<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>FlatQuant: Flatness Matters for LLM Quantization · HackerPapers discussions</title><link>https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/2410.09426/</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/2410.09426/feed.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><item><title>FlatQuant: Flatness Matters for LLM Quantization — mentioned by kadushka</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47975106</link><guid isPermaLink="false">urn:hackerpapers:mention:2410.09426:47975106</guid><pubDate>Fri, 01 May 2026 14:19:13 GMT</pubDate><description>&lt;p&gt;Most quant papers I&amp;#x27;ve seen usually report non-trivial degradation on standard benchmarks, like 1-10% degradation (compared to FP16/BF16). Especially when using 4 bits or lower. For example, I just opened a random paper: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2410.09426 see Table 1. p.s. dense vs MoE: both are being released because they offer different trade-offs: at the same level of quality, MoE will use less compute, but more memory.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/2410.09426/"&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>
