PapersWithELO
← ICLR 2024 leaderboard

Beyond Size: How Gradients Shape Pruning Decisions in Large Language Models

Rocktim Jyoti Das, Liqun Ma, Zhiqiang Shen

representation learningLarge Language ModelsGradient-based Language Model PrunerSparsity-centric Pruning
77.40100
Fused
band ≈ ±15 pct pts (from σ = 0.30)
78.90100
Mimo
band ≈ ±21 pct pts (from σ = 0.42)
78.70100
DeepSeek
band ≈ ±21 pct pts (from σ = 0.41)

OpenReview ground truth

Rejected

Abstract

Large Language Models (LLMs) with a billion or more parameters are prime targets for network pruning, which aims to reduce a portion of the network weights without compromising performance. Prior approaches such as Weights Magnitude, SparseGPT, and Wanda, either concentrated solely on weights or integrated weights with activations for sparsity. However, they overlooked the informative gradients derived from pretrained large language models. In this paper, we present a novel sparsity-centric pruning method for pretrained LLMs, termed **G**radient-**b**ased **L**anguage **M**odel **P**runer (**GBLM-Pruner**). Distinctively, GBLM-Pruner operates in a training-free manner by harnessing normalized gradients, and substantially outperforms competitive counterparts like SparseGPT and Wanda in multiple benchmarks. Intriguing, after incorporating gradients, the unstructured pruning method tends to reveal some structural patterns post-pruning, which mirrors the geometric interdependence inherent in the LLMs' parameter structure. Additionally, GBLM-Pruner functions without any subsequent retraining or weight updates to maintain its simplicity as other counterparts. Extensive evaluations on LLaMA-1 and LLaMA-2 across various language benchmarks and perplexity show that GBLM-Pruner surpasses magnitude pruning, Wanda (*weights+activations*), and SparseGPT (*weights+activations+weight update*) by significant margins. Our code and models will be publicly available.

Author context

Most prolific author: 6 submissions (credibility 1.00).

No mass-submission penalty for this paper (authors within normal submission volume).

Aggregate statistics only — no individual author rankings.

Ranking trajectory

Percentile by tournament round — convergence indicates rating stability.

Judge assessments

Mean overall score 0.0 ± 0.0 (n = 34)