Embeddings Are Overpriced? A Frozen 16 MB Vocabulary for Small and Ternary Language Models
Abstract
Domain fit: AI-adjacent · Paper appears method- or tooling-adjacent to AI workflows with partial ecosystem coverage.
In a small language model the vocabulary is the single largest part. In Gemma 3 270M the embedding table holds 168M of 268M parameters, and because quantisation methods leave the embedding in 16-bit, it is also most of the file once the rest of the model is compressed. We ask what that table actually buys. We replace it with one frozen table of 512-bit codes, 16 MB, with no trainable parameters, derived once from a pretrained embedding by principal-component projection and sign binarisation, and we train the same Gemma-shaped body from scratch on the same 2.05B tokens with and without it. The learned table buys 0.20 nats of validation loss for 2.6 times the trainable parameters, but on LAMBADA, HellaSwag and PIQA the frozen-table model is better or tied; only ARC-Easy favours the learned table. With a ternary BitNet b1.58 body the whole model is a 46 MB file, still ties the float model on LAMBADA and PIQA, and on a laptop CPU generates 615 to 740 tokens per second in 62 MB of memory, five to six times the speed of the float model's 8-bit GGUF in llama.cpp at a seventh of the memory. The frozen table wins by 1.7 to 2.3 nats on rare words, accepts 10,000 new words after training with a 3% cost where the learned table collapses by 43%, and all of it is released with the weights, the data and every evaluation answer.
Results and benchmarks
In a small language model the vocabulary is the single largest part.
| Task | Dataset | Metric | Value | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Quantization | HellaSwag | Accuracy | 1.6 | paper-derived |
| Quantization | ARC | Accuracy | 0.7 | paper-derived |
Audit each benchmark finding before selecting an implementation path. Evidence refs map to the disclosure below.
LLM evidence refs: paper.title, summary.hasReliableImplementation, guidance.mode
Evidence graph: 3 refs, 2 links.
Utility signals: depth 75/100, grounding 78/100, status high.
Implementation
No direct paper-linked artifacts found; showing strongest related artifacts
Maintained implementation evidence is not confirmed for this paper yet.
Use the implementation status and reproduction sections for the current action plan.
No verified maintained repo yet
There is no verified maintained implementation yet. Use this baseline plan to decide whether to prototype now or defer.
- No direct maintained implementation was found. Use the paper PDF and citation graph to design a baseline reproduction.
- Track assumptions and missing details in an experiment log before coding.
Time to first repro: a few days · Best available artifact: QLNI/embeddings-are-overpriced
Recommendation evidence is currently too limited for a maintained-repo choice. Use Implementation Status and Reproduction Path for a practical baseline plan.
- Estimate is based on paper-only reproduction flow
Reproduction readiness
No repo
No verified implementation available
- No maintained repository has been identified for this paper. Check adjacent implementations or HF artifacts below.
Hardware requirements
- Expect multi-day setup/compute for meaningful reproduction based on current guidance.
Hugging Face artifacts
No direct paper-linked artifacts were found. Showing strongest curated related artifacts for faster exploration.
Datasets
No trustworthy datasets matches right now.
Search datasets on Hugging FaceSpaces
No trustworthy spaces matches right now.
Search spaces on Hugging FaceResearch context
Tasks
Quantization
Methods
Quantization
Domains
Natural Language Processing
Open this paper in HFEPX to review benchmark signals, evaluation modes, and human-feedback protocol context.
Open in HFEPXJump to Paper2Code search queries derived from this paper's research context.
LLM evidence refs: paper.title, summary.hasReliableImplementation, guidance.mode