Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Quantization reduces the numerical precision of large language model weights, activations, or key-value caches, but its practical value depends on the interaction among numerical error, workload, and execution hardware. This review compares representative methods through those three dimensions. A purposive literature synthesis covers integer inference foundations, outlier-aware mixed precision, second-order weight reconstruction, activation-aware scaling, rotations, cache quantization, and training with low-bit representations. Rather than pool incompatible benchmark results, the review distinguishes the object being quantized, the required preparation, the retained precision, and the implementation needed for a benefit. An analytical memory model separates compressed weights from quantization metadata, caches, and runtime workspace. A recomputable worked example and concurrency sensitivity analysis show why a fourfold reduction in nominal weight bytes does not imply a fourfold reduction in total serving memory. The paper proposes a reproducible comparison protocol that separates prefill from decoding and evaluates quality, latency distributions, throughput, peak memory, and amortized preparation cost under a common workload. It also distinguishes quantized fine-tuning from inference optimization and native low-bit training from post-training conversion. No new model benchmark, speedup, or accuracy result is reported. The central conclusion is that quantization should be selected against an application-specific operating envelope, with quality constraints and hardware measurements, rather than ranked by bit width alone.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Choudhary et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: