The Rise of Low Precision Floating Point

The IEEE P3109 draft standard defines a parameterized family of binary floating-point formats and associated operations, with a focus on facilitating machine learning. These formats allow efficient and consistent representation of values in a small number of bits. The defined formats are parameterized over width and precision in bits, signedness, and the presence of infinities. Operations are defined by decoding floating-point values to the set of closed extended reals: the reals augmented with positive and negative infinity and NaN (Not a Number). Explicit treatment of NaN and infinite operands ensures that only real arithmetic is invoked in operation definitions. Extensive rounding and saturation modes are defined; stochastic rounding is included. Operations are exception-free, accelerating throughput, with exceptional situations communicated through return values, e.g., NaN. Operations on blocks of values sharing a common scale factor are defined in terms of the underlying operations in a uniform manner. System vendors may describe approximate implementations via a novel scale-invariant measure, akin to units in the last place. Standard function definitions and various other properties are mechanically verified and generated using formal specifications.

When can additional low-bit residual computation replace missing numerical precision for a fixed input-output map? We model a quantized residual system over a fixed horizon as a pure schedule selecting fields from a declared low-bit operation library, and use relaxed controls to characterize its infinite-depth limit. The distance from the target to the closed relaxed reachable set is the exact structural floor: no increase in depth can remove it for that library. Pure schedules approach the relaxed class at rate $O(D^{-1})$ under bounded-variation time dependence and $O(D^{-\vartheta}+D^{-1})$ under Holder dependence of exponent $\vartheta$. Execution arithmetic can reverse this conclusion: full-state write-back introduces a $Dρ_z$ penalty and can freeze residual updates, whereas increment error feedback replaces this growth by a bounded carry term and obeys an exact common-lattice conservation law. A fixed-teacher converse makes this rate sharp: for coherent depth-$L$ first-order high-precision comparators, accuracy matching requires $D=Θ(L)$. Learned codebooks add a metadata resource, while state-dependent routing introduces hybrid event conditions. Verified primal and dual bounds yield feasible, impossible, or unresolved decisions before training. Companion software implements the workflow, and Lean 4 machine-checks the exact discrete core. Depth replaces precision only relative to a declared library, horizon, execution semantics, and routing model.

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.