Comparing full-precision and quantized forward passes, and identifying two mechanisms that characterize pretrained quantization robustness, these mechanisms explain why quantization error that passes through numerous layers can still produce only small output changes, and are verified across models and quantization settings.
Abstract
Post-training quantization compresses large language models (LLMs) by storing their weights at reduced precision, and each quantized weight introduces an error into the hidden states. Naively, these errors should accumulate with depth and corrupt next-token prediction; randomly initialized models accumulate these discrepancies rapidly, whereas quantized pretrained models accumulate much less hidden-state error and largely maintain downstream task performance, even though they were never trained with quantization noise. This raises the question we address: why does post-training quantization work? Comparing full-precision and quantized forward passes, we identify two mechanisms that characterize pretrained quantization robustness. First, the error a layer newly introduces tends to oppose the error it inherits from the layer's input. The two cancel partially such that the discrepancy between full-precision and quantized passes grows slowly. This counteracting residual interaction develops during pretraining. Our quantitative analysis identifies it as a major factor slowing hidden-error growth. Second, LM-head geometry preferentially preserves the scores and probabilities of high-ranked tokens, which typically represent the model's most confident predictions. Together, these mechanisms explain why quantization error that passes through numerous layers can still produce only small output changes, and we verify the findings across models and quantization settings.
Quantization-Aware Pre-Training (QAPT) can increase the inference efficiency of DNNs, but a problematic behaviour known as rounding boundary weight oscillation can introduce detrimental noise into the training process and significantly reduce convergence speed. While existing methods can reduce this detrimental noise,...
Post-training quantization (PTQ) is widely used to reduce the cost of serving large language models (LLMs), but its accuracy cost is uneven and is often tuned per model. We study where quantization damage occurs and how to allocate a small additional precision budget. Using causal mixed-precision intervention as ground...
JustQuant is proposed, a simple yet effective framework that moves the complexity of low-bit quantization from deployment-time operators into the training process and introduces Theseus QAD, a quantization-aware distillation method that progressively applies multi-level supervision, analogous to the gradual replacement...
Kai-Cheng Yang, Kai-Sen Yang, Chun-Yu Liu et al.· 0 citations
Adaptive Log-Space (AL) quantization for non-negative states is introduced and its results make state topology and update semantics first-class design constraints for optimizer quantization.
QUASAR is introduced, a QAT method that continuously performs lightweight, loss-aware reconstruction in the training loop to lower the loss floor and improve the resulting low-bit model, establishing QUASAR's objective as a principled optimization target.
Vincent Counathe, Ben Athiwaratkun, C. De Sa et al.· 1 citation
This work systematically study weight-only post-training quantization across bit-widths, quantization methods, model scales and downstream tasks and establishes that quantization degradation is governed by how errors are introduced at the source and how they accumulate across the network.
Chen-Xi Zhou, Pengfei Cao, Jin Ye et al.· 0 citations
Assistant Professor Benjamin Lindquist studies how engineers deliberately injected randomness into early AI, giving rise to deep-learning models that sometimes hallucinate.
We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads.
See our Cookie Policy.