Papers
arxiv:2609.27980

Six Layers Less: Encoder Pruning for Whisper with Label-Free Recovery

Published on Sep 23
· Submitted by
Rasmus Aagaard
on Sep 24
Authors:

Abstract

Pruning large pre-trained transformer-based ASR models such as OpenAI's Whisper has seen great adoption, as pruning the decoder led to significant end-to-end transcription speedups. For instance, the {\tt whisper-large-v3-turbo} variant reduced the decoder from 32 to 4 layers, while Distill-Whisper similarly reduced the decoder to only 2 layers. Although some attention has been put towards reducing the size of the encoder, no approach has seen wide adoption. This could be due to the need for custom inference implementations to take advantage of the compressed model. We present an approach that ranks encoder layers by the leave-one-layer-out change in Word Error Rate (WER). The six layers that cause the least change are removed, corresponding to 18.5% of the encoder stack. The pruned model requires no custom inference code as it is simply a more shallow encoder with fewer layers. We further distill using unlabeled monolingual speech data to recover performance degradation caused by the zero-shot layer pruning. Mean WER across four languages increases to 20.1% after distillation, compared to 21.9% zero-shot, going from a baseline of 18.2%. We release all of our code (https://github.com/rasgaard/whisper-encoder-layer-prune) and the pruned model (https://huggingface.co/rasgaard/whisper-large-v3-turbo-encoder-pruned).

Community

Paper author Paper submitter

Paper describes how Whisper's encoder can have many of its layers pruned away with minimal damage to downstream performance. And even then performance can be recovered effectively through distillation.

Cutting six encoder layers only matters if it shows up in wall-clock time, and with Whisper the decoder is usually the bottleneck once you're generating. I'd want to see end-to-end latency on a stock ONNX or CTranslate2 pipeline, not just encoder FLOPs — custom kernels don't survive contact with prod. The label-free recovery is the interesting part, but it's worth asking whether it holds on noisy audio where Whisper already degrades, or only on the clean clips that make benchmarks look good. If the recovery needs clean-ish input to work, you've just moved the failure mode. I haven't tried it yet, but I'd measure on a few real meeting recordings before trusting the numbers.

Sign up or log in to comment

Get this paper in your agent:

hf papers read 2609.27980
Don't have the latest CLI?
curl -LsSf https://hf.co/cli/install.sh | bash

Models citing this paper 1

Datasets citing this paper 0

No dataset linking this paper

Cite arxiv.org/abs/2609.27980 in a dataset README.md to link it from this page.

Spaces citing this paper 0

No Space linking this paper

Cite arxiv.org/abs/2609.27980 in a Space README.md to link it from this page.

Collections including this paper 0

No Collection including this paper

Add this paper to a collection to link it from this page.