Quantizing the weights of large language models (LLMs) from 16-bit to lower bitwidth is the de facto approach to deploy massive transformers onto more affordable accelerators. While GPTQ emerged as one of the standard methods for one-shot post-training quantization at LLM scale, its inner workings are described as a sequence of ad-hoc algebraic updates that obscure geometric meaning or worst-case guarantees. In this work, we show that, when executed back-to-front (from the last to first dimension) for a linear layer, GPTQ is mathematically identical to Babai's nearest plane algorithm for the classical closest vector problem (CVP) on a lattice defined by the Hessian matrix of the layer's inputs. This equivalence is based on a sophisticated mathematical argument, and has two analytical consequences: first, the GPTQ error propagation step gains an intuitive geometric interpretation; second, GPTQ inherits the error upper bound of Babai's algorithm under the assumption that no weights are clipped. Leveraging this bound, we design post-training quantization methods that avoid clipping, and outperform the original GPTQ. In addition, we provide efficient GPU inference kernels for the resulting representation. Taken together, these results place GPTQ on a firm theoretical footing and open the door to importing decades of progress in lattice algorithms towards the design of future quantization algorithms for billion-parameter models.

We explain how data-driven quantization of a linear unit in a neural network corresponds to solving the closest vector problem for a certain lattice generated by input data. We prove that the GPTQ algorithm is equivalent to Babai's well-known nearest-plane algorithm. We furthermore provide geometric intuition for both algorithms. Lastly, we note the consequences of these results, in particular hinting at the possibility for using lattice basis reduction for better quantization.

Back in 1979, two scientists wrote a seminal textbook on computational complexity theory, describing how some problems are hard to solve. The known algorithms for handling them grow in complexity so fast that no computer can be guaranteed to solve even moderately sized problems in the lifetime of the universe. While most problems could be deemed either relatively easy or hard for a computer to solve, a few fell into a strange nether region where they could not be classified as either. The authors, Michael Garey and David S. Johnson, helpfully provided an appendix listing a dozen problems not known to fit into one category or the other. "The very first one that's listed is graph isomorphism," says Lance Fortnow, chair of computer science at the Georgia Institute of Technology.