跳到正文
研踪PaperTrail
← 研踪 PaperTrail

arXiv:2611.11695 · v1

Language model capabilities fail in a shared, predictable order under compression and perturbation

首次提交 2026-11-09 07:30
版本更新 2026-11-09 07:30
雷达观测 2026-11-10 13:19
arXiv ↗PDF ↗

摘要

Compression can preserve a language model's average accuracy while selectively degrading individual capabilities. Whether these losses follow method-specific patterns or a transferable order is unclear. We applied seven perturbation and compression methods to eight instruction-tuned models, scoring 16 tasks in four answer formats against preregistered predictions. Short-answer capabilities failed in nearly the same order under four random perturbations with different mechanisms (median correlation 0.90) and, within each model, under pruning and quantization (0.875). Intact answer margin, answer frequency and answer format predicted this order. Fragility profiles measured under random perturbation predicted which tasks and facts compression removes first and, after four-task calibration, held-out task accuracy (median absolute error 0.11-0.12, against 0.20-0.21 for uniform decline); profiles borrowed from other model families did almost as well. The order did not transfer across models under GPTQ quantization or hold for long-form tasks. Within short answers, what compression removes is predictable before deployment.

作者备注:45 pages (34 main text with Methods and Extended Data, 11 Supplementary Information), 4 figures, 6 Extended Data figures. Code, protocols and data: https://github.com/ZhixiangWang-CN/damage-order-artifacts ; interactive summary: https://zhixiangwang-cn.github.io/damage-order-artifacts/

AI 论文解读

基于摘要 · 非全文审阅

此版本尚未生成 AI 解读。解读由后台任务生成并按论文版本保存,登录后共享已有结果。

版本差异

目前只观测到一个版本,无法比较变化。之后收录新版本时,会在这里对照标题、作者、分类和摘要。

观测到的版本

相邻记录可能跳过中间版本;首次发现 v2 及以上也会标为版本更新。

v1 · 2026-11-09 07:30 · 最新观测版本

Language model capabilities fail in a shared, predictable order under compression and perturbation

Compression can preserve a language model's average accuracy while selectively degrading individual capabilities. Whether these losses follow method-specific patterns or a transferable order is unclear. We applied seven perturbation and compression methods to eight instruction-tuned models, scoring 16 tasks in four answer formats against preregistered predictions. Short-answer capabilities failed in nearly the same order under four random perturbations with different mechanisms (median correlation 0.90) and, within each model, under pruning and quantization (0.875). Intact answer margin, answer frequency and answer format predicted this order. Fragility profiles measured under random perturbation predicted which tasks and facts compression removes first and, after four-task calibration, held-out task accuracy (median absolute error 0.11-0.12, against 0.20-0.21 for uniform decline); profiles borrowed from other model families did almost as well. The order did not transfer across models under GPTQ quantization or hold for long-form tasks. Within short answers, what compression removes is predictable before deployment.

查看此版本解读 →查看此版本原文 ↗