Large Models for Small Devices: Recent Advances and Empirical Analysis of Edge AI Deployment

Running large AI models on resource-constrained edge devices requires model compression to reduce model size and computation. What compresses well, however, need not deploy well. We survey dozens of recent works that report compression results on real hardware and extract practical deployment guidelines from them. Following these guidelines, we deploy compact language and image models on GPU, CPU, and Raspberry Pi platforms across question answering and image segmentation. No single technique wins across tasks. For question answering, Qwen3.5 0.8B reaches 93.85 SQuAD F1 and 92 EM under Q5_K_M GGUF quantization, while structured pruning at the same precision costs 16 F1 at a 1% ratio. For segmentation, the ranking reverses: default quantization leaves parameters and MACs unchanged, whereas pruning cuts model size by nearly 80% at near-constant mIoU. Pruning can even inflate the deployed artifact by 21-49% by breaking k-quant super-block alignment; combined with longer, less format-compliant outputs, this raises Raspberry Pi latency up to 3.4x. Compression can also manufacture the appearance of competence rather than destroy it visibly: one LoRA-recovered variant stays fully parseable and holds 71% strict BoolQ accuracy while sending 97 of 100 predictions to a single class, at 52.6% balanced accuracy. We explain these effects through neural-flow graph analysis and prefill-decode-level latency decomposition, and condense them into task-specific deployment research directions. The right technique depends on the task, the model, and the hardware. Our experiment code and artifacts are open-sourced at https://github.com/Arnavvvkumar/deployment

When Does Latent Communication Pay? A Causal Audit of Relayed KV Caches in Multi-Agent LLMs

Multi-agent LLM systems relay key--value caches instead of text and credit their gains to exchanged ``latent thoughts''. That credit is a claim about \emph{which} example's cache is relayed, not merely that one is. We audit it causally in released systems. The cache is replaced with deranged (mismatched-example), zeroed, and moment-matched random counterparts, under two regimes defined by whether the receiver needs the sender's private information. Where it does, the battery reads ceiling: 100% against 23--25% for answer-irrelevant relays on the primary backbone, a contrast replicated across three families, five checkpoints, and a prose document-QA surface. Where it does not, a pre-registered five-seed protocol establishes equivalence within 2.8 points, a margin anchored to the audited system's reported gain, under Holm-corrected TOST on GSM8K and ARC-Challenge across three Qwen3 scales and on MedQA at 8B (one cell shows a small detected advantage inside the margin); a second family shows no detected advantage. A large cache effect need not be a pairing effect. In one natural cell, zeroing the relay costs 14.7 points; a mismatched cache, 0.4. Nor is need sufficient: under the same test, delivered channels span ceiling (LatentMAS's native relay), partial (KVComm's layer subset), and no detected example-specific transfer (C2C's released projector). Benchmark deltas do not by themselves establish latent-thought transmission; establishing it takes a mismatched-cache audit, which we release.