Rethinking Output Alignment For 1-bit Post-Training Quantization of Large Language Models
About
Large Language Models (LLMs) deliver strong performance across a wide range of NLP tasks, but their massive sizes hinder deployment on resource-constrained devices. To reduce their computational and memory burden, various compression techniques have been proposed, including quantization, pruning, and knowledge distillation. Among these, post-training quantization (PTQ) is widely adopted for its efficiency, as it requires no retraining and only a small dataset for calibration, enabling low-cost deployment. Recent advances for post-training quantization have demonstrated that even sub-4-bit methods can maintain most of the original model performance. However, 1-bit quantization that converts floating-point weights to \(\pm\)1, remains particularly challenging, as existing 1-bit PTQ methods often suffer from significant performance degradation compared to the full-precision models. Specifically, most of existing 1-bit PTQ approaches focus on weight alignment, aligning the full-precision model weights with those of the quantized models, rather than directly aligning their outputs. Although the output-matching approach objective is more intuitive and aligns with the quantization goal, naively applying it in 1-bit LLMs often leads to notable performance degradation. In this paper, we investigate why and under what conditions output-matching fails, in the context of 1-bit LLM quantization. Based on our findings, we propose a novel data-aware PTQ approach for 1-bit LLMs that explicitly accounts for activation error accumulation while keeping optimization efficient. Empirical experiments demonstrate that our solution consistently outperforms existing 1-bit PTQ methods with minimal overhead.
Related benchmarks
| Task | Dataset | Result | Rank | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Language Modeling | WikiText2 | Perplexity10.94 | 1875 | |
| Language Modeling | C4 | Perplexity13.15 | 1182 | |
| Language Modeling | WikiText-2 | -- | 841 | |
| Language Modeling | PTB | Perplexity16.75 | 650 | |
| Zero-shot Question Answering | AveQA | Accuracy57.7 | 25 | |
| Language Modeling | C4 | Perplexity (LLaMA-2 7B/8B)19.25 | 6 | |
| Question Answering | QA Benchmarks Zero-shot (BoolQ, Lambada, Piqa, OPQA, Winogrande, ARC-E, ARC-C, Hellaswag) | BoolQ Accuracy72.02 | 6 | |
| Language Modeling | PTB | Perplexity (LLaMA-2 7/8B)3.17e+3 | 6 |