TR-3: language models compressed with a 3-site Tensor Ring

Every attention and MLP projection replaced by a 3-site Tensor Ring (cyclic — the ring closes with a non-trivial boundary bond, so it is not a train/TT) plus a 5% sparse residual, then healed with pure forward-KL distillation from the corresponding dense teacher.

Directory Base model Params Reduction Licence
llama2-7b/ Llama-2-7b-chat 6.74B → 4.02B 40.30% llama2
llama2-13b/ Llama-2-13b-chat 13.02B → 7.74B 40.53% llama2
qwen2.5-3b/ Qwen2.5-3B-Instruct 3.09B → 2.08B 32.65% qwen-researchnon-commercial
qwen2.5-7b/ Qwen2.5-7B-Instruct 7.62B → 5.19B 31.89% apache-2.0

Controls

Directory What it isolates
tt3-llama2-7b/ Open-chain Tensor Train at the same per-layer budget as llama2-7b/
tt3-qwen2.5-3b/ Same, against qwen2.5-3b/
svd-llm/, svd-llm-v2/ SVD-LLM baselines

Each TT-3 directory ships both state_dict_fp16_unhealed.pt and state_dict_fp16_healed.pt; the TR-3 directories ship the healed weights only.

Does the ring topology matter?

The TT-3 controls are budget-matched to their TR-3 counterparts to within 0.1%, so the only structural difference is the closed ring versus the open chain:

Model Arm KL compressed KL healed MMLU healed
LLaMA-2-7B TT-3 6.6868 0.4077 33.38%
LLaMA-2-7B TR-3 0.6932 0.1822 43.82%
Qwen2.5-3B TT-3 6.3507 0.3955 43.33%
Qwen2.5-3B TR-3 0.8888 0.1729 57.41%

Roughly 9x lower KL before healing and ~2.3x after, worth 10-14 MMLU points. Each control's README states the two confounds that qualify this (a batch-size difference in the healed rows, and uneven ALS coverage) and the per-layer evidence that the ALS gap is an order of magnitude too small to explain the result.

Why the compression rates differ

Rates are matched by the damage compression inflicts, not by the nominal percentage. Both Qwen2.5 sizes collapse to chance at the ~40% the LLaMA-2 models tolerate:

Model Reduction pre-heal KL
LLaMA-2-13B 40.53% 0.3616
Qwen2.5-7B 31.89% 0.4965
LLaMA-2-7B 40.30% 0.6915
Qwen2.5-3B 32.65% 0.8882
Qwen2.5-7B 40.60% 2.0204 — collapses
Qwen2.5-3B 40.94% 3.5810 — collapses

Two effects are separable and both real: damage falls with model size, and at equal size and equal rate the Qwen2.5 architecture is harder to compress than LLaMA-2 (2.0204 vs 0.6915, both ~7B at ~40%). Scale mitigates the architecture effect without removing it.

⚠️ Licences differ per subdirectory

The Hub shows one license field, so it is other; the binding terms are per directory. qwen2.5-3b/ and tt3-qwen2.5-3b/ are Qwen RESEARCH LICENSE — research/evaluation only, while qwen2.5-7b/ is Apache 2.0: Alibaba released the two Qwen sizes under different terms, so the permissive licence does not carry across. LLaMA directories are Llama 2 Community License. Do not assume one subdirectory's terms apply to another.

⚠️ These are NOT standard transformers checkpoints

state_dict_fp16_*.pt holds factorisation cores, not dense nn.Linear weights. Loading requires rebuilding the architecture with the layer classes shipped in each directory, using that directory's ranks.json. AutoModelForCausalLM.from_pretrained() will not work. Each subdirectory's README carries a complete loading recipe.

Downloads last month

-

Downloads are not tracked for this model. How to track
Inference Providers NEW
This model isn't deployed by any Inference Provider. 🙋 Ask for provider support