Imagine you're renovating a house and you've got quotes from a dozen contractors — but each one prices in different units. One quotes by square foot, another by hour, a third gives a flat fee that mysteriously excludes materials. You can't compare them until someone converts everything into the same currency. That's what this paper does for post-training quantization. The committed claim: weight-space PTQ should not be organized around bit-allocation within a fixed quantization geometry. Instead, every admissible layer configuration — regardless of format (INT, FP, codebook), granularity, or transformation — generates a layer-output error covariance, and that covariance can be priced by the downstream curvature of the full-precision model. The price is a single scalar per layer-config pair: ρ̂l(αl) = ½ Tr(Ĥl · Σ̂l(αl)). This turns the PTQ selection problem into a budgeted optimization over a price table computed at calibration time, before any model is actually quantized and tested end-to-end. The theoretical grounding comes from the forward KL divergence between the full-precision and quantized output distributions. The key insight is that the first-order term vanishes at the reference model, so the leading contribution is the quadratic term — which factors into the product of downstream Hessian and layer-output error covariance. This is not new mathematics per se; it's the marriage of reconstruction-error tracking (GPTQ, OBQ) with sensitivity scoring (Fisher/Hessian methods) into a single unified currency. Existing methods, the authors argue, are reduced proxies that drop one or more price factors: reconstruction-only methods ignore downstream curvature; diagonal sensitivity scores ignore off-diagonal error structure. On the ladder, this is a framework paper rather than a benchmark-beating paper. The authors position against GPTQ, AWQ, and QuIP-family methods conceptually, arguing that these fix the quantization geometry first and then optimize within it. The paper's contribution is showing that fixed-geometry bit allocation falls out as a special case of the general price-guided selector. However, the abstract provides no head-to-head accuracy numbers on standard benchmarks (WikiText, C4 perplexity, downstream task accuracy). This is the biggest gap: the conceptual unification is clean, but we don't yet see whether price-guided selection actually produces better quantized models in practice. Architecturally, this sits in the Hessian-aware quantization family — descendants of OBS, OBQ, and GPTQ — but generalizes the scoring from per-weight or per-column reconstruction to full layer-output covariance priced by downstream curvature. The compute requirement is the Hessian estimation (Ĥl), which is typically approximated via Fisher information or Gauss-Newton on calibration data. The covariance estimation (Σ̂l) for each candidate configuration is the new compute cost. A trace reduction keeps this tractable. The integrity picture is incomplete from the abstract alone. The formulation is mathematically principled — KL divergence expansion, quadratic approximation, trace factorization — but the validation regime is unclear. We don't know: how many models were tested, what calibration set sizes were used, whether the price predictions actually correlate with downstream loss in practice, or whether the budgeted selector outperforms simpler heuristics. The theoretical contribution is credible; the empirical contribution is unverified from this information. The real value here, if it holds up empirically, is practical: PTQ practitioners currently run grid searches or rely on method-specific heuristics to choose quantization configurations. A calibration-time price table that makes INT4-per-channel, FP4-per-group, and codebook quantization directly comparable would save significant engineering time and potentially find better configurations than any single-method search.
