Papers › ReRound: Reconstructive Rounding to Resolve Midpoint Ambiguity in Calibration-Free LLM...
ReRound: Reconstructive Rounding to Resolve Midpoint Ambiguity in Calibration-Free LLM Quantization
He-Yen Hsieh, H. T. Kung
Title, abstract, authors and date from arXiv's metadata (CC0); this paper is not in the Papers with Code archive (frozen 2025-07-28).
ReRound (Reconstructive Rounding) is a post-training quantization method that addresses the midpoint ambiguity inherent in standard round-to-nearest (RTN) schemes when quantizing weights near the centers of quantization intervals. Starting from a pretrained LLM, ReRound trains a conditional diffusion model to produce continuous reconstructions of low-bit weights for the LLM. These reconstructed weights act as a guidance signal to disambiguate the rounding direction of weights located close to interval midpoints. To integrate this reconstruction-guided rounding with conventional RTN, ReRound introduces a tolerance metric measuring how far the quantized weight (not the final quantized integer) is away from the midpoint: quantized weights within a tolerance region around midpoints are quantized using diffusion-based reconstructions, whereas weights closer to quantization boundaries are quantized with RTN. By sweeping the tolerance parameter, ReRound generates multiple candidate quantized integer weight matrices and selects the de-quantized weight matrix candidate whose leading singular values most closely match those of the original full-precision weights. This selected candidate determines the tolerance parameter ReRound uses. ReRound is particularly effective for smaller LLMs. Across a range of such models, it consistently outperforms standard RTN for 3-bit and 4-bit weight quantization. ReRound achieves superior accuracy compared to an extensive set of calibration-free methods, remains competitive with calibration-dependent approaches, and operates entirely offline, introducing no additional overhead during low-bit inference. The ReRound strategy represents a new approach for low-bit quantization. The method applies to AI models beyond LLMs. This paper focuses on its applications to small LLMs.
In Syntology View this paper on Syntology: its repositories, every harvested function with whether it ran, its licence and the call to fetch it.
For agents, Syntology's MCP tool lists every function and class Syntology harvested from this paper and whether it ran (how to connect): get_harvested_code_for_paper(arxiv_id="2608.11045")
Code
Syntology Ran 13 of 16 code samples harvested from 1 repository linked to this paper; 3 have no recorded run. Of those that ran: 1 ran · honoured contract; 10 ran · our draft was wrong; 2 ran with no contract checked.
By repository: found in paper text by Syntology: 16 samples from 1 repository, 13 ran. The run record, sample by sample. “Ran” means executed on a synthesized input, not that the code is correct or reproduces the paper.
Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.
Code Syntology ran Syntology
16 samples harvested; 13 ran; 1 honoured the contract we drafted; 3 have no recorded run. Read from Syntology's graph 2026-09-25; that is when this build read the record, not when the samples ran.
Licence: 16 of the 16 samples are pointer only, meaning Syntology does not serve that copy's text. This page shows no code text for any sample; each one links to its file in the repository.
Harvested from louisYen/ReRound. “Ran” means the sample executed on a synthesized input. It does not mean the output is correct, and nothing here reproduces the paper's results. “Honoured” and “violated” refer to a contract Syntology drafted from the code itself; “our draft was wrong” and “fixture could not drive it” are failures of Syntology's instrument, not of the code.
Each sample ends with its code_sha256, Syntology's identity for that exact code. An agent fetches the stored sample with Syntology's MCP tool get_code(code_sha256="…") (how to connect); click an identity to copy that call.
Repository labels, per sample. official repository: The archive marks this repository official for the paper. named in the paper: The archive records that the paper mentions this repository; it is not marked official. community (archive-listed): In the archive's code links for this paper, not marked official and not recorded as mentioned in the paper. found in paper text by Syntology: Syntology found this repository in the paper's own text; whether it is the authors' implementation is not asserted. community: Not in the archive's code links for this paper; a community repository Syntology harvested. Samples from a repository marked official are listed first. Licence labels name the repository's licence as recorded at harvest. “Pointer only” means Syntology does not serve that copy's text, for one of four reasons: no licence file was found; the licence was not identified; the licence is recorded as permissive but that copy's record is not marked cleared; or the licence is outside the permissive list Syntology serves text under (MIT, Apache-2.0, BSD and similar). Some licences outside that list permit redistribution, such as WTFPL, and GPL-3.0 under its conditions; they are simply not on the list. Hover a licence label for the reason. File links open the file on GitHub at the default branch, which may have changed since the harvest.
b291cd4474b2b0b1 · report
99b7319828711fd6 · report
c7562eb1308b4f27 · report
18123e0d23912b0a · report
5b2e48474d839b75 · report
4f18cda286393324 · report
678a26367f6214c4 · report
888fff0d92acfbe0 · report
bbcd1c1fdfa90aa4 · report
7d4f6860df13a8e5 · report
450db99d12ab9c3c · report
57b44820869a2d91 · report
38ff793e4abe8ad7 · report
c1dbcf5ff9ad4fba · report
d6c73f1cfd6218c4 · report
88da9893deb0449e · report
Results from the paper
The Papers with Code archive ends with its 2025-07-28 snapshot. This paper's arXiv identifier, 2608.11045, was issued in August 2026, after that date, so the archive has no leaderboard rows for it.
Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections