REVIEW 1 cited by
What Makes Quantization for Large Language Models Hard? An Empirical Study from the Lens of Perturbation
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
What Makes Quantization for Large Language Models Hard? An Empirical Study from the Lens of Perturbation
read the original abstract
Quantization has emerged as a promising technique for improving the memory and computational efficiency of large language models (LLMs). Though the trade-off between performance and efficiency is well-known, there is still much to be learned about the relationship between quantization and LLM performance. To shed light on this relationship, we propose a new perspective on quantization, viewing it as perturbations added to the weights and activations of LLMs. We call this approach "the lens of perturbation". Using this lens, we conduct experiments with various artificial perturbations to explore their impact on LLM performance. Our findings reveal several connections between the properties of perturbations and LLM performance, providing insights into the failure cases of uniform quantization and suggesting potential solutions to improve the robustness of LLM quantization. To demonstrate the significance of our findings, we implement a simple non-uniform quantization approach based on our insights. Our experiments show that this approach achieves minimal performance degradation on both 4-bit weight quantization and 8-bit quantization for weights and activations. These results validate the correctness of our approach and highlight its potential to improve the efficiency of LLMs without sacrificing performance.
Forward citations
Cited by 1 Pith paper
-
Vision-Language and Large Language Model Performance in Gastroenterology: GPT, Claude, Llama, Phi, Mistral, Gemma, and Quantized Models
GPT-4o and Claude 3.5 Sonnet reach 73.7-74% accuracy on gastroenterology questions; VLMs gain nothing from images and lose accuracy with LLM-generated captions.
discussion (0)
Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.