Fix failing `BitModelIntegrationTest`
Author: Sai-Suraj-27
Pull request: yes

# What does this PR do?

Fixes this failing [BitModelIntegrationTest](https://github.com/huggingface/transformers/actions/runs/20706072009/job/59437072391#step:14:844).

<img width="1351" height="151" alt="image" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/c5bf6193-620f-4200-9e3a-86f550aa418d" />




## Before submitting
- [ ] This PR fixes a typo or improves the docs (you can dismiss the other checks if that's the case).
- [x] Did you read the [contributor guideline](https://github.com/huggingface/transformers/blob/main/CONTRIBUTING.md#create-a-pull-request),
      Pull Request section?
- [ ] Was this discussed/approved via a Github issue or the [forum](https://discuss.huggingface.co/)? Please add a link
      to it if that's the case.
- [ ] Did you make sure to update the documentation with your changes? Here are the
      [documentation guidelines](https://github.com/huggingface/transformers/tree/main/docs), and
      [here are tips on formatting docstrings](https://github.com/huggingface/transformers/tree/main/docs#writing-source-documentation).
- [ ] Did you write any new necessary tests?


## Who can review?
@vasqu

Comments:
run-slow: bit

This comment contains `run-slow`, running the specified jobs: 

models: ["models/bit"]
quantizations: []

## CI Results
[Workflow Run ⚙️](https://github.com/huggingface/transformers/actions/runs/20818166407)

✅ No failing test specific to this PR 🎉 !


Hmm, the test still fails but at least it runs, let's update the title (then I'll merge)

> Hmm, the test still fails but at least it runs, let's update the title (then I'll merge)

The test is actually passing for me locally. It's failing in the CI due to precision differences b/w different Nvidia GPU's i guess. From the CI, I can see that it failed due to a difference of [~0.0005](https://github.com/huggingface/transformers/actions/runs/20818166407/job/59799581641#step:15:141).

So, can we change `rtol, atol` to `1e-3`? Which will fix it.
```py
torch.testing.assert_close(outputs.logits[:, :3], expected_slice, rtol=1e-3, atol=1e-3)
```

Yes let's check if that works, we switched from t4 to a10 gpus so that could come from that

**[For maintainers]** Suggested jobs to run (before merge)

run-slow: bit

run-slow: bit

This comment contains `run-slow`, running the specified jobs: 

models: ["models/bit"]
quantizations: []

## CI Results
[Workflow Run ⚙️](https://github.com/huggingface/transformers/actions/runs/20823115347)

✅ No failing test specific to this PR 🎉 !


You were indeed right @Sai-Suraj-27 :partying_face: thx for sticking through this

The docs for this PR live [here](https://moon-ci-docs.huggingface.co/docs/transformers/pr_43164). All of your documentation changes will be reflected on that endpoint. The docs are available until 30 days after the last update.

> ## CI Results
> [Workflow Run ⚙️](https://github.com/huggingface/transformers/actions/runs/20818166407)
> 
> ✅ No failing test specific to this PR 🎉 !

For 1st run, why was the bot commenting as No failing test though? Isn't it misleading? Or is there some reason for this?

It checks whether some new failures were introduced. In this case, it was failing the same test due to different reasons

Maybe something that could be indeed improved to check if the failures differ (e.g. via some strict flag?) cc @ydshieh 

> It checks whether some new failures were introduced. In this case, it was failing the same test due to different reasons

Okayy, Got it. Thanks!