Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 4 minor 36 references

Beyond Manually Designed Pruning Policies with Second-Level Performance Prediction: A Pruning Framework for LLMs

T0 review · 5 major / 4 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 PPF replaces hand-designed pruning policies with a lightweight predictor that evaluates a candidate policy in 1.52 seconds, enabling real-time dynamic pruning of LLMs.

desk verdict A plausible fast-predictor-for-pruning framework whose main claims need held-out predictor evaluation and named baselines before they can be trusted. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.02381 v2 pith:P57DIAT7 submitted 2025-08-04 cs.LG

Zuxin Ma , Yunhe Cui , Yongbin Qin This is my paper
classification cs.LG
keywords largelanguagemodelpruningnon-uniformstructuredperformancepredictiondynamicratioreinforcementlearningagentperplexityreductioninferenceefficiency
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 tries to establish that non-uniform pruning of large language models can be automated end-to-end without hand-designed layer-importance or scaling-factor policies. It introduces PPF, a framework in which an agent proposes pruning actions while a lightweight predictor estimates the resulting model quality in seconds instead of minutes. The claim is that this makes dynamic pruning under changing ratio requirements practical and also improves static pruning, with experiments on Llama2-7B and Llama3-8B reporting up to 33.4% lower perplexity in dynamic settings and 84.78% lower in static settings relative to existing policies. The practical value, if true, is that model compression decisions can be made on demand during deployment rather than fixed ahead of time.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing component is a lightweight performance predictor trained to estimate the test-set perplexity of a pruned model from the pruning policy's characteristics. This predictor sits inside an iterative loop with an agent: the agent proposes pruning ratios, the predictor scores them in seconds, and the loop is fast enough to respond to dynamic ratio requirements in real time. The framework also includes a policy-space design and optimization procedure that makes the search over pruning ratios feasible; without the predictor's speed, the claimed real-time adaptability would reduce to ordinary slow search.

What would settle it

Take a hold-out grid of pruning ratios and policies that the predictor was not trained on, run each candidate through the predictor and through full test-set evaluation, and compute the rank correlation between predicted and true perplexity; if the correlation is poor on ratios near the deployment range, the second-level prediction claim falls.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

PPF's central claim is that the bottleneck of pruning-policy search is not the search itself but the cost of evaluating each candidate policy, and that a lightweight predictor can replace full test-set evaluation. The framework couples a reinforcement-learning agent that selects layer-wise channel or structure pruning ratios with a performance predictor that maps a candidate policy to an estimated perplexity in about 1.52 seconds, compared with 98 seconds for actual evaluation, for a 64x speedup at reported error below 0.0011. On Llama2-7B and Llama3-8B, PPF reports reducing perplexity by up to 33.4% in dynamic pruning scenarios and 84.78% in static pruning scenarios relative to existing manually designed policies. The authors frame this as eliminating manual design dependencies: the same framework adapts to different target ratios without re-deriving importance heuristics.

Load-bearing premise

The whole method hinges on the lightweight predictor ranking candidate policies in the same order as true test-set perplexity for policies and pruning ratios outside its training data; if that ranking drifts, the agent optimizes against a biased objective and the reported perplexity gains do not transfer.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the predictor is accurate, dynamic pruning ratios can be serviced at inference time: a user can request a new compression target and receive a policy in seconds.
  • Static pruning also improves because the search can evaluate far more candidate policies within a fixed budget than test-set evaluation would allow.
  • The framework can transfer to different LLM families without redesigning layer-importance rules; experiments on Llama2-7B and Llama3-8B support this.
  • Real-time deployment becomes feasible: 1.52 seconds per policy evaluation means iterative optimization is no longer dominated by evaluation latency.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A testable extension is to apply the same agent-plus-predictor design to other structure-selection tasks, such as layer dropping, attention-head pruning, or embedding-width reduction, where evaluation cost is also the bottleneck.
  • A natural check not reported in the paper is to measure rank correlation rather than mean absolute error between predicted and true perplexity across a grid of policies; ranking fidelity, not mean error, determines whether the agent's optimization converges to genuinely better policies.
  • The speedup suggests that predictor-based evaluation could also enable on-device re-pruning as hardware conditions change, which the paper does not explicitly discuss.
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 PPF (Predictive Pruning Framework), a structured pruning framework for LLMs that replaces manually designed pruning policies with an agent that generates adaptive pruning actions, evaluated by a lightweight 'second-level' performance predictor. The claimed contributions are (i) eliminating manual design dependencies, (ii) supporting real-time dynamic pruning as well as static pruning, and (iii) drastically reducing policy-evaluation latency. Experiments are reported on Llama2-7B and Llama3-8B, claiming perplexity reductions up to 33.4% (dynamic) and 84.78% (static) over existing methods, a predictor error below 0.0011, and a 64x speedup over test-set evaluation (1.52 s versus 98.02 s).

Significance. If the claims are fully validated, the contribution is significant for LLM pruning practice: replacing minute-level test-set evaluation with a second-level predictor could make iterative and dynamic pruning-policy search practical, and the agent-based approach would address the manual-design bottleneck of non-uniform pruning. The paper also proposes a clear and falsifiable metric, predictor error, and reports a concrete latency speedup. However, the significance currently rests on an unverifiable empirical foundation: the abstract provides no named baselines, no standard errors, no description of how the predictor was trained or evaluated, and no evidence that the predictor generalizes to policies visited during agent search. The striking 84.78% static perplexity reduction is exactly the kind of claim that requires detailed experimental protocol and reproducibility artifacts, neither of which is currently available.

major comments (5)
  1. [Abstract] The headline reductions ('up to 33.4% (dynamic) and 84.78% (static)') are reported without naming any baseline method, dataset, pruning ratio, or metric definition. The phrase 'over existing methods' is not operational. This is load-bearing because the central contribution is empirical; the paper must provide a table with named baselines (e.g., LLM-Pruner, SparseGPT, Wanda, or the specific manually designed methods), the exact perplexity values, and standard deviations or multiple seeds.
  2. [Abstract and full text] The predictor error '< 0.0011' is not defined or contextualized. The abstract does not state whether this is mean absolute error, root mean square error, or relative error on perplexity, nor does it describe the training distribution, the train/validation split, or the set of policies and pruning ratios used for evaluation. Without this information, the error could be in-sample, and the subsequent agent optimization may exploit predictor bias rather than find genuinely better policies.
  3. [Full text (supplied version)] The manuscript text supplied for review is heavily corrupted and unreadable: it consists of replacement characters and mojibake, so the equations, algorithms, tables, and experimental descriptions cannot be checked. This prevents verification of the method and results in Sections 3-5. A clean and complete manuscript must be provided before any further review can take place.
  4. [Full text (method description)] The paper does not provide, in any readable form, the training procedure for the performance predictor, the feature representation of a pruning policy, or the reward coefficients used by the agent. These are the free parameters of the system, and the claimed 'elimination of manual design dependencies' is only meaningful if the predictor and agent are specified precisely enough for replication. The absence of this information is load-bearing for the main claim.
  5. [Experiments (as summarized in Abstract)] No evidence is given that the predictor remains accurate under the optimization-induced distribution shift. The agent selects policies that minimize predicted perplexity, so the relevant test is the predictor's error and ranking quality on policies actually visited during search, not on a random or pre-specified test set. The authors should report predicted versus true perplexity for the final selected policies and a correlation measure (e.g., Kendall's tau) on held-out policies never used in predictor training.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract] There is a typo: 'Additionly' should be 'Additionally'.
  2. [Abstract] The phrase 'second-level performance prediction' is ambiguous; it presumably means 'seconds-level' latency, but it could be misread as a hierarchy of prediction levels. Please rephrase for clarity.
  3. [Abstract] The claim of '84.78% (static) perplexity reduction' is surprising and needs an explicit definition of the comparison base (e.g., reduction relative to the unpruned model, or relative to a baseline pruning method) because perplexity is a positive quantity and such a large reduction is atypical.
  4. [Reproducibility] The abstract states that code 'will be available' rather than providing a link to a working repository. For a method whose central claim is empirical, the code, predictor training data, and evaluation scripts should be made available at submission time.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found: the performance predictor is validated against test-set evaluation rather than being substituted for it in the final metrics.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is: a lightweight predictor is trained to approximate policy evaluation, an agent uses the predictor to search pruning policies, and the final perplexity reductions are reported over existing methods. The abstract explicitly distinguishes the predictor's latency from test-set evaluation latency, saying it 'reduces the mean evaluation latency from minute-level (1 minute and 38.02 seconds of test-set evaluation methods) to second-level (1.52 seconds)', which indicates the predictor is a proxy compared against actual evaluation, not the final evaluation itself. The claimed prediction error (<0.0011) likewise is presented as an accuracy measure of the proxy against true evaluation, not as the target being optimized and then reported as the result. No equation in the provided text defines the final reported perplexity as identical to the predictor's own output, and no load-bearing claim is justified solely by a self-citation. The absence of a stated training/evaluation split for the predictor is a legitimate reproducibility and generalization concern, but it is an unverified empirical assumption, not a circular reduction; per the hard rules, circularity requires quoting the specific reduction, which is not exhibited here. Therefore the paper is not circular on the available evidence.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical or conceptual entities are introduced; the agent and predictor are algorithmic components. The framework rests on the assumptions that perplexity is the right quality metric, that a fitted predictor generalizes to unseen policies, and that an agent can optimize against predictor feedback. The reported surrogate model has free parameters that are not disclosed in the abstract.

free parameters (2)
  • Performance predictor model parameters
    The predictor is a trained surrogate; its weights are fitted to data and are not disclosed in the abstract.
  • Agent reward coefficients
    The balance between predicted perplexity and pruning ratio in the agent's reward is not specified, yet it shapes every policy generated.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption Perplexity is the right objective for pruning quality.
    All claimed gains are measured as perplexity reductions; the abstract never validates that perplexity correlates with downstream task performance.
  • domain assumption The lightweight predictor trained on some pruning evaluations generalizes to unseen pruning policies and dynamic pruning ratios.
    The framework's second-level speed advantage relies on predictor accuracy on policies outside its training set; no generalization analysis is described in the abstract.
  • domain assumption An agent can learn effective non-uniform structured pruning policies from predictor feedback within practical time.
    The agent's convergence and exploration are assumed; the abstract provides only end-task results, not training dynamics.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Beyond Manually Designed Pruning Policies with Second-Level Performance Prediction: A Pruning Framework for LLMs." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/P57DIAT7

@misc{pith2026250802381,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Beyond Manually Designed Pruning Policies with Second-Level Performance Prediction: A Pruning Framework for LLMs},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/P57DIAT7}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.02381}
}
read the original abstract

Non-uniform structured network pruning methods can effectively reduce Large Language Model (LLM) size by eliminating redundant channels or layers, offering lower performance degradation than uniform strategies. However, existing non-uniform methods rely heavily on manually designed pruning policies (e.g., layer importance and scaling factors), and therefore cannot efficiently adapt to scenarios with dynamic pruning ratio requirements. Additionly, a critical bottleneck -- the time-consuming evaluation of pruning policies -- further limits the feasibility of iteratively and dynamically finding optimal pruning policies. To address these limitations, we propose PPF (Predictive Pruning Framework), a novel pruning framework for LLMs that eliminates manual design dependencies via second-level performance prediction. PPF not only supports real-time pruning decisions under dynamic pruning ratios but is also applicable to static pruning scenarios. It employs an agent for producing adaptive and real-time pruning actions, while a lightweight performance predictor that can evaluate a pruning policy in seconds, significantly speeding up the iterative optimization process. Experiments on Llama2-7B and Llama3-8B show that PPF can generate dynamic/static pruning policies and it reduces perplexity by up to 33.4% (dynamic pruning) and 84.78% (static pruning) over existing methods, outperforming manually designed pruning policies. The performance predictor achieves second-level performance prediction with high accuracy (prediction error < 0.0011). It reduces the mean evaluation latency from minute-level (1 minute and 38.02 seconds of test-set evaluation methods) to second-level (1.52 seconds), achieving over 64 times speedup. Our code will be available at https://github.com/Ma-zx/PPF .

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

36 extracted references · 26 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    An, Y.; Zhao, X.; Yu, T.; Tang, M.; and Wang, J. 2024. Fluctuation-Based Adaptive Structured Pruning for Large Language Models. In Wooldridge, M. J.; Dy, J. G.; and Natarajan, S., eds., Thirty-Eighth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, AAAI 2024, Thirty-Sixth Conference on Innovative Applications of Artificial Intelligence, IAAI 2024, Fourteenth S...

    work page 2024

  2. [2]

    D.; Richardson, K.; Sabharwal, A.; Schoenick, C.; Tafjord, O.; and Clark, P

    Bhakthavatsalam, S.; Khashabi, D.; Khot, T.; Mishra, B. D.; Richardson, K.; Sabharwal, A.; Schoenick, C.; Tafjord, O.; and Clark, P. 2021. Think you have Solved Direct-Answer Question Answering? Try ARC-DA, the Direct-Answer AI2 Reasoning Challenge. CoRR, abs/2102.03315

    arXiv 2021

  3. [3]

    Clark, C.; Lee, K.; Chang, M.; Kwiatkowski, T.; Collins, M.; and Toutanova, K. 2019. BoolQ: Exploring the Surprising Difficulty of Natural Yes/No Questions. In Burstein, J.; Doran, C.; and Solorio, T., eds., Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, NAACL...

    work page 2019

  4. [4]

    Dubey, A.; Jauhri, A.; Pandey, A.; Kadian, A.; Al - Dahle, A.; Letman, A.; Mathur, A.; Schelten, A.; Yang, A.; Fan, A.; Goyal, A.; Hartshorn, A.; Yang, A.; Mitra, A.; Sravankumar, A.; Korenev, A.; Hinsvark, A.; Rao, A.; Zhang, A.; Rodriguez, A.; Gregerson, A.; Spataru, A.; Rozi \` e re, B.; Biron, B.; Tang, B.; Chern, B.; Caucheteux, C.; Nayak, C.; Bi, C....

    arXiv 2024

  5. [5]

    J.; Rodgers, P.; Kilpatrick, P.; Spence, I

    Eccles, B. J.; Rodgers, P.; Kilpatrick, P.; Spence, I. T. A.; and Varghese, B. 2024. DNNShifter: An efficient DNN pruning system for edge computing. Future Gener. Comput. Syst., 152: 43--54

    work page 2024

  6. [6]

    He, Y.; Lin, J.; Liu, Z.; Wang, H.; Li, L.; and Han, S. 2018. AMC: AutoML for Model Compression and Acceleration on Mobile Devices. In Ferrari, V.; Hebert, M.; Sminchisescu, C.; and Weiss, Y., eds., Computer Vision - ECCV 2018 - 15th European Conference, Munich, Germany, September 8-14, 2018, Proceedings, Part VII , volume 11211 of Lecture Notes in Comput...

    work page 2018

  7. [7]

    Imai, S.; Nakazawa, R.; Amaral, M.; Choochotkaew, S.; and Chiba, T. 2024. Predicting LLM Inference Latency: A Roofline-Driven ML Method. In Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems

    work page 2024

  8. [8]

    Jang, S.; and Morabito, R. 2025. Edge-First Language Model Inference: Models, Metrics, and Tradeoffs. CoRR, abs/2505.16508

    arXiv 2025

Show all 36 references
  1. [9]

    Jawahar, G.; Abdul - Mageed, M.; Lakshmanan, L. V. S.; and Ding, D. 2024. LLM Performance Predictors are good initializers for Architecture Search. In Ku, L.; Martins, A.; and Srikumar, V., eds., Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics, ACL 2024, Bangkok, Tha...

    2024

  2. [10]

    J.; Abdul - Mageed, M.; Lakshmanan, L

    Jawahar, G.; Mukherjee, S.; Liu, X.; Kim, Y. J.; Abdul - Mageed, M.; Lakshmanan, L. V. S.; Awadallah, A. H.; Bubeck, S.; and Gao, J. 2023. AutoMoE: Heterogeneous Mixture-of-Experts with Adaptive Computation for Efficient Neural Machine Translation. In Rogers, A.; Boyd - Graber...

    2023

  3. [11]

    Khanal, B.; and Capone, J. M. 2024. Evaluating the Impact of Compression Techniques on Task-Specific Performance of Large Language Models. CoRR, abs/2409.11233

    2024 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Kong, J.; Ma, X.; Wang, J.; and Zhang, X. 2025. Sample-aware Adaptive Structured Pruning for Large Language Models. In Walsh, T.; Shah, J.; and Kolter, Z., eds., AAAI-25, Sponsored by the Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence, February 25 - March 4, 2025, ...

    2025

  5. [13]

    Le, Q.; Diao, E.; Wang, Z.; Wang, X.; Ding, J.; Yang, L.; and Anwar, A. 2025. Probe Pruning: Accelerating LLMs through Dynamic Pruning via Model-Probing. In The Thirteenth International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2025, Singapore, April 24-28, 2025 . OpenReview.net

    2025

  6. [14]

    Lin, J. 1991. Divergence measures based on the Shannon entropy. IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory , 37(1): 145--151

    1991

  7. [15]

    Liu, H.; Tian, C.; Wei, X.; Dai, J.; Liu, Q.; Wei, T.; Li, Q.; and Li, L. 2025. RAP: Runtime-Adaptive Pruning for LLM Inference. CoRR, abs/2505.17138

    2025 arXiv

  8. [16]

    W.; and Yang, Y

    Lu, H.; Zhou, Y.; Liu, S.; Wang, Z.; Mahoney, M. W.; and Yang, Y. 2024. AlphaPruning: Using Heavy-Tailed Self Regularization Theory for Improved Layer-wise Pruning of Large Language Models. In Globersons, A.; Mackey, L.; Belgrave, D.; Fan, A.; Paquet, U.; Tomczak, J. M.; and Z...

    2024

  9. [17]

    Ma, X.; Fang, G.; and Wang, X. 2023. LLM-Pruner: On the Structural Pruning of Large Language Models. In Oh, A.; Naumann, T.; Globerson, A.; Saenko, K.; Hardt, M.; and Levine, S., eds., Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 36: Annual Conference on Neural Informatio...

    2023

  10. [18]

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

    Marcus, M. P.; Santorini, B.; and Marcinkiewicz, M. A. 1993. Building a Large Annotated Corpus of English: The Penn Treebank. Comput. Linguistics, 19(2): 313--330

    1993

  11. [19]

    Men, X.; Xu, M.; Zhang, Q.; Wang, B.; Lin, H.; Lu, Y.; Han, X.; and weipeng chen. 2025. Short GPT : Layers in Large Language Models are More Redundant Than You Expect

    2025

  12. [20]

    Merity, S.; Xiong, C.; Bradbury, J.; and Socher, R. 2017. Pointer Sentinel Mixture Models. In 5th International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2017, Toulon, France, April 24-26, 2017, Conference Track Proceedings . OpenReview.net

    2017

  13. [21]

    Michel, P.; Levy, O.; and Neubig, G. 2019. Are Sixteen Heads Really Better than One? In Wallach, H. M.; Larochelle, H.; Beygelzimer, A.; d'Alch \' e - Buc, F.; Fox, E. B.; and Garnett, R., eds., Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 32: Annual Conference on Neural ...

    2019

  14. [22]

    Mihaylov, T.; Clark, P.; Khot, T.; and Sabharwal, A. 2018. Can a Suit of Armor Conduct Electricity? A New Dataset for Open Book Question Answering. In Riloff, E.; Chiang, D.; Hockenmaier, J.; and Tsujii, J., eds., Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natu...

    2018

  15. [23]

    Z.; DeVito, Z.; Raison, M.; Tejani, A.; Chilamkurthy, S.; Steiner, B.; Fang, L.; Bai, J.; and Chintala, S

    Paszke, A.; Gross, S.; Massa, F.; Lerer, A.; Bradbury, J.; Chanan, G.; Killeen, T.; Lin, Z.; Gimelshein, N.; Antiga, L.; Desmaison, A.; K \" o pf, A.; Yang, E. Z.; DeVito, Z.; Raison, M.; Tejani, A.; Chilamkurthy, S.; Steiner, B.; Fang, L.; Bai, J.; and Chintala, S. 2019. PyTo...

    2019

  16. [24]

    L.; Bhagavatula, C.; and Choi, Y

    Sakaguchi, K.; Bras, R. L.; Bhagavatula, C.; and Choi, Y. 2021. WinoGrande: an adversarial winograd schema challenge at scale. Commun. ACM , 64(9): 99--106

    2021

  17. [25]

    Sieberling, O.; Kuznedelev, D.; and Alistarh, D. 2025. EvoPress: Accurate Dynamic Model Compression via Evolutionary Search. In Sparsity in LLMs (SLLM): Deep Dive into Mixture of Experts, Quantization, Hardware, and Inference

    2025

  18. [26]

    Sun, M.; Liu, Z.; Bair, A.; and Kolter, J. Z. 2024. A Simple and Effective Pruning Approach for Large Language Models. In The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2024, Vienna, Austria, May 7-11, 2024 . OpenReview.net

    2024

  19. [27]

    Touvron, H.; Martin, L.; Stone, K.; Albert, P.; Almahairi, A.; Babaei, Y.; Bashlykov, N.; Batra, S.; Bhargava, P.; Bhosale, S.; Bikel, D.; Blecher, L.; Canton - Ferrer, C.; Chen, M.; Cucurull, G.; Esiobu, D.; Fernandes, J.; Fu, J.; Fu, W.; Fuller, B.; Gao, C.; Goswami, V.; Goy...

    2023 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Wang, A.; Singh, A.; Michael, J.; Hill, F.; Levy, O.; and Bowman, S. R. 2019 a . GLUE: A Multi-Task Benchmark and Analysis Platform for Natural Language Understanding. In 7th International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2019, New Orleans, LA, USA, May 6-9, 2019 ....

    2019

  21. [29]

    Wang, K.; Liu, Z.; Lin, Y.; Lin, J.; and Han, S. 2019 b . HAQ: Hardware-Aware Automated Quantization With Mixed Precision. In IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, CVPR 2019, Long Beach, CA, USA, June 16-20, 2019 , 8612--8620. Computer Vision Foundation / IEEE

    2019

  22. [30]

    Wolf, T.; Debut, L.; Sanh, V.; Chaumond, J.; Delangue, C.; Moi, A.; Cistac, P.; Rault, T.; Louf, R.; Funtowicz, M.; and Brew, J. 2019. HuggingFace's Transformers: State-of-the-art Natural Language Processing. CoRR, abs/1910.03771

    2019 arXiv

  23. [31]

    K.; Pechenizkiy, M.; Liang, Y.; Bendersky, M.; Wang, Z.; and Liu, S

    Yin, L.; Wu, Y.; Zhang, Z.; Hsieh, C.; Wang, Y.; Jia, Y.; Li, G.; Jaiswal, A. K.; Pechenizkiy, M.; Liang, Y.; Bendersky, M.; Wang, Z.; and Liu, S. 2024. Outlier Weighed Layerwise Sparsity (OWL): A Missing Secret Sauce for Pruning LLMs to High Sparsity. In Forty-first Internati...

    2024

  24. [32]

    Zellers, R.; Holtzman, A.; Bisk, Y.; Farhadi, A.; and Choi, Y. 2019. HellaSwag: Can a Machine Really Finish Your Sentence? In Korhonen, A.; Traum, D. R.; and M \` a rquez, L., eds., Proceedings of the 57th Conference of the Association for Computational Linguistics, ACL 2019, ...

    2019

  25. [33]

    Zhong, L.; Wan, F.; Chen, R.; Quan, X.; and Li, L. 2024. BlockPruner: Fine-grained Pruning for Large Language Models. CoRR, abs/2406.10594

    2024 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Zhou, C.; Han, S.; Yang, L.; Zhou, Y.; Cheng, X.; Wang, Y.; and Li, H. 2025. RankAdaptor: Hierarchical Rank Allocation for Efficient Fine-Tuning Pruned LLMs via Performance Model. In Chiruzzo, L.; Ritter, A.; and Wang, L., eds., Findings of the Association for Computational Li...

    2025

  27. [35]

    , " * 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...

  28. [36]

    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 gl...

Pith tools

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