Quantizer-Aligned Recalibration (QuAR), a single-pass TTA method tailored to quantized ViTs that neither backpropagates nor updates any model parameters is proposed, which achieves the highest mean accuracy among state-of-the-art backpropagates nor updates any model parameters.
Abstract
Post-training quantization is a standard route to fitting vision transformers (ViTs) into edge compute and memory budgets, yet quantized models become especially brittle under distribution shift. Test-time adaptation (TTA) addresses such shifts without labels, but most existing approaches are poorly aligned with the constraints of quantized inference. Prevailing TTA methods recover accuracy through backpropagation, while backprop-free methods often still incur overhead from extra forward passes or parameter updates, and lightweight feature- or logit-level methods recover only part of the loss. Across these approaches, a quantization-specific failure mode that amplifies the drop is not directly targeted: under shift, activations occupy frozen quantizers'calibrated ranges differently, distorting their code distribution. We propose Quantizer-Aligned Recalibration (QuAR), a single-pass TTA method tailored to quantized ViTs that neither backpropagates nor updates any model parameters. QuAR recalibrates activations at the input to a frozen quantizer, mapping the test stream's running per-channel statistics back toward the source calibration. On ImageNet-C with ViT-B, QuAR achieves the highest mean accuracy among state-of-the-art backprop-free TTA methods at 3-, 4-, 6- and 8-bit weight/activation precision, outperforming the strongest baseline by 2.28 points at 8 bits and 4.00 at 3 bits, with 46% lower latency and a memory overhead of only 0.17 MB (0.01% of peak inference memory). Analysis and diagnostics trace the gain to a reduced per-channel mismatch at these quantizers, which restores the code distribution the baselines leave unchanged or distort further. A single fixed configuration remains ahead across continual streams, non-i.i.d. label shift, seven out-of-distribution suites, and three other backbones.
This publication proposes a definition and a classification of agile software development approaches and analyses ten software development methods that can be characterized as being "agile" against the defined criterion.
P. Abrahamsson, O. Salo, Jussi Ronkainen et al.· arXiv.org· 727 citations· ⚡54
The study shows that agile practices improve both informal and formal communication, but indicates that, in larger development situations involving multiple external stakeholders, a mismatch of adequate communication mechanisms can sometimes even hinder the communication.
M. Pikkarainen, Jukka Haikara, O. Salo et al.· Empirical Software Engineeri...· 401 citations· ⚡48
The results indicate that software engineering work practices are chosen opportunistically, adapted and configured to provide value under the constrains imposed by the startup context.
Nicolò Paternoster, Carmine Giardino, M. Unterkalmsteiner et al.· Information and Software Tec...· 394 citations· ⚡54
The possibility of inferring high-dimensional data inference in a model that consists of a prior and an auxiliary differentiable constraint given some additional information is considered, thereby allowing a range of potential applications in adapting models to new domains and tasks.
Alexandros Graikos, Esmeralda S. Whitammer, N. Jojic et al.· Neural Information Processin...· 316 citations· ⚡15
Jennifer Neville did not want to go into computer science—but that’s exactly where she landed. Neville discusses the starts and stops that led to her professional sweet spot and her work identifying “surprising failures” making it hard for AI to handle complexity. The post What AI gets wrong and what failure teaches us appeared first on Microsoft Research.
Computer scientist, entrepreneur, and philanthropist will collaborate with the MIT Schwarzman College of Computing to advance AI and scientific discovery.