Live data from Hacker News

Asymmetric Quantization: Near-Lossless Retrieval with 97% Storage Reduction

mixedbread.com

21–30 of 55 posts

Re: Asymmetric Quantization: Near-Lossless Retrieval with 97% Storage Reduction

#21
post #15

there is no such thing as "near lossless"

There is, after you define what you’re ready to loose and understand the lossy space. That’s how we came up with mobile cellphones, audio and video codecs etc. Literally powering all modern devices we use.

Actually, all of those things are considered "lossy".

Re: Asymmetric Quantization: Near-Lossless Retrieval with 97% Storage Reduction

#23

Hey breadislove; amazing article, I’ll be sending mixedbread an email in the morning that may interest you (email will be @pm.me) I have also been working in compression and performance engineering, and managed to get a 99+% compression unlock versus conventional approaches (100+KB down to 1KB) in the scenario of 30 minute massive multiplayer game replays for a “game+engine” I’m developing I think there’s a synergy b…

Any way I can read about this or the use case? I have a hobby interest

Re: Asymmetric Quantization: Near-Lossless Retrieval with 97% Storage Reduction

#24
``` We evaluated several precision pairings across our internal retrieval benchmark suite. Scores are NDCG@10 averaged across the suite, scaled to 0–100. NDCG@10 (Normalized Discounted Cumulative Gain at rank 10) measures how well the top 10 results are ordered against the ideal ranking, rewarding relevant documents more when they appear higher, with 100 being a perfect ranking. The full-precision baseline averages 90.26. Int8 query against binary documents averages 89.65, a 0.61 point drop, while reducing document-vector storage by 32x ```

Saying "Near lossless" to mean 90% accurate retrieval of saved vectors is simply a lie. Lossy-ness is binary, not something you can paper over with getting close enough. And 90% is not close. Sure, LLMs are all about gradient descent on noisy data sets so I guess this is acceptable in this field but that terminology usage still bothered me

Re: Asymmetric Quantization: Near-Lossless Retrieval with 97% Storage Reduction

#26
post #15

there is no such thing as "near lossless"

There is, after you define what you’re ready to loose and understand the lossy space. That’s how we came up with mobile cellphones, audio and video codecs etc. Literally powering all modern devices we use.

So then ... "lossy"

Re: Asymmetric Quantization: Near-Lossless Retrieval with 97% Storage Reduction

#27

``` We evaluated several precision pairings across our internal retrieval benchmark suite. Scores are NDCG@10 averaged across the suite, scaled to 0–100. NDCG@10 (Normalized Discounted Cumulative Gain at rank 10) measures how well the top 10 results are ordered against the ideal ranking, rewarding relevant documents more when they appear higher, with 100 being a perfect ranking. The full-precision baseline averages 9…

I don't believe that's what they were saying at all though. The claim appears to be that it's near lossless relative to their own baseline that uses float. Which I'd grant, since a 32x storage reduction for 0.61% loss in quality is a reasonable trade off when you've already decided to accept that ~90% is "good enough".

Re: Asymmetric Quantization: Near-Lossless Retrieval with 97% Storage Reduction

#28
post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is, after you define what you’re ready to loose and understand the lossy space. That’s how we came up with mobile cellphones, audio and video codecs etc. Literally powering all modern devices we use.

So then ... "lossy"

[deleted]

Re: Asymmetric Quantization: Near-Lossless Retrieval with 97% Storage Reduction

#29
post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is, after you define what you’re ready to loose and understand the lossy space. That’s how we came up with mobile cellphones, audio and video codecs etc. Literally powering all modern devices we use.

Actually, all of those things are considered "lossy".

Yes, anything not lossless is lossy. Near-lossless is not lossless, so it is lossy. I hope we speak the same language

Re: Asymmetric Quantization: Near-Lossless Retrieval with 97% Storage Reduction

#30

``` We evaluated several precision pairings across our internal retrieval benchmark suite. Scores are NDCG@10 averaged across the suite, scaled to 0–100. NDCG@10 (Normalized Discounted Cumulative Gain at rank 10) measures how well the top 10 results are ordered against the ideal ranking, rewarding relevant documents more when they appear higher, with 100 being a perfect ranking. The full-precision baseline averages 9…

near lossless refers to being 89.65/90.26 = 99.32% of baseline, i'm pretty sure.
Post reply on HN