The Fragility and Dynamics of LLM Pruning-Recovery Steps

Abstract:Structural pruning followed by a recovery stage is the standard recipe for compressing large language models (LLMs), yet the two stages are typically designed and tuned in isolation. In this work, we study how their interaction shapes the compressed model, sweeping ordering, the data that drives each stage, and the alignment of their training objectives. We find that instruction-following is the first capability to collapse under pruning, well before knowledge, reasoning, or core language modeling, and that much of the pruning in-domain loss is likely not knowledge loss but a domain-agnostic failure to respond coherently to the prompt. We find in our setting that in-domain data is the strongest pruning signal, whereas instruction-style data recovers the most. Stage order matters little, but only marginally. We further analyze how the importance ranking drifts before and after pruning. Together these results give practitioners a concrete recipe for composing pruning and recovery.

Computation and Language (cs.CL)

arXiv:2610.15574 [cs.CL]

(or arXiv:2610.15574v1 [cs.CL] for this version)

https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2610.15574 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)

arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.

Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.

Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.