Training large language models (LLMs) in sub-8-bit arithmetic promises substantial gains in memory bandwidth and compute throughput, yet FP4 formats introduce quantization error severe enough to destabilize optimization if left unaddressed. We present ALTO, an open-source training recipe for GPT-OSS-20B, a 20-billion-parameter mixture-of-experts (MoE) model, on the MLPerf Small MoE Training benchmark under the MXFP4 microscaling format. The recipe combines established techniques from Abecassis, Felix et al. [arXiv:2509.25149] (hybrid 1D/2D block quantization, randomized Hadamard transforms, and stochastic rounding) with a simplified weight de-oscillation scheme adapted from TetraJet-v2 [arXiv:2510.27527]. On C4 validation at global batch size 16, MXFP4 + RHT + SR + de-oscillation reaches a validation loss of 3.3350 at 16,128 steps, only 0.007 above the BF16 baseline (3.3283), closing roughly 50% of the gap left by MXFP4 without de-oscillation (3.3418). Measured by steps to reach the MLPerf quality target (validation loss 3.34), de-oscillation cuts the FP4 convergence overhead relative to BF16 from +20.0% to +5.0%. We also report negative end-to-end results from differential gradient estimation, outlier clipping, and macro-block scaling, despite each showing operator-level SNR gains. All experiments use simulated MXFP4 kernels on AMD MI300X hardware and wall-clock speed has not been optimized.
Figures & tables
Hyperparameter
Value
Sequence length
8,192 tokens
Global batch size
16
Max training steps
1,200,000
Base learning rate
4×10−4
Min learning rate
4×10−5
LR scheduler
cosine decay, 128-step warmup
Table 1: Hyperparameters of GPT-OSS-20B pretrain.
Figure 1: Compute flow of an MXFP4 linear layer.
Figure 2: Weight de-oscillation core loop (post–AdamW step hook; period P , threshold τ ).
Figure 3: Comparison between Differential Gradient Estimation (DGE) and Straight-Through Estimation (STE).
Configuration
Forward O
Backward dX
Backward dW
1d2d
13.48
11.80
13.02
1d2d + RHT
13.48
11.80
13.25
1d2d + RHT + SR (recommended config)
13.48
11.02
13.04
1d2d + RHT + Static Clipping
13.48
11.80
13.22
1d2d + RHT + SR + Static Clipping
13.48
11.02
13.10
1d2d + RHT + Dynamic Clipping
13.48
11.80
13.23
Table 2: SNR (dB) of MXFP4 linear relative to BF16 reference.
Configuration
Forward O
Backward dX
Backward dW
1d2d
13.47
12.71
12.22
1d2d + RHT
13.47
12.71
12.42
1d2d + RHT + SR (recommended config)
13.47
12.26
12.33
1d2d + RHT + Static Clipping
13.47
12.71
12.12
1d2d + RHT + SR + Static Clipping
13.47
12.26
12.35
1d2d + RHT + Dynamic Clipping
13.47
12.71
12.42
Table 3: SNR (dB) of MXFP4 grouped GEMM relative to BF16 reference.
Figure 4: Validation loss on MLPerf Small MoE (GPT-OSS-20B, C4 subset) with GBS=16.
Method
Steps to target
Δ steps vs. BF16
BF16 baseline
15,360
—
NVFP4 (1d2d) + RHT + SR
18,432
+20.0%
MXFP4 (1d2d) + RHT + SR
18,432
+20.0%
MXFP4 (1d2d) + RHT + SR + M+Adam
16,128
+5.0%
MXFP4 (1d2d) + RHT + SR + de-oscillation
16,128
+5.0%
Table 4: Steps to reach validation loss 3.34 (earliest tracked checkpoint).
Technique
Validation loss
Δ loss vs. RHT+SR base
BF16
3.365/3.371
-0.025
MXFP4 (1d2d)
3.438
+0.048
MXFP4 (1d2d) + RHT + SR (base)
3.390
—–
+ DGE
3.591
+0.201
+ Static clipping
3.390
0.000
+ Dynamic clipping
3.571
+0.181
Table 5: Ablation of individual techniques (GBS=16, checkpoint 14,592 steps).
Training large-scale Mixture-of-Experts (MoE) models is bottlenecked by activation memory and expert-parallel communication, yet FP4 training remains impractical on Hopper-class GPUs without native MXFP4 or NVFP4 support. In this work, we present a training recipe that enables MXFP4 efficiency for MoE models on Hopper architectures without native 4-bit computation support. A central challenge is to integrate FP4 into an existing BF16/FP8 hybrid training pipeline without incurring costly precision round-trips (e.g., FP4 ↔ BF16 ↔ FP8). We address this challenge by introducing direct FP8-to-FP4 quantization and de-quantization, together with scaling-aware FP4 row-wise to column-wise conversion, enabling FP4 activations and expert-parallel communication with minimal overhead. Core MoE computations are executed in FP8, while activations and expert-parallel communication are compressed using MXFP4, achieving substantial memory and bandwidth savings without degrading convergence. At the 671B parameter scale, our method achieves end-to-end training performance comparable to strong FP8 baselines, while reducing peak activation memory by 14.8% (11.8 GB) and improving training throughput by 12.5%, from 1157 to 1302 tokens per GPU per second. These results show that FP4 efficiency can be practically realized for large-scale MoE training through careful software-hardware co-design, even without native FP4 Tensor Core support.
Microscaling floating-point (MXFP) formats have emerged as a promising standard for deploying Multi-modal Large Language Models (MLLMs) and Large Language Models (LLMs) on modern accelerator architectures. However, existing Post-Training Quantization (PTQ) methods, particularly rotation-based techniques designed for integer formats, suffer from severe performance collapse when applied to MXFP4. Recent studies attribute this failure to a fundamental format mismatch: global orthogonal rotations inadvertently transfer outlier energy across quantization blocks, inducing new outliers that disrupt local block-wise scaling, while often creating bimodal activation distributions that underutilize the limited quantization range. To address these issues, we propose BATQuant (Block-wise Affine Transformation), which restricts transformations to align with MXFP granularity to prevent cross-block outlier propagation, while relaxing orthogonality constraints to optimize distribution shaping. To ensure parameter efficiency, we introduce Global and Private Kronecker (GPK) decomposition to effectively reduces storage and runtime overhead and incorporate Block-wise Learnable Clipping to suppress residual outliers. Extensive experiments on both MLLMs and LLMs demonstrate that BATQuant establishes new state-of-the-art results under aggressive W4A4KV16 configurations, recovering up to 96.43% of full-precision performance on multimodal benchmarks and clearly outperforming existing methods across diverse tasks.
Ji-Fu Li, Manyi Zhang, Xiaobo Xia +4
Huawei Technologies · University of Science and Technology of China
Why does full-pipeline FP4 training of large language models often diverge, even when forward activations and activation gradients remain stable? We address this question through a controlled study of MXFP4 quantization in transformer training, progressively enabling FP4 across forward propagation (Fprop), activation gradients (Dgrad), and weight gradients (Wgrad) while holding all other factors fixed. In full pretraining of Llama 3.1-8B on the C4 dataset, we observe that quantizing Wgrad is the primary driver of convergence degradation, whereas FP4 in Fprop and Dgrad alone introduces only modest additional token requirements. To interpret this behavior, we evaluate both structured and stochastic interventions under a controlled experimental setting. We find that stochastic rounding and randomized Hadamard rotations fail to stabilize training once Wgrad is quantized, whereas deterministic Hadamard rotations consistently restore stable optimization. These results suggest that FP4 training instability is driven by structured micro-scaling errors along sensitive gradient paths, rather than by insufficient stochasticity. We run experiments with native MXFP4 support on AMD Instinct MI355X GPUs, enabling controlled investigation of these effects without reliance on software emulation.
Musa Cim, Poovaiah Palangappa, Miro Hodak +3
1The Pennsylvania State University · 2Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.