arxiv: 2604.24938 · v2 · submitted 2026-04-27 · 💻 cs.LG · cs.AI· cs.CL

Recognition: no theorem link

Rethinking Layer Redundancy in Large Language Models: Calibration Objectives and Search for Depth Pruning

Minkyu Kim , Vincent-Daniel Yun , Youngrae Kim , Youngjin Heo , Suin Cho , Seong-hun Kim , Woosang Lim , Gaeul Kwon

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-12 01:05 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.LG cs.AIcs.CL

keywords depth pruninglayer redundancylarge language modelscalibration objectivestransformer pruningmodel compressioninference efficiency

0 comments

The pith

Layer redundancy in large language models depends more on the calibration objective than on the search algorithm for identifying prunable layers.

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

The paper argues that layer redundancy is not an inherent property of the pretrained network but arises jointly from the model and the objective used to calibrate pruning decisions. Different objectives therefore select different layers as redundant, and rankings based on perplexity often diverge from those based on downstream accuracy. Under any single fixed objective, however, multiple search algorithms tend to converge on similar sets of removable layers. This matters for building faster models because it implies that effort should go into defining the right objective rather than refining search procedures. If the pattern holds, pruning becomes an objective-specific design choice instead of a search for universal redundant layers.

Core claim

A functional perspective shows that redundancy depends jointly on the model and the calibration objective, so no universal layer ranking exists. Across three LLM families, two calibration objectives, and seven search algorithms, different objectives produce qualitatively different pruning patterns, while perplexity and downstream reasoning accuracy rankings often fail to align. Under a fixed objective, different search algorithms tend to converge to similar pruning solutions, indicating that the calibration objective plays the larger role in determining which layers appear redundant.

What carries the argument

The functional perspective on redundancy, in which removable layers are identified jointly by the model and the chosen calibration objective rather than by fixed structural importance.

If this is right

Different calibration objectives produce qualitatively different patterns of which layers can be removed.
Layer rankings derived from perplexity frequently disagree with rankings derived from downstream reasoning accuracy.
Search algorithms converge on similar pruning solutions whenever the calibration objective is held constant.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

Pruning decisions could be tailored by selecting an objective that matches the model's intended use, such as preserving reasoning performance rather than minimizing perplexity.
New calibration objectives designed specifically for depth pruning might better preserve task-specific capabilities after layers are removed.
Extending the comparison to additional model scales and objective types would test whether the observed dominance of objectives generalizes.

Load-bearing premise

The two calibration objectives and seven search algorithms tested across three LLM families are representative enough to support the claim that objectives dominate algorithms in determining redundancy patterns.

What would settle it

An experiment that introduces a new calibration objective and finds that search algorithms then produce substantially divergent pruning patterns under that objective would falsify the dominance claim.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.24938 by Gaeul Kwon, Minkyu Kim, Seong-hun Kim, Suin Cho, Vincent-Daniel Yun, Woosang Lim, Youngjin Heo, Youngrae Kim.

**Figure 1.** Figure 1: Pruning masks selected by each search algorithm across models and pruning scales view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: Perplexity rank vs. accuracy rank for perplexity-pruned models. Spearman view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: Performance variance across search algorithms under same-metric evaluation. Each point view at source ↗

read the original abstract

Depth pruning improves the inference efficiency of large language models by removing Transformer blocks. Prior work has largely treated layer redundancy as an inherent structural property of pretrained networks, emphasizing importance criteria and search algorithms for identifying removable layers. In contrast, we adopt a \emph{functional perspective}, where redundancy depends jointly on the model and the calibration objective, suggesting that a universal layer ranking may not exist. Through an empirical study across three LLM families, two calibration objectives, and seven search algorithms, we find that different objectives produce qualitatively different pruning patterns, while perplexity and downstream reasoning accuracy rankings often fail to align. In contrast, under a fixed objective, different search algorithms tend to converge to similar pruning solutions. Overall, our results suggest that the calibration objective may play a larger role than the particular search algorithm in determining which layers appear redundant.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

The paper finds that pruning patterns in LLMs depend more on the calibration objective than on the search algorithm, shown through comparisons across models and methods.

read the letter

The main point is that layer redundancy in depth pruning isn't fixed in the model but shifts with the calibration objective. Perplexity-based pruning and accuracy-based pruning pick different layers, while different search algorithms mostly agree when the objective stays the same. This comes from tests on three LLM families with two objectives and seven algorithms. The functional angle is the useful shift here, moving away from assuming a universal ranking of layers. The broad setup across models and algorithms gives the patterns some weight and makes the convergence claim plausible on its face. The work is empirical and direct, without heavy theory, so the results stand or fall on the comparisons they ran. The soft spot is the limited number of objectives. Two global signals do not fully test whether objectives always dominate algorithms, and a narrower or token-level objective could produce different behavior. Without the full figures and any statistical checks on how much the patterns differ, it's hard to gauge the size of the effect. This is for researchers working on LLM compression and inference efficiency. Someone already running pruning experiments would get practical ideas from the objective-dependence observation. The paper is coherent enough and grounded enough in its own terms to deserve peer review rather than a desk reject.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper claims that layer redundancy in LLMs for depth pruning is not an inherent structural property but depends jointly on the model and the calibration objective. Based on experiments across three LLM families, two calibration objectives (perplexity-based and downstream reasoning accuracy), and seven search algorithms, it finds that different objectives produce qualitatively different pruning patterns that often fail to align, while algorithms converge to similar solutions under a fixed objective. The authors conclude that the calibration objective plays a larger role than the search algorithm in determining which layers appear redundant.

Significance. If the empirical patterns hold under broader testing, this work would meaningfully shift the field of model compression away from algorithm-centric searches toward objective-centric design for pruning. It provides concrete evidence against universal layer rankings and highlights the functional dependence of redundancy on the calibration signal, which could improve the effectiveness of depth pruning for specific downstream uses. The multi-family, multi-algorithm design is a strength that supports reproducible comparisons.

major comments (2)

[Abstract and experimental results] Abstract and main results: The claim that calibration objectives dominate search algorithms rests on only two tested objectives. As the skeptic analysis notes, both are relatively global; introducing a third objective (e.g., local token-level uncertainty or a narrow task-specific signal) could produce patterns where algorithms diverge, weakening the general dominance conclusion. This assumption is load-bearing for the central takeaway and requires either explicit qualification or additional experiments.
[Results and experimental setup] Experimental reporting: The soundness assessment notes missing full experimental details, controls, and statistical reporting, which prevents full assessment of evidential strength despite internally consistent patterns across the tested set. Specific tables or figures comparing pruning masks across objectives and algorithms should include variance estimates or significance tests.

minor comments (2)

[Methodology] Clarify the precise mathematical definitions and implementation details of the two calibration objectives to allow exact reproduction.
[Figures and tables] Ensure all figures and tables are self-contained with explicit labels for LLM families, objectives, and algorithms.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive feedback on our manuscript. We address each major comment in turn below, indicating the revisions we will make.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [Abstract and experimental results] Abstract and main results: The claim that calibration objectives dominate search algorithms rests on only two tested objectives. As the skeptic analysis notes, both are relatively global; introducing a third objective (e.g., local token-level uncertainty or a narrow task-specific signal) could produce patterns where algorithms diverge, weakening the general dominance conclusion. This assumption is load-bearing for the central takeaway and requires either explicit qualification or additional experiments.

Authors: We acknowledge that the study examines only two calibration objectives, both relatively global in scope, and that the observed dominance of objectives over algorithms is demonstrated within this scope. The manuscript already shows that these two objectives yield qualitatively distinct pruning patterns with poor alignment, while algorithms converge under each fixed objective. To address the concern about overgeneralization, we will revise the abstract and discussion to explicitly qualify the central claim, noting that the findings pertain to the tested objectives and that exploring additional signals (such as local token-level uncertainty) is an important avenue for future work. This qualification will appropriately scope the takeaway without requiring new experiments at this stage. revision: partial
Referee: [Results and experimental setup] Experimental reporting: The soundness assessment notes missing full experimental details, controls, and statistical reporting, which prevents full assessment of evidential strength despite internally consistent patterns across the tested set. Specific tables or figures comparing pruning masks across objectives and algorithms should include variance estimates or significance tests.

Authors: We agree that fuller experimental details and statistical reporting would improve the assessment of the results. In the revised manuscript, we will expand the experimental setup section with complete information on hyperparameters, random seeds, hardware, and controls for reproducibility. For the tables and figures comparing pruning masks, we will add variance estimates from repeated runs where feasible and include appropriate statistical significance tests to support the consistency of the reported patterns. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: purely empirical comparisons with no derivations or self-referential reductions

full rationale

The paper conducts direct empirical experiments across three LLM families, two calibration objectives, and seven search algorithms to compare pruning patterns. No equations, fitted parameters, or predictions are derived; the central claim rests on observed differences in outcomes under fixed vs. varying objectives/algorithms. No self-citations are invoked as load-bearing uniqueness theorems or ansatzes. The work is self-contained against external benchmarks and does not reduce any result to its inputs by construction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on empirical patterns observed in a limited set of models and methods rather than new theoretical constructs or fitted parameters.

axioms (1)

domain assumption The three LLM families, two calibration objectives, and seven search algorithms are representative of the broader space of depth pruning scenarios.
The study scope is explicitly bounded to these choices, and generalization depends on this assumption holding.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5470 in / 1109 out tokens · 52433 ms · 2026-05-12T01:05:33.046505+00:00 · methodology

Review history (2 revisions) →

discussion (0)

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

24 extracted references · 24 canonical work pages · 4 internal anchors

[1]

Piqa: Reasoning about physical commonsense in natural language

Yonatan Bisk, Rowan Zellers, Ronan Le Bras, Jianfeng Gao, and Yejin Choi. Piqa: Reasoning about physical commonsense in natural language. InThirty-Fourth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 2020

work page 2020
[2]

Prune&comp: Free lunch for layer-pruned llms via iterative pruning with magnitude compensation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.18212, 2025

Xinrui Chen, Hongxing Zhang, Fanyi Zeng, Yongxian Wei, Yizhi Wang, Xitong Ling, Guanghao Li, and Chun Yuan. Prune&comp: Free lunch for layer-pruned llms via iterative pruning with magnitude compensation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.18212, 2025

work page arXiv 2025
[3]

Think you have Solved Question Answering? Try ARC, the AI2 Reasoning Challenge

Peter Clark, Isaac Cowhey, Oren Etzioni, Tushar Khot, Ashish Sabharwal, Carissa Schoenick, and Oyvind Tafjord. Think you have solved question answering? try arc, the ai2 reasoning challenge.ArXiv, abs/1803.05457, 2018

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018
[4]

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. InICML, pages 10323–10337, 2023

work page 2023
[5]

The Llama 3 Herd of Models

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

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024
[6]

LLM-adapters: An adapter family for parameter-efficient fine-tuning of large language models

Zhiqiang Hu, Lei Wang, Yihuai Lan, Wanyu Xu, Ee-Peng Lim, Lidong Bing, Xing Xu, Soujanya Poria, and Roy Lee. LLM-adapters: An adapter family for parameter-efficient fine-tuning of large language models. In Houda Bouamor, Juan Pino, and Kalika Bali, editors,Proceedings of the 2023 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 5254–5...

work page 2023
[7]

Llm-adapters: An adapter family for parameter-efficient fine-tuning of large language models

Zhiqiang Hu, Lei Wang, Yihuai Lan, Wanyu Xu, Ee-Peng Lim, Lidong Bing, Xing Xu, Soujanya Poria, and Roy Lee. Llm-adapters: An adapter family for parameter-efficient fine-tuning of large language models. InProceedings of the 2023 conference on empirical methods in natural language processing, pages 5254–5276, 2023

work page 2023
[8]

Determining layer-wise sparsity for large language models through a theoretical perspective

Weizhong Huang, Yuxin Zhang, Xiawu Zheng, Fei Chao, and Rongrong Ji. Determining layer-wise sparsity for large language models through a theoretical perspective. InForty-second International Conference on Machine Learning, 2025. 8

work page 2025
[9]

Block removal for large language models through constrained binary optimization.arXiv preprint arXiv:2602.00161, 2026

David Jansen, Roman Rausch, David Montero, and Roman Orus. Block removal for large language models through constrained binary optimization.arXiv preprint arXiv:2602.00161, 2026

work page arXiv 2026
[10]

ShortGPT: Layers in large language models are more redundant than you expect

Xin Men, Mingyu Xu, Qingyu Zhang, Qianhao Yuan, Bingning Wang, Hongyu Lin, Yaojie Lu, Xianpei Han, and Weipeng Chen. ShortGPT: Layers in large language models are more redundant than you expect. In Wanxiang Che, Joyce Nabende, Ekaterina Shutova, and Mo- hammad Taher Pilehvar, editors,Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2025, pag...

work page 2025
[11]

Pointer sentinel mixture models

Stephen Merity, Caiming Xiong, James Bradbury, and Richard Socher. Pointer sentinel mixture models. InInternational Conference on Learning Representations, 2017

work page 2017
[12]

B. K. Natarajan. Sparse approximate solutions to linear systems.SIAM Journal on Computing, 24(2):227–234, 1995

work page 1995
[13]

The LAMBADA dataset: Word prediction requiring a broad discourse context

Denis Paperno, Germán Kruszewski, Angeliki Lazaridou, Ngoc Quan Pham, Raffaella Bernardi, Sandro Pezzelle, Marco Baroni, Gemma Boleda, and Raquel Fernandez. The LAMBADA dataset: Word prediction requiring a broad discourse context. InProceedings of the 54th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 1525–...

work page 2016
[14]

Exploring the limits of transfer learning with a unified text-to-text transformer.Journal of machine learning research, 21(140):1–67, 2020

Colin Raffel, Noam Shazeer, Adam Roberts, Katherine Lee, Sharan Narang, Michael Matena, Yanqi Zhou, Wei Li, and Peter J Liu. Exploring the limits of transfer learning with a unified text-to-text transformer.Journal of machine learning research, 21(140):1–67, 2020

work page 2020
[15]

WinoGrande: An Adversarial Winograd Schema Challenge at Scale

Keisuke Sakaguchi, Ronan Le Bras, Chandra Bhagavatula, and Yejin Choi. Winogrande: An adversarial winograd schema challenge at scale.arXiv preprint arXiv:1907.10641, 2019

work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 1907
[16]

Evopress: Accurate dynamic model compression via evolutionary search

Oliver Sieberling, Denis Kuznedelev, Eldar Kurtic, and Dan Alistarh. Evopress: Accurate dynamic model compression via evolutionary search. InForty-second International Conference on Machine Learning, 2025

work page 2025
[17]

Sleb: Streamlining llms through redundancy verification and elimination of transformer blocks

Jiwon Song, Kyungseok Oh, Taesu Kim, Hyungjun Kim, Yulhwa Kim, and Jae-Joon Kim. Sleb: Streamlining llms through redundancy verification and elimination of transformer blocks. In Proceedings of the 41st International Conference on Machine Learning, 2024

work page 2024
[18]

A simple and effective pruning approach for large language models

Mingjie Sun, Zhuang Liu, Anna Bair, and J Zico Kolter. A simple and effective pruning approach for large language models. InThe Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations, 2024

work page 2024
[19]

Darwinlm: Evolutionary structured pruning of large language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.07780, 2025

Shengkun Tang, Oliver Sieberling, Eldar Kurtic, Zhiqiang Shen, and Dan Alistarh. Darwinlm: Evolutionary structured pruning of large language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.07780, 2025

work page arXiv 2025
[20]

Prompt-based depth pruning of large language models

Juyoung Wee, Minjae Park, and Jaeho Lee. Prompt-based depth pruning of large language models. InInternational Conference on Machine Learning, 2025

work page 2025
[21]

Qwen3 Technical Report

An Yang, Anfeng Li, Baosong Yang, Beichen Zhang, Binyuan Hui, Bo Zheng, Bowen Yu, Chang Gao, Chengen Huang, Chenxu Lv, et al. Qwen3 technical report.arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.09388, 2025

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025
[22]

Robust neural pruning with gradient sampling optimization for residual neural networks

Juyoung Yun. Robust neural pruning with gradient sampling optimization for residual neural networks. In2024 International Joint Conference on Neural Networks (IJCNN), pages 1–10, 2024

work page 2024
[23]

Hellaswag: Can a machine really finish your sentence? InProceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 2019

Rowan Zellers, Ari Holtzman, Yonatan Bisk, Ali Farhadi, and Yejin Choi. Hellaswag: Can a machine really finish your sentence? InProceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 2019

work page 2019
[24]

Mi- prun: Optimize large language model pruning via mutual information.arXiv preprint arXiv:2601.07212, 2026

Hao Zhang, Zhibin Zhang, Guangxin Wu, He Chen, Jiafeng Guo, and Xueqi Cheng. Mi- prun: Optimize large language model pruning via mutual information.arXiv preprint arXiv:2601.07212, 2026. 9

work page arXiv 2026