GGUF
conversational

q4_0

#1
by Theory-of-mind - opened

Try making Q4_0 - it should have better quality, since the model is trained specifically for 4-bit noise. Q4_K_XL from unsloth is actually Q4_0.

That was my first thought and I did but I didn't notice any quality differences in my (albeit limited) testing. I have a Q4_0 quant of this locally that I've been testing to compare.

If there's no difference, could you post Q4_0 specifically? It's smaller than Q4_K_M.

Sure, it will be up in a little while.

Did you notice less degradation in this model when compared to any Q4_foo quant of the non-QAT heretic model? My guess is that heretic annihilated QAT and we are back to square one, sigh...

I haven't noticed, but I haven't done any coding yet on the QAT heretic versions. I did check to make sure they were still uncensored and did some limited creative writing tests with no issues.

The only thing that comes to mind is token_embd.weight in Q6_K (instead of the required Q4_0). This could be the cause of the quality degradation. You can try requantizing, and if that doesn't help, the problem is definitely abliteration. Unfortunately, my PC can only quantize up to 12B.

I've been researching and I'm working on just using the same layout as Unsloth for these since there's some concerns about BF16 QAT not converting correctly to 4_0 via llama.cpp. Hopefully I'll have these versions up a little later today.

Thanks, I'm looking forward to it. I noticed a significant difference between the regular (non-heretic) 26B-A4B in Q6_K and QAT4. Now I'm really interested in comparing the regular heretic and QAT.

The MOE is up now if you want to try it out. I've only done some basic testing so far and it seems good. I'm not sure how heretic and QAT mix, so this is all new. https://huggingface.co/pegasus912/gemma-4-26b-a4b-it-qat-heretic-ud-q4-k-xl

I have a regular 26B in QAT4 and a Heretic from llmfan46 in Q6_K. I'll try to compare them with the QAT-heretic.

I'm finding the Q4_0 to be better than UD_4k_XL so far in coding.

I briefly tested the 26B-A4B ud-q4-k-xl on general and 'harmful' questions. Regarding general questions, it's dumber than a regular (non-heretic) QAT – probably on par with a regular Q6_K. It's still good for its size – I work in a non-Latin language, and abliteration/quantization artifacts appear faster there than in EN. On the other hand, the model does answer 'harmful' questions, but with disclaimers (which is not the case with llmfan's Q6_K heretic). I haven't tried coder3101's regular 26B-A4B heretic, so I can't say whether the issue is QAT or abliteration.
Overall, the model seems suitable as an uncen – it doesn't improve on the quality of a regular heretic Q6_K, but it takes up significantly less RAM and is faster. For a complete picture, it would be nice to compare it with the regular heretic in Q4_K_S by coder3101 to draw conclusions about whether QAT provides a gain in quality at a similar size.

It's a little flaky, I think quantized QAT models need some extra research. Looking at this thread: https://old.reddit.com/r/LocalLLaMA/comments/1tzib7d/qat_variant_of_gemma4_26b_a4b_is_not_working_well/

Thanks, I'm looking forward to it. I noticed a significant difference between the regular (non-heretic) 26B-A4B in Q6_K and QAT4. Now I'm really interested in comparing the regular heretic and QAT.

Pretty please?

Pretty please?

I'm still working on it, but everything points to Q6_K being of higher quality than QAT4. These are regular models without abliteration (to eliminate its influence). I asked them to write code for an SVG file with a chess game – both models made mistakes, but QAT4 had more. I'm also testing word diversity (checking what synonyms the model can produce), and QAT4 is losing here too.
QAT4 is probably better than the static Q4_K_M (without iMatrix). Overall logic is well preserved, but knowledge suffers (which is predictable: 21 GB holds more information than 13 GB). I think it's a great choice for its size (13-16 Gb), but if you need better quality, it's better to look at the Q6_K.

Sign up or log in to comment