← 研踪 PaperTrailarXiv:2611.04185 · v1
What Does 4-Bit Microscaling Cost a Wearable Activity Recognizer?
首次提交 2026-11-03 10:22
版本更新 2026-11-03 10:22
雷达观测 2026-11-04 23:40
摘要
Wearable sports sensors can recognize actions on the device itself, where lower-precision numbers reduce model storage and memory traffic. Two 4-bit block-scaled formats, MXFP4 from the Open Compute Project, introduced in 2023, and NVFP4 from NVIDIA, introduced in 2025, are drawing interest. Published evaluations cover general deep-learning benchmarks and large language models; to our knowledge, nobody has yet measured what they cost a small wearable-sensor model. We train a 159,492-parameter 1D CNN to recognize four basketball actions from wrist-accelerometer data in Hang-Time HAR and test it on players it has never seen, using five-fold cross-validation grouped by player. Every comparison between number formats is made fold by fold. In full precision the model reaches 69.26\% macro-F1. Measured TFLite FP16 and INT8 models lose at most 0.16 percentage points. In simulation, 4-bit weights cost 1.45 points with MXFP4 and 0.72 points with NVFP4. When activations are quantized to 4 bits as well, MXFP4 loses 5.14 points and NVFP4 only 0.75, and NVFP4 comes out ahead in all five held-out-player folds. The ranking survives two alternative simulator settings, with NVFP4 leading by 3.49 to 4.40 points. A $2 \times 3$ ablation with 4-bit weights and activations (two block sizes and three scale rules) points to scale selection as the main source of MXFP4's loss. The reference MXFP4 conversion we simulate rounds the scale down, which can pick scales that are too small, so many blocks clip their largest values. Rounding the scale up recovers 3.18 points with 32-value blocks and 3.63 points with 16-value blocks, and switching to an 8-bit floating-point scale, as NVFP4 does, adds another 0.84 and 1.20 points. Block size matters less. Under this round-down rule, 16-value blocks score 0.44 points below 32-value blocks in all five folds; under the other two rules there is no consistent effect.
观测到的版本
相邻记录可能跳过中间版本；首次发现 v2 及以上也会标为版本更新。
v1 · 2026-11-03 10:22 · 最新观测版本
What Does 4-Bit Microscaling Cost a Wearable Activity Recognizer?
Wearable sports sensors can recognize actions on the device itself, where lower-precision numbers reduce model storage and memory traffic. Two 4-bit block-scaled formats, MXFP4 from the Open Compute Project, introduced in 2023, and NVFP4 from NVIDIA, introduced in 2025, are drawing interest. Published evaluations cover general deep-learning benchmarks and large language models; to our knowledge, nobody has yet measured what they cost a small wearable-sensor model. We train a 159,492-parameter 1D CNN to recognize four basketball actions from wrist-accelerometer data in Hang-Time HAR and test it on players it has never seen, using five-fold cross-validation grouped by player. Every comparison between number formats is made fold by fold. In full precision the model reaches 69.26\% macro-F1. Measured TFLite FP16 and INT8 models lose at most 0.16 percentage points. In simulation, 4-bit weights cost 1.45 points with MXFP4 and 0.72 points with NVFP4. When activations are quantized to 4 bits as well, MXFP4 loses 5.14 points and NVFP4 only 0.75, and NVFP4 comes out ahead in all five held-out-player folds. The ranking survives two alternative simulator settings, with NVFP4 leading by 3.49 to 4.40 points. A $2 \times 3$ ablation with 4-bit weights and activations (two block sizes and three scale rules) points to scale selection as the main source of MXFP4's loss. The reference MXFP4 conversion we simulate rounds the scale down, which can pick scales that are too small, so many blocks clip their largest values. Rounding the scale up recovers 3.18 points with 32-value blocks and 3.63 points with 16-value blocks, and switching to an 8-bit floating-point scale, as NVFP4 does, adds another 0.84 and 1.20 points. Block size matters less. Under this round-down rule, 16-value blocks score 0.44 points below 32-value blocks in all five folds; under the other two rules there is no consistent effect.
查看此版本解读 →查看此版本原文 ↗