正在加载视频...

视频加载失败

Reasoning LLMs generate very long chains-of-thought, so even small quantization errors add up. With AWQ, Qwen3-4B drops 71.0 → 68.2 on MMLU-Pro (~4% relative loss). 😬 ParoQuant fixes this! It keeps only the critical rotation pairs and fuses everything into a single kernel. Recovers most of the lost reasoning...

171,517 次观看 • 6 个月前 •via X (Twitter)

35 条评论

Zhijian Liu 的头像
Zhijian Liu6 个月前

Accepted to ICLR 2026 📜 🔗 Blog: 📄 Paper: Great work led by my student @yesheng_liang, in collaboration with @HsChen335, @_SubSir, and @songhan_mit.

FallenOne 的头像
FallenOne6 个月前

would love this tested on larger models, like 30B or above, since at that point quantization has a much smaller effect on intelligence

Zhijian Liu 的头像
Zhijian Liu6 个月前

Testing on larger MoEs is on our roadmap!

NewAIWorld 的头像
NewAIWorld6 个月前

We spent years shrinking models just to realize their internal monologues are more expensive than their final answers. Making a tiny model talk to itself for ten thousand tokens is the ultimate engineering paradox.

Sidney Fong 的头像
Sidney Fong6 个月前

I'm all for better quantization methods, but it's well known that small models like Qwen3-4B are inherently susceptible to quality loss due to quantization...

Zhijian Liu 的头像
Zhijian Liu6 个月前

Yes, but those models are really useful for local deployment, so their accuracy is also quite critical!

Milo 的头像
Milo6 个月前

Compounding quantization error in long CoT has been the primary blocker for edge reasoning. Fusing critical rotation pairs into a single kernel to salvage 4-bit accuracy is a massive unlock.

manish singh 的头像
manish singh6 个月前

Tracks with my experience: long reasoning amplifies tiny quant errors. AWQ helps, but I’d also watch long-context + KV-cache evals, not just MMLU.

Zhijian Liu 的头像
Zhijian Liu6 个月前

Test our repo out! 😉

Jason 的头像
Jason6 个月前

This looks soooo cool to me !

toni 的头像
toni6 个月前

The real issue is that most quant benchmarks don't test on long CoT paths - they use short evals. When you run 10k+ token reasoning chains, error drift becomes the actual bottleneck, not compression ratio.

Pit Schultz 的头像
Pit Schultz6 个月前

Congrats on the acceptance. this is great for local setups. expecting the FOSS community will engage with native GGUF export or direct llama.cpp support. (override-k-quants have limited accuracy gain).

Andrew 的头像
Andrew6 个月前

W4A4 not converging is interesting. The Givens rotation may be at odds with per decoder optimization, and you may be on the cusp of an invariant we’ve yet to formalize

Megan Wang 的头像
Megan Wang6 个月前

Congrats! Very impressive results 🎉🎉

Zhijian Liu 的头像
Zhijian Liu6 个月前

Thanks, Megan!

Solglyph 的头像
Solglyph6 个月前

That's really impressive progress on ParoQuant! It sounds like a huge leap forward in efficiency for those LLMs

Shin 的头像
Shin6 个月前

very exciting Zhijian!!

LinuxExpert4Hire 的头像
LinuxExpert4Hire6 个月前

This is a big step — quantization usually cripples reasoning models, but ParoQuant shows you can keep efficiency and accuracy with the right kernel design.

kfant 的头像
kfant6 个月前

the repo is 4months old has it not gained any traction?

Zhijian Liu 的头像
Zhijian Liu6 个月前

We've just made it public yesterday.

지구별여행자🌏🗺️ 的头像
지구별여행자🌏🗺️6 个月前

It‘s an interesting study! My m1 max will run well with MacBook, right? 😁

Strakyo 的头像
Strakyo6 个月前

Hot take quantization quality is becoming product strategy not just infra detail. If ParoQuant holds under long horizon reasoning, it could reset what people expect from small local models.

Anton 的头像
Anton6 个月前

Awesome work 😎👍

Lew Bei 的头像
Lew Bei6 个月前

Dayum, so cool!

zorazzhole 的头像
zorazzhole6 个月前

@zhuoyang_zhang 🫡

Marcell Havlik 的头像
Marcell Havlik6 个月前

why doe the ParaQuant looks so much faster than tha AWQ?

Zhijian Liu 的头像
Zhijian Liu6 个月前

We found that when quantization is more lossy, the model sometimes generate more tokens.

Marcell Havlik 的头像
Marcell Havlik6 个月前

But I mean the speed

Zhijian Liu 的头像
Zhijian Liu6 个月前

Token/sec is similar. Just more tokens for this example.

Nick Armstrong 的头像
Nick Armstrong6 个月前

Dumb question, but is the comparitor in this image just for presentation or is this a public CLI that is available to test. I’d love to try a few prompts and see how ParoQuant compares to some of my other local models.

Darel Bitsy 的头像
Darel Bitsy6 个月前

How’s memory usage for ParoQuant ? Would like to run this on mobile. @grok what’s the memory footprint?

mλdKoding 👾 的头像
mλdKoding 👾6 个月前

How can i use paroquant models?

卡piba拉 的头像
卡piba拉6 个月前

good

Max Headroom 的头像
Max Headroom6 个月前

How does this method compare in precision and reasoning quality to QTIP used by exllamav3?

⏏️Boltzmann Brain 的头像
⏏️Boltzmann Brain6 个月前

what did you build that UI with?

相关视频

Cerebras inference is very fast. So fast that it changes how we think about configuring our LLMs for voice agent use cases. Kimi K2.6 is a 1T parameter reasoning model that Cerebras serves at 650 - 1,000 tokens per second (end-to-end throughput), with time to first token metrics as low as 150ms (latency). These numbers are two to three times faster than other similarly capable models. The biggest lever we get from this kind of speed is that we can use the model in reasoning mode, and still have excellent "time to first non-thinking token." This solves a big pain point we have in 2026 for voice agent use cases. Almost all recent innovation in post-training has focused on making models good at reasoning ("test time compute"). This is great, but it makes the user-facing model latency much, much slower. Which is a problem for conversational voice agents. We can run Kimi K2.6 with reasoning turned on, and get responses faster than other models produce with reasoning disabled. On my 30-turn voice agent benchmark, Kimi K2.6 with reasoning enabled ties GPT 5.1 and Haiku 4.5 with reasoning disabled, and is still about 200ms seconds faster! On my primary task agent benchmark, Kimi K2.6 is now the #2 model. It ranks just behind Gemini 3.5 Flash in "high" reasoning mode, and tied with GLM 5, Sonnet 4.6, and GPT 5.4 with reasoning set to "low." But Kimi K2.6 completes each turn in the agent loop in under 500ms. The other four models are all at least 3x slower. (Models only qualify for this benchmark if they can complete task turns at a P50 <4s.) A couple of other things that this speed buys us, for production voice agents: - Tool calls happen fast enough that we don't have to work around tool call latency in our pipeline design. - We can prompt the model to output structured data at the beginning of a response, followed by plain text for voice generation. This opens up possibilities like asking the model to do complex classification/generation tasks that influence the rest of the pipeline. For example, the model could create a detailed style prompt for a steerable TTS model, for each individual conversation turn. And, of course, you can use Kimi K2.6 with reasoning turned off. Cerebras calls this "instant" mode. Here's a video of a Cerebras Kimi K2.6 voice agent with voice-to-voice response time, measured at the client, under 500ms. This is the true response latency as perceived by the user, including all network and audio codec overhead, transcription and turn detection, Kimi K2.6 token generation, and voice generation. 500ms is, effectively, instant. So the Cerebras naming for this mode is a propos. :-)

kwindla

40,593 次观看 • 3 个月前

OpenAI just announced API access to o1 (advanced reasoning model) yesterday. I'm delighted to announce today a new short course, Reasoning with o1, built with OpenAI, and taught by Colin Jarvis, Head of AI Solutions at OpenAI, to show you how to use this effectively! Unlike previous language models which generate output directly, o1 “thinks before it responds,” and generates many reasoning tokens before returning a more thoughtful and accurate response. It is great at complex reasoning -- including planning for agentic workflows, coding, and domain-specific reasoning in STEM fields like law. But how you should use it is quite different from other LLMs. I think o1 will be a game changer for many AI applications; and in this course, you'll learn how to use it effectively. In detail, you’ll: - Learn to recognize what tasks o1 is suited for, and when to use a smaller model, or combine o1 with a smaller model - Understand the new principles of prompting reasoning models: Be simple and direct; no explicit chain-of-thought required; use structure; show rather than tell - Implement multi-step orchestration in which o1 plans, and hands tasks over to gpt-4o-mini to execute specific steps; this illustrates a design pattern to optimize intelligence (accuracy) and cost - Use o1 for a coding task to build a new application, edit existing code, and test performance by running a coding competition between o1-mini and GPT 4o - Use o1 for image understanding and learn how it performs better with a "hierarchy of reasoning," in which it incurs the latency and cost upfront, preprocessing the image and indexing it with rich details so it can be used for Q&A later - Learn a technique called meta-prompting, in which you use o1 to improve your prompts. Using a customer support evaluation set, you'll iteratively use o1 to modify a prompt to improve performance You'll also learn about how OpenAI used reinforcement learning to produce a model that uses "test-time compute" to improve performance. I think you'll find this course enjoyable and valuable. Please sign up for it here:

Andrew Ng

357,661 次观看 • 1 年前

New Course: Reinforcement Fine-Tuning LLMs with GRPO! Learn to use reinforcement learning to improve your LLM performance in this short course, built in collaboration with Predibase by Rubrik, and taught by Travis Addair, its Co-Founder and CTO, and Arnav Garg, its Senior Engineer and Machine Learning Lead. Reasoning models have been one of the most important developments in LLMs. Reinforcement Fine-Tuning (RFT) uses rewards to encourage LLMs to find solutions to multi-step reasoning tasks such as solving math problems and debugging code - without needing pre-existing training examples like in traditional supervised fine-tuning. Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO) is a reinforcement fine-tuning algorithm gaining rapid adoption. Developed by the DeepSeek team and used to train the R1 reasoning model, GRPO uses reward functions that you can write in Python to assign rewards to model responses. It’s beneficial for tasks with verifiable outcomes and can work well even with fewer than 100 training examples. It can also significantly improve the reasoning ability of smaller LLMs, making applications faster and more cost effective. In this course, you’ll take a technical deep dive into RFT with GRPO. You’ll learn to build reward functions that you can use in the GRPO training process to guide an LLM toward better performance on multi-step reasoning tasks. In detail, you’ll: - Learn when reinforcement fine-tuning is a better fit than supervised fine-tuning, especially for tasks involving multi-step reasoning or limited labeled data. - Understand how GRPO uses programmable reward functions as a more scalable alternative to the human feedback required for other reinforcement learning algorithms, such as RLHF and DPO. - Frame the Wordle game as a reinforcement fine-tuning problem and see how an LLM can learn to plan, analyze feedback, and improve its strategy over time. - Design reward functions that power the reinforcement fine-tuning process. - Learn techniques for evaluating more subjective tasks, such as rating the quality of a text summary, using an LLM as a judge. - Understand why reward hacking happens and how to avoid it by adding penalty functions to discourage undesirable behaviors. - Learn the four key components of the loss calculation in the GRPO algorithm: token probability distribution ratios, advantages, clipping, and KL-divergence. - Launch reinforcement fine-tuning jobs using Predibase’s hosted training services. By the end of this course, you’ll be able to build and fine-tune LLMs using reinforcement learning to improve reasoning without relying on large labeled datasets or subjective human feedback. Please sign up here:

Andrew Ng

86,697 次观看 • 1 年前

Thanksgiving-week treat: an epic conversation on Frontier AI with Lukasz Kaiser -co-author of “Attention Is All You Need” (Transformers) and leading research scientist at OpenAI working on GPT-5.1-era reasoning models. 00:00 – Cold open and intro 01:29 – “AI slowdown” vs a wild week of new frontier models 08:03 – Low-hanging fruit, infra, RL training and better data 11:39 – What is a reasoning model, in plain language 17:02 – Chain-of-thought and training the thinking process with RL 21:39 – Łukasz’s path: from logic and France to Google and Kurzweil 24:20 – Inside the Transformer story and what “attention” really means 28:42 – From Google Brain to OpenAI: culture, scale and GPUs 32:49 – What’s next for pre-training, GPUs and distillation 37:29 – Can we still understand these models? Circuits, sparsity and black boxes 39:42 – GPT-4 → GPT-5 → GPT-5.1: what actually changed 42:40 – Post-training, safety and teaching GPT-5.1 different tones 46:16 – How long should GPT-5.1 think? Reasoning tokens and jagged abilities 47:43 – The five-year-old’s dot puzzle that still breaks frontier models 52:22 – Generalization, child-like learning and whether reasoning is enough 53:48 – Beyond Transformers: ARC, LeCun’s ideas and multimodal bottlenecks 56:10 – GPT-5.1 Codex Max, long-running agents and compaction 1:00:06 – Will foundation models eat most apps? The translation analogy and trust 1:02:34 – What still needs to be solved, and where AI might go next

Matt Turck

168,007 次观看 • 9 个月前

PrismML Releases Bonsai 27B: 1-bit and Ternary Builds of Qwen3.6-27B Hitting 89.5% of FP16 at 3.9GB. No new pretrain. No higher-precision escape hatches. No multi-GPU rig. Here's how it works. 👇 1: Codes, not floats Every weight becomes a code, with one shared FP16 scale per group of 128. Ternary is {−1, 0, +1}, binary is {−1, +1}. Sharing the scale across 128 weights keeps its cost at 16/128 = 0.125 bits. → Ternary: log2(3) + 16/128 ≈ 1.71 bits/weight → 5.9GB → Binary: 1 + 16/128 = 1.125 bits/weight → 3.9GB 2: Post-training, not from scratch No BitNet-style low-bit pretrain. It starts from off-the-shelf Qwen3.6-27B, architecture unchanged. The representation runs end to end across embeddings, attention projections, MLP projections, and the LM head. → 9.4× (ternary) and 14.2× (binary) vs the 54GB FP16 baseline 3: Labels are not bit-widths Conventional low-bit builds are mixed-precision by construction. The advertised name describes the most-compressed tensors, not the model. → Q4_K_XL, labeled "4-bit," is really 5.2 bits/weight at 17.6GB → IQ2_XXS, labeled "2-bit," is really 2.8 bits/weight at 9.4GB 4: Fitting a phone is two budgets iOS caps a single app near half of RAM, so a 12GB iPhone exposes ~6GB. The KV cache grows on top. Hybrid attention at ~75% linear means only 16 of 64 layers cache. → 4-bit KV: 4.3GB at 262K context, down from 17.2GB → 11.0 tok/s on iPhone 17 Pro Max 5: The numbers (15 benchmarks, thinking mode) → Ternary: 80.49 avg at 5.9GB — 94.6% of FP16 → 1-bit: 76.11 avg at 3.9GB — 89.5% of FP16 → IQ2_XXS falls to 57.5 on AIME26 while still scoring 88.93 on MMLU-Redux The key takeaway: 27B-class reasoning without the 54GB checkpoint — group-wise ternary and binary codes, an end-to-end low-bit language stack, 4-bit KV, on one phone. Full analysis: Repo: Model weight: Technical details: PrismML

Marktechpost AI

31,860 次观看 • 2 个月前