Skip to content
← Back to explorer

Curvature-Weighted Capacity Allocation: A Minimum Description Length Framework for Layer-Adaptive Large Language Model Optimization

Theophilus Amaefuna, Hitesh Vaidya, Anshuman Chhabra, Ankur Mali · Mar 1, 2026 · Citations: 0

Data freshness

Extraction: Fresh

Check recency before relying on this page for active eval decisions. Use stale pages as context and verify against current hub results.

Metadata refreshed

Mar 1, 2026, 4:14 AM

Recent

Extraction refreshed

Mar 14, 2026, 6:19 AM

Fresh

Extraction source

Runtime deterministic fallback

Confidence 0.15

Abstract

Layer-wise capacity in large language models is highly non-uniform: some layers contribute disproportionately to loss reduction while others are near-redundant. Existing methods for exploiting this non-uniformity, such as influence-function-based layer scoring, produce sensitivity estimates but offer no principled mechanism for translating them into allocation or pruning decisions under hardware constraints. We address this gap with a unified, curvature-aware framework grounded in the Minimum Description Length (MDL) principle. Our central quantity is the curvature-adjusted layer gain $ζ_k^2 = g_k^\top \widetilde{H}_{kk}^{-1} g_k$, which we show equals twice the maximal second-order reduction in empirical risk achievable by updating layer $k$ alone, and which strictly dominates gradient-norm-based scores by incorporating local curvature. Normalizing these gains into layer quality scores $q_k$, we formulate two convex MDL programs: a capacity allocation program that distributes expert slots or LoRA rank preferentially to high-curvature layers under diminishing returns, and a pruning program that concentrates sparsity on low-gain layers while protecting high-gain layers from degradation. Both programs admit unique closed-form solutions parameterized by a single dual variable, computable in $O(K \log 1/\varepsilon)$ via bisection. We prove an $O(δ^2)$ transfer regret bound showing that source-domain allocations remain near-optimal on target tasks when curvature scores drift by $δ$, with explicit constants tied to the condition number of the target program. Together, these results elevate layer-wise capacity optimization from an empirical heuristic to a theoretically grounded, computationally efficient framework with provable optimality and generalization guarantees.

Low-signal caution for protocol decisions

Use this page for context, then validate protocol choices against stronger HFEPX references before implementation decisions.

  • Extraction flags indicate low-signal or possible false-positive protocol mapping.
  • Extraction confidence is 0.15 (below strong-reference threshold).
  • No explicit evaluation mode was extracted from available metadata.
  • No benchmark/dataset or metric anchors were extracted.

HFEPX Relevance Assessment

This paper is adjacent to HFEPX scope and is best used for background context, not as a primary protocol reference.

Best use

Background context only

Use if you need

Background context only.

Main weakness

Extraction flags indicate low-signal or possible false-positive protocol mapping.

Trust level

Low

Eval-Fit Score

0/100 • Low

Treat as adjacent context, not a core eval-method reference.

Human Feedback Signal

Not explicit in abstract metadata

Evaluation Signal

Weak / implicit signal

HFEPX Fit

Adjacent candidate

Extraction confidence: Low

Field Provenance & Confidence

Each key protocol field shows extraction state, confidence band, and data source so you can decide whether to trust it directly or validate from full text.

Human Feedback Types

missing

None explicit

Confidence: Low Source: Runtime deterministic fallback missing

No explicit feedback protocol extracted.

Evidence snippet: Layer-wise capacity in large language models is highly non-uniform: some layers contribute disproportionately to loss reduction while others are near-redundant.

Evaluation Modes

missing

None explicit

Confidence: Low Source: Runtime deterministic fallback missing

Validate eval design from full paper text.

Evidence snippet: Layer-wise capacity in large language models is highly non-uniform: some layers contribute disproportionately to loss reduction while others are near-redundant.

Quality Controls

missing

Not reported

Confidence: Low Source: Runtime deterministic fallback missing

No explicit QC controls found.

Evidence snippet: Layer-wise capacity in large language models is highly non-uniform: some layers contribute disproportionately to loss reduction while others are near-redundant.

Benchmarks / Datasets

missing

Not extracted

Confidence: Low Source: Runtime deterministic fallback missing

No benchmark anchors detected.

Evidence snippet: Layer-wise capacity in large language models is highly non-uniform: some layers contribute disproportionately to loss reduction while others are near-redundant.

Reported Metrics

missing

Not extracted

Confidence: Low Source: Runtime deterministic fallback missing

No metric anchors detected.

Evidence snippet: Layer-wise capacity in large language models is highly non-uniform: some layers contribute disproportionately to loss reduction while others are near-redundant.

Rater Population

partial

Domain Experts

Confidence: Low Source: Runtime deterministic fallback evidenced

Helpful for staffing comparability.

Evidence snippet: Normalizing these gains into layer quality scores $q_k$, we formulate two convex MDL programs: a capacity allocation program that distributes expert slots or LoRA rank preferentially to high-curvature layers under diminishing returns, and a pruning program that concentrates sparsity on low-gain layers while protecting high-gain layers from degradation.

Human Data Lens

  • Uses human feedback: No
  • Feedback types: None
  • Rater population: Domain Experts
  • Unit of annotation: Unknown
  • Expertise required: General
  • Extraction source: Runtime deterministic fallback

Evaluation Lens

  • Evaluation modes:
  • Agentic eval: None
  • Quality controls: Not reported
  • Confidence: 0.15
  • Flags: low_signal, possible_false_positive, runtime_fallback_extraction

Protocol And Measurement Signals

Benchmarks / Datasets

No benchmark or dataset names were extracted from the available abstract.

Reported Metrics

No metric terms were extracted from the available abstract.

Research Brief

Deterministic synthesis

Our central quantity is the curvature-adjusted layer gain ζ_k^2 = g_k^\top H_{kk}^{-1} g_k, which we show equals twice the maximal second-order reduction in empirical risk achievable by updating layer k alone, and which strictly dominates… HFEPX protocol signal is limited in abstract-level metadata, so treat it as adjacent context. Updated from current HFEPX corpus.

Generated Mar 14, 2026, 6:19 AM · Grounded in abstract + metadata only

Key Takeaways

  • Our central quantity is the curvature-adjusted layer gain ζ_k^2 = g_k^\top H_{kk}^{-1} g_k, which we show equals twice the maximal second-order reduction in empirical risk…
  • Abstract shows limited direct human-feedback or evaluation-protocol detail; use as adjacent methodological context.

Researcher Actions

  • Treat this as method context, then pivot to protocol-specific HFEPX hubs.
  • Identify benchmark choices from full text before operationalizing conclusions.
  • Verify metric definitions before comparing against your eval pipeline.

Caveats

  • Generated from title, abstract, and extracted metadata only; full-paper implementation details are not parsed.
  • Low-signal flag detected: protocol relevance may be indirect.

Research Summary

Contribution Summary

  • Our central quantity is the curvature-adjusted layer gain ζ_k^2 = g_k^\top H_{kk}^{-1} g_k, which we show equals twice the maximal second-order reduction in empirical risk achievable by updating layer k alone, and which strictly dominates…

Why It Matters For Eval

  • Abstract shows limited direct human-feedback or evaluation-protocol detail; use as adjacent methodological context.

Researcher Checklist

  • Gap: Human feedback protocol is explicit

    No explicit human feedback protocol detected.

  • Gap: Evaluation mode is explicit

    No clear evaluation mode extracted.

  • Gap: Quality control reporting appears

    No calibration/adjudication/IAA control explicitly detected.

  • Gap: Benchmark or dataset anchors are present

    No benchmark/dataset anchor extracted from abstract.

  • Gap: Metric reporting is present

    No metric terms extracted.

Category-Adjacent Papers (Broader Context)

These papers are nearby in arXiv category and useful for broader context, but not necessarily protocol-matched to this paper.

Need human evaluators for your AI research? Scale annotation with expert AI Trainers.