Could we have a IQ3_S for coder?

#3
by alexaione - opened

Really appreciate the high quality work by your team and looking forward to being able to run better coding models on sub 64 or 96GB systems with your new GSQ-RCO versions. Thanks a lot for your hard work and for sharing with all of us.

Have been testing your flash-next IQ3_XXS and the results are quite impressive so far.

Mainly looking at agentic coding and thought this new coder release may be a better choice. But see only the lower Quant is available here. Could you please release a IQ3_S Quant of this coder model.

Thanks again πŸ™

It is working fine on my 64GB asus z13 with amd strix halo 30-35tps with MTP

Seems like it already is.
" The two techniques are complementary and are combined here: 50% of experts are removed, and the remaining weights are quantized to 3.5 bpw."
3.5bpw = IQ3_S

IST Austria Distributed Algorithms and Systems Lab org

Yes, @qwased . I should clarify that this model was not fine-tuned to outperform the base model on coding tasks. Rather, it was pruned to create a smaller, more specialized coding-oriented model.

Specifically, we pruned half of the experts from the IQ3_S model we released, with the goal of substantially reducing the model size while retaining as much of its coding and multimodal capabilities as possible. We considered multimodal capability important to preserve because many coding-related tasks can also involve visual understanding.

Yes, @qwased . I should clarify that this model was not fine-tuned to outperform the base model on coding tasks. Rather, it was pruned to create a smaller, more specialized coding-oriented model.

Specifically, we pruned half of the experts from the IQ3_S model we released, with the goal of substantially reducing the model size while retaining as much of its coding and multimodal capabilities as possible. We considered multimodal capability important to preserve because many coding-related tasks can also involve visual understanding.

@anm2211 . Sorry, I am a bit confused. the coder model said its IQ1_M
Did you mean to say IQ1_M of coder is already equal to IQ3_S of the main one?

As I understand it, he means that the quantization level is IQ3S, and because half of the experts were removed, the size is equivalent to IQ1M.

@alexaione the GGUF headers confirm what qwased said. The Coder file isn't quantized to IQ1_M. It's the IQ3_S recipe with half of the experts removed, and "IQ1_M" is only its size tier:

  • expert_count: 512 in IQ3_S, 256 in Coder (10 active per token in both)
  • The per-expert tensor types are unchanged. For example, blk.0 ffn_gate_exps/ffn_up_exps are IQ3_XXS and ffn_down_exps is IQ4_NL in both files, only [2560, 640, 512] becomes [2560, 640, 256].
  • Routed experts: 50,292,326,400 bytes (46.84 GiB) in IQ3_S, 25,146,163,200 bytes (23.42 GiB) in Coder, exactly half
  • Shard 1: 51.05 GiB in IQ3_S, 27.58 GiB in Coder
  • Shard 2 (the 26.82 GiB PLE table) is the same 28,800,138,432-byte file in both

So each remaining expert has the same precision as in IQ3_S. What you give up is expert coverage, not bits. With the PLE table read lazily, the resident part is ~27.6 GiB (plus 0.85 GiB for the BF16 mmproj), which is why it's comfortable on 64 GB machines.

Sign up or log in to comment