arXiv News

First-hand information for everyone

Site

AboutPrivacy PolicyTerms of Use

© 2026 arXiv News

ProQuant: A Novel Low‑bit Quantization Framework that Nearly Matches Full‑Precision Performance in Multimodal LLMs | arXiv News

arXiv News

EnglishJapanese

Switch language

EnglishJapanese
Loading account…

First-hand information for everyone

Back to front page
Computer VisionEnglishPublished

ProQuant: A Novel Low‑bit Quantization Framework that Nearly Matches Full‑Precision Performance in Multimodal LLMs

November 8, 2026arXiv: 2611.08216v1

Researchers have built ProQuant, the first framework that trains multimodal large language models (MLLMs) at very low precision while still keeping vision and language abilities close to full precision. The core idea is to match the fine‑tuning data distribution to the model’s own distribution through a Self‑Relabeling (SRL) step, then gradually turn on quantization starting with vision‐sensitive layers. A vision‑sensitivity vector τ automatically identifies which layers harm image understanding most and activates them first. This Progressive Block Activation (PBA) keeps early text layers in full precision until the model has recovered its visual grounding.

Diagram of ProQuant highlighting the stages of Self‑Relabeling and Progressive Block Activation.
Figure 1. ProQuant architecture diagram showing Self‑Relabeling (SRL) and Progressive Block Activation (PBA).Xue, Yufei, Huang, Yushi, Shao, Jiawei, Dong, Pingcheng, Tan, Yonghao, Li, Shiyao et al. · arXiv:2611.08216v1 · Figure 1: · CC BY 4.0

In a direct comparison on Qwen‑VL‑2B‑Instruct, ProQuant achieves an average accuracy of 1,830.28 using 4‑bit weights and 8‑bit activations (W4A8). This outperforms smooth quantization (1,736.61), MBQ (1,810.68), MQuant (1,736.61) and LLM‑QAT (1,931.70). With the even more aggressive W4A4 setting, ProQuant reaches 1,611.94, far higher than MBQ’s 55.41 or LLM‑QAT’s 1,532.13. The post‑training methods MBQ and MQuant collapse under W4A4, scoring near zero on several benchmarks.

Table 1 containing performance metrics for various quantization methods across multiple benchmarks.
Arch#BWMethodAI2DChQDocVM3USciQSeedTxtVAvg. (↑)MME
Qwen2-VL-2BBF16-70.0472.1689.4039.8974.2369.9879.3870.731870.19
W4A8SmoothQ62.6653.6876.5934.0066.4763.2069.1760.821736.61
MBQ65.1262.0879.7635.2268.9964.6471.9163.961810.68
MQuant67.3670.4487.3938.33––77.72––
LLM-QAT66.9468.2087.1435.5669.3768.2777.9467.631931.70
ProQuant69.3070.3288.1039.0072.7969.1978.6069.611830.28
W4A4MBQ2.170.000.0023.671.538.380.005.1155.41
MQuant11.300.360.1612.56––0.18––
LLM-QAT†29.9539.6866.7427.5643.1040.6869.9445.381532.13
ProQuant40.9747.3272.2730.1156.9961.0772.4054.451611.94
Qwen2.5-VL-3BBF16-78.6383.3292.5047.0083.3370.9478.6176.332149.00
W4A8SmoothQ71.8374.3679.6540.4473.9266.9063.9167.292063.23
MBQ73.8779.2488.4440.4477.1869.2774.0071.782049.63
LLM-QAT54.8672.7662.5833.0053.2449.0771.3556.691939.38
ProQuant77.2782.6891.2644.1181.6170.8078.2175.132083.30
W4A4MBQ0.940.000.5124.330.875.350.024.5711.24
LLM-QAT†31.2244.9666.4027.5645.8424.9964.7543.671090.88
ProQuant48.4851.0064.5330.6761.6461.5667.6555.081520.12
Qwen3-VL-2BBF16-73.2579.5692.7038.7879.5872.2679.2673.632029.18
W4A8SmoothQ48.6461.0880.8433.0040.1864.9164.8256.211834.91
MBQ50.6267.4484.2032.7850.5165.7569.4060.101758.88
LLM-QAT60.5265.8886.1138.8969.0267.4573.7165.941962.77
ProQuant71.3475.4491.1041.2278.7371.9078.0872.541962.04
W4A4MBQ5.180.000.1025.566.657.030.086.370.00
LLM-QAT†19.9528.6825.3926.3330.9115.9443.8227.29764.33
ProQuant54.8654.1273.2333.1164.8467.4771.1859.831652.63
Table 1. Quantization results on Qwen‑VL‑2B‑Instruct. For W4A8, ProQuant attains an average accuracy of 1830.28, outperforming SmoothQuant (1736.61), MBQ (1810.68), MQuant (1736.61) and LLM‑QAT (1931.70). For W4A4, ProQuant achieves 1611.94, significantly higher than MBQ (55.41) and LLM‑QAT (1532.13). Post‑training methods MBQ and MQuant collapse under aggressive W4A4, with near‑zero scores on several benchmarks.Xue, Yufei, Huang, Yushi, Shao, Jiawei, Dong, Pingcheng, Tan, Yonghao, Li, Shiyao et al. · arXiv:2611.08216v1 · Table 1: · CC BY 4.0

A limitation is that naively quantizing all layers badly harms multimodal understanding, dropping AI2D scores to zero at W4A8 before PBA takes effect. When layers are progressively activated, language scores recover while vision performance stays close to the full‑precision baseline.

These results show that carefully staged low‑bit training can preserve multimodal capability, but the exact schedule and vision‑sensitivity vector are crucial to prevent catastrophic loss of image understanding.

Source paper

ProQuant: Progressive Quantization-aware Training for Edge MLLMs

Computer VisionNatural Language Processing
View on arXiv