Revisiting Error Feedback for Model Quantization

Looped transformers reuse weights across recurrence steps, making low-bit quantization especially attractive. We identify two distinct failure modes of standard post-training quantization. On Huginn-3.5B, per-channel INT4 fails primarily at the non-residual loop-entry adapter, while quantizing the residual core is much less damaging. We call this feedback exposure: a quantized layer perturbs the recurrent state without an identity path, and the resulting error is fed back at later steps. Controlled experiments on linear filters and Mamba state-space models show that feedback exposure also occurs outside transformers. Grouped INT4 reveals a separate failure, calibration blindness: our one-step GPTQ baseline builds its Hessian from step-0 activations, leaving input directions used later in the recurrence nearly unweighted. Across nine checkpoints from seven looped architectures, one-step GPTQ is worse than round-to-nearest (RTN) on the primary task metric for five checkpoints. Accumulating the GPTQ Hessian across recurrence steps outperforms both one-step GPTQ and RTN on all nine checkpoints and recovers bf16-level accuracy on Huginn. These results separate two questions for PTQ on looped models: where quantization error enters the recurrence, and which states calibration sees.

Post-training quantization (PTQ) converts a trained full-precision model into low-bit weights without task-level retraining, while quantization-aware training (QAT) incorporates quantization into the training loop. Although PTQ is efficient and often accurate at moderate bitwidths, it can fail sharply at aggressive bitwidths; QAT is more expensive but can often recover the lost accuracy. We propose a unified geometric framework that explains both PTQ failure and QAT recovery. We model full-precision training as following a low-loss river inside a wider valley: a normal neighborhood of the river forms a nearly flat basin, while leaving this basin incurs a sharp loss increase. When the quantization grid is comparable to the basin width, local PTQ objectives, including rounding and Hessian-based second-order reconstruction, can select a high-loss deployed quantized point outside the basin even when nearby low-loss quantized points exist. In this regime, straight-through-estimator-based QAT has a useful bias: it evaluates gradients at the deployed quantized weights while updating latent full-precision weights, causing the gradient to sense the valley wall and acquire an inward component that steers subsequent quantized iterates back into the basin. We formalize this mechanism through a local landscape model, construct a geometric PTQ failure mode, and prove finite-time QAT recovery under local quantizer-compatibility assumptions. Experiments across vision and language models under multiple neural-network quantization schemes corroborate the predicted basin-crossing failure of PTQ and the corresponding recovery mechanism of QAT.

Mixed-precision quantization must decide which parts of a model to keep at higher precision. A common premise, shared by sensitivity-based methods such as HAWQ and CoopQ, is that the loss from quantizing a set of layers can be reconstructed from per-layer or pairwise sensitivities measured in isolation. We test this premise at the 4-bit weight-and-activation precisions now being deployed, treating the change in loss $f(S)$ from quantizing a layer set $S$ as a set function on the Boolean cube and analyzing it through two classical changes of basis. This analysis yields two findings. First, across configurations drawn from the deployment distribution, 85--93% of the variance of $f$ is explained by per-layer effects alone. Second, a monotone transform of a sum of per-layer terms reproduces $f$'s ranking of configurations, misordering at most 2% of pairs. We propose the coverage model $f(S)=c\bigl(1-\prod_{i\in S}(1-a_i)\bigr)$, which reproduces the measured variance profile of $f$ to within a few percent from its $L$ fitted break-rates. This structure supports two predictors of a configuration's loss, each with $L+1$ parameters. The additive model is the optimal first-order predictor. By Parseval's identity its mean-squared error equals the variance of $f$ left unexplained by per-layer effects, which we measure on full lattices, estimate out of sample at full-network scale, and report with every result as a certificate of how well any additive model can do. The coverage model itself is the second predictor. As allocators at matched memory, they attain the lowest KL divergence among the compared allocators on models from 30B to 355B parameters. Below four bits, the resulting allocations continue to solve code and reasoning tasks at budgets where allocations from gradient sensitivities no longer produce terminating generations.