There has been significant interest in "extreme" compression of large language models (LLMs), i.e. to 1-2 bits per parameter, which allows such models to be executed efficiently on resource-constrained devices. Existing work focused on improved one-shot quantization techniques and weight representations; yet, purely post-training approaches are reaching diminishing returns in terms of the accuracy-vs-bit-width trade-off. State-of-the-art quantization methods such as QuIP# and AQLM include fine-tuning (part of) the compressed parameters over a limited amount of calibration data; however, such fine-tuning techniques over compressed weights often make exclusive use of straight-through estimators (STE), whose performance is not well-understood in this setting. In this work, we question the use of STE for extreme LLM compression, showing that it can be sub-optimal, and perform a systematic study of quantization-aware fine-tuning strategies for LLMs.We propose PV-Tuning - a representation-agnostic framework that generalizes and improves upon existing fine-tuning strategies, and provides convergence guarantees in restricted cases.On the practical side, when used for 1-2 bit vector quantization, PV-Tuning outperforms prior techniques for highly-performant models such as Llama and Mistral. Using PV-Tuning, we achieve the first Pareto-optimal quantization for Llama-2 family models at 2 bits per parameter.

Self-evaluation using large language models (LLMs) has proven valuable not only in benchmarking but also methods like reward modeling, constitutional AI, and self-refinement. But new biases are introduced due to the same LLM acting as both the evaluator and the evaluatee. One such bias is self-preference, where an LLM evaluator scores its own outputs higher than others’ while human annotators consider them of equal quality. But do LLMs actually recognize their own outputs when they give those texts higher scores, or is it just a coincidence? In this paper, we investigate if self-recognition capability contributes to self-preference. We discover that, out of the box, LLMs such as GPT-4 and Llama 2 have non-trivial accuracy at distinguishing themselves from other LLMs and humans. By finetuning LLMs, we discover a linear correlation between self-recognition capability and the strength of self-preference bias; using controlled experiments, we show that the causal explanation resists straightforward confounders. We discuss how self-recognition can interfere with unbiased evaluations and AI safety more generally.

Chain-of-Thought (CoT) reasoning has emerged as a promising approach for enhancing the performance of large language models (LLMs) on complex reasoning tasks. Recently, a series of studies attempt to explain the mechanisms underlying CoT, aiming to deepen the understanding of its efficacy. Nevertheless, the existing research faces two major challenges: (1) a lack of quantitative metrics to assess CoT capabilities and (2) a dearth of guidance on optimizing CoT performance. Motivated by this, in this work, we introduce a novel reasoning boundary framework (RBF) to address these challenges. To solve the lack of quantification, we first define a reasoning boundary (RB) to quantify the upper-bound of CoT and establish a combination law for RB, enabling a practical quantitative approach applicable to various real-world CoT tasks. To address the lack of optimization, we propose three categories of RBs. We further optimize these categories with combination laws focused on RB promotion and reasoning path optimization for CoT improvement. Through extensive experiments on 27 models and 5 tasks, the study validates the existence and rationality of the proposed framework. Furthermore, it explains the effectiveness of 10 CoT strategies and guides optimization from two perspectives. We hope this work can provide a comprehensive understanding of the boundaries and optimization strategies for reasoning in LLMs. Our code and data are available at https://github.com/LightChen233/reasoning-boundary.