Sari la conținut

Română · beta. Traducerea a fost făcută automat și este încă în curs de revizuire. Citește pagina în engleză

perspectiva aiqbenchCercetare AI

analiza aiqbench

This research identifies total variation as a superior metric over KL divergence for predicting decision flips in compressed language models, offering a more reliable method for deployment teams to assess output consistency without task-specific calibration. By demonstrating that the arg-max token flip rate tracks total variation with a stable median ratio, the study provides a practical tool for evaluating model compression quality across diverse corpora and architectures.
Sursă care acoperăarXiv
Ce este aceastaLectura unui model asupra articolului și a acoperirii conexe, scrisă pentru aiqbench. Nu sunt cuvintele publicației.

How Divergence Becomes Decision Flips in Compressed Language Models

arXiv3 min de cititArticolul și perspectiva sunt în engleză.

arXiv:2610.00694v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Compression reports summarize how far a compressed language model moved from the dense one, usually by a KL divergence; a deployment that relies on the dense model's outputs needs to know how many of its decisions changed. We show that total variation, not KL, answers this directly. Across 802 compressed and perturbed copies of 19 open models on five corpora and nine mechanically unrelated perturbation families, the rate at which the arg-max token changes (the \emph{flip rate}) tracks total variation at a ratio with median $1.05$, with no fitted constant. KL converts into flips only through its square root and a factor that varies fourfold across models and corpora, because KL averages over tokens before the root is taken; first-order statistics averaged per token, such as Hellinger distance, avoid this, but reports rarely give them. As a result, of two compressors reported on different models and corpora whose flip rates differ by at least $10%$, KL assigns the smaller divergence to the one that changes more decisions in $11%$ of cases, total variation in $1%$. Two pre-registered tests mark the limits: on a held-out code corpus the ratio held for all eight models while three predictions about KL each failed for half of them or more, and on three new models with real kernels it stayed in its band for 37 of 38 checkpoints but fell below one on code for two models. In vLLM speculative decoding, total variation measured under teacher forcing predicts greedy draft acceptance with a mean relative error of $1.1$--$2.4%$, without the task-specific calibration that KL needs.

Abstract:Compression reports summarize how far a compressed language model moved from the dense one, usually by a KL divergence; a deployment that relies on the dense model's outputs needs to know how many of its decisions changed. We show that total variation, not KL, answers this directly. Across 802 compressed and perturbed copies of 19 open models on five corpora and nine mechanically unrelated perturbation families, the rate at which the arg-max token changes (the \emph{flip rate}) tracks total variation at a ratio with median $1.05$, with no fitted constant. KL converts into flips only through its square root and a factor that varies fourfold across models and corpora, because KL averages over tokens before the root is taken; first-order statistics averaged per token, such as Hellinger distance, avoid this, but reports rarely give them. As a result, of two compressors reported on different models and corpora whose flip rates differ by at least $10%$, KL assigns the smaller divergence to the one that changes more decisions in $11%$ of cases, total variation in $1%$. Two pre-registered tests mark the limits: on a held-out code corpus the ratio held for all eight models while three predictions about KL each failed for half of them or more, and on three new models with real kernels it stayed in its band for 37 of 38 checkpoints but fell below one on code for two models. In vLLM speculative decoding, total variation measured under teacher forcing predicts greedy draft acceptance with a mean relative error of $1.1$--$2.4%$, without the task-specific calibration that KL needs.

Computation and Language (cs.CL); Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI); Machine Learning (cs.LG); Machine Learning (stat.ML)

arXiv:2610.00694 [cs.CL]

(or arXiv:2610.00694v1 [cs.CL] for this version)

https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2610.00694 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.

Text integral sub licența deschisă a publicației · 365 cuvinte

Subiecte conexe