When Compression Scores Cannot Decide: Information Boundaries for Group-Robust LLM Pruning
arXiv AIArchived 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?)