cs.LGMay 18, 2026

A Geometric Analysis of Sign-Magnitude Asymmetry in a ReLU + RMSNorm Block under Ternary Quantization

Authors: Lei Dong

Abstract

Pre-norm Transformers with RMSNorm tolerate ternary {-1,0,+1} weight quantization with surprisingly small loss (Ma et al., 2024). We give a geometric explanation via sign-magnitude decomposition of weight perturbations. In a two-layer ReLU + RMSNorm model with i.i.d. Gaussian weights, sign-flips produce π/(π2)2.75π/(π-2) \approx 2.75 times more transverse output energy than sign-preserving magnitude perturbations of equal Frobenius norm, as the flip rate p0p \to 0 (Theorem 3). The mechanism: ReLU creates a hidden-space directional asymmetry between the two perturbation types, which RMSNorm's transverse-projection Fréchet derivative selectively exposes. Sign-quantization error is itself a sign-preserving perturbation with angular alignment cos22/π\cos^2 \to 2/π (Theorem 4); its post-ReLU radial fraction (0.3650.365) matches the pre-ReLU value 12/π1-2/π within 0.4%0.4\%, so ReLU is approximately transparent to ternary error. Multi-layer compounding of the 2.75×2.75\times factor is not experimentally supported; the gap to real-model sign sensitivity arises from outlier features violating delocalization. For an input dimension with amplitude αα, a single sign-flip produces post-ReLU energy amplified by Rnα2R \approx nα^2 relative to a delocalized entry. On TinyLlama-1.1B, at linear response (p0.5%p \leq 0.5\%), count-matched NLL leverage stabilizes at 10×nE[α2]\sim 10\times \approx n\mathbb{E}[α^2], matching the per-entry theory; the all-column NLL ratio of 5.0×5.0\times falls within Rcol19R_{\mathrm{col}} \leq 19 (67×67\times PPL gap reflects metric nonlinearity). Measured outlier αα at layer 12 (median 0.0240.024, max 0.260.26) confirms heavy-tailed concentration. The Bussgang constant 2/π2/π, RMSNorm geometry, and ReLU half-space structure together explain sign-magnitude asymmetry in pre-norm models, with Rnα2R \propto nα^2 accounting for real-model deviations.

Explore similar work

Aug 13, 2026cs.AI

Rethinking Normalization Placement for LLMs: Post-Norm under Curriculum Depth Growing

Pre-norm is the standard normalization placement in modern Transformers because it facilitates joint optimization of full-depth models. We ask whether this preference persists when depth is introduced through a curriculum. In curriculum depth growth, each appended block receives the boundary representation produced by a trained prefix, making normalization placement relevant to forward conditioning. We therefore test whether placement and training curriculum interact. In a controlled distillation study with a Qwen3-8B teacher and a nine-layer student, pre-norm and post-norm are indistinguishable under joint training, differing by 0.00040.0004 validation CE, while post-norm improves over pre-norm by 0.03280.0328 under curriculum growth, an order of magnitude larger. A post-joint control matched by student active-layer tokens remains worse than post-grow, which rules out compute as the sole explanation. The ranking crosses over during the curriculum: post-norm takes the lead once blocks are appended. Single-block and freeze controls localize the ranking change to block appending rather than shallow-block quality or retraining. Boundary diagnostics associate post-norm with stable residual scales and pre-norm with structural-token scale drift; on a fixed batch, the final pre-grow block is also nearly identity-mapped. Together with the phase-wise crossover, these observations are consistent with boundary-scale conditioning after new blocks are appended. The results motivate treating normalization placement and training curriculum as coupled design choices in this distillation setting.
Sheng Ren, Yadong Wang, Naiqiang Tan +7
Jun 30, 2026cs.LG

Signed-Permutation Coordinate Transport for RMSNorm Transformers

Modern LLM workflows move coordinate-indexed objects across checkpoints: steering vectors, sparse autoencoders, top-kk neuron sets, attribution lists, and merge alignments. This is only well posed after fixing the model's residual-stream gauge, which we show is architecture-dependent: LayerNorm residual charts have permutation gauge SdS_d (up to a global sign flip), while RMSNorm charts with generic per-channel gain have signed-permutation gauge Bd=Sd{±1}dB_d = S_d \ltimes \{\pm 1\}^d. Permutation-only alignment is therefore symmetry-incomplete for RMSNorm models. We introduce sign-marginalized Hungarian matching and prove a sharp failure mode: with decorrelated coordinates, raw signed-correlation matching has a structural permutation-accuracy ceiling at the positive-sign fraction of the true gauge, which sign-marginalization removes. We then make coordinate-preserving transport, not function-level merging, the primary object: composing saved-checkpoint local BdB_d gauges along same-base fine-tuning trajectories recovers 91.1% of cross-run coordinates at 1500 steps versus 60.3% for endpoint matching, and the gain is not explained by merely routing through the base. The recovered gauge transfers tools that permutation-only alignment breaks: TinyLlama SAE reconstruction has NMSE 0.004 under BdB_d versus 1.08 under SdS_d; Qwen sentiment steering preserves 95.8% of its effect versus 17.2%; refusal steering reverses sign under SdS_d; coordinate-preserving merges behave the same way. The same covariance governs stateful training: signed transport of AdamW state preserves the resumed trajectory, while permutation-only state follows a different one from a functionally identical checkpoint. Finally, gauge-sweep audits show index-level interpretability claims are reproducible only relative to an explicit gauge.
John Sweeney
Sep 10, 2026cs.LG

Why Does Post-Training Quantization Work?

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.
Yuxiang Chen, Michael Beyer, Jun Zhu +1