kumarhn

EDEN is clearly relevant prior work for HIGGS. But reducing HIGGS to “an extension of EDEN” seems unfair to the authors of HIGGS. Similar primitive, different problem setting, different constraints, different contribution.

Curious: where do you draw the line between “related prior work” and “an extension of EDEN”?

TurboQuant is starting to look like a case study in how to turn a fragile paper into a breakthrough story.

The attribution is thin, the “6x compression” headline is not clearly separated from prior KV-cache quantization baselines like KIVI, and the RaBitQ comparison is hard to take seriously: single-core CPU for the baseline, A100 GPU for TurboQuant. It is comparing apples-to-datacenter. Worse, there are also public OpenReview comments saying that even the reported accuracy results are not reproducible.

Hard to believe this is the standard for something being promoted as a breakthrough. If this came from a random startup blog, people would be much harsher about it.

TurboQuant looks like it has very serious research integrity issues.

https://openreview.net/forum?id=tO3ASKZlok