Join the conversation

Join the community of Machine Learners and AI enthusiasts.

Sign Up
vincentcounathe 
posted an update 10 days ago
Post
108
We trained 4-bit versions of Qwen3.5, Qwen3.8, Gemma 4 and Muse Glimmer with QUASAR, our quantization-aware training method. They stay closer to the original BF16 models than other 4-bit releases, including Google's and NVIDIA's.

How it works: the original BF16 model is the teacher, and the 4-bit model learns from the teacher's own responses. The result is a standard checkpoint (NVFP4 for vLLM, Q4_0 GGUF for llama.cpp / Ollama / LM Studio), so no custom kernels and no conversion step.

KL to BF16, QUASAR vs. the reference build (lower is better):
- Muse Glimmer 30B NVFP4: 0.0183 vs 0.0300 (NVIDIA)
- Muse Glimmer 30B NVFP4 W4A4: 0.0530 vs 0.0664 (Red Hat)
- Muse Glimmer 30B Q4_0 GGUF: 0.0213 vs 0.0228 (Meta Q4_K_M)
- Gemma 4 12B W4A16: 0.034 vs 0.044 (Google QAT)
- Gemma 4 12B Q4_0 GGUF: 0.048 vs 0.069 (Google QAT)
- Gemma 4 E4B W4A16: 0.022 vs 0.064 (Google QAT)
- Gemma 4 E4B Q4_0 GGUF: 0.044 vs 0.088 (Google QAT)
- Qwen3.5-4B NVFP4: 0.0181 vs 0.0419 (cyankiwi AWQ)
- Qwen3.5-4B NVFP4 W4A4: 0.046 vs 0.075 (cosmicproc)
- Qwen3.5-4B Q4_0 GGUF: 0.235 vs 0.284 (bartowski)

Highlights:
- Muse Glimmer 30B matches or beats BF16 on GPQA-Diamond, MMLU-Pro and AIME'25.
- Qwen3.8-27B has every linear layer in NVFP4 and scores 90.9 on GPQA-Diamond (BF16: 91.4), at 19.7 GB.
- Gemma 4 E4B and 12B beat Google's QAT on every benchmark we ran.

Models: QUASAR-QAT/all-quasar-models-6aab09fd2913ec22df0d5f15
Paper: QUASAR: Lowering the Loss Floor of Quantization-Aware Training with Loss-Aware Reconstruction (2608.13966)
Code: https://github.com/vincentcounathe/quasar-qat
Project page: https://quasar-qat.github.io/

Feedback welcome!

Your EVAL.md has a column the post leaves out, and it disagrees with KL.

PPL on the 774 held-out prompts: the BF16 reference reads 3.230. YoozLabs 2.626, QUASAR 2.830, Unsloth 3.025, bartowski 3.137. All four sit below the model they approximate. Only the two plain llama-quantize rows land above it, 3.274 and 3.286.

YoozLabs has the lowest PPL and the second-worst KL (.3627).

A student beating its teacher's perplexity on the teacher's own responses is sharpening, not fidelity. Three of the four below 3.230 had a data step I can confirm: QAT for you and YoozLabs, imatrix for bartowski per its card.

So KL is the right headline, and PPL on self-generated text rewards the wrong thing.

Were the 774 eval responses sampled at temperature 1, or with the chat defaults? If they were tempered, a sharper student wins PPL by construction.

Hello! Using your Qwen 3.8 27b it's very good ! THANK YOU!
Can you do the same with Qwen 3.8 Flash Next?