Skip to main content
Search

# Quadratic Program

5 related articles

Subscribe to updates
  1. Expert pruning stops scoring experts one by one: HOPE counts their partnerships, and at 50% pruning beats the unpruned model on agentic coding

    Mixture-of-experts models must hold every expert in memory at inference even though each token uses only a few, so deleting the least important experts is a common compression route. HOPE writes the pruning error as a sum of pairwise expert interaction terms, builds an interaction matrix from calibration data, and solves a quadratic program to choose the prune-set. Across Qwen3.5-122B, Qwen3.5-35B and GLM-4.5-Air, HOPE holds an average rank of 1.58 at 50% pruning versus 2.42 for the next-best method, REAP; Qwen3.5-35B-A3B scores 42.3 on SWE-Bench Pro, matching the unpruned model's 41.8 while REAP falls to 36.2.

  2. Expert pruning stops scoring experts one by one: HOPE counts their partnerships and, at 50% pruning, beats the unpruned model on agentic coding

    Mixture-of-experts models must keep every expert in memory at inference even though each token uses only a few, so deleting experts by independent importance scores is a common fix. HOPE writes the pruning error as pairwise interaction terms between experts and selects a whole prune-set with a quadratic program, reaching the best average rank across three models, two calibration datasets and several benchmarks. On Qwen3.5-35B-A3B at 50% pruning it scores 42.3 on SWE-Bench Pro, matching the unpruned model's 41.8 while the first-order method REAP falls to 36.2.

  3. A convex QP solver learns its own tuning: under 8 hours on a laptop, fastest on about 70% of Maros–Mészáros instances

    Regularized interior-point solvers for convex quadratic programs have long relied on hand-set regularization weights, barrier parameters and inner tolerances. RL-QProxIP uses a reinforcement-learning policy to output contraction factors for those parameters at each outer iteration without changing the underlying algorithm, so the solver keeps its convergence guarantees. On the Maros–Mészáros test set the policy is the fastest solver on about 70% of instances, while the base QProxIP needs about 3.5 times the time to reach the same fraction; the source states two conflicting versions of their final coverage, so no preference is taken here.

  4. arXiv

    PCD pins the primary gradient into the update direction and holds 70.9% accuracy at 90% sparsity on ResNet-34/CIFAR-100 while symmetric multi-objective baselines collapse

    The work introduces Priority-Constrained Descent (PCD), a gradient-based framework that anchors on the primary gradient and applies only the minimal Euclidean distortion needed to guarantee each secondary objective a τ-fraction of first-order progress, reporting better per-objective performance and Pareto dominance over symmetric multi-objective methods in structured pruning, unstructured sparsity with low-rankness, and synthetic experiments, with closed-form solutions for two and three objectives and scale invariance.

  5. arXiv

    Higher-Order Pruning of Experts in Mixture-of-Experts Language Models

    The work introduces HOPE, a second-order expert-pruning objective that records a per-layer pairwise expert interaction matrix F during calibration and solves a quadratic program to select the prune-set, provably showing that first-order methods such as REAP are special cases that ignore interaction terms; across three frontier MoE models (up to 122B parameters), two calibration sets, and multiple benchmarks, HOPE achieves the best average rank in most conditions, with an average rank of 1.58 at 50% pruning (versus 2.42 for the next-best method, REAP) and gains of up to +6.1% on agentic coding.

You’re all caught up