Title: FIX-NET: PURE FIXED-POINT REPRESENTATION OF DEEP NEURAL NETWORKS

Abstract: Deep neural networks (DNNs) dominate current research in machine learning. Due to massive GPU parallelization DNN training is no longer a bottleneck, and large models with many parameters and high computational effort lead common benchmark tables. In contrast, embedded devices have a very limited capability. As a result, both model size and inference time must be significantly reduced if DNNs are to achieve suitable performance on embedded devices. We propose a soft quantization approach to train DNNs that can be evaluated using pure fixed-point arithmetic. By exploiting the bit-shift mechanism, we derive fixed-point quantization constraints for all important components, including batch normalization and ReLU. Compared to floating-point arithmetic, fixed-point calculations significantly reduce computational effort whereas low-bit representations immediately decrease memory costs. We evaluate our approach with different architectures on common benchmark data sets and compare with recent quantization approaches. We achieve new state of the art performance using 4-bit fixed-point models with an error rate of 4.98% on CIFAR-10.

1. INTRODUCTION:

Deep neural networks (DNNs) are state of the art in many machine learning challenges, pushing recent progress in computer vision, speech recognition and object detection (Deng & Yu (2014) ; Lecun et al. (2015) ; Karki et al. (2019) ). However, the greatest results have been accomplished by training large models with many parameters using large amounts of training data. As a result, modern DNNs show an extensive memory footprint and high-precision floating-point multiplications are especially expensive in terms of computation time and power consumption. When deployed on embedded devices, the complexity of DNNs is necessarily restricted by the computational capability. Therefore, efforts have been made to modify DNNs to better suit specific hardware instructions. This includes both the transfer from floating-point to fixed-point arithmetic and the reduction in bit-size. This process is termed fixed-point quantization and especially low-bit representations simultanouesly reduce memory cost, inference time, and energy consumption. A survey is given in Sze et al. (2017) . Furthermore, ternary-valued weights or even binary-valued weights allow replacement of many multiplications with additions1 . However, most quantization approaches do not fit to the common structure in modern DNNs. State of the art architectures (such as ResNet, DenseNet, or MobileNetV2) consist of interconnected blocks that combine a convolution or fully-connected layer, a batch normalization layer and a ReLU activation function. Each block can be optionally extended by a pooling layer, as shown in Figure 1 . Since both convolution and fully-connected layers perform weighted sums, we summarize the two as a Linear component. In contrast to the block structure, recent quantization approaches focus on the Linear component while preserving floating-point batch normalization (BN) layers. This is crucial, since BN layers are folded into the preceding layer after the training and consequently destroy its fixed-point representation. Even when performed separately, channel-wise floating-point multiplications make a pure fixed-point representation impossible. Furthermore, many quantization methods strictly binarize activations which only works for very large models.

In this paper, we propose a soft quantization approach to learn pure fixed-point representations of state of the art DNN architectures. Thereby, we follow the block structure and transfer all individual components into fixed-point representations before combining them appropriately. We follow the same approach as Enderich et al. (2019) and formulate bit-size dependent fixed-point constraints for each component before transferring these constraints into regularization terms. To the best of our knowledge, we are the first to provide a soft quantization approach to learn pure fixed-point representations of DNNs. We extensively validate our approach on several benchmark data sets and with state of the art DNN architectures. Although our approach is completely flexible in bit-size, we test two special cases:

• A pure fixed-point model with 4-bit weights and 4-bit activations which performs explicitly well, outperforming the floating-point baseline in many cases. • A model with ternary-valued weights and 4-bit activations that can be evaluated using additions, bit shifts and clipping operations alone (no multiplications needed).

… Linear BN ReLU Pool Basic Block l L 1 L 2 L 3 … Conv/ FC BN ReLU Max Pool X 1 X 2 DNN architecture Block architecture X 1 X 0 X 2 𝑎𝑎 l 𝑥𝑥 l-1 𝑎𝑎 l 𝑥𝑥 l 𝑥𝑥 l x𝑥0 𝑥𝑥 1 𝑥𝑥 2

Figure 1: DNNs consist of interconnected blocks which combine a convolution or fullyconnected layer (Linear), batch normalization (BN), ReLU, and pooling (optional). 

2. RELATED WORK:

Considering that the optional pooling layer is of minor importance for quantization2 , three main components remain in each block: convolution and fully-connected layers (Linear), batch normalization (BN) and the non-linear activation function ReLU. Since each component differs in its computation task, different quantization strategies can be followed. Table 1 gives an overview of recent approaches including the respective bit-sizes during test time. Components encoded with 32 bits remain in high-precision floating-point arithmetic. Courbariaux et al. (2015) use binarized weights during both forward and backward passes, but update their high-precision counterparts instead, which are kept during the whole optimization process. Thus, stochastic gradient descent is able to converge by doing small steps in the direction of the negative gradients. Li & Liu (2016) increased the model capacity by combining ternary-valued weights and a real-valued step-size. Since the step-size is a non-trainable parameter, its value is optimized by approximating the euclidean distance between the scaled ternary-weights and their high-precision counterparts. Hubara et al. (2016) 2017) use 32-bit fixed-point multiplications which makes it impossible to fold the BN layer into the preceding Linear layer after quantization.

2.1. CORE CONTRIBUTIONS:

In this work, we complete the soft quantization approach and learn pure fixed-point representations on state of the art DNN architectures. We claim the following contributions:

• We follow the block structure in Figure 1 and formulate fixed-point constraints for each component that can be used during training. The fixed-point BN constraint is an especially novel and important feature in soft quantization. The resulting fixed-point block can be used in nearly all state of the art DNN architectures.

• We propose an exponentially increasing regularization parameter to control the model capacity immediately at training time. A set of clipping functions improves numerical stability and accelerates training time.

• We demonstrate that our fixed-point model outperforms other quantization approaches on common benchmark data sets and varying model sizes, from small-to large-scale.

3. FIXED-POINT REPRESENTATION:

Fixed-point numbers consist of an N -bit -signed or unsigned -integer and a global scaling factor. The scaling factor is always a power of two whose exponent indicates the position of the decimal point:

Integer × 2 -f , f ∈ Z.

Thus, multiplications with powers of two result in bit shift operations, which can significantly accelerate computations on adequate fixed-point hardware (Hennessy & Patterson (2017) ). In order to evaluate DNNs using pure fixed-point arithmetic, all individual layers must be converted into fixed-point representations and put together in a meaningful way. Depending on the layer type, different conditions must be fulfilled and we describe those conditions by several regularization terms R i . In the end, the training objective is a composition such that the actual learning task, which is described by the cost function C, and the fixed-point constraints R i are solved simultaneously during training:

C total = C + i λ i R i .

(1)

3.1. QUANTIZATION FUNCTIONS:

A quantization function maps an input signal x to a smaller set of discrete values x. If certain properties apply, the quantization function can be expressed using basic operations like scaling, rounding, and clipping. Since different layer types deal with different value ranges, we use three types of quantization functions:

x =          Q sym (x; N, ∆) = clip x ∆ , -2 N -1 + 1, 2 N -1 -1 ∆ symmetric uniform, Q uni (x; N, ∆) = clip x ∆ , 0, 2 N -1 ∆ unsigned uniform, Q log (x) = sign(x) 2 log 2 (|x|) logarithmic.

(2)

In this notation, • rounds to the closest integer and clip(x, min, max) truncates all values to the domain [min, max] . The uniform quantization functions are parameterized by their uniform step-sizes ∆ and the number of available bits N . Obviously, the fixed-point representation is fulfilled if and only if the step-size is a power of two, hence ∆ = 2 -f , f ∈ Z. In this case, the scaling operation is replaced by a bit shift. Therefore, we use an additional logarithmic quantizer that rounds all input values to the closest power of two. That way, we are able to formulate appropriate fixed-point constraints for all important layers.

3.2. CONVOLUTION AND FULLY-CONNECTED LAYERS:

Convolution and fully-connected layers are summarized as Linear components in Figure 1 since both perform weighted sums3 . With x l-1 being the input of basic block l, the computation can be written as a l = x l-1 * w l + b l , whereas * is either a convolution operator or a matrix-vector multiplication, and {w l , b l } is the set of parameters with w l being either a weight-tensor or -matrix.

Since additions play a subordinate role for complexity, we focus on weight multiplications. For this purpose, Enderich et al. (2019) recommend individual Gaussian priors to change the weight distribution from an unimodal distribution to a symmetric and multimodal distribution. The priors are induced by the L 2 -norm and include the symmetric quantization function:

EQUATION

)

where L is the number of layers, M l the number of weights in layer l, and ∆ l the step-size in layer l. As recommended in Enderich et al. (2019) , we use the layer-wise mean to give wide layers with many parameters a greater flexibility to compensate the quantization loss. Furthermore, we determine the layer-wise step-size on pre-trained weights by minimizing R w under the constraint of ∆ l = 2 -f , f ∈ Z. In the next chapter, however, we see that the actual step-sizes are learned within the batch normalization component. Effectively, R w gives individual Gaussian priors to each network weight with respect to the closest fixed-point mode. The priors are updated with every forward pass, enabling the weights to continuously switch between neighboring modes. The gradient with respect to a single weight is

EQUATION

Due to real-valued weights and a unique rounding function, the partial derivative ∂Q int /∂w l,i can be assumed to be zero. The final gradient is a scaled version of the corresponding quantization error.

After training, the weights are quantized as follows

w l,i ← Q sym (w l,i ; N, ∆ l ) .

(5)

3.3. BATCH NORMALIZATION:

BN layers are located between convolution or fully-connected layers on one side and non-linear activation functions on the other. After the training, BN layers can be folded into the preceding layers to increase efficiency. Therefore, we first derive the BN fixed-point constraint before combining both layers to one coherent fixed-point module.

3.3.1. FIXED-POINT CONSTRAINT:

BN is performed channel-wise, with each channel being normalized and transformed linearly. The number of BN channels is equal to the number of output channels of the preceding convolution or fully-connected layer. If a denotes the BN input variable, the calculation is

EQUATION

with c being the channel index, a c being the output variable, and {γ c , β c } being the learnable affine transformation. During training, each channel is normalized using mean and variance of the current mini batch. At test time, normalization is done by the layer statistics {µ c , σ c }, which have been continuously updated during training. Thus, each channel is first shifted and then multiplied with γ c / σ 2 c + , which can be turned into a bit-shift operation if the multiplier is a power of two. Since γ c is the only learnable parameter in this expression, we propose the following regularization term:

EQUATION

)

where l is the layer index, L the number of layers, c the channel index, and C l the number of channels in layer l. Thus, we utilize the L 2 -norm to give individual fixed-point priors while taking into account that γ l,c is divided by the standard deviation after training. The corresponding gradient is

EQUATION

Travelling in the direction of the negative gradient optimizes γ l,c in the sense that, divided by the standard deviation, the closest power of two is approximated. In doing so, both the normalization statistics {µ, σ 2 } and the affine transformation {γ, β} can be adapted simultaneously such that the learning task and the fixed-point constraint are fulfilled. After training, BN parameters are quantized as follows:

EQUATION

3.3.2. FOLDING:

Folding BN layers into the preceding Linear component reduces both computation time and memory capacity. After quantizing with Equation 9, the BN calculation simplifies to

EQUATION

)

Replacing the input variable by its calculation using the preceding Linear layer gives

EQUATION

where { w l,c γ l,c , (b l,c -µ l,c ) γ l,c + β l,c } is the parameter set of the folded layer. Let us see if the fixed-point constraint is still fulfilled. After training and quantization, w l consists of signed integers and a layer-wise step-size. By folding, the step-size is channel-wise multiplied with γ l,c . This turns the layer-dependent step-size into a channel-dependent step-size. Since both multipliers are powers of two, the newly created step-size is a power of two as well. Consequently, the BN fixed-point constraint enables to learn individual step-sizes that fulfill the fixed-point constraint.

3.4. RELU:

ReLU is the state-of-the-art non-linear activation function in DNNs. In order to approximate the non-negative ReLU output, we use the uniform but unsigned quantization function Q uni to quantize the network activations during each forward pass. During the backward pass, we utilize the STE to define the partial derivative of the rounding function as follows: ∂ x /∂x = 1. That way, the local gradients with respect to the input and the step-size are as follows:

∂Q uni ∂∆ l =        0 if x < 0 2 N -1 if x > 2 N -1 ∆ l , (x q -x) /∆ l else ∂Q uni ∂x =        0 if x ≤ 0 0 if x > 2 N -1 ∆ l .

1. else:

The gradient with respect to the input is passed on if x does not fall into the saturation bounds, otherwise it is set to zero. The gradient with respect to the step-size is non-zero if x is positive. Furthermore, it varies inside the range [-0.5, 0.5] if x is within the range of the quantization steps.

Otherwise, the gradient is equal to the highest N -bit integer.

In order to fulfill the fixed-point constraint of Q uni , the step size has to be a power of two. Therefore, we use the logarithmic quantization function and propose the following regularization term

R x = L l=1 ∆ l -Q log (∆ l ) 2 2

with the step-size gradient

EQUATION

)

where l is the layer index, L is the amount of layers, and ∆ l the step size in layer l. The gradient is a scaled version of the quantization error and approximates the fixed-point constraint during training.

3.5. REGULARIZATION PARAMETER:

EQUATION

is the training objective according to Equation 1, with C representing the learning task, R i , i ∈ {w, γ, x}, being the particular fixed-point constraint, and λ i being the corresponding regularization parameter which controls the weighting between learning task and quantization. In fact, regularization parameters add additional cost since their values must be determined empirically on a validation set. Then again, they allow an easy control of the model capacity, which is a fundamental problem in deep learning. On one hand, too much capacity often leads to overfitting. On the other hand, there must be sufficient capacity to enable optimal convergence, especially at the beginning of the training (Li et al. (2016) ). Indeed, a training-time dependent regularization parameter can be used to control the model capacity immediately at training time. In this context, Enderich et al. (2019) recommend a linearly increasing regularization parameter that shifts the weighting towards the quantization constraint. However, we have found that exponential growth is better suited to change capacity. The calculation is

EQUATION

where λ(0) is the initial value, e denotes the current training epoch, and α E is the growth factor which depends on the total number of training epochs E. In our experiments, we used the same configuration for each model on each data set: α E = 10/E, λ w (0) = 10, λ γ (0) = λ x (0) = 10 -4 . The values were determined on a CIFAR-10 validation set. Notice that the gradient ∂R w /∂w from Equation 4 is divided by the number of layer weights. Therefore, the corresponding start value λ w (0) is accordingly higher.

3.6. PARAMETER CLIPPING:

Weight clipping: Soft quantization approaches train in high precision, but aim for posterior distributions that are well qualified for post quantization. These posterior distributions are promoted by suitable quantization constraints. In case of the Linear component, the fixed-point constraint limits the potential parameter space to the discrete values ±∆ l 2 N -1 -1 . This can be utilized as prior knowledge since weights should not exceed this interval during training. For example, a weight quantization using N = 2 bits and ∆ = 1 leads to the possible quantization values {-1, 0, 1}. If a single weight already has the value -1, it is useless to optimize in the negative direction. Therefore we clip all Linear weights within -∆ l 2 N -1 -1 , ∆ l 2 N -1 -1 after each update step to promote reasonable weight adaptation.

Step-size clipping: The physical limitation of quantization steps is to be strictly positive. Furthermore, very small step-sizes could cause numerical problems in the denominator. Therefore, we limit all quantization step-sizes to be ≥ 2 -8 and clip the values after each update step, respectively.

Gradient clipping: Before the update step is done, the quantizing gradients from Equations 4, 8, and 12 are scaled by the corresponding regularization parameter. For numerical stability, we clip the scaled gradients to the absolute value of 0.1. This also prevents the regularization parameter from being too high.

4. EXPERIMENTS:

In this section, we evaluate our fixed-point model on three common benchmark datasets: MNIST, CIFAR-10, and CIFAR-100. All experiments are done using stochastic gradient descent with a nesterov momentum of 0.9 and a linearly decreasing learning rate from 0.01 to 0.001. The batch size is 64. We compare our fixed-point model with all approaches from Table 1 . Results are shown in Table 2 . In order to provide a detailed comparison, we use two different bit-size configurations:

1. Fix-Net: A pure fixed-point model with 4-bit weights, 4-bit activations and bit-shift batch normalization. The performance is comparable to the floating-point baseline with all multiplications performed in fixed-point arithmetic.

2. Add-Net: A model with symmetric 2-bit weights (ternary-valued), 4-bit activations and bit-shift batch normalization. The evaluation during test time can be done without any multiplications. A simplified example of the computational graph is given in the appendix A.1. For the MNIST data set, we use 2-bit activations.

4.1. MNIST:

MNIST is a handwritten-digits classification task. The dataset consists of 28×28 gray scale images and is divided into 60,000 training and 10,000 test samples (LeCun & Cortes (2010) ). We use LeNet5 from Lecun et al. (1998) and preprocess the images by subtracting the mean and dividing by the standard-deviation over the training set. Our Add-Net configuration achieves 0.65% test error after 40 epochs of training with 2-bit weights and activations. The result is similar to SGM and TWN, although both only quantize convolution and fully-connected layers. Our Fix-Net further decreases test error down to 0.59%. Both networks outperform the floating-point baseline of 0.71%.

4.2. CIFAR-10:

CIFAR-10 is an image classification task with 10 different classes. The data consists of 32×32 RGB images and is divided into 50,000 training and 10,000 test samples (LeCun & Cortes (2010) ). We preprocess the images as recommended in Huang et al. (2017) . For detailed testing, we use three different model architectures: VGG7 from Simonyan & Zisserman (2015) , DenseNet (L=76, k=12) from Huang et al. (2017) and ResNet20 from He et al. (2015) . VGG7 is a conventional CNN architecture with 7 layers, BN and many parameters. In contrast, both DenseNet and ResNet20 show an efficient architecture with comparatively less parameters. Due to their lower number of redundancies, DenseNet and ResNet20 are considered as difficult to quantize.

VGG7: With an error rate of 6.22%, our Add-Net performs best among all models with binary-or ternary-valued weights. The performance is comparable to SGM which uses full-precision activations and batch normalization. With an error rate of 4.98%, our Fix-Net performs best in accuracy and even outperforms the floating-point baseline of 5.42% which proves its regularization characteristic. The bit-size configuration of Fix-Net is mostly comparable to Miyashita et al. (2016) and Lin et al. (2016) with error rates of 6.21% and 8.30%, respectively.

DenseNet: With the DenseNet architecture, Add-Net achieves 6.54% test error and outperforms the Bayesian approach of VNQ by more than 2%. SMG is slightly better with an error rate of 6.19% but quantizes only the Linear layers. The Fix-Net configuration achieves 5.63% test error and consequently beats the floating-point baseline of 5.72%.

ResNet: It is the smallest architecture in comparison, with only 0.28M parameters. Our Add-Net achieves an error rate of 10.13% which is 2% higher than the floating-point baseline. However, with only approximately 70kB memory costs and no multiplications, Add-Net achieves a significant reduction in complexity, even for small models. DQ performs slightly better, with an error rate of 9.62% and floating-point BN layers. Our Fix-Net decreases test error down to 8.68% but still misses the floating-point baseline of 8.07%. Since ResNet20 already has a limited capacity, its regularization capability is also limited.

4.3. CIFAR-100:

CIFAR-100 uses the same RGB images as CIFAR-10, but provides 10 additional sub-classes for each class in CIFAR-10. Thus, only 500 training samples are available for each of the 100 classes, which makes CIFAR-100 a challenging classification task. We use VGG11 from Simonyan & Zisserman (2015) and preprocess the images according to Huang et al. (2017) 

-∆ 0 ∆ -∆ 0 ∆ -∆ 0 ∆ -∆ 0 ∆

Figure 3 : Weight distribution of Layer-1, Layer-4 and Layer-7 (from top to bottom) of VGG11 after several epochs. Since weight decay is used for pre-training, the weight distribution is unimodal at the beginning with a peak at zero. Then, our approach continuously rearranges the weights into a ternary-valued distribution, clearly visible at epoch 80. The variance of each mode is continuously decreased by the exponentially increasing regularization parameter. After 100 epochs, the weights are that close to the fixed-point centers that post quantization does not produce a remarkable error. Note: y-axis scaled individually for convenience, the x-axis for epoch 0 is wider to catch the whole distribution.

:

Binary-coded weight vectors, e.g. with values from {-1, 1} or {0, 1}, replace multiply-accumulate operations by simple additions and subtractions, respectively. Since each ternary-coded vector with values from {-1, 0, 1} can be converted into two binary-coded vectors, the same goes for ternary-coded weights.

Pooling reduces dimensionality in DNN propagation. While average-pooling was used mainly for historical reasons, max-pooling has recently gained acceptance due to better performance and practical reasons. However, both computations can also be done in fixed-point arithmetic.

Indeed, each convolution layer can be converted into a fully-connected layer by using the Toeplitz Matrix

Figures and Tables:

DNNs in low-bit fixed-point arithmetic, including fixed-point BN layers. But, Chen et al. (2017) focus only on computations and variables within the training procedure. Since BN layers operate on different statistics after training, the fixed-point representation during evaluation stays unclear. Furthermore, Chen et al. (

Table content: <table><tr><td>memory costs.</td></tr><tr><td>Moreover, Enderich et al. (2019) proposed a soft quantization approach to train DNNs with multi-</td></tr><tr><td>modal fixed-point weights. Soft quantization means to use high-precision weights during the train-</td></tr><tr><td>ing, but simultaneously promote posterior distributions that are well qualified for post-quantization.</td></tr><tr><td>Another soft quantization approach by Choi et al. (2018) investigated regularization terms for dis-</td></tr><tr><td>crete activations. Furthermore, Achterhold et al. (2018) proposed a Bayesian method to train DNNs</td></tr><tr><td>with quantizing priors that result in multimodal weight distributions.</td></tr><tr><td>However, high-precision BN layers are still a critical factor for success. The channel-wise floating-</td></tr><tr><td>point multiplications within BN significantly increase the model capacity, especially for low-bit</td></tr><tr><td>quantization, but at the same time eliminate the possibility of pure fixed-point arithmetic on dedi-</td></tr><tr><td>cated hardware. Chen et al. (2017) introduced a hard quantization framework to completely train</td></tr><tr><td>amplifed the approach of Courbariaux et al. (2015) by discretiz-</td></tr><tr><td>ing both weights and activations to ±1 during the forward pass. During the backward pass, the</td></tr><tr><td>straight-through estimator (STE, Hinton (2012)) is used to estimate the local gradient of the round-</td></tr><tr><td>ing function. This way, the upstream gradient can be passed on during backpropagation.</td></tr><tr><td>Recently, approaches have been proposed that operate on fixed-point quantization functions with</td></tr><tr><td>learnable function parameters. Jain et al. (2019) investigated signed quantization functions whose</td></tr><tr><td>uniform step-size can be learned for a given number of bits. Uhlich et al. (2019) extended this</td></tr><tr><td>approach and learned both step-size and dynamic range of symmetric and uniform quantization</td></tr><tr><td>functions. Additionally, Uhlich et al. (2019) proposed optimization constraints to limit the overall</td></tr></table>

. Our Add-Net achieves 33.16% test error with at the same time lowest complexity. A visualization of the Add-Net weight distribution at different training times is given in Figure3in the appendix A.2. With an error rate of 30.25%, the Fix-Net configuration performs best in comparison and even outperforms the floating-point baseline of 31.42% by more than 1%.5 CONCLUSION AND FURTHER WORKSoft quantization aims to reduce the complexity of DNNs at test time rather than at training time. Therefore, training remains in floating-point precision, but maintains consideration of dedicated quantization constraints. In this paper, we propose a novel soft quantization approach to learn pure fixed-point representations of state of the art DNN architectures. With exponentially increasing fixed-point priors and weight clipping, our approach provides self-reliant weight adaptation. In detailed experiments, we achieve new state of the art quantization results. Especially the combination of 4-bit weights, 4-bit activations and fixed-point batch normalization layers seems quite promising Summary of the quantized performance on MNIST, CIFAR-10 and CIFAR-100.

Table content: <table><tr><td>Data set</td><td>Method</td><td>Model</td><td colspan="3">Params Bit-size (w/x) Error [%]</td></tr><tr><td>MNIST</td><td>BNN, Hubara et al. (2016)</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>1/1</td><td>0.96</td></tr><tr><td/><td colspan="2">VNQ, Achterhold et al. (2018) LeNet5</td><td>60k</td><td>2/32</td><td>0.73</td></tr><tr><td/><td>TWN, Li &amp; Liu (2016)</td><td>LeNet5</td><td>60k</td><td>2/32</td><td>0.65</td></tr><tr><td/><td>Add-Net</td><td>LeNet5</td><td>60k</td><td>2/2</td><td>0.65</td></tr><tr><td/><td>SGM, Enderich et al. (2019)</td><td>LeNet5</td><td>60k</td><td>2/32</td><td>0.63</td></tr><tr><td/><td>Fix-Net</td><td>LeNet5</td><td>60k</td><td>4/4</td><td>0.59</td></tr><tr><td/><td>Baseline</td><td>LeNet5</td><td>60k</td><td>32/32</td><td>0.71</td></tr><tr><td>CIFAR-10</td><td>FxpNet, Chen et al. (2017)</td><td>VGG7</td><td>9.3M</td><td>1/1</td><td>10.30</td></tr><tr><td/><td>Lin et al. (2016)</td><td>VGG7</td><td>3.4M</td><td>4/4</td><td>8.30</td></tr><tr><td/><td>TWN, Li &amp; Liu (2016)</td><td>VGG7</td><td>12M</td><td>2/32</td><td>7.44</td></tr><tr><td/><td>SGM, Enderich et al. (2019)</td><td>VGG7</td><td>12M</td><td>2/32</td><td>6.27</td></tr><tr><td/><td>Miyashita et al. (2016)</td><td>VGG8</td><td>14M</td><td>4/5</td><td>6.21</td></tr><tr><td/><td>Add-Net</td><td>VGG7</td><td>12M</td><td>2/4</td><td>6.22</td></tr><tr><td/><td>Fix-Net</td><td>VGG7</td><td>12M</td><td>4/4</td><td>4.98</td></tr><tr><td/><td>Baseline</td><td>VGG7</td><td>12M</td><td>32/32</td><td>5.42</td></tr><tr><td/><td colspan="3">VNQ, Achterhold et al. (2018) DenseNet 0.49M</td><td>2/32</td><td>8.83</td></tr><tr><td/><td>Add-Net</td><td colspan="2">DenseNet 0.49M</td><td>2/4</td><td>6.54</td></tr><tr><td/><td>SGM, Enderich et al. (2019)</td><td colspan="2">DenseNet 0.49M</td><td>2/32</td><td>6.19</td></tr><tr><td/><td>Fix-Net</td><td colspan="2">DenseNet 0.49M</td><td>4/4</td><td>5.63</td></tr><tr><td/><td>Baseline</td><td colspan="2">DenseNet 0.49M</td><td>32/32</td><td>5.72</td></tr><tr><td/><td>Add-Net</td><td colspan="2">ResNet20 0.28M</td><td>2/4</td><td>10.13</td></tr><tr><td/><td>DQ, Uhlich et al. (2019)</td><td colspan="2">ResNet20 0.28M</td><td>2/4</td><td>9.62</td></tr><tr><td/><td>Fix-Net</td><td colspan="2">ResNet20 0.28M</td><td>4/4</td><td>8.68</td></tr><tr><td/><td>Baseline</td><td colspan="2">ResNet20 0.28M</td><td>32/32</td><td>8.07</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2">CIFAR-100 TWN, Li &amp; Liu (2016)</td><td>VGG11</td><td>32M</td><td>2/32</td><td>36.18</td></tr><tr><td/><td>BR, Yin et al. (2018)</td><td>VGG11</td><td>32M</td><td>2/32</td><td>34.13</td></tr><tr><td/><td>Add-Net</td><td>VGG11</td><td>32M</td><td>2/4</td><td>33.16</td></tr><tr><td/><td>Fix-Net</td><td>VGG11</td><td>32M</td><td>4/4</td><td>30.25</td></tr><tr><td/><td>Baseline</td><td>VGG11</td><td>32M</td><td>32/32</td><td>31.42</td></tr></table>

Peer review (iclr2020):
The paper proposes a regularization strategy for training a neural network classifier using full weight precision that can then be quantized to a low-bit fixed-point representation. The main claimed contributions are - A solution to the problem of the soft quantization of batch normalization layers, which revolves around regularizing the (folded) shifting coefficient values towards their (post-training) fixed-point quantization. - An exponential schedule for the regularization hyperparameters. - An overall model that outperforms other quantization approaches. My assessment is that the paper is slightly below the acceptance bar. As an outsider to the low-precision DNN literature, the proposed soft quantization strategy for batch normalization layers looks interesting, but the submission suffers from clarity issues (see clarity-related comments), and the evaluation is insufficient to support some claimed contributions (see evaluation-related comments). Clarity-related comments: - The spacing between paragraphs has been removed to satisfy the soft 8-page limit. This has a negative impact on the submission’s readability. - “Since BN layers operate on different statistics after training [...]” The use of the term “statistics” in this statement is imprecise. Unless there’s an input distribution shift between training and evaluation, shouldn’t the “statistics” BN layers operate on be the same? Maybe the authors are trying to convey that the way in which these statistics are approximated (using a mini-batch during training vs. using a running average during evaluation) is different? - The submission claims to accommodate pure fixed-point models, but the soft quantization of biases is swept aside in the presentation: “Since additions play a subordinate role for complexity, we focus on weight multiplications.” Can the authors clarify whether and how soft quantization is applied to biases? - Soft quantization of multiplicative factors is handled in two distinct ways in the model: weights are quantized using a symmetric uniform function, and batch normalization scaling factors are quantized using a logarithmic function. Why are they handled differently? - “Furthermore, we determine the layer-wise step-size on pre-trained weights [...]. In the next chapter, however, we see that the actual step-sizes are learned within the batch normalization component.” I have trouble reconciling these two statements. They give the impression that the step size is both determined post-training *and* learned during training. In fact, Equation 12 suggests that the step size is learned. Can the authors clarify? - “This also prevents the regularization parameter from being too high.” I don’t understand what “regularization parameter” refers to. Is it the lambda values (Equation 13), or is it the R values (Equation 13)? Evaluation-related comments: - I don’t understand the reasoning behind the bolding of entries in Table 2. In the MNIST section, why is the Add-Net entry bolded but not the TWN and SGM entries, even though they share the same error rate? Is the 0.04% error rate difference between Fix-Net and SGM significant, considering that this corresponds to four additional misclassified examples on the test set? - More generally, the presentation in Table 2 doesn’t group together comparable approaches, which leads to incongruities like Add-Net and Fix-Net entries being both bolded in each section despite Fix-Net systematically outperforming Add-Net. - As far as I can tell there is no empirical evidence to support the asserted benefits of the exponential regularization schedule. - I’m also doubtful of the significance of the claim that the submission achieves state-of-the-art quantization results, given that in most settings bit-sizes do not directly compare to those of related methods. Additional comments: - I don’t believe L2-regularizing weight values towards the closest quantized weight value has a direct probabilistic interpretation, because the way regularization is applied depends on the weight values themselves. If I’m mistaken, what unconditional PDF over weight values would that correspond to? - “Due to their lower number of redundancies, DenseNet and ResNet20 are considered as difficult to quantize.” Is this common knowledge? Can the authors point to related work supporting this assertion?