Training large foundation models at low numerical precision is one of the most promising directions for reducing the compute and memory cost of modern AI. Recent 4-bit floating-point formats such as MXFP4 and NVFP4 can be applied to linear GEMM operations in LLMs, but their limited dynamic range introduces numerical instability that prior work addresses by stacking stabilization mechanisms, typically executed at higher precision and partially eroding the efficiency gains that motivate FP4. In this work, we argue that numerical format design is itself a first-class lever for stable FP4 training, and present the first systematic study of FP4 LLM pretraining on energy-efficient Huawei Ascend NPUs. We compare the recently proposed HiFloat4 (HiF4) format against both MXFP4 and NVFP4, holding one recipe fixed across all three formats across dense (OpenPangu-1B, Llama3-8B) and Mixture-of-Experts (Qwen3-MoE-30B) architectures and executing all linear and expert GEMMs in FP4. At matched storage --- NVFP4 and HiF4 both spend 4.5 bits per value --- the three formats differ far more in what they require before they will train at all than in final accuracy. HiF4 reaches a relative loss of 1.55% with no stabilization, below fully stabilized MXFP4 (1.79%) and below NVFP4 carrying the per-tensor scaling it cannot train without (2.00%); NVFP4 diverges under every combination of stochastic rounding and Hadamard transform we tried. Our results suggest that stable, accurate FP4 training does not require an ever-growing stack of stabilization techniques; it requires the right numerical format.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: FP4 format architectures. (a) MXFP4: 8 bits of shared metadata (E8M0) over 32 4-bit elements, 4.25 bits per value. (b) NVFP4: 8 bits (E4M3) over 16 elements, 4.5 bits per value, plus an FP32 per-tensor scale. (c) HiF4: 32 bits of three-level metadata over 64 elements, also 4.5 bits per value. NVFP4 and HiF4 are therefore storage-matched; MXFP4 is cheaper but coarser.
Forward
Backward
Method
Y=XW⊤
dX=DW
dW=D⊤X
NVIDIA ( Abecassis et al., 2025 )
–
–
(N+K)Mlogr
Quartet II ( Panferov et al., 2026 )
–
(M+K)Nlogr
(N+K)Mlogr
Metis ( Cao et al., 2025 )
Mk(K+N)
MNj+jk(M+N+K)
Kj(M+N)+jk(M+N+K)
Table 1: Extra compute beyond FP4 GeMM and quantization for methods that apply FP4 in both forward/backward during pretraining. X∈RM×K , W∈RN×K , and D∈RM×N . r is the RHT block size; k,j are Metis’s forward/backward randomized SVD ranks. Quartet II’s 4/6 forward scale selection adds a Θ(MK+NK) constant-factor overhead to forward quantization, excluded here. “–” indicates no additional compute beyond baseline GeMM and quantization. The table isolates stabilization cost and excludes the baseline FP4 GEMM and quantization, which every method pays; Quartet II’s 4/6 selection is a constant-factor change to double quantization, which belongs to that baseline path, so it falls inside the exclusion as a scoping decision. See Appendix D .
Figure 2: Overview of the GEMM operation within a linear or expert layer. Activations and weights are quantized to HiF4, MXFP4 or NVFP4 using NR; gradients use SR for MXFP4 and NVFP4 and NR for HiF4. An RHT is applied to the weight gradients ( dW ) prior to quantization. The flow is identical for all three formats; only the quantizer and its stabilizers change.
Attention
FFN
Experts
Model
QKV
Output
FC1
FC2
Up
Down
Total
OpenPangu-1B
10.61%
5.30%
42.45%
21.22%
–
–
79.58%
Llama3-8B
8.86%
5.91%
41.37%
20.68%
–
–
76.82 %
Qwen3-MoE-30B
3.13%
2.50%
–
–
60.18%
30.09%
95.90%
Table 2: Percentage of compute executed in FP4, broken down by component
Figure 3: Training loss curves for OpenPangu-1B (a), Llama3-8B (b) and Qwen3-MoE-30B (c) over 50B tokens, each FP4 scheme against BF16. Top: HiF4+RHT. Middle: MXFP4+TF+SR+RHT. Bottom: NVFP4+TS+SR+RHT. OpenPangu-1B is averaged across 4 seeds; insets show the late-training region where the gap is most visible. HiF4 tracks BF16 at least as closely as MXFP4 and NVFP4 on all three models despite using fewer stabilizers.
Model
Activate Parameters
MXFP4
NVFP4
HiFloat4
OpenPangu-1B
1B
1.75%
1.26%
1.25 %
Llama3-8B
8B
1.44%
0.99%
0.85 %
Qwen3-MoE-30B
4.6B
1.55%
0.99%
0.88 %
Table 3: Relative loss error with respect to the BF16 baseline across three models trained on 50B tokens, ordered by active parameter count. Each format uses its own best configuration (RHT for HiF4; TF+SR+RHT for MXFP4; PTS+SR+RHT for NVFP4, see Section 5.3 ). OpenPangu-1B is averaged across 4 seeds; the larger models are single runs without error bars.
Model
Quant
ARC-E
ARC-C
HellaS
PIQA
SciQ
BoolQ
WinoG
Mean
PPL
OpenPangu-1B
BF16
47.47
26.42
35.12
65.23
80.97
60.94
51.70
52.55
28.87
MXFP4
-1.53
-0.66
-1.11
-0.56
-2.13
-3.39
-1.79
-1.59
+1.03
NVFP4
-1.65
-0.40
-0.75
+0.11
-0.43
-6.19
-0.58
-1.41
+0.69
HiF4
+0.28
-0.52
-0.88
-1.18
-2.47
-0.75
+0.53
-0.71
+0.71
Llama3-8B
BF16
67.32
36.89
59.03
74.43
93.47
57.80
58.01
63.85
15.19
MXFP4
-1.08
-2.78
-1.79
-0.47
+0.07
+4.04
-2.97
-0.71
+0.60
Table 4: Comparison of HiF4, NVFP4, and MXFP4 against the BF16 baseline across three pretrained models. BF16 rows report absolute 5-shot accuracy (%), averaged over three seeds, and WikiText perplexity (PPL; lower is better, single run). FP4 rows report the change relative to the BF16 row of the same model, with red indicating degradation and blue improvement; absolute FP4 values are recovered by adding the two. Mean is computed over the seven accuracy benchmarks only. The best FP4 result per model is shown in bold. HiF4 yields a smaller mean accuracy gap and lower perplexity increase than MXFP4 across all three models; NVFP4 attains the lowest perplexity of the three FP4 formats but degrades sharply on BoolQ.
Figure 4: Ablation of FP4 stabilizers on (a) OpenPangu-1B and (b) Qwen-MoE-30B, both trained for 50B tokens. Stabilizers are SR, RHT, TF, and PTS; TF applies only to MXFP4 and PTS only to NVFP4. Bars show loss relative to the BF16 baseline; lower is better. NVFP4 diverges without PTS. The Qwen-MoE-30B runs cover HiF4 and NVFP4 only, testing whether the 1B ordering holds at scale. Best configuration per format is outlined and in bold.
Appendix figures & tables1 asset
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Configuration
OpenPangu-1B
Llama3-8B
Qwen3-MoE-30B
Model & Data
Training Tokens
50B
50B
50B
Sequence Length
4K
4K
4K
Optimization
Optimizer
AdamW
AdamW
AdamW
Start Learning Rate
10−4
10−4
10−4
Appendix
Table 5: Training configurations for all experiments.
We present, to our knowledge, the first end-to-end FP4 RL post-training, in which both the rollout and training policies, including their forward and backward passes, operate at 4-bit precision. A systematic study reveals that the dominant source of degradation in FP4 RL is not training-side quantization error but rollout activation quantization: outliers stretch the dynamic range so far that a large number of activation values underflow to zero under FP4. Counterintuitively, restoring the training policy to higher precision while keeping the rollout in FP4 makes accuracy worse than full FP4 baseline, exposing rollout-training mismatch as the principal failure mode and ruling out standard pretraining-style fixes. We address this with Rollout Residual Quantization (Rollout-ResQ): a single residual correction term constrained to a hardware-friendly sparsity pattern, added only to the FP4 rollout matmul -- a lightweight correction that recovers most of the precision lost to outlier-driven underflow without inflating the rollout's compute footprint. On Qwen2.5-3B and Qwen2.5-Math-7B, Rollout-ResQ paired with the HiFloat4 (HiF4) format -- whose three-level hierarchical scaling preserves resolution under FP4's tight 4-bit budget -- closes the accuracy gap to BF16 from 4.9% to 1.1%, bringing fully quantized FP4 RL within striking distance of full precision. Applied to the open-standard MXFP4, the same recipe narrows the gap from 13.6% to 5.3%, revealing that FP4 format choice is a key factor that determines the ceiling on recoverable accuracy. Together, these results establish HiF4 as the enabling format for end-to-end FP4 RL post-training, and Rollout-ResQ as the activation-side mechanism that makes the gap to BF16 closable.
Recent NVFP4 pretraining methods mainly target transformer linear layers, leaving optimizer states, optimizer arithmetic and attention underexplored in 4-bit pipelines. This critical gap blocks stable full-stack 4-bit pretraining, as the three core modules exhibit unique numerical failure patterns: linear layers hit hard quantization noise limits with dimension-propagated error amplification; AdamW second moments are heavy-tailed non-negative values fragile to low-precision denominators; attention carries error-prone computation paths demanding strict forward-backward quantization consistency. We propose Full-Stack FP4, the first complete NVFP4 pretraining framework resolving all three stability bottlenecks via module-wise precision strategies. For linear projections, LoRA-SVD lightweight decomposition suppresses quantization noise and breaks the direct-quantization error ceiling, shrinking the linear-only loss gap from 1.40% to 0.61%. For optimizers, we design AdamW second-moment transformation for robust NVFP4 storage and fully support native NVFP4 Newton-Schulz iterations for the Root (Muon) optimizer. For attention, a mixed-precision scheme quantizes Q/K/V and backward dS while guarding vulnerable paths in BF16, paired with unified tensor reuse to sustain forward-backward alignment. We further analyze fast error accumulation in naive low-bit matrix multiplication and the extreme sensitivity of PV / dOV^T attention branches. All modules are plug-and-play with cumulative stability and efficiency improvements. Our 3B/64B-token pretraining validates near-BF16 performance with merely 1.47% loss gap, verifying feasible stable end-to-end NVFP4 LLM pretraining.
Siyu Ding, Mingchuan Ma, Jiabo Tong +3
Institute of Automation, Chinese Academy of Sciences · Sichuan University · Beijing Zhongguancun Academy +3
The emergence of fine-grained numerical formats like NVFP4 presents new opportunities for efficient Large Language Model (LLM) inference. However, it is difficult to adapt existing Post-Training Quantization (PTQ) strategies to these formats: rotation-based methods compromise fine-grained block isolation; smoothing techniques struggle with significant 4-bit quantization errors; and mixed-precision approaches often conflict with hardware constraints on unified-precision computation. To address these challenges, we propose ARCQuant, a framework that boosts NVFP4 performance via Augmented Residual Channels. Distinct from methods that compromise block isolation or hardware uniformity, ARCQuant maintains a strictly unified NVFP4 format by augmenting the activation matrix with quantized residual channels. This design integrates the error compensation process directly into the matrix reduction dimension, enabling the use of standard, highly optimized GEMM kernels with minimal overhead. Theoretical analysis confirms that the worst-case error bound of our dual-stage NVFP4 quantization is comparable to that of standard 8-bit formats such as MXFP8. Extensive experiments on LLaMA and Qwen models demonstrate that ARCQuant achieves state-of-the-art accuracy, comparable to full-precision baselines in perplexity and downstream tasks. Furthermore, deployment on RTX 5090 and RTX PRO 6000 GPUs confirms practical benefits, achieving up to 3x speedup over FP16. Our code is available at https://github.com/actypedef/ARCQuant.
Haoqian Meng, Yilun Luo, Yafei Zhao +3
School of Computer Science and Technology, Tianjin University