Iterative Generative Models (IGMs) span autoregressive and diffusion paradigms, and hybrid variants that couple them can achieve remarkable image-generation fidelity. However, their iterative inference incurs substantial computational overhead, making Post-training Quantization (PTQ) appealing for acceleration, while directly applying vanilla PTQ to hybrid IGMs can trigger model collapse. By analyzing these failures, we identify two critical challenges: Excessive Outliers (EOs) in the activations create an irreconcilable trade-off between preserving normal precision and covering EOs, resulting in severe degradation in generation quality; Amplified Anomalies (AAs) arising unpredictably from minor quantization errors, create a mismatch between calibration and inference, thus iteratively triggering model collapse. To address these challenges, we introduce HyGenQ, a PTQ framework for hybrid IGMs. HyGenQ comprises Hierarchical Cluster Decoupling (HCD) and Scaling Recalibration (SR). HCD identifies and decouples outlier channels via a multi-stage clustering process, effectively isolating EOs while maintaining normal value precision, thereby alleviating performance degradation. SR scales AAs beyond Gaussian Bound, thereby avoiding model collapse caused by aggressive truncation. Extensive experiments demonstrate that HyGenQ successfully quantizes representative hybrid IGMs to 8-bit precision (W8A8), significantly outperforming existing baselines and validating its robustness across different model families.
Figures & tables
Fig. 1: Overview of iterative generative model paradigms and post-training quantization challenges. IGMs include diffusion, autoregressive, and hybrid pipelines that couple autoregressive context updates with diffusion-style refinement (e.g., MAR, where an autoregressive Transformer conditions a denoising MLP to iteratively sample new tokens and update the token sequence). (Left) Excessive Outliers create an irreconcilable trade-off between sacrificing normal values and sacrificing outliers. Our Hierarchical Cluster Decoupling addresses this by isolating outlier channels while maintaining quantization precision for normal channels. (Right) Amplified Anomalies arising unpredictably from minor quantization errors, exceed vanilla PTQ’s static calibration ranges during diffusion, thus causing truncation artifacts. Our Scaling Recalibration scales anomalies into valid ranges, avoiding model collapse.
Fig. 2: Activation distribution comparison in a linear layer between hybrid IGMs and a conventional ViT-B. Using the maximum activation in ViT-B as a reference threshold, we highlight channels in hybrid IGMs that exceed this range. Hybrid IGMs exhibit sparse but significantly more pronounced outliers, revealing a more severe imbalance across channels.
Fig. 3: Comparison of full-precision and differently quantized activations in a linear layer, each including Excessive Outliers (EOs) and Normal Values . Notably, EOs significantly exceed the range of normal values. (a) Full-Precision: Original distribution of activations; (b) Sacrifice Normal Values: Preserve all outliers while compressing most normal values; (c) Sacrifice Excessive Outliers: Preserve normal values while truncating outliers with MSE metric; (d) Ours: Our method isolates outlier channels to preserve the range of outliers and maintain quantization precision for normal values.
Fig. 4: Comparison of denoising-related variables between hybrid IGM and conventional diffusion models. Subfigures (a), (b), and (c) show 1−αˉt , γt , and αt1γt , respectively. Subfigure (d) reports the relative magnitude of boundary-layer inputs under quantization versus full precision.
Fig. 5: Boundary-layer activation distributions at selected denoising timesteps under full-precision and quantized inference. The Gaussian Bound is estimated from the full-precision distribution (Sec. IV-B ); quantized activations beyond this bound are marked as Amplified Anomalies (AAs) .
Fig. 6: Overview of the proposed HyGenQ framework. Starting from the hybrid IGM architecture, we identify two quantization challenges: Excessive Outliers and Amplified Anomalies. To address them, HyGenQ introduces two complementary modules. Hierarchical Cluster Decoupling separates normal and outlier channels and assigns them independent quantization parameters, while Scaling Recalibration rescales amplified boundary-layer inputs before quantization. Together, they mitigate both EOs and AAs, enabling robust quantized inference for hybrid IGMs.
Fig. 7: Illustration of Hierarchical Cluster Decoupling (HCD). (a) The module adopts a three-stage hierarchical clustering process to progressively identify and separate outlier channels from normal ones. (b) The optimal clustering configuration is selected by minimizing a Quantization Error Metric based on the Sum of Squared Errors (SSE), yielding the cluster number k∗ in Eq. ( 16 ).
Fig. 8: Illustration of Scaling Recalibration (SR). We apply Scaling Recalibration to the boundary-layer activations in the diffusion procedure of hybrid IGMs. Specifically, a Gaussian Bound is first defined from the activation distribution of the full-precision model, providing a stable reference range for quantization. During quantized inference, amplified quantization errors may cause boundary-layer activations to exceed the calibration range. The proposed strategy rescales these out-of-bound activations into the bound and applies this fixed range across timesteps, thereby stabilizing boundary-layer quantization.
Method
Model
Precision (W/A)
Iteration
Timestep
Size
∘ FID ↓
∘ IS ↑
∙ FID ↓
∙ IS ↑
Full-Precision
MAR-B
32/32
64
100
208M
2.30
279.44
2.30
279.44
UniformQuant
MAR-B
8/8
64
100
52M
237.59
2.51
–
–
RepQ-ViT [ 18 ]
MAR-B
8/8
64
100
52M
298.71
1.60
–
–
SmoothQuant [ 24 ]
MAR-B
8/8
64
100
52M
10.31
144.51
253.28
1.97
PTQ4DM [ 25 ]
MAR-B
8/8
64
100
52M
10.34
144.22
252.41
1.98
TFMQ-DM [ 41 ]
MAR-B
8/8
64
100
52M
9.22
150.36
256.17
1.90
TABLE I: Performance comparison with 64 iterations and 100 timesteps, where ∘ indicates that the boundary layers in the diffusion procedure remain in full precision, while ∙ denotes that all linear layers are quantized.
Figure 10
Method
Model
Iteration
FID ↓
IS ↑
Full-Precision
MAR-B
32
2.46
274.23
∘ SmoothQuant [ 24 ]
MAR-B
32
11.93
139.61
∘ PTQ4DM [ 25 ]
MAR-B
32
11.88
139.66
∘ HyGenQ (Ours)
MAR-B
32
4.36
240.05
∙ SmoothQuant [ 24 ]
MAR-B
32
202.44
2.99
∙ PTQ4DM [ 25 ]
MAR-B
32
207.28
2.88
TABLE III: Performance comparison with 32 iterations and 100 timesteps. Marker ∘ indicates that the boundary layers in the diffusion procedure remain in full precision, while marker ∙ denotes that all linear layers are quantized.
Fig. 10: Visualization results with 64 iterations and 100 timesteps in MAR models. Marker ∘ indicates that the boundary layers in diffusion remain in full precision, while ∙ denotes that all linear layers are quantized. HyGenQ outperforms all baselines in both settings. Please zoom in for details.
Fig. 11: Visualization results under lower-bit quantization. W4A8 and W4A4 cause severe generation collapse for most methods.
Model
Method
∘ FID ↓
∘ IS ↑
∙ FID ↓
∙ IS ↑
MAR-B
QuaRot [ 71 ]
7.28
172.28
221.84
1.95
MAR-B
HadaNorm [ 72 ]
6.95
173.74
214.37
2.11
MAR-B
HyGenQ (Ours)
7.14
176.70
7.45
162.28
MAR-L
QuaRot [ 71 ]
5.96
187.90
216.92
2.08
MAR-L
HadaNorm [ 72 ]
5.95
187.68
208.56
2.24
MAR-L
HyGenQ (Ours)
6.06
193.94
6.54
190.17
TABLE IV: Additional comparison with outlier-suppression quantization methods on ImageNet 256×256 with 8,000 generated samples.
Method
Size
FID ↓
IS ↑
Full-Precision
208MB
2.30
279.44
∘ Baseline
52MB
10.34
144.22
∘ + HCD
52MB
3.50
247.33
∙ Baseline
52MB
252.41
1.98
∙ + SR
52MB
11.34
139.77
∙ + HCD + SR (HyGenQ)
52MB
3.61
246.00
TABLE V: Ablation study on ImageNet 256×256 with 64 iterations and 100 timesteps in MAR-B.
Size
Method
W/A
∘ Spd.
∘ T./Img.
∘ Param.
∘ Calib.
∙ Spd.
∙ T./Img.
∙ Param.
∙ Calib.
B
FP
32/32
1.00 ×
0.979
–
–
1.00 ×
0.979
–
–
B
PTQ4DM
8/8
1.49 ×
0.659
0.0175
15
1.47 ×
0.666
0.0191
15
B
HyGenQ
8/8
1.47 ×
0.667
0.0175
22
1.44 ×
0.678
0.0176
22
L
FP
32/32
1.00 ×
1.618
–
–
1.00 ×
1.618
–
–
L
PTQ4DM
8/8
1.73 ×
0.936
0.0224
20
1.72 ×
0.939
0.0239
20
L
HyGenQ
8/8
1.77 ×
0.915
0.0224
22
1.70 ×
0.953
0.0224
23
TABLE VI: End-to-end inference efficiency on MAR models with batch size 32. Spd. denotes latency speedup over full precision, T./Img. denotes the average generation time per image, Param. denotes the storage cost (MB) of the quantization parameters for a single autoregressive iteration, and Calib. denotes the offline calibration time (min).
Method
Model
Precision (W/A)
FID ↓
IS ↑
∘ SmoothQuant [ 24 ]
MAR-B
8/6
156.01
6.77
∘ PTQ4DM [ 25 ]
MAR-B
8/6
299.86
1.92
∘ HyGenQ (Ours)
MAR-B
8/6
144.12
8.07
∘ SmoothQuant [ 24 ]
MAR-L
8/6
352.84
1.72
∘ PTQ4DM [ 25 ]
MAR-L
8/6
287.09
1.75
∘ HyGenQ (Ours)
MAR-L
8/6
251.34
2.01
TABLE VII: W8A6 comparison on MAR with 8,000 generated images under the ∘ setting.
Method
Calib.
Samples
Seed
FID ↓
IS ↑
HyGenQ
Global Max
32
1
8.29
169.34
HyGenQ
PTQ4DM-style [ 25 ]
32
1
8.51
171.24
HyGenQ
PQD-style [ 74 ]
32
1
7.93
173.63
HyGenQ
Per-step
32
1
6.06
193.94
HyGenQ
Per-step
128
1
6.36
191.32
HyGenQ
Per-step
64
1
6.23
193.07
TABLE VIII: Analysis of calibration protocols on MAR-L. The upper block compares global calibration strategies with the adopted per-step setting, while the lower block evaluates the robustness of per-step calibration.
Method
Model
Clustering strategy
FID ↓
IS ↑
HyGenQ
MAR-B
k -means++
8.17
151.45
HyGenQ
MAR-B
threshold ( P99 )
6.96
175.72
HyGenQ
MAR-B
genetic
7.14
178.74
HyGenQ
MAR-L
k -means++
6.26
187.84
HyGenQ
MAR-L
threshold ( P99 )
6.11
188.66
HyGenQ
MAR-L
genetic
6.06
193.94
TABLE IX: Comparison of HCD grouping strategies under the 8,000-image setting on ImageNet 256×256 .
Method
Range(k)
FID ↓
IS ↑
FP
-
5.1166
207.2319
PTQ4DM
-
9.2551
132.0545
HyGenQ
(2,10)
6.0746
192.5079
HyGenQ
(2,15)
6.0746
192.5079
HyGenQ (Ours)
(2,20)
6.0596
193.9367
HyGenQ
(2,30)
6.0746
192.5079
TABLE X: Sensitivity of cluster number ranges in HCD.
Method
ω
FID ↓
IS ↑
FP
-
5.1166
207.2319
PTQ4DM
-
9.2551
132.0545
HyGenQ
0.0001
6.0976
194.4706
HyGenQ (Ours)
0.001
6.0596
193.9367
HyGenQ
0.005
6.0746
192.5079
HyGenQ
0.01
6.0746
192.5079
TABLE XI: Sensitivity of ω in HCD.
Method
Npop
T
Pc
Pm
FID ↓
IS ↑
FP
—
5.1166
207.2319
PTQ4DM
—
9.2551
132.0545
HyGenQ
50
20
0.5
0.2
6.0596
193.9367
HyGenQ
20
20
0.5
0.2
6.4661
192.1524
HyGenQ
60
20
0.5
0.2
6.4661
192.1524
HyGenQ
50
10
0.5
0.2
6.6079
182.7686
TABLE XII: Robustness to GA hyperparameters in HCD.
Metric
Scope
Min
Max
Mean
IoU(Sa,Sb)
Random seeds
1.000
1.000
1.000
Ret(Score,Si)
Input classes
1.000
1.000
1.000
TABLE XIII: Stability of HCD-detected outlier channels on MAR-B. Here, Sa,Sb are detected sets under different seeds; Si is the detected set under the i -th input-class split; and Score is the core anomalous-channel set.
Method
G
FID ↓
IS ↑
FP
-
5.1166
207.2319
PTQ4DM
-
9.2551
132.0545
HyGenQ
3
6.6878
183.5942
HyGenQ
4
6.6113
182.9316
HyGenQ
5
6.6691
183.7552
HyGenQ (Ours)
5.545
6.6079
182.7686
TABLE XIV: Sensitivity of Gaussian Bound (G) in SR.
Recently, AutoRegressive Visual Generation (ARVG) models have emerged as a competitive paradigm for high-quality image synthesis. However, their substantial computational and memory demands make them difficult to deploy on resource-constrained edge devices. Post-Training Quantization (PTQ) provides a promising solution to reduce the computational and memory costs of ARVG models, yet existing methods often suffer from substantial image quality degradation under low-bit quantization. In this paper, we propose a training-free PTQ framework for ARVG, consisting of Tail-Aware Bounded-init Grid Refinement (T-BGR) and Coarse-to-Fine Activation Precision Scheduling (CAPS). T-BGR introduces a tail-aware reconstruction objective for weight quantizer calibration, assigning greater importance to distribution-tail coefficients and preserving fine-grained information without introducing additional parameters or high-precision branches. CAPS performs coarse-to-fine activation precision scheduling by jointly considering the importance and computational cost of different generation stages, enabling efficient mixed-precision allocation under a given bit budget. Extensive experiments on multiple ARVG backbones demonstrate that our framework consistently improves robustness under aggressive low-bit quantization. Notably, on Infinity, our framework achieves near full-precision image generation quality at an effective W4A5.6 activation precision, while existing methods at W4A6 still exhibit noticeable quality degradation or inconsistent performance. Code is available at https://github.com/lxm-lc/HGA-Quant.
Xinmeng Liu, Xianglong Yan, Kaicheng Yang +2
Shanghai Jiao Tong University · Xi’an University of Electronic Science and Technology
Post-training quantization (PTQ) is essential for efficient large language model (LLM) inference, but reliably quantizing activations remains challenging when weights, activations, and KV caches are all quantized to 4-bit precision. A key difficulty lies in massive activations, whose extreme values dominate the activation range and amplify quantization error. State-of-the-art methods mitigate massive activations through transformation-based smoothing, such as orthogonal rotations and affine scaling, but overlook the cross-layer dynamics of the residual stream. In this paper, we show that massive activations emerge and disappear in a phase-wise pattern across network depth, injecting abrupt updates into the residual stream. These updates cause the newly injected layer-wise signal to dominate the 4-bit quantization scale and weaken the accumulated residual information. To characterize this behavior, we introduce two metrics, the Update Dominance Ratio (UDR) and the Historical Retention Score (HRS), and show that static transformation-based smoothing cannot fully resolve the resulting dynamic quantization instability. Based on this analysis, we propose PhaseQuant, a phase-aware mixed-precision post-training quantization policy for activation quantization. PhaseQuant identifies quantization-sensitive layers from residual-stream dynamics and assigns 8-bit activation precision only to these layers, while keeping weights, KV caches, and all remaining activations at 4-bit precision. It can be directly integrated with strong PTQ baselines such as QuaRot, SpinQuant, and FlatQuant. Experiments on LLaMA-2 and LLaMA-3 show that PhaseQuant consistently improves perplexity and zero-shot QA performance under W4A4KV4 quantization, while achieving 1.05×--1.07× throughput improvement with modest memory overhead. These results demonstrate a practical path toward robust low-bit LLM inference.
Zimo Zhao, Maolin Wang, Bowen Yu +3
City University of Hong Kong Hong Kong, China · Zhejiang University of Technology Hangzhou, China
Post-training quantization (PTQ) is a practical approach to reducing the memory and computational footprint of large language models (LLMs) without retraining. GPTQ-based methods have become the de facto standard, yet they suffer from two complementary limitations. Methods with local, layer-wise objectives lack global supervision; while methods with global objectives fix their Hessian estimates at the start and ignore first-order gradients, so their guidance grows stale as quantization proceeds. This paper presents G2PTQ, a unified PTQ framework with Generalized Gradient Compensation that integrates both first- and second-order information under a globally supervised, block-wise optimization objective. By refreshing gradient and Hessian estimates before quantizing each Transformer block, G2PTQ avoids the staleness of prior global methods. Furthermore, to stabilize the exact first-order compensation, we introduce a trust-region scaling mechanism that dynamically bounds the gradient step to prevent exploding weight updates. Finally, we derive efficient implementations for block-wise Hessian approximation and exact gradient compensation. Experimental results on various model families and bit-widths demonstrate that G2PTQ enables better alignment with the full-precision model, outperforming state-of-the-art baselines. Code is available at: https://github.com/G2PTQ/G2PTQ.
Ruikang Liu, Haoli Bai, Yuxuan Sun +8
ZTE Corporation · The Chinese University of Hong Kong · Northwestern Polytechnical University +2