# LoopQ 4-bit quantization of Ouro-1.4B — raw artifacts

A reproduction of **LoopQ** ([arXiv:2605.16343v1](https://arxiv.org/abs/2605.16343)),
post-training quantization designed for *depth-recurrent* transformers, on
**Ouro-1.4B** (`ByteDance/Ouro-1.4B`, revision
`e3b1e0993b1231a51d6069a870476dda4162c00a`) — 24 layers run 4 times per token.

Everything here is raw output. No number below is copied from a write-up; each
comes from `results/**/harness/**/results_*.json` produced by lm-eval at the
pinned commit `64f3d0924fc695efd6d776a5ac91f97138085516`.

## Layout

| path | what |
|---|---|
| `results/<arm>/<task>/harness/` | lm-eval output per task: `results_*.json`, `samples_*.jsonl`, `installed_task_snapshot` |
| `results/<arm>/<task>/run_metadata.json`, `timing.json` | protocol note, pinned versions, wall clock |
| `results/slt_selection_screen/` | the four selection arms of the SLT stability screen |
| `results/loopq_w4a4_step_curve/` | the completed calibration evaluated at five step counts, with its own README |
| `artifacts/*.components.pt` | the calibrated LoopQ parameters (LAS scales, shared and selected transforms, CTA) |
| `artifacts/cal_a4_s0_journal_step1050.resume.pt` | the calibration journal that survived the crashed run — carries per-step loss and gradient traces |
| `artifacts/curve_journals/` | nine journals of the completed run, one per step target, with its own README |
| `parity/*.json` | HF-vs-vLLM prefill agreement for each deployed artifact |
| `jobs/*.job.json` | the scheduler's job records: exact command lines, digests, status |
| `scripts/` | the implementation snapshot that produced all of this |

## The arms

| arm | what it is |
|---|---|
| `bf16_a16` | unquantized reference |
| `rtn_w4a4_group32`, `rtn_w4a8_group32` | plain symmetric round-to-nearest, activations in groups of 32 — the granularity LoopQ itself uses (paper Table 6) |
| `rtn_w4a4_per_token` | the same RTN code with **one activation scale per token** — the field-standard W4A4 baseline setting |
| `loopq_w4a4_untrained` | LoopQ's structure at initialization: random orthogonal Kronecker transforms, LAS clip 1.0, CTA at exact identity, **zero optimizer updates** |
| `loopq_w4a4_step0975` | LoopQ after 975 final optimization steps, recovered from the journal of a run that crashed at step 1065 |
| `loopq_w4a4_step1500` | the same calibration run to its configured 1500 steps |
| `loopq_w4a4_completed` | a calibration run to completion with singular values held in log space, so they cannot reach zero — **this is the arm that reproduces the paper** |

## Protocol

Zero-shot everywhere except MMLU (5-shot). Plain likelihood scoring, no chat
template, prompts exactly as the pinned harness produces them. HellaSwag and
ARC-Challenge report `acc_norm`; WinoGrande, LAMBADA and MMLU report `acc`;
WikiText reports `word_perplexity`. Calibration follows the paper: 1,024 Pile
validation samples at 256 tokens, λ = 0.1, KL temperature 1, teacher top-k 1000,
gradient clip 1.0, SLT budget 4, CTA rank 8, activation group size 32.

Serving is a vLLM 0.10.2 out-of-tree backend; quantization is simulated
(quantize-dequantize) so that a 4-bit *numerical* result is measured without a
4-bit kernel. Every evaluated artifact carries a prefill parity report comparing
it against the Transformers reference.

## What the runs show

**The unquantized reference matches the paper on all seven measures.**

| | HellaSwag | WinoGrande | LAMBADA | ARC-C | MMLU | WikiText ppl | LAMBADA ppl |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| paper BF16 | 0.7159 | 0.6717 | 0.6505 | 0.5256 | 0.6823 | 12.03 | 5.30 |
| **this repo** | **0.7166** | **0.6654** | **0.6577** | **0.5239** | **0.6760** | **12.02** | **5.29** |

**Activation granularity, not the method, is what separates the paper's baselines
from its LoopQ row.** The paper reports every W4A4 baseline collapsing to chance.
Changing one setting in the same RTN code reproduces that collapse — and leaving
it at LoopQ's own group size does not.

| W4A4 | HellaSwag | WinoGrande | LAMBADA | ARC-C | WikiText ppl |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| paper Symmetric / QuaRot / SpinQuant / FlatQuant | 0.27–0.29 | 0.45–0.50 | 0.00–0.03 | 0.23–0.24 | 451–10,500 |
| `rtn_w4a4_per_token` | 0.2645 | 0.5043 | 0.0000 | 0.2457 | 39,089 |
| `rtn_w4a4_group32` | 0.6705 | 0.6259 | 0.5719 | 0.4923 | 16.13 |

**LoopQ reproduces the paper, and on four of six measures it is ahead.**
`loopq_w4a4_completed` is the calibration that ran to completion without
diverging; every column here is within the acceptance band registered before
these numbers were measured (accuracy ±2 pp, perplexity ±10%).

| | paper LoopQ W4A4 | `loopq_w4a4_completed` | difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| MMLU | 0.5465 | **0.5906** | +4.41 pp |
| WinoGrande | 0.5951 | **0.6290** | +3.39 pp |
| HellaSwag | 0.6582 | **0.6809** | +2.27 pp |
| ARC-Challenge | 0.4881 | **0.4906** | +0.25 pp |
| WikiText ppl | 15.81 | **14.3211** | −9.4% (lower is better) |
| LAMBADA acc | 0.5659 | 0.5605 | −0.54 pp |
| LAMBADA ppl | 8.18 | 8.3831 | +2.48% |

Three accuracy columns land outside the ±2 pp band that was registered before
these numbers existed — all three above the paper. The registered failure
condition (5 pp or more *below* the paper) is not met on any column, so by the
letter of that rule this is a hold rather than a pass, and the rule is not being
rewritten now that the numbers are in. What the columns say substantively is that
this implementation loses less to quantization than the paper reports: from BF16
to W4A4, MMLU falls 8.54 pp here against the paper's 13.58 pp.

**The step count is what stood between the two.** `loopq_w4a4_step0975`, taken
from the diverging run, misses LAMBADA badly; the completed run does not. Same
paper contract, same data, same hyperparameters — only the transform
parameterization differs.

| | `step0975` | `completed` | change |
|---|---|---|---|
| LAMBADA acc | 0.5057 | **0.5605** | +5.48 pp |
| LAMBADA ppl | 11.5369 | **8.3831** | −27% |
| HellaSwag | 0.6452 | **0.6809** | +3.57 pp |
| WikiText ppl | 15.9149 | **14.3211** | −10% |

`step0975` does reproduce MMLU to 0.01 points (0.5464 against the paper's
0.5465) and WikiText to 0.66%, which is why the failure read as one axis rather
than a broken implementation.

**Running the calibration to its configured 1500 steps destroys the model.** Not
degrades — destroys: `loopq_w4a4_step1500` scores at or below chance on four
tasks and its LAMBADA perplexity is 5.3 million. The journal in `artifacts/`
records why. Across the 975 final steps the loss *rises* — median 5.42e4 over the
first quarter against 1.50e5 over the third — and the transforms' smallest
singular value falls from 8.3e-3 at step 1050 to 6.8e-6 at step 1575. Weight
folding inverts those matrices, so an inverse that amplifies by roughly 1.5e5
lands directly in the folded weights.

The paper specifies λ, KL temperature, teacher top-k, gradient clipping, group
size, CTA rank, SLT budget, calibration sample count and sequence length. It does
not specify the optimizer, the learning rate, the number of optimization steps,
the batch size, the weight decay, or how the Kronecker transforms are kept
invertible — it defers the last to FlatQuant. The collapse lives entirely in that
second list.

**The transform costs accuracy before calibration earns it back, and it does not
earn back the same share on every measure.** `loopq_w4a4_untrained` isolates
this: applying a random orthogonal Kronecker transform costs 4.7 points of
LAMBADA perplexity relative to plain RTN before a single optimizer step.

| | RTN group-32 | untrained LoopQ | step 975 | completed | paper LoopQ |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| HellaSwag | 0.6705 | 0.6300 | 0.6452 | **0.6809** | 0.6582 |
| WinoGrande | 0.6259 | 0.6062 | 0.6117 | **0.6290** | 0.5951 |
| LAMBADA acc | 0.5719 | 0.5015 | 0.5057 | **0.5605** | 0.5659 |
| ARC-Challenge | 0.4923 | 0.4343 | 0.4744 | **0.4906** | 0.4881 |
| MMLU | 0.5340 | 0.4970 | 0.5464 | **0.5906** | 0.5465 |
| WikiText ppl | 16.13 | 18.57 | 15.91 | **14.3211** | 15.81 |
| LAMBADA ppl | 8.23 | 12.94 | 11.54 | **8.3831** | 8.18 |

Share of the untrained-to-paper gap that calibration closes, by arm:

| | step 975 | completed |
|---|---|---|
| WikiText ppl | 96% | 154% |
| HellaSwag | 54% | 181% |
| LAMBADA ppl | 30% | 96% |
| **LAMBADA acc** | **6.5%** | **92%** |

Calibration improves every measure in both arms — so the objective was never
actively harming LAMBADA. The diverging run simply gave back most of what it
earned; the completed run keeps it.

**The step count is a free parameter, and it moves LAMBADA.** The paper does not
fix the number of optimization steps; 1,500 was our choice.
`results/loopq_w4a4_step_curve/` measures the same calibration at five step
counts. WikiText perplexity improves monotonically and settles (14.53 → 14.32).
LAMBADA accuracy does not: it peaks at step 200 and then moves inside a 3.8 pp
band with no trend — 0.5911, 0.5535, 0.5727, 0.5670, 0.5605 — which is 5.4
standard errors wide on 5,153 examples, so it is not sampling noise. The paper's
0.5659 sits inside that band. A single step count therefore cannot be read on its
own as reproducing or failing to reproduce this column.

**The SLT selection is stable.** `results/slt_selection_screen/` varies the
Fisher estimator, the sample count and the seed. The first three of four
selections are identical in every arm, and 128 calibration samples reproduce the
selection made with 1,024. Only the fourth slot moves, and it moves between two
seeds of the *same* estimator — a near-tie, not an unstable procedure.

## Reproducing

Implementation: `scripts/` here, or the `quantization_LoopQ` branch of the
working repository. Pinned stack: torch 2.8.0, vllm 0.10.2, transformers 4.56.2,
lm-eval at `64f3d0924fc695efd6d776a5ac91f97138085516`. Hardware: 2 × NVIDIA A40.
One calibration is 11–14 hours; the SLT scan is about 80% of that. A full
seven-task evaluation is 4.6 hours, of which MMLU is 95%.