various sizes, the number of corrupted input channels, and average retained degree per input/output neuron. Without such evidence, the paper's central theoretical narrative remains a conjecture.
  3. [Section 7.1, Eq. (4)] The experimental protocol is under-specified for the free parameters. The value of alpha in Eq. (4) is never stated, and it is not reported whether alpha is taken from RIA or tuned. In addition, '1-fold cross-validation on the validation set' is ambiguous: the exact split between validation and test, and the relationship between the Wikitext2 perplexity test set and the validation set used to select B in [1,20], are not described. Since B can materially change perplexity, the comparison to fixed-hyperparameter baselines needs a clearer protocol, ideally with sensitivity analysis over B and alpha.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Algorithm 1, line 8] A pruning group has M columns, and the algorithm then divides it into M×M blocks. Clarify whether these blocks are disjoint row partitions of the pruning group and that the same M input columns appear in every block. This is important for verifying the claim that every input neuron retains B connections.
  2. [Tables 1-2] The numerical formatting is inconsistent and occasionally hard to read (e.g., '4 .88', '2400'). Use monospaced columns and align decimal points.
  3. [Tables 3-4, Section 7.1] No standard deviations or repeated-run variability are reported. Several differences between EGGS-PTP and RIA are in the 0.1-0.5 perplexity range; reporting variance or at least a small number of seeds would make the 'consistently outperforms' claim more robust.
  4. [Section 7.3] The statement that pruning 'addresses overfitting' and improves generalization on BoolQ and RTE is presented as a conclusive explanation without supporting evidence. It would be safer to describe this as a possible interpretation.
  5. [Related works] The paper cites RIA for the channel-permutation and RIA metric, which is appropriate, but it does not clearly state which components are novel relative to RIA and which are inherited. A short comparison table of RIA vs. EGGS-PTP would help.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

Lemma 1's expander guarantee is a min-degree restatement of the algorithm's own construction, but the main empirical comparison is self-contained against external baselines.

  1. self definitional [Section 6, Lemma 1, Eqs. (7)-(9)]
    "According to Algorithm 1, the repeated diagonal selection across B blocks in each pruning group ensures that every input neuron vi ∈ I retains at least B connections, yielding: |Γ(T)| ≥ B. (7) Therefore, for any T ⊆ I with |T| < B ... we obtain aI > 1, (8) satisfying Eq. (5)."

    The proof's entire content is the algorithm's own construction: Step 1 of connectivity-aware pruning (diagonal selection) is explicitly designed to ensure every input neuron keeps at least B edges, so Eq. (7) restates the selection rule. Restricting to |T|<B forces B>|T|, making aI>1 follow by counting rather than by any expander property; Eq. (9) likewise restates the N:M degree regularity. Thus Lemma 1 reduces to a min-degree guarantee: it shows no input is isolated, but cannot justify 'information flow' for larger subsets (c < B/F_{ℓ-1}, with B≤20 and F in thousands, covers only tiny sets). The expander label is a definitional consequence of the construction, not an external first-principles result.

full rationale

The empirical core of EGGS-PTP is not circular: perplexity and zero-shot results are compared against independent baselines (Magnitude, Wanda, RIA) under identical N:M masks; no parameter is fitted to the test set and then reported as a prediction; and there are no load-bearing self-citations, since RIA and round-robin permutation are attributed to prior external work [30]. The one definitional-overreach step is Lemma 1, where the claimed two-sided expander property is proven almost entirely from the algorithm's own min-degree guarantee. The quoted proof shows |Γ(T)| ≥ B because the algorithm ensures every input neuron keeps at least B connections, then chooses c so small that aI>1 is automatic. This is true but tautological: it does not independently establish robust information flow at the scale of real layers, and the paper provides no direct spectral or information-flow measurement. Because this overclaim does not by itself drive the benchmark numbers, the circularity is minor and localized. Score 2 reflects one definitional step, not a fitted prediction or self-citation chain.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central method introduces one new free hyperparameter (B) and inherits alpha from RIA. It relies on domain assumptions about expander-based information flow and RIA importance ranking. No new physical or model entities are introduced.

free parameters (2)
  • B (number of connectivity-aware blocks) = tuned per model over [1,20] via validation, not reported per model in tables
    Controls the tradeoff between importance-aware and connectivity-aware pruning; the paper states it is selected by cross-validation.
  • alpha (activation strength in RIA) = not stated
    From Eq. (4), the exponent on the input activation norm; the paper does not give its value or explain how it is set.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Expander graphs with strong connectivity preserve information flow in pruned neural networks.
    Used to justify connectivity-aware pruning; cited from [10,20,22] but not proven for LLM weight matrices.
  • domain assumption RIA scores are a valid measure of weight importance for pruning.
    Adopted from RIA paper [30]; the paper relies on this to rank weights.
  • domain assumption Channel permutation based on channel RIA improves pruning by distributing important weights across groups.
    Inherited from RIA [30], used in preprocessing.
  • domain assumption N:M sparsity is a suitable pattern for hardware acceleration and a fair constraint for comparison.
    Motivates the pruning setup; from NVIDIA hardware support.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of EGGS-PTP: An Expander-Graph Guided Structured Post-training Pruning Method for Large Language Models." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/DQPAZDPT

@misc{pith2026250809471,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: EGGS-PTP: An Expander-Graph Guided Structured Post-training Pruning Method for Large Language Models},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/DQPAZDPT}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.09471}
}
read the original abstract

As Large Language Models (LLMs) become more widely adopted and scale up in size, the computational and memory challenges involved in deploying these massive foundation models have grown increasingly severe. This underscores the urgent need to develop more efficient model variants. Faced with this challenge, the present work introduces EGGS-PTP: an Expander-Graph Guided Structured Post-training Pruning method. The proposed approach leverages graph theory to guide the design of N:M structured pruning, effectively reducing model size and computational demands. By incorporating concepts from expander graphs, EGGS-PTP ensures information flow within the pruned network, preserving essential model functionality. Extensive numerical experiments demonstrate that EGGS-PTP not only achieves significant acceleration and memory savings due to structured sparsity but also outperforms existing structured pruning techniques in terms of accuracy across various LLMs.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2508.09471 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Example of channel permutation on a 4 × 8 weight matrix based on 2: 4 sparsity. 4.2 Pruning Group Partition and Channel Permutation Note that N :M pruning occurs row-wise within each pruning group of the weight matrix W, where a pruning group under the N :M sparsity constraint refers to the submatrix consisting the kM + 1 to (k + 1)M columns of W, with k ∈ h 0, Fℓ−1 M − 1 i . However, such a pruning structure can le… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Example of modeling the ℓ-th linear layer with 4 input neurons and 4 output neurons as a bipartite graph. The 4 × 4 weight matrix can be viewed as a submatrix of the 8 × 8 adjacency matrix of the bipartite graph, and pruning can be regarded as edge selection in the bipartite graph. 5.1 Graph-based Modeling Before diving into the pruning algorithm, we first introduce the definitions of bipartite graphs and two-sided … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Example of the diagonal selection. the connectivity of input neurons can be arbitrary. In the case where all weights corresponding to an input channel/neuron have low importance scores, it is possible that most or even all of its edges are pruned. This causes input channel corruption and hinders information flow over the graph [30]. Note that channel corruption is harmful for LLMs since each channel typically encode… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Example of applying importance-aware partitioning with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

31 extracted references · 16 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Bipartite graphs and their applications, volume 131

    Armen S Asratian, Tristan MJ Denley, and Roland Häggkvist. Bipartite graphs and their applications, volume 131. Cambridge university press, 1998

    work page 1998

  2. [2]

    Sparsellm: Towards global pruning for pre-trained language models

    Guangji Bai, Yijiang Li, Chen Ling, Kibaek Kim, and Liang Zhao. Sparsellm: Towards global pruning for pre-trained language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.17946, 2024

    arXiv 2024

  3. [3]

    Binarybert: Pushing the limit of bert quantization

    Haoli Bai, Wei Zhang, Lu Hou, Lifeng Shang, Jing Jin, Xin Jiang, Qun Liu, Michael Lyu, and Irwin King. Binarybert: Pushing the limit of bert quantization. arXiv preprint arXiv:2012.15701, 2020

    arXiv 2012

  4. [4]

    The llama 3 herd of models

    Abhimanyu Dubey, Abhinav Jauhri, Abhinav Pandey, Abhishek Kadian, Ahmad Al-Dahle, Aiesha Letman, Akhil Mathur, Alan Schelten, Amy Yang, Angela Fan, et al. The llama 3 herd of models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.21783, 2024

    arXiv 2024

  5. [5]

    Sparsegpt: Massive language models can be accurately pruned in one-shot

    Elias Frantar and Dan Alistarh. Sparsegpt: Massive language models can be accurately pruned in one-shot. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 10323–10337. PMLR, 2023

    2023

  6. [6]

    Gptq: Accurate post-training quantization for generative pre-trained transformers

    Elias Frantar, Saleh Ashkboos, Torsten Hoefler, and Dan Alistarh. Gptq: Accurate post-training quantization for generative pre-trained transformers. arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.17323, 2022

    arXiv 2022

  7. [7]

    Learning both weights and connections for efficient neural network

    Song Han, Jeff Pool, John Tran, and William Dally. Learning both weights and connections for efficient neural network. Advances in neural information processing systems, 28, 2015

    2015

  8. [8]

    Stork, and Gregory J

    Babak Hassibi, David G. Stork, and Gregory J. Wolff. Optimal brain surgeon and general network pruning. In Proceedings of International Conference on Neural Networks (ICNN’88), San Francisco, CA, USA, March 28 - April 1, 1993, pages 293–299. IEEE, 1993. doi: 10.1109/ ICNN.1993.298572

    work page arXiv 1993

Show all 31 references
  1. [9]

    Revisiting pruning at initialization through the lens of ramanujan graph

    Duc NM Hoang and Shiwei Liu. Revisiting pruning at initialization through the lens of ramanujan graph. ICLR 2023, 2023

    2023

  2. [10]

    Explicit two-sided unique-neighbor expanders

    Jun-Ting Hsieh, Theo McKenzie, Sidhanth Mohanty, and Pedro Paredes. Explicit two-sided unique-neighbor expanders. In Proceedings of the 56th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, pages 788–799, 2024

    2024

  3. [11]

    Pruning large language models with semi-structural adaptive sparse training

    Weiyu Huang, Yuezhou Hu, Guohao Jian, Jun Zhu, and Jianfei Chen. Pruning large language models with semi-structural adaptive sparse training. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 39, pages 24167–24175, 2025

    2025

  4. [12]

    Optimal brain damage

    Yann LeCun, John Denker, and Sara Solla. Optimal brain damage. In D. Touretzky, editor, Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 2. Morgan-Kaufmann, 1989

    1989

  5. [13]

    Snip: Single-shot network pruning based on connection sensitivity

    Namhoon Lee, Thalaiyasingam Ajanthan, and Philip HS Torr. Snip: Single-shot network pruning based on connection sensitivity. arXiv preprint arXiv:1810.02340, 2018

    2018 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Awq: Activation-aware weight quantization for on-device llm compression and acceleration

    Ji Lin, Jiaming Tang, Haotian Tang, Shang Yang, Wei-Ming Chen, Wei-Chen Wang, Guangxuan Xiao, Xingyu Dang, Chuang Gan, and Song Han. Awq: Activation-aware weight quantization for on-device llm compression and acceleration. Proceedings of Machine Learning and Systems, 6:87–100,...

    2024

  7. [15]

    Sparse training via boosting pruning plasticity with neuroregeneration

    Shiwei Liu, Tianlong Chen, Xiaohan Chen, Zahra Atashgahi, Lu Yin, Huanyu Kou, Li Shen, Mykola Pechenizkiy, Zhangyang Wang, and Decebal Constantin Mocanu. Sparse training via boosting pruning plasticity with neuroregeneration. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, ...

    2021

  8. [16]

    Alphapruning: Using heavy-tailed self regularization theory for improved layer-wise pruning of large language models

    Haiquan Lu, Yefan Zhou, Shiwei Liu, Zhangyang Wang, Michael W Mahoney, and Yaoqing Yang. Alphapruning: Using heavy-tailed self regularization theory for improved layer-wise pruning of large language models. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 37: 9117–9152, 2024

    2024

  9. [17]

    Accelerating sparse deep neural networks, 2021

    Asit Mishra, Jorge Albericio Latorre, Jeff Pool, Darko Stosic, Dusan Stosic, Ganesh Venkatesh, Chong Yu, and Paulius Micikevicius. Accelerating sparse deep neural networks, 2021

    2021

  10. [18]

    Scalable training of artificial neural networks with adaptive sparse connectivity inspired by network science

    Decebal Constantin Mocanu, Elena Mocanu, Peter Stone, Phuong H Nguyen, Madeleine Gibescu, and Antonio Liotta. Scalable training of artificial neural networks with adaptive sparse connectivity inspired by network science. Nature communications, 9(1):2383, 2018

    2018

  11. [19]

    Nvidia a100 tensor core gpu architecture

    NVIDIA. Nvidia a100 tensor core gpu architecture. Technical report, NVIDIA Corporation,

  12. [20]

    Deep expander networks: Efficient deep networks from graph theory

    Ameya Prabhu, Girish Varma, and Anoop Namboodiri. Deep expander networks: Efficient deep networks from graph theory. In Proceedings of the European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV), pages 20–35, 2018

    2018

  13. [21]

    Movement pruning: Adaptive sparsity by fine-tuning

    Victor Sanh, Thomas Wolf, and Alexander Rush. Movement pruning: Adaptive sparsity by fine-tuning. Advances in neural information processing systems, 33:20378–20389, 2020

    2020

  14. [22]

    Spielman

    Daniel A. Spielman. Spectral graph theory and its applications. In48th Annual IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS’07), pages 29–38, 2007. doi: 10.1109/FOCS.2007. 56

    2007 doi

  15. [23]

    Zico Kolter

    Mingjie Sun, Zhuang Liu, Anna Bair, and J. Zico Kolter. A simple and effective pruning approach for large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.11695, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Llama 2: Open foundation and fine-tuned chat models

    Hugo Touvron, Louis Martin, Kevin Stone, Peter Albert, Amjad Almahairi, Yasmine Babaei, Nikolay Bashlykov, Soumya Batra, Prajjwal Bhargava, Shruti Bhosale, et al. Llama 2: Open foundation and fine-tuned chat models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.09288, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Picking winning tickets before training by preserving gradient flow

    Chaoqi Wang, Guodong Zhang, and Roger Grosse. Picking winning tickets before training by preserving gradient flow. arXiv preprint arXiv:2002.07376, 2020

    2002 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Pruning before fine-tuning: A retraining-free compression framework for pre-trained language models

    Pingjie Wang, Hongcheng Liu, Yanfeng Wang, and Yu Wang. Pruning before fine-tuning: A retraining-free compression framework for pre-trained language models. In Proceedings of the 2024 Joint International Conference on Computational Linguistics, Language Resources and Evaluatio...

    2024

  19. [27]

    Smoothquant: Accurate and efficient post-training quantization for large language models

    Guangxuan Xiao, Ji Lin, Mickael Seznec, Hao Wu, Julien Demouth, and Song Han. Smoothquant: Accurate and efficient post-training quantization for large language models. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 38087–38099. PMLR, 2023

    2023

  20. [28]

    Efficientllm: Scalable pruning-aware pretraining for architecture-agnostic edge language models

    Xingrun Xing, Zheng Liu, Shitao Xiao, Boyan Gao, Yiming Liang, Wanpeng Zhang, Haokun Lin, Guoqi Li, and Jiajun Zhang. Efficientllm: Scalable pruning-aware pretraining for architecture-agnostic edge language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.06663, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Prune once for all: Sparse pre-trained language models

    Ofir Zafrir, Ariel Larey, Guy Boudoukh, Haihao Shen, and Moshe Wasserblat. Prune once for all: Sparse pre-trained language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2111.05754, 2021

    2021 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Plug-and-play: An efficient post-training pruning method for large language models

    Yingtao Zhang, Haoli Bai, Haokun Lin, Jialin Zhao, Lu Hou, and Carlo Vittorio Cannistraci. Plug-and-play: An efficient post-training pruning method for large language models. In The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations, 2024. 12

    2024

  23. [2020]

    Whitepaper, Accessed: 2025-05-15

    URL https://resources.nvidia.com/en-us-tensor-core-gpu . Whitepaper, Accessed: 2025-05-15

    2025

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.