Averaged Evaluation Masks Capability Trade-Offs: Multi-Source Calibration for High-Sparsity LLM Pruning

Calibration data are often treated as a minor implementation detail in post-training LLM pruning because averaged evaluations suggest only modest effects. We show that this conclusion is an averaging artifact: at 60% SparseGPT sparsity, calibration strategies separated by only 2.85 points in averaged commonsense accuracy differ by 51.9 points in Code retention. Across 15 sources, capability-decomposed analysis reveals an opposing pattern: calibration perplexity is positively associated with General retention but negatively associated with Math or Code retention, leaving no evaluated single source uniformly strong across capabilities. This finding motivates capability-balanced multi-source calibration. Under the same calibration budget, a balanced real-data mixture outperforms every evaluated single source on LLaMA-3.1-8B, beating C4 by 18.8 points; the advantage grows with sparsity and persists on LLaMA-3.1-70B. Because the original pretraining data of advanced LLMs are often inaccessible, we further introduce Information-Guided Self-Calibration for Pruning (IGSP). Using only the base model and evaluation taxonomy, IGSP generates capability-stratified pools and selects low-redundancy samples within capability-specific perplexity ranges, outperforming Self-Cal and SGS by up to 4.8 points. Together, these results recast calibration as a capability-coverage problem and identify multi-source design as a practical principle for preserving capabilities in high-sparsity LLM pruning.