Daily Papers

Quantization is a crucial technique for deploying deep learning models on resource-constrained devices, such as embedded FPGAs. Prior efforts mostly focus on quantizing matrix multiplications, leaving other layers like BatchNorm or shortcuts in floating-point form, even though fixed-point arithmetic is more efficient on FPGAs. A common practice is to fine-tune a pre-trained model to fixed-point for FPGA deployment, but potentially degrading accuracy. This work presents QFX, a novel trainable fixed-point quantization approach that automatically learns the binary-point position during model training. Additionally, we introduce a multiplier-free quantization strategy within QFX to minimize DSP usage. QFX is implemented as a PyTorch-based library that efficiently emulates fixed-point arithmetic, supported by FPGA HLS, in a differentiable manner during backpropagation. With minimal effort, models trained with QFX can readily be deployed through HLS, producing the same numerical results as their software counterparts. Our evaluation shows that compared to post-training quantization, QFX can quantize models trained with element-wise layers quantized to fewer bits and achieve higher accuracy on both CIFAR-10 and ImageNet datasets. We further demonstrate the efficacy of multiplier-free quantization using a state-of-the-art binarized neural network accelerator designed for an embedded FPGA (AMD Xilinx Ultra96 v2). We plan to release QFX in open-source format.

Evaluating language models fairly is becoming harder as static benchmarks available on the internet risk contamination by training data. This makes it unclear whether models are truly reasoning or just recalling answers. In this paper, we introduce BeyondBench, an evaluation framework that avoids this problem by using algorithmic problem generation. Unlike traditional benchmarks that risk contamination from internet-scale training data, BeyondBench creates mathematically grounded problems on the fly, ensuring each test remains fresh and uncontaminated. Our framework covers 44 algorithmic tasks with a total of 117 variations, grouped into three difficulty levels: the Easy Suite (29 tasks) for basic arithmetic and statistics, the Medium Suite (5 tasks, 49 variations) for sequence patterns and reasoning, and the Hard Suite (10 tasks, 68 variations) tackling NP-complete and constraint satisfaction problems. Each task generates problems from a combinatorial space larger than 10^15 unique instances, with solutions verified deterministically by mathematical proofs. We evaluated 101 language models, including 85 open-source and 16 closed-source models, spanning sizes from 0.5B to 141B parameters and multiple quantization schemes. Our results show consistent reasoning deficiencies across model families, with performance degrading sharply as problem complexity increases from polynomial to exponential. In our Hard Suite evaluations, models such as Gemini-2.5-pro, Llama-3.3-70B, and Qwen2.5-72B achieved average accuracies of 56.38%, 26.91%, and 33.60%, respectively. Moreover, we observe that performance drops drastically without tool usage, with GPT-5, GPT-5-mini, and GPT-5-nano showing a decline of 16.81%, 28.05%, and 47.59% accuracy on the hard suite. Our leaderboard is publicly available at https://ctrl-gaurav.github.io/BeyondBench/

When Large Language Models (LLMs) are compressed using techniques such as quantization, the predominant way to demonstrate the validity of such techniques is by measuring the model's accuracy on various benchmarks.If the accuracies of the baseline model and the compressed model are close, it is assumed that there was negligible degradation in quality.However, even when the accuracy of baseline and compressed model are similar, we observe the phenomenon of flips, wherein answers change from correct to incorrect and vice versa in proportion.We conduct a detailed study of metrics across multiple compression techniques, models and datasets, demonstrating that the behavior of compressed models as visible to end-users is often significantly different from the baseline model, even when accuracy is similar.We further evaluate compressed models qualitatively and quantitatively using MT-Bench and show that compressed models are significantly worse than baseline models in this free-form generative task.Thus, we argue that compression techniques should also be evaluated using distance metrics.We propose two such metrics, KL-Divergence and flips, and show that they are well correlated.