Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This study evaluates the effects of compression on large language models (LLMs) by analyzing three models across eleven compression methods, focusing on knowledge retention, model confidence, and social bias. The findings reveal that compression leads to a disproportionate loss of head knowledge relative to tail knowledge, while compressed models maintain high confidence in incorrect answers regarding lost knowledge. Additionally, the research uncovers that stable aggregate bias scores can obscure significant shifts in stereotypical preferences among different demographic groups, emphasizing the inadequacy of standard metrics in capturing these nuanced behavioral changes.
Compression can lead to a significant loss of critical knowledge while leaving models confidently incorrect, revealing hidden biases that standard metrics fail to detect.
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.
