Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 4 minor 42 references

Rethinking Post-Training Quantization: Introducing a Statistical Pre-Calibration Approach

T0 review · 5 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read A data-free pre-calibration step can match calibration-based methods for quantizing large language models.

desk verdict A fast data-free PTQ method that is really magnitude-threshold outlier selection, wrapped in an unsound KL-divergence argument; the domain-shift experiments are the only genuinely useful part. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.09107 v1 pith:FTRL5AM4 submitted 2025-01-15 cs.LG

Alireza Ghaffari , Sharareh Younesian , Boxing Chen , Vahid Partovi Nia , Masoud Asgharian This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.LG
keywords Post-trainingquantizationadaptiveLASSOlargelanguagemodelsweightdistributionpreservationKLdivergencesoft-thresholdingmodelcompressioncalibration-free
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper proposes a pre-calibration step for post-training quantization of large language models that uses no calibration data at all. The step classifies weights into salient and common groups by solving an adaptive-LASSO problem with pseudo-activations, which reduces to a simple soft-thresholding rule. The authors argue this minimizes the Kullback-Leibler divergence between original and quantized weight distributions, preserving the model's information content. If the claim holds, quantized LLMs become robust to domain shifts in calibration data and far cheaper to produce.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the adaptive LASSO penalty, a weighted L1 penalty $\sum_i |\hat w_i / w_i|$ in which the original weight serves as the gold-standard weight for each coefficient. Combined with pseudo-activations chosen so that $XX^\top = bI$, the loss separates per weight and its minimizer is the soft-thresholding rule $\hat w_i = \operatorname{sign}(w_i)\operatorname{ReLU}(|w_i| - \lambda'/|w_i|)$. This rule is what classifies weights into salient and non-salient groups, and its closed-form nature is what makes pre-calibration fast.

What would settle it

Compare the perplexity and zero-shot accuracy of the proposed thresholding against a plain magnitude-based outlier selector that keeps the same fraction of largest absolute weights in high precision, holding the total bit budget fixed. If the two match across models and bit-widths, the distribution-preservation mechanism adds nothing beyond magnitude thresholding. A direct check is to compute the KL divergence between original and quantized weight tensors before and after pre-calibration and show that it decreases relative to round-to-nearest.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that minimizing the adaptive LASSO penalty $\sum_i |\hat w_i/w_i|$ under pseudo-activations is a proxy for minimizing $D_{KL}(f_W \| f_{\hat W})$, so that a data-free soft-thresholding classification of weights followed by separate quantization preserves the weight distribution. Empirically, this pre-calibration achieves perplexity and zero-shot accuracy on par with calibration-based methods such as SpQR, AWQ, and OPTQ on LLaMA, LLaMA 2, OPT, and Falcon models, while being roughly ten to a hundred times faster. The method does not shrink weights; it only uses the threshold to decide which weights are outliers, then quantizes both classes with minmax quantization.

Load-bearing premise

The argument depends on the claim that the adaptive LASSO penalty is a reliable proxy for distribution preservation, but the proof establishes an upper bound rather than an equivalence, so a small penalty does not guarantee a small KL divergence.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • LLMs can be quantized to 3-4 bits with no calibration data, avoiding the risk that calibration data mismatches the deployment task.
  • Quantization time drops by at least an order of magnitude compared with calibration-based methods such as AWQ and SpQR.
  • The pre-calibrated weight split can serve as a starting point for existing calibration methods, potentially improving their final accuracy.
  • Because no data is sampled, the quantization result is deterministic and insensitive to random seeds.
  • The framework is not fixed to adaptive LASSO: other f-divergences and penalties could guide the same pre-calibration classification step.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A simpler magnitude-based or relative-magnitude thresholding may reproduce the reported accuracy, since the soft-thresholding step ultimately selects the largest $|\hat w_i/w_i|$ ratios; the information-theoretic proof establishes an upper bound, not a guarantee of distribution preservation.
  • The pre-calibration step could be composed with activation-aware calibration methods as the improved initial point the paper proposes, potentially combining robustness with task-specific accuracy.
  • A direct test of the KL claim on real layer weights—computing $D_{KL}$ before and after pre-calibration versus round-to-nearest—would clarify whether distribution preservation or simply outlier protection drives the gains; the paper does not report that measurement.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

5 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a data-free 'pre-calibration' step for post-training quantization of LLMs. The method uses an adaptive LASSO penalty with pseudo-activations (XX^T = bI) to derive a soft-thresholding rule (Eq. 5), which classifies weights as salient or non-salient; the two classes are then quantized separately with minmax quantization. The authors claim this classification approximately minimizes the KL divergence between original and quantized weight distributions, thereby preserving Shannon information, and that the resulting quantized models match the accuracy of calibration-based PTQ methods on LLaMA, LLaMA-2, OPT, Falcon, and Code-Llama, while being far faster. Section 5 presents a derivation intended to show that the adaptive LASSO penalty is a proxy for the KL divergence.

Significance. If the central claim were valid, a fast, data-free, deterministic pre-calibration method that matches calibration-based PTQ would be practically valuable, especially for deployment robustness across domains. The proposed method is computationally attractive: soft-thresholding is simple, quantization is fast, and no calibration data are needed. However, the theoretical foundation in Section 5 is not sound as written, and the empirical parity claim is weakened by per-model and per-bit-width tuning of the outlier percentage and clipping range on the same benchmarks used for evaluation. The method's actual behavior may reduce to a magnitude-based outlier selection, without the promised information-theoretic guarantee.

major comments (5)
  1. [Section 5, Eqs. (6)-(11)] The distributional model underlying the KL derivation is invalid for actual quantization. Eq. (6) represents the quantized-weight density as a convolution f_hatW = fW * f_delta with delta independent of w, but in the proposed algorithm each weight is mapped deterministically to a discrete grid value, producing an atomic distribution. The KL divergence between a continuous density fW and an atomic distribution is infinite unless the supports coincide, so the approximate expansion in Eqs. (7)-(11) is not a valid approximation of the quantity the paper claims to minimize. Additionally, Eq. (10) writes D_KL as a sum over sampled weights fW(hat w_i) ln(f_hatW(hat w_i)/fW(hat w_i)), whereas KL divergence for continuous densities is an integral over the support; the notation conflates a density with an empirical sum.
  2. [Section 5, Claim 2 and Eq. (12)] Claim 2 establishes only an upper bound: |mu_delta sum_i f''(w_i)(hat w_i - w_i)| <= C(sum_i |hat w_i/w_i| + 1). An upper bound does not imply that minimizing the adaptive LASSO penalty minimizes the KL-related term; a small penalty can still leave the upper bound loose and the KL term large. The paper then states that 'we may replace D_KL(fW||f_hatW) with sum_i |hat w_i/w_i|', but this replacement is not justified by the preceding inequality. Furthermore, the first term mu_delta sum_i f'(w_i) in Eq. (11) is treated as constant, yet mu_delta is the mean quantization error, which depends on the minmax quantization bins and therefore on the very salient/non-salient classification the algorithm is choosing; it is not a fixed constant across the optimization.
  3. [Section 4.1, Eq. (5)] The closed-form soft-thresholding solution relies on the pseudo-activation assumption XX^T = bI. This assumption is introduced as 'pseudo activations' but is not justified for any actual LLM layer: weight matrices in transformers do not generally satisfy orthogonality of activations, and the method does not use real activations at all. If the assumption fails, the derivation of Eq. (5) from the adaptive LASSO loss does not hold, and the algorithm's classification rule has no direct connection to the optimization problem (2). The paper needs either a justification for why the orthogonal-activation idealization captures the behavior of real layers or a demonstration that the soft-thresholding rule is optimal under a different principled criterion.
  4. [Algorithm 1 and Section 6] The central empirical claim is weakened by hyperparameter tuning on the evaluation benchmarks. The outlier percentage alpha is chosen separately per model and per bit-width (e.g., Table 3: alpha = 8%, 6%, 5%, 9% across LLaMA-7B/13B/30B and 3-bit settings; Table 6: alpha = 4%, 5%, 6%), and Section 6 states that the 3-bit clipping range of 90-95% was selected because it 'yields similar accuracy' on the same tasks reported in the tables. These choices mean part of the reported performance is fitted to the test benchmarks, so the comparison does not independently establish that the pre-calibration mechanism, rather than the tuned alpha and clipping values, is responsible for the results.
  5. [Tables 3 and 4] The accuracy comparisons are not at matched average bit-widths. For example, in Table 3, the 4-bit pre-calibration setting for LLaMA-7B uses 4.81 avg bits while AWQ uses 4.25 bits, and in Table 4 the same pre-calibration configuration is compared against 4.25-bit baselines. The claim of being 'on par' with calibration-based methods is therefore at a higher bit budget in several rows, which changes the interpretation of the perplexity and zero-shot results; an iso-bit comparison is needed before concluding parity.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 4.1, Eq. (3)] The expansion of the quadratic term omits the trace: (WX - hat W X)(WX - hat W X)^T is a matrix, not a scalar, and the loss should be its trace (or Frobenius norm squared). The subsequent coordinate-wise decomposition in Eq. (4) implicitly assumes this, but the notation should be corrected.
  2. [Algorithm 1] The procedure for reducing lambda' until alpha percent of weights are selected is underspecified: the paper does not state the step size, the initialization, or the stopping rule, which makes the exact classification rule non-reproducible from the text alone.
  3. [Abstract and title] There are typographical issues such as 'Sta tistical' in the title and some missing spaces in the abstract; these should be cleaned up.
  4. [Table 2] The quantization time comparison would be more informative if the hardware, software versions, and any warm-up or batching details were reported for all baselines, since the speedup claim depends on implementation factors.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No circular derivation found: the empirical parity claims are measured against external baselines, and the Section 5 KL-to-adaptive-LASSO bridge is a soundness gap rather than a self-referential reduction.

full rationale

The paper's central empirical claim—that pre-calibration performs on par with calibration-based PTQ methods—is tested against external baselines (RTN, OPTQ, AWQ, SpQR, OmniQuant) on external benchmarks (WikiText2, C4, zero-shot tasks, HumanEval, MBPP). Those results are not derived from the method's own assumptions and remain independently measurable. The only self-citation (Ghaffari et al., 2022) appears in a list of low-precision training works and is not load-bearing for any central argument. The outlier percentage α and the 3-bit clipping range are tuned per model and bit-width, but this is standard hyperparameter selection rather than a fitted quantity relabeled as a prediction: the paper does not claim to predict these values from theory. The Section 5 proof is mathematically weak—it only upper-bounds one KL term by the adaptive-LASSO penalty, assumes quantization error is independent additive noise, and treats the quantized-weight distribution as a convolution rather than a discrete atomic distribution. Minimizing an upper bound is not equivalent to minimizing the KL divergence, so the claim that adaptive LASSO is a proxy for D_KL is not established. However, this is an inference gap, not a circular reduction: no equation in the paper defines the adaptive-LASSO penalty as equal to D_KL by construction, and no fitted parameter is presented as a verified prediction. Therefore, no specific circular step can be exhibited, and the overall circularity score is low.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The method's only true free parameters are alpha and the clipping range for 3-bit, both tuned to the evaluation benchmarks. The theory rests on two unvalidated assumptions: pseudo-orthogonal activations and a small quantization error, plus a heuristic replacement of KL by the adaptive LASSO penalty. No new entities are introduced.

free parameters (2)
  • Outlier percentage alpha = 8%, 6%, 5%, 9% (per model/bit-width)
    Chosen per model and bit-width to optimize perplexity or zero-shot accuracy; appears in Tables 3, 4, and Appendix Table 6.
  • Clipping range for 3-bit non-salient weights = 90-95%
    Tuned for 3-bit results to maintain accuracy while keeping avg bits low; Section 6, Clipping Non-outlier Weights.
assumptions (3)
  • ad hoc to paper Pseudo-activations satisfy XX^T = bI (orthogonal)
    Section 4.1 replaces real activations with an identity-like matrix, which is not true for LLM activations; used to avoid calibration data and simplify the loss.
  • domain assumption Quantization error delta has small mean mu_delta and small variance sigma^2_delta, and is independent of weights
    Section 5 assumes this to approximate f_hat W as a shifted f_W; not validated for minmax group quantization.
  • ad hoc to paper Minimizing the upper bound C(sum_i |hat w_i / w_i| + 1) is a valid proxy for minimizing D_KL
    Section 5 uses inequality (12) in the reverse direction: a small upper bound does not imply the target term is small, and the first term in (11) is treated as constant even though mu_delta depends on the quantization grid.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Rethinking Post-Training Quantization: Introducing a Statistical Pre-Calibration Approach." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/FTRL5AM4

@misc{pith2026250109107,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Rethinking Post-Training Quantization: Introducing a Statistical Pre-Calibration Approach},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/FTRL5AM4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.09107}
}
read the original abstract

As Large Language Models (LLMs) become increasingly computationally complex, developing efficient deployment strategies, such as quantization, becomes crucial. State-of-the-art Post-training Quantization (PTQ) techniques often rely on calibration processes to maintain the accuracy of these models. However, while these calibration techniques can enhance performance in certain domains, they may not be as effective in others. This paper aims to draw attention to robust statistical approaches that can mitigate such issues. We propose a weight-adaptive PTQ method that can be considered a precursor to calibration-based PTQ methods, guiding the quantization process to preserve the distribution of weights by minimizing the Kullback-Leibler divergence between the quantized weights and the originally trained weights. This minimization ensures that the quantized model retains the Shannon information content of the original model to a great extent, guaranteeing robust and efficient deployment across many tasks. As such, our proposed approach can perform on par with most common calibration-based PTQ methods, establishing a new pre-calibration step for further adjusting the quantized weights with calibration. We show that our pre-calibration results achieve the same accuracy as some existing calibration-based PTQ methods on various LLMs.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

42 extracted references · 22 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION fin.entry add.period write newline FUNCTION new.block output.state before.all = 'skip after.block 'output.state := if FUNCTION new.sentence output.state after.block = 'skip output.state before.all = 'skip after.sentence 'output.state := if if FUNCTION not #0 #1 if FUNCTION and 'skip pop #0 if FUNCTIO...

  2. [2]

    Almazrouei, E., Alobeidli, H., Alshamsi, A., Cappelli, A., Cojocaru, R., Debbah, M., Goffinet, E., Heslow, D., Launay, J., Malartic, Q., Noune, B., Pannier, B., and Penedo, G. (2023). Falcon-40B : an open large language model with state-of-the-art performance

    work page 2023

  3. [3]

    L., Li, B., Jaggi, M., Alistarh, D., Hoefler, T., and Hensman, J

    Ashkboos, S., Mohtashami, A., Croci, M. L., Li, B., Jaggi, M., Alistarh, D., Hoefler, T., and Hensman, J. (2024). Quarot: Outlier-free 4-bit inference in rotated llms. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.00456

    arXiv 2024

  4. [4]

    Austin, J., Odena, A., Nye, M., Bosma, M., Michalewski, H., Dohan, D., Jiang, E., Cai, C., Terry, M., Le, Q., et al. (2021). Program synthesis with large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2108.07732

    arXiv 2021

  5. [5]

    Banner, R., Hubara, I., Hoffer, E., and Soudry, D. (2018). Scalable methods for 8-bit training of neural networks. Advances in neural information processing systems , 31

    work page 2018

  6. [6]

    Bisk, Y., Zellers, R., Gao, J., Choi, Y., et al. (2020). Piqa: Reasoning about physical commonsense in natural language. In Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence , volume 34, pages 7432--7439

    work page 2020

  7. [7]

    Chee, J., Cai, Y., Kuleshov, V., and De Sa, C. M. (2023). Quip: 2-bit quantization of large language models with guarantees. In Oh, A., Neumann, T., Globerson, A., Saenko, K., Hardt, M., and Levine, S., editors, Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , volume 36, pages 4396--4429. Curran Associates, Inc

    work page 2023

  8. [8]

    Chen, M., Tworek, J., Jun, H., Yuan, Q., Pinto, H. P. d. O., Kaplan, J., Edwards, H., Burda, Y., Joseph, N., Brockman, G., et al. (2021). Evaluating large language models trained on code. arXiv preprint arXiv:2107.03374

    arXiv 2021

Show all 42 references
  1. [9]

    Clark, P., Cowhey, I., Etzioni, O., Khot, T., Sabharwal, A., Schoenick, C., and Tafjord, O. (2018). Think you have solved question answering? try arc, the ai2 reasoning challenge. arXiv preprint arXiv:1803.05457

    2018 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Computer, T. (2023). Redpajama: An open source recipe to reproduce llama training dataset

    2023

  3. [11]

    Dettmers, T., Lewis, M., Belkada, Y., and Zettlemoyer, L. (2022). Gpt3.int8(): 8-bit matrix multiplication for transformers at scale. In Koyejo, S., Mohamed, S., Agarwal, A., Belgrave, D., Cho, K., and Oh, A., editors, Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , volume...

    2022

  4. [12]

    Dettmers, T., Pagnoni, A., Holtzman, A., and Zettlemoyer, L. (2024a). Qlora: Efficient finetuning of quantized llms. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , 36

    2024

  5. [13]

    A., Egiazarian, V., Kuznedelev, D., Frantar, E., Ashkboos, S., Borzunov, A., Hoefler, T., and Alistarh, D

    Dettmers, T., Svirschevski, R. A., Egiazarian, V., Kuznedelev, D., Frantar, E., Ashkboos, S., Borzunov, A., Hoefler, T., and Alistarh, D. (2024b). Sp QR : A sparse-quantized representation for near-lossless LLM weight compression. In The Twelfth International Conference on Lea...

    2024

  6. [14]

    Egiazarian, V., Panferov, A., Kuznedelev, D., Frantar, E., Babenko, A., and Alistarh, D. (2024). Extreme compression of large language models via additive quantization. arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.06118

    2024 arXiv

  7. [15]

    and Alistarh, D

    Frantar, E. and Alistarh, D. (2022). Optimal brain compression: A framework for accurate post-training quantization and pruning. In Koyejo, S., Mohamed, S., Agarwal, A., Belgrave, D., Cho, K., and Oh, A., editors, Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , volume 35, ...

    2022

  8. [16]

    Frantar, E., Ashkboos, S., Hoefler, T., and Alistarh, D. (2023). OPTQ: accurate quantization for generative pre-trained transformers. In The Eleventh International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2023, Kigali, Rwanda, May 1-5, 2023

    2023

  9. [17]

    Gao, L., Biderman, S., Black, S., Golding, L., Hoppe, T., Foster, C., Phang, J., He, H., Thite, A., Nabeshima, N., et al. (2020). The pile: An 800gb dataset of diverse text for language modeling. arXiv preprint arXiv:2101.00027

    2020 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Gao, L., Tow, J., Biderman, S., Black, S., DiPofi, A., Foster, C., Golding, L., Hsu, J., McDonell, K., Muennighoff, N., et al. (2021). A framework for few-shot language model evaluation. Version v0. 0.1. Sept , page 8

    2021

  11. [19]

    S., Tayaranian, M., Asgharian, M., and Partovi Nia, V

    Ghaffari, A., Tahaei, M. S., Tayaranian, M., Asgharian, M., and Partovi Nia, V. (2022). Is integer arithmetic enough for deep learning training? Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , 35:27402--27413

    2022

  12. [20]

    and Stork, D

    Hassibi, B. and Stork, D. (1992). Second order derivatives for network pruning: Optimal brain surgeon. In Hanson, S., Cowan, J., and Giles, C., editors, Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , volume 5. Morgan-Kaufmann

    1992

  13. [21]

    Hubara, I., Nahshan, Y., Hanani, Y., Banner, R., and Soudry, D. (2021). Accurate post training quantization with small calibration sets. In Meila, M. and Zhang, T., editors, Proceedings of the 38th International Conference on Machine Learning , volume 139 of Proceedings of Mac...

    2021

  14. [22]

    Li, Y., Gong, R., Tan, X., Yang, Y., Hu, P., Zhang, Q., Yu, F., Wang, W., and Gu, S. (2021). BRECQ: pushing the limit of post-training quantization by block reconstruction. In 9th International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2021, Virtual Event, Austria, May 3-7, 2021

    2021

  15. [23]

    Lin, J., Tang, J., Tang, H., Yang, S., Dang, X., and Han, S. (2023). Awq: Activation-aware weight quantization for llm compression and acceleration. arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.00978

    2023 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Lin, Y., Tang, H., Yang, S., Zhang, Z., Xiao, G., Gan, C., and Han, S. (2024). Qserve: W4a8kv4 quantization and system co-design for efficient llm serving. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.04532

    2024 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Liu, Z., Oguz, B., Zhao, C., Chang, E., Stock, P., Mehdad, Y., Shi, Y., Krishnamoorthi, R., and Chandra, V. (2023). Llm-qat: Data-free quantization aware training for large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.17888

    2023 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Merity, S., Xiong, C., Bradbury, J., and Socher, R. (2016). Pointer sentinel mixture models. arXiv preprint arXiv:1609.07843

    2016 arXiv

  19. [27]

    A., Van Baalen, M., Louizos, C., and Blankevoort, T

    Nagel, M., Amjad, R. A., Van Baalen, M., Louizos, C., and Blankevoort, T. (2020). Up or down? A daptive rounding for post-training quantization. In III, H. D. and Singh, A., editors, Proceedings of the 37th International Conference on Machine Learning , volume 119 of Proceedin...

    2020

  20. [28]

    Penedo, G., Malartic, Q., Hesslow, D., Cojocaru, R., Cappelli, A., Alobeidli, H., Pannier, B., Almazrouei, E., and Launay, J. (2023). The R efined W eb dataset for F alcon LLM : outperforming curated corpora with web data, and web data only. arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.01116

    2023 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Raffel, C., Shazeer, N., Roberts, A., Lee, K., Narang, S., Matena, M., Zhou, Y., Li, W., and Liu, P. J. (2020). Exploring the limits of transfer learning with a unified text-to-text transformer. Journal of machine learning research , 21(140):1--67

    2020

  22. [30]

    E., Adi, Y., Liu, J., Remez, T., Rapin, J., et al

    Roziere, B., Gehring, J., Gloeckle, F., Sootla, S., Gat, I., Tan, X. E., Adi, Y., Liu, J., Remez, T., Rapin, J., et al. (2023). Code llama: Open foundation models for code. arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.12950

    2023 arXiv

  23. [31]

    L., Bhagavatula, C., and Choi, Y

    Sakaguchi, K., Bras, R. L., Bhagavatula, C., and Choi, Y. (2021). Winogrande: An adversarial winograd schema challenge at scale. Communications of the ACM , 64(9):99--106

    2021

  24. [32]

    Touvron, H., Lavril, T., Izacard, G., Martinet, X., Lachaux, M.-A., Lacroix, T., Rozi \`e re, B., Goyal, N., Hambro, E., Azhar, F., et al. (2023a). Llama: Open and efficient foundation language models (2023). arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.13971

    2023 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Touvron, H., Martin, L., Stone, K., Albert, P., Almahairi, A., Babaei, Y., Bashlykov, N., Batra, S., Bhargava, P., Bhosale, S., et al. (2023b). Llama 2: Open foundation and fine-tuned chat models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.09288

    2023 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Xiao, G., Lin, J., Seznec, M., Wu, H., Demouth, J., and Han, S. (2023). S mooth Q uant: Accurate and efficient post-training quantization for large language models. In Krause, A., Brunskill, E., Cho, K., Engelhardt, B., Sabato, S., and Scarlett, J., editors, Proceedings of the...

    2023

  27. [35]

    Yao, Z., Yazdani Aminabadi, R., Zhang, M., Wu, X., Li, C., and He, Y. (2022). Zeroquant: Efficient and affordable post-training quantization for large-scale transformers. In Koyejo, S., Mohamed, S., Agarwal, A., Belgrave, D., Cho, K., and Oh, A., editors, Advances in Neural In...

    2022

  28. [36]

    Zellers, R., Holtzman, A., Bisk, Y., Farhadi, A., and Choi, Y. (2019). Hellaswag: Can a machine really finish your sentence? arXiv preprint arXiv:1905.07830

    2019 arXiv

  29. [37]

    V., et al

    Zhang, S., Roller, S., Goyal, N., Artetxe, M., Chen, M., Chen, S., Dewan, C., Diab, M., Li, X., Lin, X. V., et al. (2022). Opt: Open pre-trained transformer language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2205.01068

    2022 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Zhang, X., Liu, S., Zhang, R., Liu, C., Huang, D., Zhou, S., Guo, J., Guo, Q., Du, Z., Zhi, T., et al. (2020). Fixed-point back-propagation training. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , pages 2330--2338

    2020

  31. [39]

    Zhao, K., Huang, S., Pan, P., Li, Y., Zhang, Y., Gu, Z., and Xu, Y. (2021). Distribution adaptive int8 quantization for training cnns. In Proceedings of the Thirty-Fifth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence

    2021

  32. [40]

    Zhu, F., Gong, R., Yu, F., Liu, X., Wang, Y., Li, Z., Yang, X., and Yan, J. (2020). Towards unified int8 training for convolutional neural network. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , pages 1969--1979

    2020

  33. [41]

    Zhu, X., Li, J., Liu, Y., Ma, C., and Wang, W. (2023). A survey on model compression for large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.07633

    2023 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Zou, H. (2006). The adaptive lasso and its oracle properties. Journal of the American statistical association , 101(476):1418--1429

    2006

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.