mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

LegoLM: Structured Weight Sharing for Large Language Models

arXiv 2608.08652 ↗First posted 9 Aug 2026cs.LG cs.AIcited by 0

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

We present LegoLM, a structured weight-sharing compression framework for large language models grounded in a systematic study of why global weight sharing fails and how to fix it. We identify two distinct failure modes. Distributional mismatch: for vector blocks of dimension d <= 2, transformer layers with heterogeneous weight scales impose a scale-mismatch penalty that grows linearly with d and cannot be resolved by increasing K, producing perplexity in the millions.Outlier dominance: for scalar blocks, a fraction ~1/K of weights lies beyond the outermost Lloyd-Max decision threshold and cannot be represented by any centroid; their misrepresentation accumulates across layers, causing catastrophic quality loss. LegoLM resolves both failure modes via three data-free adaptations: 1 scalar-block encoding to eliminate the d-linear mismatch component, 2 percentile-selective replacement that identifies and preserves outlier weights verbatim, and 3 boundary-layer protection for the first and last transformer blocks. Across GPT-2 small (124M) and Mistral-7B, LegoLM achieves +0.03% PPL degradation at 4.41X compression on Mistral-7B - outperforming PTQ-8bit in both quality and compression ratio - and -0.02% at 2.67X. Downstream evaluation on LAMBADA and HellaSwag confirms that LegoLM at K=64, p=99% preserves accuracy within noise at 5.12 X compression, exceeding PTQ-8bit's compression ratio while matching its accuracy. We further discover that outlier dominance grows with model scale: full replacement at K=128 degrades GPT-2 small by only +23% but catastrophically degrades Mistral-7B by +1,134,279%, while selective replacement at p=99% rescues both models to under +15%. A controlled ablation confirms that selective replacement is the dominant mechanism: adding it to per-layer K-means also yields near-lossless quality, matching LegoLM within 0.02%.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 17 of its 25 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 9 Aug 2026.

Builds on

17 of 25 references.

References · 17

  1. 2023LLaMA: Open and Efficient Foundation Language Modelscited by 13,958
  2. 2015Distilling the Knowledge in a Neural Networkcited by 10,076
  3. 2019DistilBERT, a distilled version of BERT: smaller, faster, cheaper and lightercited by 4,243
  4. 2019HellaSwag: Can a Machine Really Finish Your Sentence?cited by 4,018
  5. 2016Pointer Sentinel Mixture Modelscited by 2,992
  6. 2015Deep Compression: Compressing Deep Neural Networks with Pruning, Trained Quantization and Huffman Codingcited by 2,291
  7. 2022GPTQ: Accurate Post-Training Quantization for Generative Pre-trained Transformerscited by 1,838
  8. 2023SparseGPT: Massive Language Models Can Be Accurately Pruned in One-Shotcited by 1,090
  9. 2016The LAMBADA dataset: Word prediction requiring a broad discourse contextcited by 960
  10. 2017To prune, or not to prune: exploring the efficacy of pruning for model compressioncited by 596
  11. 2014Exploiting Linear Structure Within Convolutional Networks for Efficient Evaluationcited by 304
  12. 2024Extreme Compression of Large Language Models via Additive Quantizationcited by 223
5 more
  1. 2022Language model compression with weighted low-rank factorizationcited by 192
  2. 2015Compressing Neural Networks with the Hashing Trickcited by 150
  3. 2023The Truth is in There: Improving Reasoning in Language Models with Layer-Selective Rank Reductioncited by 120
  4. 2019And the Bit Goes Down: Revisiting the Quantization of Neural Networkscited by 78
  5. 2026Bonsai: A Framework for Convolutional Neural Network Acceleration Using Criterion-Based Pruningcited by 3

Built on by

Not cited yet.