You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
To the best of my understanding, the original GPTQ algorithm accommodates a range of group-wise quantizations, such as group sizes of -1, 128, and 64. Upon reviewing the code, and assuming my interpretation is correct, it appears that although the batch_GPTQ inherently supports various group sizes, the add_expert function within the Sub1CheckpointManager class and the make function in the Sub1Linear seemingly only support row-wise quantization by default, corresponding to a group size of -1. Consequently, only the row-wise min_max variable is preserved for subsequent packing operations.
Would it be feasible to apply the LWZ algorithm to tensors that have undergone group-wise quantization (for instance, groupsize=128, ternary weights) and to design the sub1 packing process accordingly?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Dear Authors,
Sorry for the intrusion once more.
To the best of my understanding, the original GPTQ algorithm accommodates a range of group-wise quantizations, such as group sizes of -1, 128, and 64. Upon reviewing the code, and assuming my interpretation is correct, it appears that although the
batch_GPTQ
inherently supports various group sizes, theadd_expert
function within theSub1CheckpointManager
class and themake
function in theSub1Linear
seemingly only support row-wise quantization by default, corresponding to a group size of -1. Consequently, only the row-wisemin_max
variable is preserved for subsequent packing operations.Would it be feasible to apply the LWZ algorithm to tensors that have undergone group-wise quantization (for instance, groupsize=128, ternary weights) and to design the sub1 packing process accordingly?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: