The paper argues that post‑training pruning of large language models should use a calibration set that covers multiple capability domains rather than a single source. A balanced four‑way mixture of sources consistently outperforms any single source across sparsity levels, model scales, and held‑out benchmarks. When aligned corpora are unavailable, the IGSP method approximates this mixture using only the base model and an evaluation taxonomy, achieving significant gains over prior self‑generation approaches.
arXiv:2606. 03328v3 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Calibration data are often treated as a minor implementation detail in post-training LLM pruning because averaged evaluations suggest only modest effects.
arXiv:2606. 03328v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Post-training pruning compresses large language models to high sparsity using a small unlabelled calibration set, and recent work has concluded that the choice of calibration source has only modest impact on averaged post-pruning accuracy.
arXiv:2608.23744v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Split conformal prediction, not the pruning rule, supplies finite-sample marginal coverage once a pruned model is fixed independently of the conformal...
The paper presents a systematic study of how different compression techniques—pruning, quantization, and distillation—affect the capabilities of large language models (LLMs) in tasks such as mathematics, code generation, and question answering. It introduces a framework that measures capability loss and relates it to factors like model size, training stage, and compression settings, yielding simple predictive relations that generalize across unseen configurations. The authors demonstrate that sharing density responses across pruning levels can dramatically reduce the number of measurements needed, and that their predictive models closely match regression results while offering efficient decision guidance for compression method selection.
arXiv:2609.21208v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Self-play methods that co-train a single language model as both coder and test author promise to move code-generation RL beyond fixed test suites, but...
arXiv:2607.27836v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Large language model unlearning is consistently fragile under relearn attacks. On TOFU, fine-tuning on twenty forget examples substantially recover...
arXiv:2602. 08686v3 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Prefill-only KV compression freezes a token subset at the end of prefill and decodes from it without further eviction.
arXiv:2606. 21641v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) have been proposed as hyperparameter-optimization (HPO) advisors that "warm-start" search from prior knowledge, proposing strong configurations in very few evaluations.
The paper evaluates a manager‑worker scaffold that uses a shared filesystem workspace to orchestrate multi‑agent large language model (LLM) coding tasks without training or tuning. Across nine models—including five open‑weight and four closed‑weight systems—the scaffold yields statistically significant accuracy gains for some models (e.g., Qwen3.8‑27B, GPT‑5.6‑Luna, GPT‑5.6‑Terra, Kimi‑K3, Minimax‑M3) while producing null or negative effects for others (e.g., Qwen3.6‑35B). The study shows that the manager can triple token usage but still achieves higher accuracy at a fraction of the cost compared to larger single‑pass models, with key mechanisms identified as context management and problem decomposition.
The study investigates how the composition of data during the mid‑training phase of language models affects performance across multiple domains. Experiments with Qwen3‑8B‑Base on five distinct KOR‑Bench domains show that moderate coverage (10%‑40%) yields the best per‑domain results, and that alignment passes cannot fully close the performance gaps created by mid‑training data choices. Additionally, zero coverage in mid‑training severely degrades accuracy, while a carefully tuned allocation can provide the largest overall pipeline improvement.
The paper investigates how per-domain data composition during the mid‑training phase (between pre‑training and alignment) affects model performance. Experiments with Qwen3‑8B‑Base across five KOR‑Bench domains show that a moderate coverage band (10%‑40%) yields the best performance for each domain, and that alignment passes cannot fully close the gaps created by suboptimal mid‑training allocations. Additionally, zero coverage during mid‑training severely degrades accuracy, while a carefully tuned allocation can provide the largest overall pipeline improvement.
arXiv:2607. 16721v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: The strongest open-weight coding models are mixture-of-experts (MoE) networks: most of their size comes from large pools of "expert" subnetworks, of which only a few act on any token.