Layer-wise mixed-precision quantization (LMPQ) enables effective compression under extreme low-bit settings by allocating higher precision to sensitive layers. However, existing methods typically treat all intra-layer weight modules uniformly and rely on a single numerical property when estimating sensitivity, overlooking their distinct operational roles and structural characteristics. To address this, we propose NSDS, a novel calibration-free LMPQ framework driven by Numerical and Structural Dual-Sensitivity. Specifically, it first mechanistically decomposes each layer into distinct operational roles and quantifies their sensitivity from both numerical and structural perspectives. These dual-aspect scores are then aggregated into a unified layer-wise metric through a robust aggregation scheme based on MAD-Sigmoid and Soft-OR to guide bit allocation. Extensive experiments demonstrate that NSDS consistently achieves superior performance compared to various baselines across diverse models and downstream tasks, without relying on any calibration data.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Layer-wise sensitivity across two LLMs. Each dot represents a layer. Darker dots indicate more severe perplexity degradation ( Δ PPL) when quantizing that layer. See § 2.2 for the calculation of Numerical Vulnerability and Structural Expressiveness. Red dashed boxes highlight that layers with low numerical but high structural sensitivity still suffer significant degradation. See Appendix A for more results.
Figure 2: Overview of our NSDS framework for data-free layer sensitivity estimation. The left panel illustrates the mechanistic decomposition of a layer into distinct operational components, categorized as Detectors and Writers (§ 2.1 ). The middle panel presents the dual-view sensitivity estimation: Numerical Vulnerability (NV) and Structural Expressiveness (SE) (§ 2.2 ). The right panel shows the robust aggregation process, where MAD-Sigmoid normalizes heterogeneous scores and Soft-OR integrates them into a unified layer-wise sensitivity metric, which is then used for bit allocation under a target budget (§ 2.3 ). See Appendix B for the algorithmic description of the NSDS framework.
Language Reasoning ( ↑ )
Language Modeling ( ↓ )
ARC-C
Hellaswag
PIQA
BoolQ
Winogrande
TruthfulQA
Wikitext-2
C4
Llama-3.1-8B
FP16
57.76
81.97
80.09
82.11
77.35
28.40
6.24
8.95
[1pt/1pt] MSE
38.73
64.21
68.58
60.73
65.82
23.95
9.22
12.35
EWQ
40.17
67.16
71.49
64.52
67.43
23.34
8.38
11.27
ZD
39.45
66.94
69.63
62.88
67.51
24.49
8.42
11.51
Table 1: Results of baseline methods and our NSDS on Llama-3.1-8B and Qwen2.5-7B, evaluated on six language reasoning and two language modeling benchmarks. See Appendix E for the details of baseline methods.
Figure 3: Average accuracy of NSDS and baselines on language reasoning benchmarks across different bit budgets for Llama-3.1-8B and Qwen2.5-7B.
Llama-2-13B
Qwen2.5-14B
Acc. ( ↑ )
PPL ( ↓ )
Acc. ( ↑ )
PPL ( ↓ )
FP16
67.23
5.67
73.25
7.22
[1pt/1pt] MSE
59.91
9.38
64.29
10.62
EWQ
61.68
7.61
63.36
11.13
ZD
60.99
7.98
65.42
10.25
KurtBoost
62.08
7.51
65.13
10.41
Table 2: Average PPL and accuracy of NSDS and baselines on language modeling and reasoning benchmarks for larger-scale LLMs. See Table 3 for detailed results.
Figure 4: Average accuracy of the ablation analysis on NSDS. “w/o” denotes the exclusion of a specific component from NSDS during layer sensitivity estimation.
Figure 5: Average accuracy comparison between NSDS framework and calibration-based baselines across generic reasoning benchmarks.
Figure 6: Average accuracy on language reasoning benchmarks when integrating NSDS with different PTQ backends, compared against the SliM-LLM.
Appendix figures & tables5 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Figure 7: Visualization of NV, SE, and NSDS scores across layers on Llama-3.1-8B and Qwen2.5-7B. Darker colors indicate higher sensitivity score.
Language Reasoning ( ↑ )
Language Modeling ( ↓ )
ARC-C
Hellaswag
PIQA
BoolQ
Winogrande
TruthfulQA
Wikitext-2
C4
Llama-2-13B
FP16
59.47
82.22
79.05
80.55
76.16
25.95
4.88
6.47
[1pt/1pt] MSE
46.71
73.27
73.35
72.58
71.63
21.96
8.55
10.21
EWQ
48.14
75.11
75.38
75.22
73.43
22.85
6.77
8.43
ZD
47.89
74.34
74.83
74.01
72.69
22.23
7.08
8.89
Appendix
Table 3: Results of baseline methods and our NSDS on Llama-2-13B and Qwen2.5-14B, evaluated on six language reasoning and two language modeling benchmarks.
Figure 8: Average perplexity results of the ablation analysis on NSDS across all language modeling benchmarks. “w/o” denotes the exclusion of a specific component from NSDS during layer sensitivity estimation.
Figure 9: Average perplexity comparison between NSDS framework and calibration-based baselines across generic reasoning benchmarks.
Figure 10: Average perplexity on language modeling benchmarks when integrating NSDS with different PTQ backends, compared against the SliM-LLM.
Mixed-precision quantization assigns different numeric precisions across a model to balance accuracy with memory, speed, energy, and hardware constraints.
Mixed-precision weight quantization is commonly formulated as a Multiple-Choice Knapsack Problem (MCKP), yet existing solvers rely on scalar sensitivity proxies that collapse each weight matrix's Hessian into a single number and treat every module independently. We prove that even the optimal scalar proxy incurs multiplicative distortion up to κ(A)κ(B) relative to the full activation-aware quadratic, where κ(A) and κ(B) denote the condition numbers of the input- and output-side Hessian factors. This bound varies from 101 to 1013 for typical LLM modules, making inter-module sensitivity ranking unreliable. To address these limitations, we propose Cross-layer Activation-aware Sensitivity Allocation (CASA), a two-phase method. In Stage 1, the scalar proxy is replaced by an activation-aware metric derived from the Kronecker-factored Hessian, reducing the MCKP to a form whose continuous relaxation admits a closed-form solution. In Stage 2, a cross-layer-aware local search evaluates bit-width updates using the end-to-end model loss. Experiments on multiple LLMs across different bit budgets show that CASA achieves lower perplexity than the latest scalar-proxy baselines, especially at ultra-low bit-widths (<3 bits per weight). Moreover, the performance gain in zero-shot accuracy tracks the per-model average condition-number over modules, confirming the distortion bound as a practical indicator of scalar-proxy failure.
Akihiro Yoshida, Yuma Ichikawa
Fujitsu Limited, Institute of Science Tokyo · Fujitsu Limited, RIKEN Center for AIP
Mixed-precision quantization improves the accuracy of post-training quantization by allocating higher bitwidths to sensitive layers, but existing methods solve the allocation for a single fixed memory budget. In practice the budget varies across deployments and is unknown at calibration time. Adaptive quantization addresses this with one offline calibration that serves any budget, yet current methods score layer sensitivity in a manner that does not consider its dependency on quantization levels of other layers. We show that a layer's sensitivity depends strongly on the bitwidths of its upstream layers and that this dependence shifts the resulting preferred bit allocation. We propose MixQuant, a technique-agnostic adaptive framework that wraps any base quantizer. MixQuant marginalizes each layer's distortion over random quantized upstream configurations to obtain budget-agnostic scores, calibrates the quantizer's parameters on plans the allocator itself produces, and penalizes allocations that leave layers at the lowest bitwidths. A single greedy pass then serves any budget at deployment. Across Llama-3.2-3B, Llama-2-7B, and Mistral-7B under AWQ and GPTQ, MixQuant outperforms adaptive and mixed-precision baselines in every setting, improving average accuracy by up to 8 points and reducing perplexity from 12.43 to 10.70 at the tightest budget, while matching an ILP solver at negligible deployment cost.
Mixed-precision quantization (MPQ) has become a key technique for deploying large language models under stringent memory and compute constraints. We first identify a phenomenon that we term the Perplexity Illusion: layers ranked as important by perplexity-based sensitivity show little rank correlation with those that are most influential for complex reasoning performance, with Kendall τ≈0 in our analysis. We further reveal an Alignment-Diversity Tradeoff: using only target-task calibration data can degrade post-quantization performance, whereas incorporating general-domain data stabilizes sensitivity estimation and improves robustness across tasks. Based on these observations, we propose TASA (Task-Aware Sensitivity Analysis), a two-level framework that jointly optimizes calibration-data composition and mixed-precision bit allocation. Specifically, TASA searches for a calibration-data mixture using a training-free gradient-trace alignment criterion, and then aggregates perplexity and reasoning-oriented sensitivity signals to guide both inter-layer and intra-layer bit allocation. Experiments on LLaMA-3-8B and Qwen2.5-7B reveal a precision inversion: appropriately allocated 3.5-bit models can match or surpass less task-aware 4-bit baselines. At an average precision of 3.5 bits, TASA matches or outperforms several competitive 4-bit uniform baselines in aggregate accuracy, and improves over the strongest W3 baseline on GSM8K by more than 20 absolute points on LLaMA-3-8B. These results show that calibration-data composition substantially affects task-sensitive quantization, a factor underexplored in prior work.
Fei Wang, Chao Xue, Taoran Liu +3
South China University of Technology · Ocean University of China · Shenzhen Campus of Sun Yat-sen University +1