Ultra-low-bit scalar quantization offers a regular arithmetic structure for efficient deployment of large language models, but preserving predictive behavior at extreme precision remains challenging: with only a few reconstruction levels, accurate weight representation must translate into consistent predictions from a small calibration set. We propose FidelityQ, a scalar quantization framework that preserves predictive fidelity at weight precisions down to 2 bits. For accurate quantization, we introduce Information-Aligned Analytic Coding (IAC), which shapes each weight row toward a centered symmetric source via randomized Hadamard mixing and fits a mirrored four-level minimum-distortion quantizer to its empirical weights. Every level set in this family decomposes exactly into two sign-valued bases with associated scales, combining source-adaptive reconstruction with lookup-free decoding compatible with scaled integer arithmetic. Our analysis further shows that residual predictive discrepancies are heavy-tailed and concentrate on tokens the teacher predicts confidently, motivating Knowledge-Intensive Calibration (KIC) for consistent quantization. KIC ranks sequences by the tail of token-wise teacher-student divergence, allocates a limited calibration budget to the highest-scoring samples, and restores predictive agreement by updating only quantization levels and scales under teacher supervision, keeping pretrained weights frozen. Experiments on the LLaMA and Qwen families demonstrate the effectiveness of FidelityQ in weight-only and joint quantization settings. On LLaMA-2-7B, FidelityQ achieves a WikiText2 perplexity of 6.62 at W2A16 and improves the prior state-of-the-art W2A4KV4 result from 8.31 to 6.96, while reducing linear-layer weight memory by 8.0x relative to FP16.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: FidelityQ against scalar (SQ) and codebook (VQ) quantization at two bits. (a) FidelityQ improves the accuracy-efficiency tradeoff: no other scalar baseline shown reaches the codebook methods’ WikiText2 perplexity, and FidelityQ reaches it at scalar latency. ∗ is 2.125 bits per weight. (b) The same representation is smaller and faster: on LLaMA-2-7B at batch size 1, its linear-layer weights take 8.0 × less memory than FP16 and decode 3.4 × faster than QuIP# (Appendix D ).
Figure 2: Overview of FidelityQ. The top pipeline compares a frozen full-precision teacher with the IAC-quantized model, after which KIC selects calibration data and updates only the reconstruction levels. IAC shapes the source with a randomized Hadamard transform, places four symmetric nonzero levels at minimum distortion, and decodes them exactly as two sign planes with row-wise scales. KIC ranks sequences by the tail mean of token-wise divergence, keeps the top- k complete sequences, and refines the levels using the teacher distribution and corpus targets.
Figure 3: IAC source shaping and adaptive level placement on LLaMA-2-7B at W2. (a) Rotation turns a heavy-tailed row into an approximately symmetric marginal, and the fitted levels improve SQNR over the group-max grid. (b) The reduction in excess kurtosis holds across input-rotated projections. (c) With one block quantized, the fitted levels lie in a low-cross-entropy region of the model-level loss surface. The upper loss range is compressed for visibility.
Figure 4: The damage KIC targets is concentrated, and KIC improves the tokens that carry it. On LLaMA-2-7B at W2A4KV4, (a) the worst decile of tokens carries 45% of the total divergence. On Qwen3-8B-Base at W2A16, against a random draw of the same size on a slice ranked before either arm is trained, (b) the tail perplexity gain grows from 0.08% over the corpus to 17.5% on the worst 1%, and (c) on that slice, top-1 agreement and repaired errors rise by 3.13 and 3.10 points, where tail perplexity is 79.8 against 96.7.
Method
W-A-KV
Perplexity ↓
HellaS
PIQA
WinoG
OBQA
Avg. ↑
LAMBADA
MMLU 5
Wiki2
C4
7-task
5-task
Std
OpenAI
LLaMA-2-7B
FP16
16-16-16
5.47
6.97
76.16
78.78
69.46
44.0
66.67
68.66
68.81
73.65
45.94
AQLM ∗
2-16-16
7.24
8.96
66.74
74.10
62.51
36.6
58.04
60.08
56.26
67.34
33.03
[1.5pt/1.5pt] QuaRot
2-16-16
24.52
39.39
33.30
58.98
52.17
28.2
42.45
41.50
15.72
17.04
25.87
DB-LLM
2-16-16
8.89
19.85
51.99
62.13
55.96
32.6
47.80
48.16
32.19
45.47
24.95
Table 1: FidelityQ achieves the lowest WikiText2 perplexity among the compared scalar methods across model families, under weight-only and joint weight, activation, and KV-cache quantization. The 7-task average covers ARC-Easy, ARC-Challenge, HellaSwag, PIQA, WinoGrande, BoolQ, and OpenBookQA, and the 5-task average the first five of these; complete task results are in Appendix E .
Variant
W-A-KV
Perplexity ↓
ARC
HellaS
PIQA
WinoG
BoolQ
OBQA
Avg. ↑
LAMBADA
MMLU 5
Wiki2
C4
Easy
Chg
7-task
5-task
Std
OpenAI
FP16
16-16-16
5.47
6.97
73.86
45.05
76.16
78.78
69.46
79.36
44.0
66.67
68.66
68.81
73.65
45.94
Base
2-16-16
9.56
18.43
49.24
26.71
44.50
66.16
57.93
62.29
29.2
48.00
48.91
24.45
32.37
26.70
Base + IAC
2-16-16
7.78
12.53
51.43
28.84
52.98
67.03
61.33
62.35
34.2
51.17
52.32
39.14
51.64
28.73
Base + KIC
2-16-16
9.56
18.42
49.37
26.79
44.45
66.16
57.46
62.29
29.4
47.99
48.85
24.49
32.52
26.73
Base + IAC + KIC
2-16-16
7.11
9.74
60.19
36.35
65.70
74.05
63.93
68.69
37.4
58.04
60.04
56.90
67.16
29.54
Table 2: Component ablation on LLaMA-2-7B. Base uses rotation, GPTAQ, and a uniform grid without finetuning. Rows add IAC, KIC, or both; Base + IAC + KIC is FidelityQ. All rows use 512 WikiText2 calibration sequences. Bold marks the best quantized result per precision configuration.
Appendix figures & tables12 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
CV(d)
medr∣gr∣
Proj.
n
unrotated
rotated
unrot. ( ×10−2 )
rot. ( ×10−4 )
q
4096
0.205 [0.077, 0.278]
0.015 [0.012, 0.023]
0.95 [0.44, 67.75]
3.22 [2.59, 8.15]
k
4096
0.205 [0.077, 0.278]
0.015 [0.012, 0.023]
2.62 [0.50, 64.68]
3.25 [2.67, 7.12]
v
4096
0.205 [0.077, 0.278]
0.015 [0.012, 0.023]
0.36 [0.11, 27.64]
3.20 [2.65, 4.98]
o
4096
0.782 [0.505, 2.717]
0.017 [0.006, 0.022]
4.89 [1.94, 94.23]
3.57 [1.53, 4.71]
gate
4096
0.207 [0.078, 0.273]
0.014 [0.012, 0.020]
0.57 [0.12, 7.01]
3.10 [2.69, 4.71]
Appendix
Table 3: Sequential sensitivity spread and weighted-to-unweighted residual gaps on LLaMA-2-7B. Brackets give the range across blocks.
Setting
Value
Optimizer
Adam
Learning rate
5×10−6 , constant
Epochs / batch size
3 / one sequence, no accumulation
Sequence length
2048 tokens
Loss
Hard CE +0.1× soft-target CE
Teacher support / temperature
Top-512 tokens / T=1
Appendix
Table 4: KIC training settings. Only the two reconstruction magnitudes per row are trainable.
Variant
W-A-KV
Perplexity ↓
ARC
HellaS
PIQA
WinoG
BoolQ
OBQA
Avg. ↑
LAMBADA
MMLU 5
Wiki2
C4
Easy
Chg
7-task
5-task
Std
OpenAI
Base + IAC
2-16-16
7.78
12.53
51.43
28.84
52.98
67.03
61.33
62.35
34.2
51.17
52.32
39.14
51.64
28.73
Clipped uniform (no KIC)
2-16-16
7.89
12.87
49.71
29.01
51.62
67.08
62.12
62.32
33.6
50.78
51.91
39.39
51.39
28.67
Base + IAC + KIC
2-16-16
7.11
9.74
60.19
36.35
65.70
74.05
63.93
68.69
37.4
58.04
60.04
56.90
67.16
29.54
Zero-anchored + KIC
2-16-16
6.87
12.82
57.32
35.07
65.12
73.07
61.33
71.04
36.8
57.11
58.38
48.19
58.84
26.50
Base + IAC + KIC
2-4-4
7.53
10.20
54.46
34.47
63.90
71.49
62.27
63.98
34.4
55.00
57.32
50.28
61.79
26.09
Appendix
Table 5: Level-placement and representation controls on LLaMA-2-7B. Bold marks the best result within each precision setting.
Selection rule
Enrichment
Entropy
Wiki2 ↓
C4 ↓
Random
1.00 ×
1.01 ×
17.05
24.46
Prior-feature ridge
1.20 ×
1.01 ×
16.92
24.45
Two-stage cascade
1.29 ×
0.93 ×
16.88
24.47
Tail-damage score
1.45 ×
0.89 ×
16.69
24.37
Appendix
Table 6: Sequence-selection ablation on Qwen3-8B with a fixed 512-sequence calibration budget. Lower perplexity is better.
Calibration data
Wiki2
C4
C4 only
17.18
24.43
FineWeb only
16.75
24.32
C4 + FineWeb
16.83
24.33
C4 only, 1024 sequences
16.44
23.34
mix, 1024 sequences
16.26
23.44
Appendix
Table 7: Calibration corpus and budget ablation on Qwen3-8B. Rows use 512 sequences unless stated otherwise.
Method
Decoding path
LLaMA-2-7B
Qwen3-8B
Wiki2 ↓
(ms)
(ms)
FP16
torch linear
25.26
27.01
5.47
QuaRot
BitBLAS uint2 per-row
4.72
5.01
24.52
ResComp
BitBLAS uint2 per-row
4.72
5.01
10.28
Base (uniform grid)
BitBLAS uint2 per-row
4.72
5.01
9.56
DB-LLM
additive decomposition
5.11
—
8.89
Appendix
Table 8: Linear-stack kernel time per token at batch size 1 on an RTX A6000 at W2A16, with WikiText2 perplexity on LLaMA-2-7B repeated from table 1 . Times exclude the online rotations, which add 1.11 ms for FidelityQ on LLaMA-2-7B. Scalar decoding paths are listed first. A dash marks a configuration we did not time.
Method
Weights (GB)
Prefill (ms/token)
Decode (tokens/s)
FP16
12.06
0.27
35.9
Marlin W4A16
3.02
0.21
39.8
BitBLAS uniform W2
1.51
6.07
35.6
QuIP# E8P
1.51
1.12
13.8
AQLM 1 × 16
1.73
1.98
23.2
FidelityQ
1.51
7.32
47.0
Appendix
Table 9: LLaMA-2-7B generation in HuggingFace eager mode at batch size 1. Storage covers linear weights and reconstruction metadata.
Method
W-A-KV
Perplexity ↓
ARC
HellaS
PIQA
WinoG
BoolQ
OBQA
Avg. ↑
LAMBADA
MMLU 5
Wiki2
C4
Easy
Chg
7-task
5-task
Std
OpenAI
FP16
16-16-16
5.47
6.97
73.86
45.05
76.16
78.78
69.46
79.36
44.0
66.67
68.66
68.81
73.65
45.94
RTN ∗
2-16-16
diverged
26.22
27.05
25.57
50.54
51.30
37.98
24.8
34.78
36.14
0.00
0.00
24.80
RTN
2g64 -16-16
431.97
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
GPTQ ∗
2-16-16
29.83
335.50
41.84
27.30
42.38
62.35
52.09
56.61
29.0
44.51
45.19
21.99
25.58
22.95
QuaRot ∗
2-16-16
24.52
39.39
39.35
23.72
33.30
58.98
52.17
61.41
28.2
42.45
41.50
15.72
17.04
25.87
Appendix
Table 10: Extended results on LLaMA-2-7B. Markers are defined in appendix E .
Method
W-A-KV
Perplexity ↓
ARC
HellaS
PIQA
WinoG
BoolQ
OBQA
Avg. ↑
LAMBADA
MMLU 5
Wiki2
C4
Easy
Chg
7-task
5-task
Std
OpenAI
FP16
16-16-16
4.88
6.47
76.47
48.81
79.62
80.25
72.45
82.11
45.2
69.27
71.52
70.68
76.54
55.43
RTN ∗
2-16-16
5634.55
4815.95
26.01
28.16
26.20
49.35
48.07
37.83
23.4
34.15
35.56
0.00
0.00
22.92
GPTQ ∗
2-16-16
38.55
108.93
28.87
24.83
28.61
51.36
50.36
57.22
25.4
38.09
36.81
0.39
8.00
23.28
QuaRot ∗
2-16-16
12.17
24.11
43.81
25.09
45.14
62.30
56.59
62.54
28.8
46.32
46.59
31.11
40.42
25.44
ResComp ∗
2-16-16
7.90
14.05
55.68
30.20
53.24
68.66
62.83
63.18
33.4
52.46
54.12
38.95
50.01
27.97
Appendix
Table 11: Extended results on LLaMA-2-13B. Markers are defined in appendix E .
Method
W-A-KV
Perplexity ↓
ARC
HellaS
PIQA
WinoG
BoolQ
OBQA
Avg. ↑
LAMBADA
MMLU 5
Wiki2
C4
Easy
Chg
7-task
5-task
Std
OpenAI
FP16
16-16-16
6.14
8.88
77.74
54.10
79.22
80.58
73.16
81.83
44.8
70.20
72.96
68.81
75.59
65.48
DB-LLM m
2g128 -16-16
13.62
19.26
52.15
29.52
53.55
69.15
60.46
66.24
34.0
52.15
52.97
38.37
50.36
28.03
DB-LLM ∗
2-16-16
14.70
55.66
25.38
24.15
27.14
50.92
50.51
39.20
27.4
34.96
35.62
0.12
0.47
23.69
QuaRot ∗
2-16-16
22.90
45.88
27.40
24.23
27.59
52.50
49.25
39.60
25.4
35.14
36.19
1.26
3.03
25.37
ResComp ∗
2-16-16
15.17
37.52
36.24
24.57
39.06
58.11
56.43
62.26
29.2
43.70
42.88
19.31
26.99
25.64
Appendix
Table 12: Extended results on LLaMA-3-8B. Markers are defined in appendix E .
Method
W-A-KV
Perplexity ↓
ARC
HellaS
PIQA
WinoG
BoolQ
OBQA
Avg. ↑
LAMBADA
MMLU 5
Wiki2
C4
Easy
Chg
7-task
5-task
Std
OpenAI
FP16
16-16-16
7.00
10.42
79.88
56.23
78.60
79.54
72.06
83.18
41.8
70.18
73.26
66.02
70.83
76.84
AutoRound ∗
2-16-16
87.25
64.30
46.04
29.27
42.28
62.30
55.56
59.36
31.4
46.60
47.09
4.72
6.85
23.19
QuaRot ∗
2-16-16
12.58
23.02
61.15
34.47
52.47
67.79
61.88
63.67
31.6
53.29
55.55
43.78
49.56
43.93
DB-LLM ∗
2-16-16
11.62
23.33
50.42
30.97
50.92
64.64
57.46
58.90
35.6
49.84
50.88
32.18
40.68
27.55
FidelityQ
2-16-16
8.84
13.64
71.93
44.88
70.28
74.97
67.96
74.92
42.0
63.85
66.00
57.91
65.11
59.94
Appendix
Table 13: Extended results on Qwen3-8B-Base. Markers are defined in appendix E .
Method
W-A-KV
Perplexity ↓
ARC
HellaS
PIQA
WinoG
BoolQ
OBQA
Avg. ↑
LAMBADA
MMLU 5
Wiki2
C4
Easy
Chg
7-task
5-task
Std
OpenAI
FP16
16-16-16
4.10
5.98
79.25
53.58
83.01
81.83
75.85
83.79
49.2
72.36
74.70
73.06
77.61
58.30
[1.5pt/1.5pt] ResComp
2-16-16
6.45
10.38
68.01
38.05
63.98
74.32
69.30
68.75
38.0
60.06
62.73
54.57
67.20
32.00
Base (uniform grid)
2-16-16
6.33
10.10
67.05
38.57
64.91
74.70
68.59
66.54
39.0
59.91
62.76
54.63
68.33
31.29
FidelityQ
2-16-16
5.14
7.64
72.10
45.56
79.23
78.67
71.98
79.45
42.4
67.06
69.51
68.21
74.83
49.96
[1.5pt/1.5pt] QuaRot
2-4-4
99.92
961.80
50.46
29.95
46.67
61.04
57.38
61.04
31.6
48.31
49.10
21.42
22.74
25.99
Appendix
Table 14: Extended results on LLaMA-30B. Markers are defined in appendix E .
Quantization-aware training (QAT) can recover much of the accuracy lost when large language models are compressed below four bits. Existing re- covery stages, however, are commonly optimized on fixed completions or teacher-generated answers, whereas the deployed quantized model condi- tions on prefixes generated by itself. Quantization errors can therefore move the model into states that are absent from offline recovery data. We introduce OnlineQAT, a two-stage framework that first obtains a usable low-bit initialization through block-wise QAT and then performs on-policy distillation (OPD) on student-generated responses. At each visited pre- fix, a frozen full-precision teacher provides a sampled reverse-KL training signal. On Qwen3-1.7B, OnlineQAT obtains the best average among the compared quantized methods: 57.28 at W3A16 and 32.52 at W2A16, im- proving over ReasoningQAT by 2.90 and 0.44 points, respectively. The results suggest that student-visited states provide a useful recovery signal beyond fixed-completion training, particularly at three bits.
Wenjun Wang, Heng Li, Yanggan Gu +1
The Hong Kong Polytechnic University · Sun Yat-sen University · PolyU-Daya Bay Technology and Innovation Research Institute
Low-bit quantization shrinks language models but treats precision as a single global hyper-parameter: every weight uses the same bit-width. We introduce Variable Bit-width Quantization (VBQ), a training-time method in which each contiguous group of 64 weights learns its own resolution from {1,2,4,8} bits via a Gumbel-Softmax relaxation, trained jointly by an alternating optimization that gives the precision logits a clean, task-aligned signal. VBQ discovers a consistent, strongly heterogeneous allocation within individual projection types, not merely across layers, impossible to express with per-layer methods: 69% of groups collapse to 1 bit, the LM head averages 1.09 bits, while the first MLP block keeps ~2.5 bits. This pattern is stable enough to freeze into a fixed recipe and reuse without further search. The recipe yields a "bigger-but-smaller" regime: a 131M model at 1.82 mean bits reaches perplexity 4.2 on TinyStories, beating a 55M FP16 model (PPL 4.4) at 3.8x less storage, and lets a 1.46B model on FineWeb-Edu match a 593M FP16 control at ~3.7x less storage with 2.5x more parameters. As quality-per-byte, VBQ is 3.9-8.4x more efficient than FP16. The recipe maps directly to packed low-bit storage, so it also accelerates inference: with custom fused dequantize-and-multiply kernels, memory-bandwidth-bound autoregressive decode is faster at equal output, and the speedup grows with scale (parity at 131M, 1.9x at 1.0B, 4.7x at 9B on Apple silicon). A distributional analysis (KL divergence and argmax-flip rate) reveals a striking mechanism: deeper layers progressively self-heal the quantization error injected by early layers. The win is a from-scratch, train-time phenomenon; scaling the search economically beyond 1.5B parameters remains open. VBQ reframes precision as a learnable, non-uniform resource and shows that spending a fixed bit budget unevenly beats spending it uniformly.
Quantization is an effective approach to reduce the memory footprint and inference cost of large language models (LLMs), yet maintaining performance in the ultra-low-bit regime remains challenging. Existing post-training methods often suffer from severe accuracy degradation, while quantization-aware training requires costly retraining and additional resources. Moreover, most mixed-precision strategies rely on coarse-grained or heuristic sensitivity analysis that overlooks fine-grained variations within weight matrices. We propose WINDQuant, a reinforcement-learning-based allocation controller for ultra-low-bit LLM quantization. Rather than introducing another low-level quantization operator, WINDQuant learns how to assign bit-widths and quantization treatments to fine-grained column chunks under a global storage budget. By operating at the column-chunk level, WINDQuant enables flexible and fine-grained precision assignment within layers under a global target bit-width. The implementation combines PPO with activation-aware calibration, lightweight per-unit quantizer fitting, and explicit effective-bit accounting of the learned mixed-precision plan. Experiments on LLaMA models demonstrate that WINDQuant achieves competitive performance in ultra-low-bit settings while reducing optimization overhead relative to retraining-based approaches, highlighting reinforcement learning as a practical controller for adaptive mixed-precision quantization.
Phong Nam Huu Nguyen, Khoi M. Le, Cong-Duy T Nguyen +3