Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 4 minor 44 references

CALR: Corrective Adaptive Low-Rank Decomposition for Efficient Large Language Model Layer Compression

T0 review · 5 major / 4 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 CALR adds a learnable low-rank module to SVD-compressed layers, claiming it recovers most of the functional performance lost during compression.

desk verdict A plausible incremental compression idea that I can only judge by its abstract—worthy of peer review, but everything hinges on details I cannot check. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.16680 v2 pith:NMCLRFVU submitted 2025-08-21 cs.LG cs.AI

Muchammad Daniyal Kautsar , Afra Majida Hariono , Widyawan , Syukron Abu Ishaq Alfarozi , Kuntpong Woraratpanya This is my paper
classification cs.LGcs.AI
keywords low-rankdecompositionSVDcompressionLLMlearnableresidualcorrectionmodelefficiencyparameterreduction
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

The paper introduces CALR, a two-component compression method for large language models. One component is the usual SVD-compressed layer; the other is a parallel, learnable low-rank module trained to reproduce the functional behavior the compression erased. On three small LLMs, CALR reports shrinking parameter counts by about 27% to 52% while retaining roughly 59% to 90% of the original model's performance, outperforming three existing compression methods. The central claim is that functional information loss after SVD is a learnable signal, not just reconstruction noise, and that a small corrective module can recover a large share of it.

What carries the argument

The two-component layer: a primary SVD-compressed weight matrix plus a parallel learnable low-rank corrective module, trained to map the compressed layer's output toward the original layer's output so that the sum of the two paths approximates the original behavior. The corrective module is intentionally small in parameter count, keeping the overall layer smaller than the uncompressed one while learning to offset functional drift.

What would settle it

A controlled experiment varying the rank of the corrective module: if performance recovery saturates at small rank, the low-rank-residual premise holds; if recovery keeps improving until the corrective rank approaches the original matrix rank, the premise fails. A second test compares CALR against a module of equal parameter budget but no low-rank constraint—if the low-rank structure gives no advantage, the central mechanism is unsupported.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

CALR's central claim is that the performance gap left by SVD-based low-rank compression is itself a low-rank signal that a small parallel module can learn to correct. The paper argues that standard SVD minimizes matrix reconstruction error, which does not align with preserving what the model actually does, so the residual error after truncation contains behaviorally important information. By training a corrective low-rank module on that functional residual, CALR recovers a sizeable fraction of the original model's performance at a modest parameter cost, across three model families.

Load-bearing premise

The residual error left by SVD truncation is low-rank enough that a small parallel learnable module can capture and correct most of it; if that residual is not low-rank in a useful sense, the corrective module cannot recover the lost performance.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • SVD compression of LLMs can become materially less destructive without retraining the full model, just by adding a cheap trainable residual module per layer.
  • The achievable accuracy-versus-size trade-off for low-rank compression improves, since the corrective module shifts the Pareto frontier toward smaller models at equal quality.
  • The per-layer correction can compose with other compression choices—which layers to compress, how aggressively—because each layer is repaired independently.
  • Deploying smaller models on memory-constrained devices becomes more practical if the reported retention ratios hold at larger scales.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same corrective principle could apply to other compression operators, such as pruning or quantization, wherever the induced error is systematic rather than random.
  • The success of a low-rank corrective module implies a measurable property—the 'learnable low-rankness' of SVD truncation error—that could be characterized per layer and used to decide where correction helps most.
  • If the residual error is genuinely low-rank, a hybrid strategy suggests itself: apply CALR only to the most sensitive layers and use plain SVD elsewhere, cutting correction cost further.
  • The paper's evidence is on small models; scaling to larger LLMs is a natural test, since the relative cost of a corrective module may shrink as model width grows.
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

5 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes CALR, a two-component LLM compression method: a primary path of SVD-compressed layers plus a parallel learnable low-rank corrective module trained to recover the functional information lost during SVD truncation. The abstract reports experiments on SmolLM2-135M, Qwen3-0.6B, and Llama-3.2-1B, claiming 26.93–51.77% parameter reduction with 59.45–90.42% performance retention, and states that CALR consistently outperforms LaCo, ShortGPT, and LoSparse. The full text provided is severely corrupted and unreadable; the abstract is the only intact part, so the experimental methodology, derivations, tables, and ablations cannot be verified.

Significance. If the claimed results are substantiated, CALR would offer a practically useful compression paradigm: instead of accepting the quality drop from SVD, a small trainable low-rank residual restores a meaningful fraction of the lost performance. The core idea is simple, plausible, and clearly stated. The contribution is potentially significant for deployment of LLMs in resource-constrained settings. However, the significance is conditional on verification of the experimental claims, which is currently impossible because the manuscript text is corrupted and the abstract provides only point estimates without methodological details. No code, proofs, or reproduced artifacts are visible. The paper does not appear to contain circular reasoning; the corrective module is trained rather than derived from the reported results.

major comments (5)
  1. [Full text] The supplied full text is unreadable: it consists of corrupted characters (mojibake/Unicode replacement glyphs) throughout, including tables and equations. No experimental protocol, hyperparameter settings, evaluation details, or algorithmic pseudocode can be inspected. This is a load-bearing problem for review: the central claim is empirical, and the evidence cannot be checked. The authors must resupply a clean, readable manuscript before any substantive technical review can proceed.
  2. [Abstract (Results)] The headline results are point estimates: 26.93–51.77% parameter reduction and 59.45–90.42% retention. No variance, number of runs, random seeds, or significance tests are reported. Without confidence intervals or per-task breakdowns, the claim that CALR 'consistently outperforms' baselines is not statistically supported. The authors should report mean/std over multiple seeds and specify the exact metric(s) used for 'retention'.
  3. [Abstract (Baseline comparison)] It is unclear whether the comparison with LaCo, ShortGPT, and LoSparse is parameter-matched. CALR adds a corrective module on top of SVD-compressed layers; if the baselines use the same SVD rank but do not include an equivalent extra module, CALR has a parameter-count advantage. The paper should report total parameters for every method and ensure the comparison is at equal total parameter budgets, or justify why an unequal comparison is appropriate.
  4. [Method (low-rank residual assumption)] The method assumes that the functional information lost by SVD truncation can be captured by a low-rank corrective module. This is the central premise, but the abstract gives no evidence about the singular value spectrum of the SVD residual, no statement of the corrective rank r_c, and no ablation over r_c. To make the claim credible, the paper should include a spectral analysis of residuals (e.g., singular value decay curves for representative layers), an ablation over r_c, and a control experiment replacing the low-rank module with a dense module of the same parameter count.
  5. [Experimental setup (data leakage)] The abstract does not state whether the data used to train the corrective module is disjoint from the evaluation benchmarks. If the corrective module is trained on the same distributions as the evaluation tasks, the reported retention may be optimistically biased. The authors must specify the training set, the evaluation benchmarks, and any calibration/validation splits used to select hyperparameters.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Title/Abstract] The word 'Adaptive' in the title is not explained in the abstract. Clarify what adapts: the rank per layer, the module parameters during training, or something else.
  2. [Abstract] Define 'retention' formally. If it is the ratio of the compressed model's task performance to the original model's performance, state the tasks and metric explicitly.
  3. [Full text (tables/figures)] Tables and figures are garbled and unreadable. A clean PDF with properly encoded tables is required; the current version cannot be used by readers or reviewers.
  4. [Embedded text] The corrupted text contains an arXiv identifier for a different paper (arXiv:2508.16713v1 [cs.SE]). Please verify that no extraneous content was accidentally included in the source file.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity found: CALR is an empirical residual-learning method evaluated against external baselines, not a derivation that reduces to its inputs.

full rationale

After inspecting the available text, I find no circular step that meets the quoted-equation or self-citation threshold. The abstract describes CALR as a two-component architecture: an SVD-compressed primary path plus a parallel, learnable low-rank corrective module explicitly trained to recover the functional residual error. This is an empirical construction, not a self-definitional one: the residual being corrected is defined relative to the original uncompressed model, and the corrective module's parameters are fitted to data, not assumed into existence. The reported performance retention is presented as an experimental result rather than a quantity derived from the method's definitions. The paper also compares against external baselines (LaCo, ShortGPT, LoSparse), so the central claim is benchmarked against outside methods rather than being forced by the paper's own construction. The concern that the residual may not actually be low-rank is a real correctness/validity risk, but an unverified assumption of low-rank structure is not circularity; the paper does not derive the residual's low-rankness from the conclusion it is used to support. The full text is heavily corrupted (mojibake/encoding artifacts), so equations, citations, and experimental details are largely unreadable; however, the absence of readable derivational chains means I cannot exhibit the specific reduction required by the review rules, and no load-bearing self-citation is identifiable. Therefore the appropriate finding is no significant circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces a new architectural component (the corrective module) but no new physical or mathematical entity in the sense of the schema. The main free parameters are rank choices and layer-selection decisions that are not disclosed. The central assumptions are the validity of SVD and the low-rank learnability of the residual error.

free parameters (3)
  • SVD truncation rank r
    Controls the number of retained singular values per layer and hence the compression ratio. Not disclosed in the abstract.
  • Corrective module rank r_c
    Determines the capacity of the parallel learnable residual module. Not disclosed in the abstract.
  • Number of layers compressed
    The paper reports parameter reduction ranges across models, implying layer selection choices that are not specified in the abstract.
assumptions (3)
  • standard math Singular Value Decomposition provides a valid low-rank approximation of LLM weight matrices.
    This is the mathematical foundation of the primary compression path, implicitly assumed in the abstract's statement that SVD reduces parameters.
  • domain assumption A low-rank learnable module can represent and recover the functional information lost during SVD compression.
    This is the core assumption of CALR, stated in the abstract as a module 'explicitly trained to recover the functional residual error'.
  • domain assumption The evaluation metrics used reflect functional performance of the language model.
    The abstract reports 'performance retention' without specifying the metric; the validity of the claim depends on the chosen benchmark being representative.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of CALR: Corrective Adaptive Low-Rank Decomposition for Efficient Large Language Model Layer Compression." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/NMCLRFVU

@misc{pith2026250816680,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: CALR: Corrective Adaptive Low-Rank Decomposition for Efficient Large Language Model Layer Compression},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/NMCLRFVU}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.16680}
}
read the original abstract

Large Language Models (LLMs) present significant deployment challenges due to their immense size and computational requirements. Model compression techniques are essential for making these models practical for resource-constrained environments. A prominent compression strategy is low-rank factorization via Singular Value Decomposition (SVD) to reduce model parameters by approximating weight matrices. However, standard SVD focuses on minimizing matrix reconstruction error, often leading to a substantial loss of the model's functional performance. This performance degradation occurs because existing methods do not adequately correct for the functional information lost during compression. To address this gap, we introduce Corrective Adaptive Low-Rank Decomposition (CALR), a two-component compression approach. CALR combines a primary path of SVD-compressed layers with a parallel, learnable, low-rank corrective module that is explicitly trained to recover the functional residual error. Our experimental evaluation on SmolLM2-135M, Qwen3-0.6B, and Llama-3.2-1B, demonstrates that CALR can reduce parameter counts by 26.93% to 51.77% while retaining 59.45% to 90.42% of the original model's performance, consistently outperforming LaCo, ShortGPT, and LoSparse. CALR's success shows that treating functional information loss as a learnable signal is a highly effective compression paradigm. This approach enables the creation of significantly smaller, more efficient LLMs, advancing their accessibility and practical deployment in real-world applications.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

44 extracted references · 31 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Brown, B

    T. Brown, B. Mann, N. Ryder, M. Subbiah, J. D. Kaplan, P. Dhariwal, A. Neelakantan, P. Shyam, G. Sastry, A. Askell et al., ``Language models are few-shot learners,'' Advances in neural information processing systems, vol. 33, pp. 1877--1901, 2020

    work page 1901

  2. [2]

    Achiam, S

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

    arXiv 2023

  3. [3]

    D. H. Hagos, R. Battle, and D. B. Rawat, ``Recent advances in generative ai and large language models: Current status, challenges, and perspectives,'' IEEE Transactions on Artificial Intelligence, vol. 5, no. 12, pp. 5873--5893, 2024

    work page 2024

  4. [4]

    X. Zhu, J. Li, Y. Liu, C. Ma, and W. Wang, ``A survey on model compression for large language models,'' Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, vol. 12, pp. 1556--1577, 2024

    work page 2024

  5. [5]

    F. Wang, Z. Zhang, X. Zhang, Z. Wu, T. Mo, Q. Lu, W. Wang, R. Li, J. Xu, X. Tang et al., ``A comprehensive survey of small language models in the era of large language models: Techniques, enhancements, applications, collaboration with llms, and trustworthiness,'' CoRR, 2024

    work page 2024

  6. [6]

    Cheng, M

    H. Cheng, M. Zhang, and J. Q. Shi, ``A survey on deep neural network pruning: Taxonomy, comparison, analysis, and recommendations,'' IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 2024

    work page 2024

  7. [7]

    Fontana, R

    F. Fontana, R. Lanzino, M. R. Marini, D. Avola, L. Cinque, F. Scarcello, and G. L. Foresti, ``Distilled gradual pruning with pruned fine-tuning,'' IEEE Transactions on Artificial Intelligence, vol. 5, no. 8, pp. 4269--4279, 2024

    work page 2024

  8. [8]

    X. Wang, Y. Zheng, Z. Wan, and M. Zhang, ``Svd-llm: Truncation-aware singular value decomposition for large language model compression,'' CoRR, 2024

    work page 2024

Show all 44 references
  1. [9]

    Kaushal, T

    A. Kaushal, T. Vaidhya, and I. Rish, ``Lo RD : Low-rank decomposition of monolingual code LLM s for one-shot compression,'' in ICML 2024 Workshop on Foundation Models in the Wild, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://openreview.net/forum?id=br49PQvuMp

    2024

  2. [10]

    Eckart and G

    C. Eckart and G. Young, ``The approximation of one matrix by another of lower rank,'' Psychometrika, vol. 1, no. 3, p. 211–218, 1936

    1936

  3. [11]

    MIRSKY, ``Symmetric gauge functions and unitarily invariant norms,'' The Quarterly Journal of Mathematics, vol

    L. MIRSKY, ``Symmetric gauge functions and unitarily invariant norms,'' The Quarterly Journal of Mathematics, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 50--59, 01 1960. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1093/qmath/11.1.50

    1960 doi

  4. [12]

    Golub, A

    G. Golub, A. Hoffman, and G. Stewart, ``A generalization of the eckart-young-mirsky matrix approximation theorem,'' Linear Algebra and its Applications, vol. 88-89, pp. 317--327, 1987. [Online]. Available: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0024379587901145

    1987

  5. [13]

    Z. Yuan, Y. Shang, Y. Song, Q. Wu, Y. Yan, and G. Sun, ``Asvd: Activation-aware singular value decomposition for compressing large language models,'' arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.05821, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Y. Sy, C. Cerisara, and I. Illina, ``Large language models compression via low-rank feature distillation,'' arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.16719, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  7. [15]

    H. Bai, S. Jian, T. Liang, Y. Yin, and H. Wang, ``Ressvd: Residual compensated svd for large language model compression,'' 2025. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2505.20112

    2025

  8. [16]

    S.-Y. Liu, H. Yang, C.-Y. Wang, N. C. Fung, H. Yin, C. Sakr, S. Muralidharan, K.-T. Cheng, J. Kautz, Y.-C. F. Wang, P. Molchanov, and M.-H. Chen, ``Eora: Training-free compensation for compressed llm with eigenspace low-rank approximation,'' CoRR, vol. abs/2410.21271, 2024. [O...

    2024 doi

  9. [17]

    Y. Li, Y. Yu, Q. Zhang, C. Liang, P. He, W. Chen, and T. Zhao, ``Losparse: Structured compression of large language models based on low-rank and sparse approximation,'' in International Conference on Machine Learning. 1em plus 0.5em minus 0.4em PMLR, 2023, pp. 20\,336--20\,350

    2023

  10. [18]

    E. J. Hu, P. Wallis, Z. Allen-Zhu, Y. Li, S. Wang, L. Wang, W. Chen et al., ``Lora: Low-rank adaptation of large language models,'' in International Conference on Learning Representations, 2022

    2022

  11. [19]

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

    2024

  12. [20]

    Y. Yang, Z. Cao, and H. Zhao, ``Laco: Large language model pruning via layer collapse,'' in Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2024, 2024, pp. 6401--6417

    2024

  13. [21]

    Michel, O

    P. Michel, O. Levy, and G. Neubig, ``Are sixteen heads really better than one?'' Advances in neural information processing systems, vol. 32, 2019

    2019

  14. [22]

    X. Ma, G. Fang, and X. Wang, ``Llm-pruner: On the structural pruning of large language models,'' Advances in neural information processing systems, vol. 36, pp. 21\,702--21\,720, 2023

    2023

  15. [23]

    Ashkboos, M

    S. Ashkboos, M. L. Croci, M. G. do Nascimento, T. Hoefler, and J. Hensman, ``Slicegpt: Compress large language models by deleting rows and columns,'' in The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations, 2024

    2024

  16. [24]

    L. B. Allal, A. Lozhkov, E. Bakouch, G. M. Bl \'a zquez, G. Penedo, L. Tunstall, A. Marafioti, H. Kydl \' c ek, A. P. Lajar \' n, V. Srivastav et al., ``Smollm2: When smol goes big--data-centric training of a small language model,'' arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.02737, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  17. [25]

    A. Yang, A. Li, B. Yang, B. Zhang, B. Hui, B. Zheng, B. Yu, C. Gao, C. Huang, C. Lv et al., ``Qwen3 technical report,'' arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.09388, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Meta , `` Llama-3.2-1B ,'' https://huggingface.co/meta-llama/Llama-3.2-1B, 2024, accessed: 2025-06-06

    2024

  19. [27]

    ------, `` Llama-3.2-3B ,'' https://huggingface.co/meta-llama/Llama-3.2-3B, 2024, accessed: 2025-06-06

    2024

  20. [28]

    Zhang, Y

    Y. Zhang, Y. Dong, and K. Kawaguchi, ``Investigating layer importance in large language models,'' in Proceedings of the 7th BlackboxNLP Workshop: Analyzing and Interpreting Neural Networks for NLP, 2024, pp. 469--479

    2024

  21. [29]

    Rajapaksha and N

    P. Rajapaksha and N. Crespi, ``Explainable attention pruning: A metalearning-based approach,'' IEEE Transactions on Artificial Intelligence, vol. 5, no. 6, pp. 2505--2516, 2024

    2024

  22. [30]

    Ben Allal, A

    L. Ben Allal, A. Lozhkov, G. Penedo, T. Wolf, and L. von Werra, ``Cosmopedia,'' 2024. [Online]. Available: https://huggingface.co/datasets/HuggingFaceTB/cosmopedia

    2024

  23. [31]

    Hendrycks, C

    D. Hendrycks, C. Burns, S. Basart, A. Zou, M. Mazeika, D. Song, and J. Steinhardt, ``Measuring massive multitask language understanding,'' in International Conference on Learning Representations, 2021

    2021

  24. [32]

    Zellers, A

    R. Zellers, A. Holtzman, Y. Bisk, A. Farhadi, and Y. Choi, ``Hellaswag: Can a machine really finish your sentence?'' in Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 2019, pp. 4791--4800

    2019

  25. [33]

    Clark, I

    P. Clark, I. Cowhey, O. Etzioni, T. Khot, A. Sabharwal, C. Schoenick, and O. Tafjord, ``Think you have solved question answering? try arc, the ai2 reasoning challenge,'' arXiv preprint arXiv:1803.05457, 2018

    2018 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Mihaylov, P

    T. Mihaylov, P. Clark, T. Khot, and A. Sabharwal, ``Can a suit of armor conduct electricity? a new dataset for open book question answering,'' in Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, 2018, pp. 2381--2391

    2018

  27. [35]

    A. Wang, A. Singh, J. Michael, F. Hill, O. Levy, and S. R. Bowman, ``Glue: A multi-task benchmark and analysis platform for natural language understanding,'' in International Conference on Learning Representations, 2019

    2019

  28. [36]

    Loshchilov and F

    I. Loshchilov and F. Hutter, ``Decoupled weight decay regularization,'' in 7th International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2019, New Orleans, LA, USA, May 6-9, 2019 . 1em plus 0.5em minus 0.4em OpenReview.net, 2019. [Online]. Available: https://openreview.net/fo...

    2019

  29. [37]

    L. Gao, J. Tow, B. Abbasi, S. Biderman, S. Black, A. DiPofi, C. Foster, L. Golding, J. Hsu, A. Le Noac'h, H. Li, K. McDonell, N. Muennighoff, C. Ociepa, J. Phang, L. Reynolds, H. Schoelkopf, A. Skowron, L. Sutawika, E. Tang, A. Thite, B. Wang, K. Wang, and A. Zou, ``The langua...

    2024

  30. [38]

    T. Wolf, L. Debut, V. Sanh, J. Chaumond, C. Delangue, A. Moi, P. Cistac, T. Rault, R. Louf, M. Funtowicz, J. Davison, S. Shleifer, P. von Platen, C. Ma, Y. Jernite, J. Plu, C. Xu, T. Le Scao, S. Gugger, M. Drame, Q. Lhoest, and A. Rush, ``Transformers: State-of-the-art natural...

    2020

  31. [39]

    M. F. and, ``The use of ranks to avoid the assumption of normality implicit in the analysis of variance,'' Journal of the American Statistical Association, vol. 32, no. 200, pp. 675--701, 1937. [Online]. Available: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/01621459.1937.10503522

    1937

  32. [40]

    Wilcoxon, ``Individual comparisons by ranking methods,'' Biometrics Bulletin, vol

    F. Wilcoxon, ``Individual comparisons by ranking methods,'' Biometrics Bulletin, vol. 1, no. 6, pp. 80--83, 1945. [Online]. Available: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3001968

    1945

  33. [41]

    Holm, ``A simple sequentially rejective multiple test procedure,'' Scandinavian Journal of Statistics, vol

    S. Holm, ``A simple sequentially rejective multiple test procedure,'' Scandinavian Journal of Statistics, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 65--70, 1979

    1979

  34. [42]

    J. S. Smith, C.-H. Lin, S. Tuli, H. Jeelani, S. Gao, Y. Shen, H. Jin, and Y.-C. Hsu, ``Flexigpt: Pruning and extending large language models with low-rank weight sharing,'' arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.14713, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  35. [43]

    4" FUNCTION default.is.dash.repeated.names #1 FUNCTION default.name.format.string

    11em plus .33em minus .07em 4000 4000 100 4000 4000 500 `\.=1000 = #1 \@IEEEnotcompsoconly \@IEEEcompsoconly #1 * [1] 0pt [0pt][0pt] #1 * \| ** #1 \@IEEEauthorblockNstyle \@IEEEcompsocnotconfonly \@IEEEcompsocconfonly \@IEEEauthorblockAstyle \@IEEEcompsocnotconfonly \@IEEEcomp...

    2015

  36. [44]

    write newline

    " write newline "" initialize.prev.this.status FUNCTION begin.bib " write newline preamble empty 'skip preamble write newline if " thebibliography " longest.label * " " * write newline " [1] #1 " write newline " url@samestyle " write newline " " write newline " [2] #2 " write ...

Pith tools

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