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).