Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 19 references

QTALE's central claim is that token-adaptive layer execution can be joined to 3-4 bit quantization with less than a 0.5% accuracy gap, provided router training is entropy-regularized and a single post-training threshold is allowed to raise

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-03 01:05 UTC pith:LE7V35AF

load-bearing objection A practical fix for combining token-adaptive layer skipping with quantization, but the abstract's <0.5% gap claim is contradicted by the paper's own 3-bit LLaMA3.2-3B result, and the calibration split needs to be stated. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2602.10431 v4 pith:LE7V35AF submitted 2026-02-11 cs.LG

QTALE: Quantization-Robust Token-Adaptive Layer Execution for LLMs

Kanghyun Noh , Jinheon Choi , Yulhwa Kim This is my paper
classification cs.LG
keywords QTALEtoken-adaptive layer executionquantizationentropy regularizationexecution ratiopost-training calibrationLLM inference efficiencyrouter
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The paper argues that token-adaptive layer skipping and low-bit weight quantization, two efficiency tricks usually applied separately, can be combined without the accuracy collapse that naive integration causes. It identifies the cause as lost redundancy: fine-tuning lets execution collapse onto a fixed subset of layers, and inference activates too few parameters to absorb quantization noise. QTALE counteracts this with entropy-regularized router training that keeps execution paths diverse, plus a single post-training threshold θ that re-adds execution (and redundancy) at inference time. If correct, the result is an LLM that skips roughly half its layers and stores weights at 3-4 bits while staying within 0.5% of the quantized full model on commonsense benchmarks, cutting both FLOPs and memory.

Core claim

The paper identifies why naive integration of token-adaptive execution and quantization fails: D-LLM's average-ratio training lets execution collapse onto a fixed subset of layers, starving the rest of training signal, and inference-time redundancy is too low for quantized weights to soak up errors. QTALE counters with two mechanisms. First, an entropy-regularization term on router logits keeps bypass/execute scores close enough that Gumbel noise actually flips decisions, forcing diverse training paths. Second, a single global threshold θ is applied to the softmax of router outputs at inference; lowering θ below 0.5 monotonically raises the executed-layer fraction, reintroducing redundancy w

What carries the argument

The router is a per-layer lightweight MLP that outputs bypass/execute logits; QTALE's central move is to make those logits usable as a redundancy dial. Training adds Lentropy = − average softmax entropy to the D-LLM objective, keeping logit gaps small so Gumbel noise can flip decisions and force diverse paths. Inference replaces arg max with a softmax-then-threshold rule: execute if p_exec ≥ θ, bypass otherwise, with θ shared across all layers and searched by a two-phase grid over (0,0.5] on 300 calibration samples. Because the threshold-to-ratio map is monotone, a single scalar θ converts the checkpoint into a FLOPs/accuracy dial.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the 300-sample calibration set used to choose θ is independent of the evaluation benchmarks; if it overlaps the test distribution, the reported <0.5% gap is partly a selection artifact rather than a property of the method.

What would settle it

Calibrate θ on a set verifiably outside every evaluation benchmark, then measure the CSQA gap; if it exceeds 0.5%, the claim is calibration-dependent. As a second check, let the D-LLM baseline use the same θ search and calibration budget; if its quantized accuracy recovers just as well, entropy-regularized training is not the active ingredient.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • Token-adaptive execution and quantization become complementary rather than antagonistic: the same QTALE checkpoint covers both FLOPs and memory reduction without retraining per bit width.
  • The θ knob gives a post-training trade-off: deployment can raise the execution ratio to survive heavier quantization, or lower it when accuracy budget allows, with no gradient updates.
  • Entropy-regularized routing is robust to more than quantization: the paper shows QTALE also matches dense models under 50% unstructured pruning, suggesting path diversity is a general robustness property.
  • The memory footprint drops to roughly one-third for a 7B model under 4-bit quantization (from 13.5 GB to below 4.5 GB) while FLOPs stay near half, making single-GPU and consumer-GPU deployment practical.
  • The accuracy-recovery mechanism is predictable: for entropy-trained models, accuracy rises monotonically as θ lowers, so calibration is a reliable grid search rather than a fragile hyperparameter.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Because the paper does not disclose where the 300 calibration samples come from, part of the reported recovery could be attributable to tuning θ on data close to the test benchmarks; this is the main reason to treat the 0.5% figure with caution until the provenance is stated.
  • The same threshold mechanism suggests a serving-time adaptation loop: monitor downstream accuracy or a proxy and nudge θ when the distribution shifts, something the paper does not explore.
  • The entropy term's effect is to keep routers in a 'flippable' regime; that principle may transfer to other post-training perturbations (activation noise, adapter drift, or even adversarial inputs), but the paper only tests quantization and pruning.
  • Alpaca's optimal execution ratio (~0.8) versus CSQA's (~0.54) indicates that the redundancy needed depends on task difficulty; a fixed 0.5 target ratio is not universally optimal, and the threshold dial is what makes per-task tuning cheap.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. QTALE combines token-adaptive layer execution (D-LLM-style learned routers) with post-training weight quantization (AWQ, MagR+GPTQ) for LLMs. Two mechanisms are introduced: (i) an entropy-regularization term in the fine-tuning objective that keeps router logits close together so Gumbel noise maintains path diversity during training, and (ii) a post-training, single-scalar threshold θ applied to softmax router probabilities so the per-token execution ratio can be increased at inference time to re-introduce redundancy after quantization. Experiments on LLaMA2-7B, LLaMA3.1-8B, and LLaMA3.2-3B report accuracy, perplexity, FLOPs, memory, latency, ablations, and comparisons with D-LLM, AWQ, structured pruning, and mixed-precision quantization. The paper's headline claim is that QTALE keeps the CSQA accuracy gap to quantization-only models below 0.5%.

Significance. If the empirical claims held, QTALE would be a practically useful contribution: it would show that roughly 50%-FLOP-reducing token-adaptive execution can be combined with 3-4 bit quantization with only minor accuracy loss relative to a quantized full model, while also cutting memory. The paper is also commendably extensive: it includes ablations of both proposed components, compatibility with two PTQ schemes, a pruning extension, mixed-precision experiments, AlpacaEval instruction-following results, and detailed execution-ratio/threshold tables. However, the central quantitative claim is contradicted by the paper's own Table 2, and the calibration protocol for θ is underspecified, which prevents the current version from supporting the headline conclusion.

major comments (4)
  1. [Abstract and §5; Table 2] The abstract and conclusion state that QTALE keeps the accuracy gap to quantization-only models below 0.5% on CommonsenseQA. Table 2 directly contradicts this: for LLaMA3.2-3B under 3-bit AWQ, the quantized full model reaches 65.98% average CSQA accuracy while QTALE reaches 62.82%, an absolute gap of 3.16 percentage points — more than six times the claimed bound. No qualifier restricts the claim to 4-bit or to the two larger models. This is an internal inconsistency in a load-bearing claim; the headline result must be reworded to report per-configuration gaps instead of a single universal bound.
  2. [Appendix A.1; §3.4] The θ calibration procedure is described as a two-phase grid search on 'a calibration set of 300 samples,' but the provenance of these samples is never stated. If the calibration set is drawn from the same benchmark's training split (or, worse, from the evaluation split), then the reported accuracies are the result of per-dataset model selection and are not a clean estimate of generalization performance. Because θ is the mechanism that recovers accuracy after quantization, the paper must specify: (i) the exact source of the 300 samples for every dataset, (ii) whether labels were used during threshold selection, and (iii) whether the selected θ was then held fixed on the reported test set. This is load-bearing for the accuracy-recovery story.
  3. [§3.4, Eq. (9)] The decision rule in Eq. (9) is not a well-defined partition for θ≠0.5. The execute condition is p_{l,0} ≥ θ and the bypass condition is p_{l,1} < θ. Since p_{l,1}=1−p_{l,0}, for θ<0.5 there is a region where both conditions hold (e.g., θ=0.3, p_{l,0}=0.8) and a region where neither holds (e.g., θ=0.3, p_{l,0}=0.2). The intended rule appears to be 'execute iff p_{l,0} ≥ θ, otherwise bypass'; the second line of Eq. (9) should be corrected or removed. This matters because the monotonicity of execution ratio in θ — the basis of the two-phase search — depends on a single complementary threshold.
  4. [§4.1 and Tables 1–2] No code, random seeds, or error bars are provided, and all numerical comparisons appear to be single runs. For a paper whose central claim is a small accuracy gap (0.5 pp) and whose method includes a per-dataset threshold search, single-run results are not sufficient. At minimum, the authors should report multiple seeds (or confidence intervals) for the main CSQA comparison and release code to make the D-LLM baseline and the QTALE training/inference pipeline reproducible.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§4.3 and Figure 6] The heading and figure caption contain the typo 'Memeory' instead of 'Memory.'
  2. [Appendix A.4.1, Table 9] For LLaMA2-7B, the model sizes under 16-bit 'Full' are 12.6 GB in Table 9 but 13.5 GB in Figure 6; the discrepancy and the unit convention (GB vs. GiB) should be clarified.
  3. [Appendix A.4.4, Table 12] The Optuna calibration yields an execution ratio of 1.0000 for Winogrande with θ=0.0000, which is an outlier and appears inconsistent with the other methods; an explanation should be added.
  4. [Figure 9 caption] The caption mixes 'ARCC' and 'ARCE'; use consistent dataset naming (ARCc and ARCe) as elsewhere.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circular derivation; the main claim is an empirical result, with a correctness inconsistency in the <0.5% bound (Table 2) rather than circularity.

full rationale

The paper's core claim is empirical: QTALE is a training objective (Eq. 8: L_total = L_CE + λ1 L_rate − λ2 L_entropy) plus an inference-time threshold θ (Eq. 9) that is tuned by grid search on a 300-sample calibration set (Appendix A.1). The 'derivation' does not reduce to the inputs: the entropy regularization term is not defined in terms of the reported accuracy gap, and the θ-search is a standard hyperparameter-selection procedure rather than a fitted parameter masquerading as a prediction. The 0.5% gap claim in the abstract and §5 is not derived from the equations; it is an experimental summary that is internally inconsistent with Table 2 (3-bit LLaMA3.2-3B: full 65.98 vs QTALE 62.82, a 3.16 pp gap), so it is a correctness/consistency issue, not circularity. The calibration set's provenance is not stated, which could make the evaluation transductive, but no manuscript text claims the calibration set is drawn from the test set, so no circular reduction can be exhibited under the hard rules. The only author-overlapping reference (Song et al. 2024, SLEB, which includes co-author Yulhwa Kim) is cited as background for layer redundancy and is not load-bearing for the central claim; it is also an externally published ICML paper with independent content. No uniqueness theorem is invoked, and no ansatz is smuggled in via self-citation. Therefore, no circular step is found.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 3 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on four tuned quantities (λ2, θ, τ, calibration size) and three background assumptions. No entirely new physical or theoretical entities are introduced. The most consequential free parameter is θ: it is tuned per benchmark and drives the reported accuracy recovery, and the paper does not specify whether the calibration set is held out from the test distribution.

free parameters (4)
  • Entropy regularization weight λ2 = 0.01 (set to 0.1λ1)
    Hand-selected; the paper shows sensitivity to this value in Appendix A.2 (Fig. 7). It controls the entropy penalty in Eq. 8, which is central to the training-path diversity claim.
  • Inference threshold θ = Varies per model/dataset; e.g., 0.05 to 0.50 in Tables 13–16
    Chosen by a two-phase grid search on a 300-sample calibration set (Appendix A.1). This is the mechanism by which redundancy is reintroduced, and its tuning directly determines the reported accuracy.
  • Gumbel-Softmax temperature τ = Not stated
    The temperature in Eq. 6 directly controls the sharpness of the soft mode and thus how strongly entropy regularization affects path diversity, but its value is not reported.
  • Calibration set size = 300 samples
    Hand-chosen; the provenance (training vs. test split) is unspecified, which is critical for interpreting the results.
axioms (3)
  • standard math Gumbel-Softmax with a hard forward pass and straight-through estimator is a differentiable approximation of the arg-max router decision.
    Used in Eqs. 5–6; inherited from D-LLM and the Gumbel-Softmax literature.
  • domain assumption LLMs contain layers with low contribution to the residual stream, so skipping layers and later re-executing more of them can absorb quantization error.
    Motivates the whole approach in Secs. 2.1 and 3.4, and is the premise behind the threshold-based re-addition of layers.
  • domain assumption AWQ 4-bit and 3-bit quantization errors are tolerable if enough layers execute.
    The experiments only test AWQ (and MagR+GPTQ in one table); the paper assumes the error-absorption behavior transfers to other PTQ methods without theoretical backing.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 20229 in / 11286 out tokens · 105464 ms · 2026-08-03T01:05:03.126020+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Large language models (LLMs) demand substantial computational and memory resources, posing challenges for efficient deployment. Two complementary approaches have emerged to address these issues: token-adaptive layer execution, which reduces floating-point operations (FLOPs) by selectively bypassing layers, and quantization, which lowers memory footprint by reducing weight precision. However, naively integrating these techniques leads to additional accuracy degradation due to reduced redundancy in token-adaptive models. We propose QTALE (Quantization-Robust Token-Adaptive Layer Execution for LLMs), a novel framework that enables seamless integration of token-adaptive execution with quantization while preserving accuracy. Conventional token-adaptive methods reduce redundancy in two ways: (1) by limiting the diversity of training paths explored during fine-tuning, and (2) by lowering the number of parameters actively involved in inference. To overcome these limitations, QTALE introduces two key components: (1) a training strategy that ensures diverse execution paths are actively explored during fine-tuning, and (2) a post-training mechanism that allows flexible adjustment of the execution ratio at inference to reintroduce redundancy when needed. Experimental results show that QTALE enables seamless integration of token-adaptive layer execution with quantization, while keeping the accuracy gap to quantization-only models below 0.5% on CommonsenseQA benchmarks. By combining tokenadaptive execution for FLOPs reduction and quantization for memory savings, QTALE provides an effective solution for efficient LLM deployment.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2602.10431 by Jinheon Choi, Kanghyun Noh, Yulhwa Kim.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Overview of a standard LLM architecture and representative techniques for efficient inference. The fraction of color fill in each transformer layer denotes memory cost per layer, while dashed gray outlines indicate skipped execution. Through these contributions, QTALE enables the effective integration of token-adaptive layer execution with quantiza￾tion, thereby reducing both FLOPs and memory usage. 2. Bac… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Heatmap of the average execution ratio for each layer of LLaMA3.1-8B with D-LLM. The ratios are measured on the first 200 training samples after fine-tuning epochs 0, 3, and 6, across four CommonsenseQA datasets: ARCe, ARCc, SIQA, and PIQA. (a) Execution ratio (b) Decision flipping ratio (c) Gumbel(0, 1) samples [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Execution behavior of D-LLM. (a) Execution ratio, (b) execution decision flipping induced by Gumbel noise across fine-tuning epochs, and (c) histogram of samples from π ∼ Gumbel(0, 1). Results are shown for layers 20, 23, and 26 of LLaMA3.1-8B on ARCe. characteristics of LLMs, since not every layer contributes equally to final model performance. However, if execution decisions consistently favor a fixed su… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Histograms of router output logits for three low-execution layers (20, 23, and 26) of LLaMA3.1-8B on ARCe. Logits are computed from the first 200 training samples after fine-tuning epochs 0, 3, and 6 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Comparison of Gumbel-noise–induced execution decision flipping across fine-tuning epochs between D-LLM and the proposed quantization-robust training. Results are shown for three low-execution layers (20, 23, and 26) of LLaMA3.1-8B on the ARCe dataset. fine-tuning. The final fine-tuning objective is defined as: Ltotal = LCE + λ1 · Lrate − λ2 · Lentropy (8) The hyperparameter λ2 balances the contribution of … view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Efficiency trade-off between normalized FLOPs and memory footprint (GB) for LLaMA2-7B on the CSQA dataset. 4.3. Efficiency Evaluation FLOPs and Memeory Usage [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Accuracy of LLaMA3.2-3B on the ARCc benchmark after fine-tuning with different λ2 settings. The dashed line indicates the trend line. 11 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Execution Ratio–Threshold curves for four representative CSQA tasks (ARCc, ARCe, BoolQ, and Winogrande). (a) ARCc (b) ARCe (c) BoolQ (d) Winogr [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Accuracy–Execution Ratio curves for four representative CSQA tasks (ARCC, ARCE, BoolQ, and Winogr.). We compare the baseline without Lentropy (D-LLM) against the proposed method with Lentropy (QTALE) on LLaMA3.2-3B. • As θ decreases, the execution ratio generally increases, although the magnitude differs across tasks ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Win rates of QTALE over D-LLM on AlpacaEval, evaluated using GPT-4o mini. Results are reported for both full-precision (16-bit) and quantized (4-bit) weight settings using the LLaMA3.2-3B model. Example 1 Instruction: What are some species of bears that are now extinct? Model Outputs: • QTALE (4-bit quantized): Unfortunately, many species of bears have become extinct. Some include the American bear, spect… view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

19 extracted references · 11 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Table 13.Execution Ratio and threshold results for LLaMA2-7B Layer CSQA Bits Execution PIQA BoolQ SIQA ARCe ARCc Winogr

    Tables 15 and 16 provides execution ratios and thresholds ( θ) for LLaMA3.2-3B, corresponding to the results reported in Tables 2 and 6, respectively. Table 13.Execution Ratio and threshold results for LLaMA2-7B Layer CSQA Bits Execution PIQA BoolQ SIQA ARCe ARCc Winogr. OBQA Avg. MMLU Alpaca Execution Ratio 16 D-LLM 0.5088 0.5306 0.5087 0.5209 0.5943 0.5...

    2023

  2. [5]

    The llama 3 herd of models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.21783,

    Grattafiori, A., Dubey, A., Jauhri, A., Pandey, A., Kadian, A., Al-Dahle, A., Letman, A., Mathur, A., Schelten, A., Vaughan, A., et al. The llama 3 herd of models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.21783,

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  3. [8]

    Diffskip: Differential layer skipping in large language models

    Luo, X., Wang, W., and Yan, X. Diffskip: Differential layer skipping in large language models. InFindings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2025, pp. 7221–7231,

    2025

  4. [9]

    Bayesian Optimization: Open source constrained global optimization tool for Python, 2014–

    Nogueira, F. Bayesian Optimization: Open source constrained global optimization tool for Python, 2014–. URL https:// github.com/bayesian-optimization/ BayesianOptimization. Sakaguchi, K., Bras, R. L., Bhagavatula, C., and Choi, Y . Winogrande: An adversarial winograd schema challenge at scale.Communications of the ACM, 64(9):99–106,

    2014

  5. [10]

    Compared to QTALE, structured pruning provides better memory efficiency because redundant layers are removed entirely

    In terms of speedup, 20% layer pruning achieves a similar acceleration to QTALE, yielding approximately 1.25 × over the baseline full-layer execution model. Compared to QTALE, structured pruning provides better memory efficiency because redundant layers are removed entirely. However, the accuracy degradation under 20% pruning is substantially larger than ...

    2024

  6. [11]

    Dropout: a simple way to prevent neural networks from overfitting.The journal of machine learning research, 15(1):1929–1958,

    Srivastava, N., Hinton, G., Krizhevsky, A., Sutskever, I., and Salakhutdinov, R. Dropout: a simple way to prevent neural networks from overfitting.The journal of machine learning research, 15(1):1929–1958,

    1929

  7. [12]

    Llama 2: Open foundation and fine- tuned chat models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.09288,

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  8. [13]

    Qwen3 technical report.arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.09388,

    Yang, A., Li, A., Yang, B., Zhang, B., Hui, B., Zheng, B., Yu, B., Gao, C., Huang, C., Lv, C., et al. Qwen3 technical report.arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.09388,

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  9. [14]

    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. Opt: Open pre-trained transformer language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2205.01068,

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  10. [16]

    The dashed line indicates the trend line

    Our observations are: Figure 7.Accuracy of LLaMA3.2-3B on the ARCc benchmark after fine-tuning with different λ2 settings. The dashed line indicates the trend line. 11 (a)w/oL entropy (b)w/L entropy Figure 8.Execution Ratio–Threshold curves for four representative CSQA tasks (ARCc, ARCe, BoolQ, and Winogrande). (a)ARCc (b)ARCe (c)BoolQ (d)Winogr. Figure 9...

    2024

  11. [18]

    As shown in Table 11, even under these demanding conditions, QTALE consistently provides stronger quantization robustness compared to D-LLM

    and evaluate the LLaMA2-7B model. As shown in Table 11, even under these demanding conditions, QTALE consistently provides stronger quantization robustness compared to D-LLM. Table 11.Evaluation results of mixed 2&4-bit quantization on the LLaMA2-7B model. Layer CSQA Execution PIQA BoolQ SIQA ARCe ARCc Winogr. OBQA Avg. MMLU Alpaca Accuracy LoRA 60.17 70....

    2014

  12. [2016]

    Ffn-skipllm: A hidden gem for autoregressive decoding with adaptive feed forward skipping.arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.03865,

    Jaiswal, A., Hu, B., Yin, L., Ro, Y ., Liu, S., Chen, T., and Akella, A. Ffn-skipllm: A hidden gem for autoregressive decoding with adaptive feed forward skipping.arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.03865,

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  13. [2018]

    Skipdecode: Autoregressive skip decoding with batching and caching for efficient llm inference.arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.02628,

    Del Corro, L., Del Giorno, A., Agarwal, S., Yu, B., Awadal- lah, A., and Mukherjee, S. Skipdecode: Autoregressive skip decoding with batching and caching for efficient llm inference.arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.02628,

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  14. [2019]

    Think you have solved question answering? try arc, the ai2 reasoning challenge

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  15. [2020]

    Boolq: Exploring the surprising difficulty of natural yes/no questions.arXiv preprint arXiv:1905.10044,

    Clark, C., Lee, K., Chang, M.-W., Kwiatkowski, T., Collins, M., and Toutanova, K. Boolq: Exploring the surprising difficulty of natural yes/no questions.arXiv preprint arXiv:1905.10044,

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1905

  16. [2021]

    Socialiqa: Commonsense reasoning about social interac- tions.arXiv preprint arXiv:1904.09728,

    Sap, M., Rashkin, H., Chen, D., LeBras, R., and Choi, Y . Socialiqa: Commonsense reasoning about social interac- tions.arXiv preprint arXiv:1904.09728,

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1904

  17. [2022]

    Appendix A.1

    10 A. Appendix A.1. Experimental Settings Training Datasets.Consistent with previous work D-LLM (Jiang et al., 2024), we use the official training split of each downstream benchmark—including CommonsenseQA tasks (PIQA, BoolQ, SIQA, ARCe, ARCc, Winogrande, and OBQA), MMLU, and Alpaca—for the fine-tuning stage of QTALE. That is, for each task, the model is ...

    2024

  18. [2023]

    Gptq: Accurate post-training quantization for generative pre- trained transformers.arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.17323,

    Frantar, E., Ashkboos, S., Hoefler, T., and Alistarh, D. Gptq: Accurate post-training quantization for generative pre- trained transformers.arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.17323,

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  19. [2024]

    Adaskip: Adaptive sublayer skipping for ac- celerating long-context llm inference.arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.02336,

    He, Z., Yao, Y ., Zuo, P., Gao, B., Li, Q., Zheng, Z., and Wu, F. Adaskip: Adaptive sublayer skipping for ac- celerating long-context llm inference.arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.02336,

    Pith/arXiv arXiv