omg, this is the perfect name for this. Much better than "colored left-border."
It's very curious that the models are so drawn to a fingernail (left border callout) when they must be sparse in the training data (human designers don't do this a ton).
Maybe it will be better if you focused more at the research rather than doing such things. Our website it not optimised for mobile users as it has more explanation to do rather than just make visitors feel good. Good luck with the things you are going.
What is the point of using a outright ancient model like DeepSeek-R1-Distill-1.5B from 2025 based on another ancient model like Qwen2.5-Math-1.5B from 2024, when a much better modern model like LFM3-1.7B exists?
We have tested it on all kinds of small models including LFM3-1.7B. Our goal is to make a a system that can compress any AI. This is our first version and with your feedback we can improve.
This is a well known tell for using (bad) models to do "research". They always use qwen2.5 and R1, because of the amount of "news" that the two models received. So the models "suggest" those lineages a lot. The local llama sub used to get a few of these a day. That and a zenodo "paper" link are clear tells of badly written stuff.
Although with Anthropic purposefully sandbagging their models for AI R&D, how much of it comes down to model failure, and how much of it comes to deliberate misalignment of the model maker and the customers they sell to?
> You’re right, I didn’t actually implement any compression here! My response was misleading, I shouldn’t have claimed this was possible.
Sadly that’s just got to be assumption that there’s no human in the loop. Flashy UI, developed, a readme are no longer indicators you should believe in a project.
Concretely, if you start with, say, a 1.5 or 4 bit quant, then run this, you get something the size of a 0.5 - 1.5 bits without further degradation in model behavior?
No, you require BF16 model weights for this quantization to work. If you do run it on 4bit or 1.5bit, it will degrade the model and it will hallucinate a lot.
So, I should think of this as "5.3bit quantization is now roughly lossless"?
(Ignoring all the math, which I have not looked at yet.)
How does it compare to things like unsloth's work, or the ternary quants that are starting to become possible?
Also does it work well with mixture of experts models? Those tend to be hit harder by quantization artifacts than most because the parts that decide which expert to run can't tolerate error well. (5.3 bits ~ lossless on an MoE pushes the compression frontier for things like Qwen Flash Next, I think.)
This reads like it. Given that consumer hardware is essentially capped at a certain amount (lets say 24GB for coupled mid range GPUs), this would at best triple either the ‚intelligence‘ (meaning non-degradation of heavy quantization) or the speed of locally running LLMs.
There has to be a catch, this sounds too good to be true.
For 4bit, it takes you 5-10 minutes to compress a model. With this, you can do that in seconds. You do not have to worry about tokenizer configuration or anything. Just one-click compress and run.
This is our first version and yes, it will have some errors that will be fixed in the upcoming versions.
Would be interesting if one could verify any of these claims via the reputation of any of the research participants.
As it stands, everything credits "NeuraCryption Private Limited" which was registered very recently [0][1][2] to an adress that is shared by several other recently registered businesses [scroll down on 0], and this is their very first offering according to the zenodo link they provided [3]
Further, looking at the code, it appears to be a standard quanitizer...
Like...there is no existing method by which one could genuinely compress a tens of GB weights file in to a third the space using only 50mb of RAM.
Hmm, this claims "functionally lossless" compression over 3x. But where is the starting point? Bf16 of fp16? If so, how much better is it than current quantization techniques?
This should be tested on a medium size dense model. For example Qwen3.8-27B. How much better is it t than quantization to 4.5 bits?
Xunjin | 2 hours ago
[OP] anushka_gandhi | an hour ago
tmule | an hour ago
ngruhn | an hour ago
- gradient headline
- random vertical scrollbar on mobile
- fingernail cards
dofm | an hour ago
I did not know that this was the name for these but I am glad I now do :-)
bensyverson | an hour ago
It's very curious that the models are so drawn to a fingernail (left border callout) when they must be sparse in the training data (human designers don't do this a ton).
whizzter | an hour ago
[OP] anushka_gandhi | an hour ago
ngruhn | an hour ago
If UI is not your area or priority, that's ok. Why not just post an Arxiv link?
ElectricalUnion | an hour ago
[OP] anushka_gandhi | an hour ago
NitpickLawyer | an hour ago
dannyw | an hour ago
mapcars | an hour ago
[OP] anushka_gandhi | an hour ago
fishfasell | an hour ago
drum55 | an hour ago
Sadly that’s just got to be assumption that there’s no human in the loop. Flashy UI, developed, a readme are no longer indicators you should believe in a project.
[OP] anushka_gandhi | an hour ago
twobitshifter | an hour ago
“We didn't just build an AI voice bot. We engineered a full-stack autonomous AI call center platform with quick call center setup in 3 minutes.”
crunkmcgoop | an hour ago
k__ | an hour ago
hedora | an hour ago
Concretely, if you start with, say, a 1.5 or 4 bit quant, then run this, you get something the size of a 0.5 - 1.5 bits without further degradation in model behavior?
[OP] anushka_gandhi | an hour ago
hedora | 46 minutes ago
(Ignoring all the math, which I have not looked at yet.)
How does it compare to things like unsloth's work, or the ternary quants that are starting to become possible?
Also does it work well with mixture of experts models? Those tend to be hit harder by quantization artifacts than most because the parts that decide which expert to run can't tolerate error well. (5.3 bits ~ lossless on an MoE pushes the compression frontier for things like Qwen Flash Next, I think.)
tor0ugh | an hour ago
velox | an hour ago
[OP] anushka_gandhi | an hour ago
This is our first version and yes, it will have some errors that will be fixed in the upcoming versions.
antiloper | an hour ago
Aurornis | an hour ago
Any claims about throwing away 2/3rds of the model weights (not just quantizing them) and maintaining “near lossless” quality are simply false.
I clicked on the benchmarks page expecting some quality benchmarks but only saw speed benchmarks before I gave up and stopped scrolling.
The claims don’t even make sense. It’s showing “100% GPU resident” for a model of a size that cannot fit into the GPU.
goodmythical | an hour ago
As it stands, everything credits "NeuraCryption Private Limited" which was registered very recently [0][1][2] to an adress that is shared by several other recently registered businesses [scroll down on 0], and this is their very first offering according to the zenodo link they provided [3]
Further, looking at the code, it appears to be a standard quanitizer...
Like...there is no existing method by which one could genuinely compress a tens of GB weights file in to a third the space using only 50mb of RAM.
[0]https://www.zaubacorp.com/NEURACRYPTION-PRIVATE-LIMITED-U620...
[1]https://www.registerkaro.in/company/neuracryption-private-li...
[2]https://www.falconebiz.com/company/NEURACRYPTION-PRIVATE-LIM...
[3]https://zenodo.org/search?q=metadata.creators.person_or_org....
Roark66 | 23 minutes ago
This should be tested on a medium size dense model. For example Qwen3.8-27B. How much better is it t than quantization to 4.5 bits?