Skip to content
aiqbench takeMachine Learning

aiqbench analysis

This research introduces CellFill, a technique that enables in-cell learning for quantized large language models without altering the original bit-for-bit checkpoint. By writing new knowledge strictly into per-weight residuals within the dequantization gap, the method ensures updates are exactly revocable and maintains structural invariance against cross-domain forgetting. The approach demonstrates that bounded reparameterization offers a trust region for model evolution while preserving evaluation caches and machine-checkable guarantees.
Source coveringarXiv
What this isA model's reading of the article and related coverage, written for aiqbench. Not the publisher's words.

Nothing Changed but the Model: CellFill -- Bounded In-Cell Learning for Bit-Identical, Revocable Updates to Quantized LLMs

arXiv3 min read

arXiv:2608.20873v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Every way of teaching a deployed language model something new -- full fine-tuning, adapter merging, model editing -- replaces the released checkpoint, and with it every evaluation and cache that referred to those exact bits. We instead learn inside the dequantization gap: with the integer codes and scales of a 4-bit release frozen, new knowledge is written only into the per-weight residual that lives strictly inside each quantization decision cell. Re-quantization then returns the released artifact bit-for-bit, a machine-checkable guarantee; updates are exactly revocable by dropping the residual; and drift is bounded. We give six propositions and three training paths, including CellFill, a bounded reparameterization that makes invariance structural rather than enforced. Exact invariance turns out to be nearly free: across three paired seeds the constrained dense path matches an unconstrained reference whose weights provably escape the artifact (58.9 vs 59.3 percent fact recall; paired difference -0.5 points, 95% CI [-5.0,+4.0]), and is better on held-out cross-domain perplexity. Against the natural null hypothesis -- serving the same update as an unmerged adapter -- projecting into the cells reduces cross-domain forgetting in every run that converged, and a diverged control shows the boundary: projection is a trust region, not a repair. What no method escapes is the cost of knowledge itself, and the apparent free lunch of in-domain perplexity improving past the anchor is an artifact of rehearsal sharing a corpus with the metric. Methods differ threefold at matched rehearsal in knowledge bought per point of cross-domain perplexity, a ranking that is not the recall ranking. The method transfers to a 27B hybrid linear-attention model (2.4e10 constrained weights, verified bit-identical), where matched recall costs about half as much cross-domain perplexity as at 1.7B.

Abstract:Every way of teaching a deployed language model something new -- full fine-tuning, adapter merging, model editing -- replaces the released checkpoint, and with it every evaluation and cache that referred to those exact bits. We instead learn inside the dequantization gap: with the integer codes and scales of a 4-bit release frozen, new knowledge is written only into the per-weight residual that lives strictly inside each quantization decision cell. Re-quantization then returns the released artifact bit-for-bit, a machine-checkable guarantee; updates are exactly revocable by dropping the residual; and drift is bounded. We give six propositions and three training paths, including CellFill, a bounded reparameterization that makes invariance structural rather than enforced. Exact invariance turns out to be nearly free: across three paired seeds the constrained dense path matches an unconstrained reference whose weights provably escape the artifact (58.9 vs 59.3 percent fact recall; paired difference -0.5 points, 95% CI [-5.0,+4.0]), and is better on held-out cross-domain perplexity. Against the natural null hypothesis -- serving the same update as an unmerged adapter -- projecting into the cells reduces cross-domain forgetting in every run that converged, and a diverged control shows the boundary: projection is a trust region, not a repair. What no method escapes is the cost of knowledge itself, and the apparent free lunch of in-domain perplexity improving past the anchor is an artifact of rehearsal sharing a corpus with the metric. Methods differ threefold at matched rehearsal in knowledge bought per point of cross-domain perplexity, a ranking that is not the recall ranking. The method transfers to a 27B hybrid linear-attention model (2.4e10 constrained weights, verified bit-identical), where matched recall costs about half as much cross-domain perplexity as at 1.7B.

Machine Learning (cs.LG)

arXiv:2608.20873 [cs.LG]

(or arXiv:2608.20873v1 [cs.LG] for this version)

https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2608.20873 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)

arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.

Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.

Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.

Full text under the publisher's open licence · 376 words

Related coverage