MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Quantized Convolutional Neural Networks Robustness under Perturbation

2025· preprint· en· W4409283953 on OpenAlexafffund
Jack Langille, Issam Hammad, G. Kember

Bibliographic record

VenueF1000Research · 2025
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFault Detection and Control Systems
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsOpen peer reviewPlant biologyRobustness (evolution)Convolutional neural networkNeurosciencePerturbation (astronomy)Computer sciencePhysiologyControl theory (sociology)Biological systemBiologyArtificial intelligencePhysicsBotanyBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Contemporary machine learning models are increasingly becoming restricted by size and subsequent operations per forward pass, demanding increasing compute requirements. Quantization has emerged as a convenient approach to addressing this, in which weights and activations are mapped from their conventionally used floating-point 32-bit numeric representations to lower precision integers. This process introduces significant reductions in inference time and simplifies the hardware requirements. It is a well-studied result that the performance of such reduced precision models is congruent with their floating-point counterparts. However, there is a lack of literature that addresses the performance of quantized models in a perturbed input space, as is common when stress testing regular full-precision models, particularly for real-world deployments. We focus on addressing this gap in the context of 8-bit quantized convolutional neural networks (CNNs). We study three state-of-the-art CNNs: ResNet-18, VGG-16, and SqueezeNet1_1, and subject their floating point and fixed point forms to various noise regimes with varying intensities. We characterize performance in terms of traditional metrics, including top-1 and top-5 accuracy, as well as the F1 score. We also introduce a new metric, the Kullback-Liebler divergence of the two output distributions for a given floating-point/fixed-point model pair, as a means to examine how the model's output distribution has changed as a result of quantization, which, we contend, can be interpreted as a proxy for model similarity in decision making. We find that across all three models and under each perturbation scheme, the relative error between the quantized and full-precision model was consistently low. We also find that Kullback-Liebler divergence was on the same order of magnitude as the unperturbed tests across all perturbation regimes except Brownian noise, where significant divergences were observed for VGG-16 and SqueezeNet1_1.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.018
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.032
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.263 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueF1000ResearchSame topicFault Detection and Control SystemsFrench-language works237,207