<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>SmoothQuant: Accurate and Efficient Post-Training Quantization for Large Language Models · HackerPapers discussions</title><link>https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/2211.10438/</link><description>Collected HN comments and submissions linking this paper.</description><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Mon, 02 Nov 2026 11:16:22 GMT</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/2211.10438/feed.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><item><title>SmoothQuant: Accurate and Efficient Post-Training Quantization for Large Language Models — mentioned by kingstnap</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47519113</link><guid isPermaLink="false">urn:hackerpapers:mention:2211.10438:47519113</guid><pubDate>Wed, 25 Mar 2026 15:56:18 GMT</pubDate><description>&lt;p&gt;Other people have answered here but the real answer is that deep neural networks don&amp;#x27;t learn isotropic distributions of activations. What happens is that you get very spikey activations, there are so called &amp;quot;outlier&amp;quot; activations. A easy to read paper that tells you about this is SmoothQuant [0]. Another source from Anthropic and the Mechanistic Interperability people is calling these &amp;quot;privileged basis&amp;quot; [1]. Now based on the weight symmetries of a typical transformer, these actually don&amp;#x27;t need to exist. Weight symmetries means the ways you can change the weights without actually affecting the…&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/2211.10438/"&gt;Paper and discussion history&lt;/a&gt;. A mention is not an endorsement.&lt;/p&gt;</description><category>cs.CL</category></item></channel></rss>
