6.7.4 Model Compression [Elective]

Section Overview

Model compression is a deployment trade-off, not a magic shrink button. You compress because memory, latency, throughput, or device limits force a decision.

Learning Objectives

• Explain quantization, pruning, and distillation by what they change.
• Estimate model size from parameter count and numeric precision.
• Measure quantization error in a tiny example.
• Choose a compression path from a deployment bottleneck.
• Avoid judging compression by size alone.

---

Start from the Deployment Bottleneck

Bottleneck	First method to consider	Why
memory too high	quantization	same parameter count, fewer bits per value
many redundant weights/channels	pruning	remove structure that contributes little
large teacher but retraining is possible	distillation	train a smaller student to imitate behavior
latency still high after compression	profiling first	bottleneck may be data transfer or unsupported kernels

The important habit:

measure bottleneck -> choose method -> remeasure size, latency, and metric

Three Compression Paths

Method	Changes	Typical benefit	Main risk
Quantization	numeric precision	smaller memory, sometimes faster inference	accuracy drop, hardware support issues
Pruning	weights, channels, or blocks	less computation if structure is actually removed	sparse speedup may not appear on all hardware
Distillation	training objective	smaller model with teacher-like behavior	requires retraining and teacher outputs

Compression is not complete until the task still works after compression.

Lab 1: Quantization Error

weights = [0.12, -1.87, 3.44, -0.03]


def fake_quantize(values, scale):
    return [round(v * scale) / scale for v in values]


def mae(a, b):
    return sum(abs(x - y) for x, y in zip(a, b)) / len(a)


q8_like = fake_quantize(weights, scale=16)
q4_like = fake_quantize(weights, scale=4)

print("quant_error_lab")
print("original:", weights)
print("q8_like:", q8_like)
print("q4_like:", q4_like)
print("q8_mae:", round(mae(weights, q8_like), 4))
print("q4_mae:", round(mae(weights, q4_like), 4))

Expected output:

quant_error_lab
original: [0.12, -1.87, 3.44, -0.03]
q8_like: [0.125, -1.875, 3.4375, 0.0]
q4_like: [0.0, -1.75, 3.5, 0.0]
q8_mae: 0.0106
q4_mae: 0.0825

More aggressive quantization usually creates more numerical error. The practical question is whether the downstream task metric still stays acceptable.

Lab 2: Estimate Model Size

import torch
from torch import nn

model = nn.Sequential(
    nn.Linear(128, 64),
    nn.ReLU(),
    nn.Linear(64, 10),
)

param_count = sum(p.numel() for p in model.parameters())

print("model_size_lab")
print("params:", param_count)

for name, bits in [("fp32", 32), ("fp16", 16), ("int8", 8), ("int4", 4)]:
    mb = param_count * bits / 8 / 1024 / 1024
    print(f"{name:>4}: {mb:.4f} MB")

Expected output:

model_size_lab
params: 8906
fp32: 0.0340 MB
fp16: 0.0170 MB
int8: 0.0085 MB
int4: 0.0042 MB

This is an estimate for parameters only. Real deployed size can also include metadata, tokenizer files, runtime overhead, and engine-specific packaging.

Choosing a Path

Situation	Good first action
model does not fit in memory	try quantization first
model fits but latency is high	profile latency before pruning
most channels appear redundant	consider structured pruning
a smaller model must preserve behavior	distill from a teacher model
metric drops too much after compression	reduce compression strength or fine-tune

For pruning, prefer structured pruning for deployment because removing whole channels or blocks is easier for hardware to exploit than random sparse weights.

For distillation, the common pattern is:

teacher logits or outputs -> student learns labels + teacher behavior

What to Report in a Compression Experiment

Metric	Before	After	Why it matters
model size	required	required	did memory improve?
latency	required	required	did inference actually speed up?
throughput	useful	useful	can the service handle more requests?
task metric	required	required	did quality remain acceptable?
hardware/runtime	required	required	compression depends on deployment stack

Never report “int8 works” without task metric and latency. Smaller is not automatically better.

Common Mistakes

Mistake	Fix
compressing before measuring bottlenecks	measure memory, latency, and metric first
assuming quantization always speeds things up	verify hardware and runtime support
counting only parameter size	include tokenizer, runtime, and packaging where relevant
using unstructured pruning and expecting automatic speedup	benchmark on target hardware
ignoring accuracy after compression	compare task metric before and after

Exercises

1. Change scale=16 to scale=32 in Lab 1. Does MAE decrease?
2. Add a third Linear layer to Lab 2 and recompute model size.
3. Choose a compression strategy for a model that fits in memory but is too slow.
4. Write a before/after report template with size, latency, throughput, and metric.
5. Explain why structured pruning is usually easier to deploy than unstructured pruning.

Key Takeaways

• Compression starts from deployment constraints.
• Quantization changes numeric precision.
• Pruning changes model structure.
• Distillation changes the training process.
• Compression is successful only if the deployed task still meets quality and latency requirements.