CyberIntel ⬡ News
★ Saved ◆ Cyber Reads
← Back ◬ AI & Machine Learning Aug 05, 2026

When Compression Scores Cannot Decide: Information Boundaries for Group-Robust LLM Pruning

arXiv AI Archived Aug 05, 2026 ✓ Full text saved

arXiv:2608.02940v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: A reproducible compression statistic can still select the wrong candidate. A dense pruning score with 0.906 split-half reliability predicted a 16.1% gain. Its selected endpoint was 6.0% and 7.7% worse than two controls. We model the gap through information interfaces that delimit which distinctions each statistic supports. For equal-weight groups, a conic law gives the exact pooling price for positive linear fixed-candidate damage, including diagon

Full text archived locally
✦ AI Summary · Claude Sonnet


    Computer Science > Artificial Intelligence [Submitted on 3 Aug 2026] When Compression Scores Cannot Decide: Information Boundaries for Group-Robust LLM Pruning Andrew Zhang A reproducible compression statistic can still select the wrong candidate. A dense pruning score with 0.906 split-half reliability predicted a 16.1% gain. Its selected endpoint was 6.0% and 7.7% worse than two controls. We model the gap through information interfaces that delimit which distinctions each statistic supports. For equal-weight groups, a conic law gives the exact pooling price for positive linear fixed-candidate damage, including diagonal and full PSD second moments. Three two-world constructions and an exact observation-fiber radius characterize what pooled moments, group-local moments, and reference-path curvature leave unresolved. A group-resolved diagonal recovers broad damage order (Spearman 0.9239) while fine order remains weak. Relative to balanced uniform allocation, a coarse depth allocation cuts worst-group perplexity inflation by 12.6--20.9% across three dense LLMs. Model-specific complete-mask endpoint selection improves over those references by 2.7--8.0%. In OLMoE, router traces predict singleton direction (114/192 versus 81/192 under the strongest relabeling). Finite-menu decisions on one layer yield held-out worst-group KL reductions of 13.7% and 7.2%. Local measurements construct candidates. Selection is licensed by complete candidate endpoints or a validated uniform guarantee, with uncertainty calibrated to every comparison. Comments: 19 pages, 5 figures Subjects: Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI) Cite as: arXiv:2608.02940 [cs.AI]   (or arXiv:2608.02940v1 [cs.AI] for this version)   https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2608.02940 Focus to learn more Submission history From: Andrew Zhang [view email] [v1] Mon, 3 Aug 2026 23:07:29 UTC (173 KB) Access Paper: HTML (experimental) view license Current browse context: cs.AI < prev   |   next > new | recent | 2026-08 Change to browse by: cs References & Citations NASA ADS Google Scholar Semantic Scholar Export BibTeX Citation Bookmark Bibliographic Tools Bibliographic and Citation Tools Bibliographic Explorer Toggle Bibliographic Explorer (What is the Explorer?) Connected Papers Toggle Connected Papers (What is Connected Papers?) Litmaps Toggle Litmaps (What is Litmaps?) scite.ai Toggle scite Smart Citations (What are Smart Citations?) Code, Data, Media Demos Related Papers About arXivLabs Which authors of this paper are endorsers? | Disable MathJax (What is MathJax?)
    💬 Team Notes
    Article Info
    Source
    arXiv AI
    Category
    ◬ AI & Machine Learning
    Published
    Aug 05, 2026
    Archived
    Aug 05, 2026
    Full Text
    ✓ Saved locally
    Open Original ↗