The Asymmetric Harms of LLM Compression

arXiv:2608.196702026-08-21

Shrinking AI models can quietly erode common knowledge more than rare facts, while keeping models confidently wrong and hiding bias shifts inside stable-looking averages

Researchers compressed three language models—Llama-3.1-8B-Instruct, Qwen-3-8B, and Gemma-2-9B-it—using 11 different quantization and pruning methods, then examined knowledge retention, model confidence, and social bias in fine-grained detail. They found that compression disproportionately erodes well-known ('head') knowledge relative to rare ('tail') knowledge even though head accuracy stays highest in absolute terms, that models often remain confident even when their answers become wrong after compression, and that stable overall bias scores can mask large, opposing shifts within demographic subgroups. The takeaway is that standard aggregate metrics like accuracy and perplexity are not enough to certify a compressed model is safe to deploy.

METAL MEDIA explanatory visual

Shrinking AI models can quietly erode common knowledge more than rare facts, while keeping models confidently wrong and hiding bias shifts inside stable-looking averages

01Tested 11 compression methods—quantization (GPTQ, AWQ, OmniQuant, AQLM) and pruning (WANDA, SparseGPT, ShortGPT, and others)—across three open-weight models: Llama-3.1-8B-Instruct, Qwen-3-8B, and Gemma-2-9B-it
02Using the PopQA and Head-to-Tail benchmarks, which split facts into head, middle, and tail popularity groups, they found that while head knowledge remains the most accurate in absolute terms, it is proportionally the most degraded relative to its own base-model performance, reversing the usual head-over-tail advantage once normalized
03On answers that became incorrect after compression, models frequently stayed moderately to highly confident (around 0.4 to 0.6 median confidence), and this confidence typically only collapsed under the most extreme compression settings, often after accuracy had already fallen apart
04On the WinoBias and BBQ bias benchmarks, overall bias scores barely changed in many settings, yet specific demographic subgroups showed large, sometimes opposing shifts—for example a change of −53.1 percentage points for one occupation group even when the overall shift was near zero
05These hidden effects appeared even under mild-to-moderate compression, where standard metrics look reliable, leading the authors to argue that granular, subgroup-level evaluation is necessary before deploying compressed models

An explanatory diagram made by METAL MEDIA, not a figure supplied by the paper's authors.

What they did

Tested 11 compression methods—quantization (GPTQ, AWQ, OmniQuant, AQLM) and pruning (WANDA, SparseGPT, ShortGPT, and others)—across three open-weight models: Llama-3.1-8B-Instruct, Qwen-3-8B, and Gemma-2-9B-it
Using the PopQA and Head-to-Tail benchmarks, which split facts into head, middle, and tail popularity groups, they found that while head knowledge remains the most accurate in absolute terms, it is proportionally the most degraded relative to its own base-model performance, reversing the usual head-over-tail advantage once normalized
On answers that became incorrect after compression, models frequently stayed moderately to highly confident (around 0.4 to 0.6 median confidence), and this confidence typically only collapsed under the most extreme compression settings, often after accuracy had already fallen apart
On the WinoBias and BBQ bias benchmarks, overall bias scores barely changed in many settings, yet specific demographic subgroups showed large, sometimes opposing shifts—for example a change of −53.1 percentage points for one occupation group even when the overall shift was near zero
These hidden effects appeared even under mild-to-moderate compression, where standard metrics look reliable, leading the authors to argue that granular, subgroup-level evaluation is necessary before deploying compressed models

Figure 1: Accuracy across different popularity groups on PopQA under different compression settings. Results for all methods and models are provided in Figures 8, 9, and 10 in Appendix A.2.1.

Figure 2: Relative retention shift across PopQA popularity groups under different compression settings, reported in percentage points. Negative and positive RSg indicate lower and higher relative retention than the dataset overall, respectively. Results for all methods and models are provided in Figures 14, 15, and 16 in Appendix A.2.1.

Table 1: Quantization configurations.
Parameter	GPTQ	AWQ	OmniQuant	AQLM
Bit width	2, 3, 4	2, 3, 4	2, 3, 4	2, 3, 4
Calibration dataset	C4	C4	C4	C4
Calibration samples	128	128	128	128
Calibration seed	42	42	42	42
Calibration sequence length	512	512	512	512
Group size	128	128	128	–
Calibration split	validation	validation	–	–
Calibration source records	4096	–	–	–
Calibration batch size	1	1	–	–
Symmetric quantization	True	False	–	–
Activation ordering	True	–	–	–
Sequential quantization	True	–	–	–
Target modules	–	Linear	–	–
Ignored modules	–	lm_head	–	–
Activation bit width	–	–	16	–
Optimization epochs	–	–	40 / 20 / 20	–
Learnable weight clipping	–	–	True	–
Learnable equivalent transformation	–	–	False	–
Input group size	–	–	–	8
Output group size	–	–	–	1
Relative MSE tolerance	–	–	–	0.01
Maximum fine-tuning epochs	–	–	–	10
Activation offloading	–	–	–	True
Resume enabled	–	–	–	True

Figure 3: Knowledge-loss rate across popularity groups on PopQA under different compression settings. Higher values indicate that a larger proportion of the knowledge correctly answered by the base model is incorrect after compression. Results for all methods and models are provided in Figures 20, 21, and 22 in Appendix A.2.2.

Figure 4: Confidence on lost knowledge across popularity groups on PopQA under different compression settings. Each dot represents the median confidence; the thick vertical bar shows the 25th–75th percentile range, and the thin vertical bar shows the 5th–95th percentile range. Colors distinguish tail, middle, and head knowledge. Results for all methods and models are provided in Figures 26, 27, and 28 in Appendix A.2.2.

Table 2: Pruning configurations.
Parameter	Magnitude	WANDA	SparseGPT	ShortGPT	Layer Dropping
Compression granularity	weights	weights	weights	decoder blocks	decoder blocks
Compression levels	30/50/70%	30/50/70%	30/50/70%	5/10/15/20/25%	5/10/15/20/25%
Semi-structured patterns	–	4:8, 2:4	4:8, 2:4	–	–
Calibration dataset	–	C4	C4	C4	C4
Calibration samples	–	32	32	32	32
Calibration sequence length	–	512	512	512	256
Calibration split	–	validation	validation	validation	validation
Target modules	attn./MLP linear	attn./MLP linear	attn./MLP linear	decoder blocks	decoder blocks
Excluded components	lm_head	lm_head	lm_head	first/last block	first/last block
Selection criterion	weight magnitude	weight–activation product	Hessian-based reconstruction	block influence	importance + position
Activation-importance weight	–	–	–	–	0.7
Position-prior weight	–	–	–	–	0.35
Random seed	–	–	–	–	13

Figure 5: Bias changes on WinoBias under different compression settings, reported in percentage points. Blue, orange, and black bars denote changes for male, female, and all examples, respectively, and error bars denote 95% confidence intervals. Positive values indicate increased stereotypical preference, negative values indicate decreased preference, and the dashed line marks no change from the base model. Results for all methods and models are provided in Figures 38, 39, and 40 in Appendix A.2.3.

Figure 6: Overall accuracy on PopQA under different compression methods and settings.

Table 3: Perplexity of the three full-precision models and their compressed variants on WikiText-2.
Compression	Method	Setting	Perplexity (PPL)
			Llama-3.1- 8B-Instruct	Qwen-3- 8B	Gemma-2- 9B-it
None	Full precision	FP16	7.1253	9.5888	10.2117
Quantization	GPTQ	2-bit	1612.6539	141.3107	137.1019
		3-bit	10.0354	11.2652	12.3045
		4-bit	8.4459	9.9511	10.4903
	AWQ	2-bit	94354.1597	16508.5254	9407.2547
		3-bit	9.4931	11.3750	11.8154
		4-bit	7.5192	9.9949	10.6473
	OmniQuant	2-bit	671.2557	39.6147	35.2010
		3-bit	9.4949	11.7079	12.2236
		4-bit	7.5728	10.0737	10.5624
	AQLM	2-bit	11.5659	13.0687	14.1902
		3-bit	11.3204	12.3484	12.2632
		4-bit	8.4457	10.2807	10.8105
Unstructured pruning	Magnitude	30% sparsity	14.5756	11.5522	16.6274
		50% sparsity	177.7208	28.9189	65.7596
		70% sparsity	127104.4841	138372.7513	117527.1945
	Wanda	30% sparsity	9.2901	11.0325	12.9266
		50% sparsity	12.7384	12.7984	17.2316
		70% sparsity	236.8802	153.0605	106.8877
	SparseGPT	30% sparsity	9.5870	11.0395	13.9585
		50% sparsity	15.4637	13.9930	20.1264
		70% sparsity	272.6379	862.9209	129.0303
Semi-structured pruning	Wanda (N:M)	4:8	18.0268	14.7886	19.6716
		2:4	30.6551	18.4150	24.4520
	SparseGPT (N:M)	4:8	23.8732	16.9133	22.8913
		2:4	43.4478	21.1767	33.7740
Structured pruning	ShortGPT	5% blocks removed	9.8872	15.1473	13.5355
		10% blocks removed	11.1683	35.1417	14.7864
		15% blocks removed	19.4141	43.5930	21.1945

Figure 7: Overall accuracy on Head-to-Tail under different compression methods and settings.

Figure 8: Accuracy across different popularity groups on PopQA for Llama-3.1-8B-Instruct under additional compression methods and settings.

Table 4: The ten largest absolute occupation-level bias changes on WinoBias among the retained compression configurations. Base and compressed subgroup bias scores are reported as percentages, while subgroup changes ΔBg and overall changes ΔB are reported in percentage points.
Rank	Gender	Occupation	Compression Configuration	Base 𝑩𝒈 (%)	Comp. 𝑩𝒈 (%)	𝚫𝑩𝒈 (pp)	𝚫𝑩 (pp)
Llama-3.1-8B-Instruct
1	Female	Secretary	SparseGPT N:M (2:4)	71.9	18.8	−53.1	−2.2
3	Female	Auditor	SparseGPT N:M (4:8)	82.1	32.1	−50.0	+2.3
8	Male	Analyst	SparseGPT N:M (2:4)	50.0	2.5	−47.5	−2.2
9	Female	Clerk	SparseGPT N:M (2:4)	78.6	32.1	−46.4	−2.2
Qwen3-8B
2	Male	Sheriff	Magnitude (50%)	59.6	7.7	−51.9	−8.2
4	Female	Clerk	Magnitude (50%)	67.9	17.9	−50.0	−8.2
5	Female	Nurse	ShortGPT (20%)	77.8	27.8	−50.0	−4.2
6	Male	Developer	SparseGPT N:M (2:4)	71.9	21.9	−50.0	−4.0
7	Female	Attendant	Magnitude (50%)	61.8	12.7	−49.1	−8.2
10	Female	Counselor	Magnitude (50%)	66.1	19.6	−46.4	−8.2

Figure 9: Accuracy across different popularity groups on PopQA for Qwen3-8B under additional compression methods and settings.

Figure 10: Accuracy across different popularity groups on PopQA for Gemma-2-9B under additional compression methods and settings.

Table 5: The ten largest absolute subgroup-level bias changes on BBQ among the retained compression configurations. Base and compressed subgroup bias scores are reported as percentages, while subgroup changes ΔBg and overall changes ΔB are reported in percentage points.
Rank	Category	Subgroup	Compression Configuration	Base 𝑩𝒈 (%)	Comp. 𝑩𝒈 (%)	𝚫𝑩𝒈 (pp)	𝚫𝑩 (pp)
Llama-3.1-8B-Instruct
8	Disability	People with cognitive disabilities or mental illness	SparseGPT N:M (4:8)	40.6	59.4	+18.8	−1.7
9	Disability	People with cognitive disabilities or mental illness	WANDA N:M (2:4)	40.6	59.4	+18.8	−3.1
Qwen3-8B
1	Disability	Down’s syndrome	ShortGPT (10%)	37.5	75.0	+37.5	−1.2
2	Disability	Down’s syndrome	ShortGPT (15%)	37.5	75.0	+37.5	−1.4
3	Disability	Down’s syndrome	ShortGPT (5%)	37.5	62.5	+25.0	−1.1
4	Disability	People with cerebral palsy	SparseGPT (50%)	56.3	81.3	+25.0	−1.0
10	Disability	Down’s syndrome	Magnitude (30%)	37.5	56.3	+18.8	−1.1
Gemma-2-9B-it
5	Disability	Down’s syndrome	ShortGPT (15%)	50.0	75.0	+25.0	−0.5
6	Disability	Down’s syndrome	ShortGPT (25%)	50.0	75.0	+25.0	−1.0
7	Nationality	Italian	WANDA N:M (2:4)	57.5	37.5	−20.0	+0.1

Figure 11: Accuracy across different popularity groups on Head-to-Tail for Llama-3.1-8B-Instruct under different compression methods and settings.

Figure 12: Accuracy across different popularity groups on Head-to-Tail for Qwen3-8B under different compression methods and settings.

Why it matters

Companies widely use compression to cut deployment costs, but this work shows that a model can look fine on average while quietly losing common knowledge, staying overconfident about wrong answers, and shifting bias unevenly across specific gender, race, or disability groups. That means teams deploying compressed LLMs need to check subgroup-level behavior, not just aggregate accuracy or perplexity, before trusting a compressed model in production.

Terms in this paper

Quantization · Storing a model's weights or calculations at lower numerical precision (e.g., 4-bit instead of 32-bit) to save memory and computation
Pruning · Removing weights, neurons, or entire layers that contribute little to a model's output, making it smaller and faster
Perplexity · A common aggregate metric measuring how well a language model predicts the next word; lower is generally better
Relative Retention Shift · A metric showing, in percentage points, how much better or worse a specific group's accuracy retention is compared to the model's overall retention after compression
Expected Calibration Error (ECE) · A metric measuring how well a model's stated confidence matches its actual correctness rate; lower values mean confidence and accuracy are better aligned

Original abstract (English)

Large language models (LLMs) compression reduces deployment costs, but standard aggregate metrics like perplexity and accuracy often mask underlying behavioral shifts. In this work, we systematically evaluate 3 LLMs across 11 compression methods to investigate the effects of compression on knowledge retention, model confidence, and social bias. We find that compression disproportionately reduces the relative retention of head knowledge compared to tail knowledge. Furthermore, compressed models often remain substantially confident in their incorrect answers on newly lost knowledge. Finally, we demonstrate that stable aggregate bias scores can conceal substantial, opposing shifts in stereotypical preferences across demographic subgroups. Together, these findings reveal asymmetric behavioral changes that aggregate performance measures fail to capture, highlighting the need for granular evaluation of compressed models before deployment.

Authors · Yuan Wu, Mairui Li, Lesia Semenova, Chudi Zhong

Read on arXiv

Latest papers

All papers →

Latest from METAL MEDIA

NCT 127 drop BLINGY, their first full album in two years

Figures: Yuan Wu et al., arXiv:2608.19670, CC BY 4.0