cs.LGOct 30, 2026

Quantization of Large Models with Weight Outliers and Sparsity

Authors: Leonidas Tsigkounakis, Abraham Jaeger Mountain, Yilang Zhang, Georgios B. Giannakis

Organizations: Department of ECE, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN 55455 · ML Research, Morgan Stanley, New York, NY 10019

Abstract

Post-training quantization (PTQ) reduces the memory burden of large model deployment by casting the high precision trained weights to fewer bits. While this promotes memory-efficient inference, it also incurs quantization error that impairs model performance. To compensate for quantization error, the present contribution decomposes the original trained weights into a quantized matrix, a low-rank component, and a sparse matrix that accounts for outlier rows in the weights. Due to analytical intractability and the discrete structure of the decomposition, a simulated annealing search is employed to explore candidate decompositions while avoiding poor local minima. Numerical tests demonstrate the effectiveness of this approach across a broad suite of large language models, including Llama 3.2 1B, Llama 3.2 3B, Llama 3.1 8B, and Qwen2.5 7B, evaluated on natural language generation benchmarks using 4-bit NF4 and FP4 quantizers. The novel method can markedly outperform direct quantization while incurring minimal memory overhead.

Figures & tables

Appendix figures & tables2 assets

Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.

Appendix

Explore similar work

Aug 8, 2026

Quantization Degradation in Large Language Models: A Signal-Noise Perspective

Post-training quantization reduces the deployment cost of large language models, yet how severely a quantized model degrades is not determined by bit-width alone. We systematically study weight-only post-training quantization across bit-widths, quantization methods, model scales and downstream tasks on multiple model families. We observe that such degradation varies substantially across these factors: 4-bit quantization usually preserves performance, 2-bit often causes broad degradation, and at 3-bit, degradation becomes apparent but varies markedly with task type, quantization method and model scale. To explain this variability, we use the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) to measure how strongly quantization perturbs full-precision representations. We trace degradation back to two linked processes: how quantization errors arise within individual modules, and how they accumulate across layers. First, a source SNR decomposition shows that newly introduced errors depend on three factors: the magnitude of the weight error, the strength of the task-specific signal, and how strongly the quantization error aligns with task-specific activations. Different factors affect these components in distinct ways. Second, a cross-layer propagation analysis shows that these errors can be attenuated, preserved, or amplified as they pass across layers, and that larger models benefit from weaker error amplification. Together, these results establish that quantization degradation is governed by how errors are introduced at the source and how they accumulate across the network.
May 11, 2026

Theory-optimal Quantization Based on Flatness

Post-training quantization has emerged as a widely adopted technique for compressing and accelerating the inference of Large Language Models (LLMs). The primary challenges in LLMs quantization stem from activation outliers, which significantly degrade model performance especially at lower bit precision. While recent approaches attempt to mitigate outliers through linear transformations across feature dimensions, our analysis reveals that the transformed weights and activations still exhibit persistent outlier patterns with concentrated magnitude distributions. In this paper, we first model the mathematical relationship between quantization error and outliers, and then introduce a new metric Flatness to quantify the distribution of outliers. Based on this, we derive the theoretical optimal solution with respect to Flatness. Building on these insights, we propose Bidirectional Diagonal Quantization (BDQ), a novel post-training quantization framework that effectively disperses outlier patterns through optimized matrix transformations. BDQ strategically distributes outlier magnitudes across matrix dimensions via learned diagonal operations. Extensive experiments demonstrate that BDQ establishes a new quantization benchmark. It achieves less than 1% accuracy drop in W4A4 quantization on the LLaMA-3-8B model. In the more challenging W2A4KV16 experiment, compared to state-of-the-art approaches, BDQ reduces the performance gap by 39.1% on the DeepSeek-R1-Distill-LLaMA-70B model.
May 11, 2026

ADMM-Q: An Improved Hessian-based Weight Quantizer for Post-Training Quantization of Large Language Models

Quantization is an effective strategy to reduce the storage and computation footprint of large language models (LLMs). Post-training quantization (PTQ) is a leading approach for compressing LLMs. Popular weight quantization procedures, including GPTQ and RTN, suffer in model utility, especially at aggressive quantization levels (sub-4-bit). We propose ADMM-Q, a novel weight quantization algorithm that considers the layer-wise quantization problem. Our algorithm is based on a combinatorial variant of the Alternating Direction Method of Multipliers (ADMM). Our operator-splitting procedure updates weights continuously to minimize the layer-wise reconstruction error, while gradually enforcing the quantization constraints with convergence guarantees. We propose additional algorithmic enhancements (e.g., penalty scheduling, preconditioning, and a local search post-processing step) to make ADMM-Q efficient at LLM scale. ADMM-Q is modular and can be used as a drop-in replacement for any weight quantizer within existing quantization pipelines: ADMM-Q is fully composable with existing techniques including range clipping, learned or random rotations, and activation scaling. Using ADMM-Q in place of GPTQ on Qwen3-8B, we decrease WikiText-2 perplexity in: (i) the W3A16 weight-only setting (12.85 →\rightarrow 10.06); (ii) the W4A8 SmoothQuant procedure (9.29 →\rightarrow 8.68); and (iii) the W2A4KV4 SpinQuant procedure (66.11 →\rightarrow 19.42).