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”?
In the vLLM documentation quoted above, TurboQuant (which is a restricted version of EDEN) is referred to as a specific case of HIGGS. Note the symmetry: EDEN acts as a special case of HIGGS; hence, HIGGS functions as a generalization of EDEN.
In any case, the quantizer is indeed an extension, regardless of whether it was explicitly framed that way in the paper. I say this not to diminish their contribution at all, but just to clarify the relationship, as it was also stated in the vLLM doc.