Demystifying When Pruning Works via Representation Hierarchies
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Network pruning, which removes less important parameters or architectures, is often expected to improve efficiency while preserving performance. However, this expectation does not consistently hold across language tasks: pruned models can perform well on non-generative tasks but frequently fail in generative settings. To understand this discrepancy, we analyze network pruning from a representation-hierarchy perspective, decomposing the internal computation of language models into three sequential spaces: embedding (hidden representations), logit (pre-softmax outputs), and probability (post-softmax distributions). We find that representations in the embedding and logit spaces are largely robust to pruning-induced perturbations. However, the nonlinear transformation from logits to probabilities amplifies these deviations, which accumulate across time steps and lead to substantial degradation during generation. In contrast, the stability of the categorical-token probability subspace, together with the robustness of the embedding space, supports the effectiveness of pruning for non-generative tasks such as retrieval and multiple-choice selection. Our analysis disentangles the effects of pruning across tasks and provides practical guidance for its application. Code is available at https://github.com/CASE-Lab-UMD/Pruning-on-Representations
Key facts. Cited by 2 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 23 of its 27 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 25 Mar 2026.
Builds on
23 of 27 references.
References · 23
- 2015Deep Residual Learning for Image Recognitioncited by 52,096
- 2019Exploring the Limits of Transfer Learning with a Unified Text-to-Text Transformercited by 14,599
- 2021Training Verifiers to Solve Math Word Problemscited by 10,109
- 2021Evaluating Large Language Models Trained on Codecited by 8,320
- 2020Measuring Massive Multitask Language Understandingcited by 7,963
- 2019HellaSwag: Can a Machine Really Finish Your Sentence?cited by 4,100
- 2022Training Compute-Optimal Large Language Modelscited by 3,019
- 2021BEIR: A Heterogenous Benchmark for Zero-shot Evaluation of Information Retrieval Modelscited by 1,252
- 2023SparseGPT: Massive Language Models Can Be Accurately Pruned in One-Shotcited by 1,121
- 2023A Simple and Effective Pruning Approach for Large Language Modelscited by 800
- 2018Rethinking the Value of Network Pruningcited by 599
- 2022Efficiently Scaling Transformer Inferencecited by 539
11 more
- 2020Pruning neural networks without any data by iteratively conserving synaptic flowcited by 479
- 2024Multilingual E5 Text Embeddings: A Technical Reportcited by 372
- 2023A Survey on Deep Neural Network Pruning-Taxonomy, Comparison, Analysis, and Recommendationscited by 202
- 2023Efficient Large Language Models: A Surveycited by 186
- 2021Learning N:M Fine-grained Structured Sparse Neural Networks From Scratchcited by 179
- 2020Soft Threshold Weight Reparameterization for Learnable Sparsitycited by 151
- 2024Towards Efficient Mixture of Experts: A Holistic Study of Compression Techniquescited by 24
- 2025Exploring the Impact of Temperature Scaling in Softmax for Classification and Adversarial Robustnesscited by 9
- 2025LinkedOut: Linking World Knowledge Representation Out of Video LLM for Next-Generation Video Recommendationcited by 5
- 2025Dense Video Understanding with Gated Residual Tokenizationcited by 4
- 2025Understanding and Harnessing Sparsity in Unified Multimodal Modelscited by 4
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 2.
2 papers.