CLOct 2, 2023
Do Compressed LLMs Forget Knowledge? An Experimental Study with Practical ImplicationsDuc N. M Hoang, Minsik Cho, Thomas Merth et al.
Compressing Large Language Models (LLMs) often leads to reduced performance, especially for knowledge-intensive tasks. In this work, we dive into how compression damages LLMs' inherent knowledge and the possible remedies. We start by proposing two conjectures on the nature of the damage: one is certain knowledge being forgotten (or erased) after LLM compression, hence necessitating the compressed model to (re)learn from data with additional parameters; the other presumes that knowledge is internally displaced and hence one requires merely "inference re-direction" with input-side augmentation such as prompting, to recover the knowledge-related performance. Extensive experiments are then designed to (in)validate the two conjectures. We observe the promise of prompting in comparison to model tuning; we further unlock prompting's potential by introducing a variant called Inference-time Dynamic Prompting (IDP), that can effectively increase prompt diversity without incurring any inference overhead. Our experiments consistently suggest that compared to the classical re-training alternatives such as LoRA, prompting with IDP leads to better or comparable post-compression performance recovery, while saving the extra parameter size by 21x and reducing inference latency by 60%. Our experiments hence strongly endorse the conjecture of "knowledge displaced" over "knowledge forgotten", and shed light on a new efficient mechanism to restore compressed LLM performance. We additionally visualize and analyze the different attention and activation patterns between prompted and re-trained models, demonstrating they achieve performance recovery in two different regimes.
94.1LGMay 11
Unmasking On-Policy Distillation: Where It Helps, Where It Hurts, and WhyMohammadreza Armandpour, Fatih Ilhan, David Harrison et al.
On-policy distillation offers dense, per-token supervision for training reasoning models; however, it remains unclear under which conditions this signal is beneficial and under which it is detrimental. Which teacher model should be used, and in the case of self-distillation, which specific context should serve as the supervisory signal? Does the optimal choice vary from one token to the next? At present, addressing these questions typically requires costly training runs whose aggregate performance metrics obscure the dynamics at the level of individual tokens. We introduce a training-free diagnostic framework that operates at the highest resolution: per token, per question, and per teacher. We derive an ideal per-node gradient defined as the parameter update that maximally increases the student's probability of success. We then develop a scalable targeted-rollout algorithm to estimate this gradient efficiently, even for long chains of intermediate thoughts. The gradient alignment score, defined as the cosine similarity between this ideal gradient and any given distillation gradient, quantifies the extent to which a particular configuration approximates the ideal signal. Across a range of self-distillation settings and external teacher models, we observe that distillation guidance exhibits substantially higher alignment with the ideal on incorrect rollouts than on correct ones, where the student already performs well and the teacher's signal tends to become noisy. Furthermore, we find that the optimal distillation context depends jointly on the student model's capacity and the target task, and that no single universally effective configuration emerges. These findings motivate the use of per-task, per-token diagnostic analyses for distillation.