# When Does Compensating Inherited Quantization Error Help? Mean-Square Guarantees for Layer-Wise Quantization and Their Limits

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.16020 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2610.16020/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 19 of its 29 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 12 Oct 2026.

## Builds on (most cited first, 19 of 19)

- [GPTQ: Accurate Post-Training Quantization for Generative Pre-trained Transformers](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2210.17323/) (2022)
- [Pythia: A Suite for Analyzing Large Language Models Across Training and Scaling](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2304.01373/) (2023)
- [AWQ: Activation-aware Weight Quantization for LLM Compression and Acceleration](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.00978/) (2023)
- [BRECQ: Pushing the Limit of Post-Training Quantization by Block Reconstruction](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2102.05426/) (2021)
- [OmniQuant: Omnidirectionally Calibrated Quantization for Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2308.13137/) (2023)
- [QuIP: 2-Bit Quantization of Large Language Models With Guarantees](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2307.13304/) (2023)
- [QuIP#: Even Better LLM Quantization with Hadamard Incoherence and Lattice Codebooks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.04396/) (2024)
- [Deep Learning with Limited Numerical Precision](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1502.02551/) (2015)
- [SmolLM2: When Smol Goes Big -- Data-Centric Training of a Small Language Model](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2502.02737/) (2025)
- [GPTAQ: Efficient Finetuning-Free Quantization for Asymmetric Calibration](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2504.02692/) (2025)
- [Quantization Error Propagation: Revisiting Layer-Wise Post-Training Quantization](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2504.09629/) (2025)
- [Qronos: Correcting the Past by Shaping the Future... in Post-Training Quantization](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.11695/) (2025)
- [NestQuant: Nested Lattice Quantization for Matrix Products and LLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2502.09720/) (2025)
- [Universal Deep Neural Network Compression](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1802.02271/) (2018)
- [Provable Post-Training Quantization: Theoretical Analysis of OPTQ and Qronos](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2508.04853/) (2025)
- [Optimal Quantization for Matrix Multiplication](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.13780/) (2024)
- [WaterSIC: Information-Theoretically (Near) Optimal Linear Layer Quantization](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2603.04956/) (2026)
- [Rethinking Residual Errors in Compensation-based LLM Quantization](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2604.07955/) (2026)
- [An Input-Output Approach to Structured Stochastic Uncertainty](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1806.07473/) (2018)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Layer-wise post-training quantization methods let each layer compensate for the quantization error inherited from earlier layers. We ask under what assumptions such compensation guarantees a network output error no larger than without it. For linear networks of any depth, with the required calibration Gram matrices invertible, if the rounding error of each layer has zero conditional mean and a deterministic second-moment map common to both schemes, as under subtractive dither on an unbounded grid, then compensation with strengths in [0,1] fixed in advance gives a mean-square output error no larger than no compensation, each scheme being followed along its own trajectory. The exact gain separates error removed directly from reduced excitation of later rounding noise. Outside this setting the comparison can fail. With rectified linear activations it fails for two independent reasons: noise changes activation states, and, even when no state changes, the correction moves error from samples on which a unit is inactive to samples on which it is active. With stable activations, commutators between the calibration projection and the activation patterns bound the excess. With a bounded codebook, even unique exact layer-wise minimizers with no overload can give a larger output error. For fixed rounding errors it already fails for two scalar linear layers, refuting a published universal guarantee. An exact residual identity gives the necessary and sufficient condition on a common layer input. All these comparisons hold the calibration input fixed. On two 8B models at 4 bits, fixed half-strength compensation beat uncompensated rounding in every model, text and draw tested, yet no rule for choosing the strength beat a layer-wise rule consistently, and lowering the full-network loss on the data used to choose did not reliably lower it on new text.