mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Do Compressed LLMs Forget Knowledge? An Experimental Study with Practical Implications

arXiv 2310.00867 ↗First posted 2 Oct 2023cs.CL cs.AIcited by 6

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Compressing Large Language Models (LLMs) often leads to reduced performance, especially for knowledge-intensive tasks. In this work, we dive into how compression damages LLMs' inherent knowledge and the possible remedies. We start by proposing two conjectures on the nature of the damage: one is certain knowledge being forgotten (or erased) after LLM compression, hence necessitating the compressed model to (re)learn from data with additional parameters; the other presumes that knowledge is internally displaced and hence one requires merely "inference re-direction" with input-side augmentation such as prompting, to recover the knowledge-related performance. Extensive experiments are then designed to (in)validate the two conjectures. We observe the promise of prompting in comparison to model tuning; we further unlock prompting's potential by introducing a variant called Inference-time Dynamic Prompting (IDP), that can effectively increase prompt diversity without incurring any inference overhead. Our experiments consistently suggest that compared to the classical re-training alternatives such as LoRA, prompting with IDP leads to better or comparable post-compression performance recovery, while saving the extra parameter size by 21x and reducing inference latency by 60%. Our experiments hence strongly endorse the conjecture of "knowledge displaced" over "knowledge forgotten", and shed light on a new efficient mechanism to restore compressed LLM performance. We additionally visualize and analyze the different attention and activation patterns between prompted and re-trained models, demonstrating they achieve performance recovery in two different regimes.

Key facts. Cited by 6 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 18 of its 22 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 2 Oct 2023.

Builds on

18 of 22 references.

References · 18

  1. 2019Exploring the Limits of Transfer Learning with a Unified Text-to-Text Transformercited by 14,491
  2. 2023LLaMA: Open and Efficient Foundation Language Modelscited by 13,958
  3. 2018Think you have Solved Question Answering? Try ARC, the AI2 Reasoning Challengecited by 4,710
  4. 2019HellaSwag: Can a Machine Really Finish Your Sentence?cited by 4,018
  5. 2021Prefix-Tuning: Optimizing Continuous Prompts for Generationcited by 3,878
  6. 2021The Power of Scale for Parameter-Efficient Prompt Tuningcited by 3,769
  7. 2016Pointer Sentinel Mixture Modelscited by 2,992
  8. 2017TriviaQA: A Large Scale Distantly Supervised Challenge Dataset for Reading Comprehensioncited by 2,895
  9. 2019PIQA: Reasoning about Physical Commonsense in Natural Languagecited by 2,818
  10. 2015Deep Compression: Compressing Deep Neural Networks with Pruning, Trained Quantization and Huffman Codingcited by 2,291
  11. 2022GPTQ: Accurate Post-Training Quantization for Generative Pre-trained Transformerscited by 1,838
  12. 2022SmoothQuant: Accurate and Efficient Post-Training Quantization for Large Language Modelscited by 1,338
6 more
  1. 2023SparseGPT: Massive Language Models Can Be Accurately Pruned in One-Shotcited by 1,090
  2. 2023FrugalGPT: How to Use Large Language Models While Reducing Cost and Improving Performancecited by 791
  3. 2017Crowdsourcing Multiple Choice Science Questionscited by 742
  4. 2022ZeroQuant: Efficient and Affordable Post-Training Quantization for Large-Scale Transformerscited by 517
  5. 2023Compress, Then Prompt: Improving Accuracy-Efficiency Trade-off of LLM Inference with Transferable Promptcited by 28
  6. 2022Model ensemble instead of prompt fusion: a sample-specific knowledge transfer method for few-shot prompt tuningcited by 9

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 7 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2024: 1; 2025: 3; 2026: 2.

6 papers.