ICCV 2025

Outlier-Aware Post-Training Quantization for Image Super-Resolution

Hailing Wang*  ·  Jianglin Lu  ·  Yitian Zhang  ·  Yun Fu

Northeastern University, USA  ·  * corresponding author

75×faster than QAT
+2.55 dBover the best PTQ baseline
(RDN, W4A4, Urban100)
0ground-truth HR images
73 sto quantize EDSR on one 2080 Ti
Abstract

Post-training quantization for SR fails where the outliers are

Quantization is essential for deploying super-resolution networks on edge devices. Quantization-aware training (QAT) works well but needs ground truth and hours of retraining; post-training quantization (PTQ) needs neither, yet existing PTQ methods for SR lag far behind — because they overlook what happens to activation outliers.

Our empirical analysis reveals that activation outliers are strongly correlated with image colour information: removing them causes visible colour shifts and severe performance degradation. But retaining them naively consumes most of the available bit-width, starving the normal activations. We resolve this trade-off with a dual-region quantization strategy that partitions activations into an outlier region and a dense region and quantizes each independently. We further observe that different network layers vary widely in quantization sensitivity, and introduce a sensitivity-aware finetuning loss that focuses the optimization on the layers that matter. Extensive experiments show that our method outperforms existing PTQ approaches across SR networks and datasets, while matching QAT in most scenarios at a 75× speedup.

PSNR comparison against PTQ methods using RDN under W4A4
vs. PTQ. PSNR with RDN under W4A4 across four benchmarks.
PSNR versus processing time compared with QAT methods using EDSR under W4A4
vs. QAT. PSNR against processing time with EDSR under W4A4. Bubble size indicates the amount of training data required.
Two observations

What the activations actually told us

1

Outliers carry colour

Clipping just 1 % of the activation outliers of a full-precision SR model — no quantization at all — already shifts the colours of the output, in both flat regions and detail-rich areas. Outliers are not noise; they encode image content that has to survive quantization.

2

Layers are not equally fragile

Quantizing a single layer to 4 bit costs anywhere between 0.9 dB and 14 dB. In SRResNet, head.0 drops from 32.06 dB to 18.26 dB, while body.4.conv1 holds 31.20 dB. Spending equal optimization effort on every layer is wasteful.

Full-precision super-resolution outputs
Outputs after clipping 1% of activation outliers
Full precision 1 % outliers clipped
Drag the handle. Both rows come from the same full-precision model. On the right, 1 % of the activation outliers were clipped — the colours drift noticeably, which is why the outlier region must be preserved rather than discarded.
Activation distributions of three samples at the same EDSR layer
Sample-dependent outliers. Three samples at the same layer (body.15.conv1) of EDSR. The bulk sits in a narrow dense region, but the outlier bounds swing from −192 to −273 across samples.
Per-layer sensitivity of EDSR and SRResNet to 4-bit quantization
Per-layer sensitivity. 4-bit quantization applied to one layer at a time. Some layers barely move; others collapse by more than 14 dB.
Qualitative results

RDN under W4A4

Pick a method and a scene. Hover the image for a 3× magnifier.

Method
Super-resolution result
Ours · W4A4 hover to magnify
Quantitative results

PSNR / SSIM at ×4

Comparison with PTQ methods under W4A4. Green marks the best value in each column and setting.

MethodSet5Set14BSD100Urban100
EDSR — W4A4
EDSR (32/32)32.1028.5827.5626.04
MSE27.7426.0325.9523.63
MinMax26.8325.0424.5723.12
Percentile24.0323.9524.4221.62
PTQ4SR30.5127.6226.8824.92
AdaBM31.0227.8726.9125.11
Ours31.5428.2627.3625.61
RDN — W4A4
RDN (32/32)32.2428.6727.6326.29
MSE25.5524.3324.4921.75
MinMax25.9124.2224.2922.24
Percentile18.8318.2819.8316.77
PTQ4SR28.3226.1125.8223.31
AdaBM28.7126.3026.1023.38
Ours31.8028.3927.4725.93
EDSR — W6A6
PTQ4SR31.8028.2627.3725.72
AdaBM31.9228.4727.4725.89
Ours32.0328.5527.5425.99

Against quantization-aware training

EDSR, W4A4. QAT baselines retrain the network with ground-truth supervision; ours does neither.

MethodQATGTTimeSet5Set14BSD100Urban100
EDSR (32/32)32.1028.5827.5626.04
PAMS75×31.5928.2027.3225.32
DAQ185×31.8528.3827.4225.73
DDTB125×31.8528.3927.4425.69
ODM120×32.0028.4727.5125.80
Ours31.7928.4027.4525.75

Ablation

EDSR under W4A4. PLQ = piecewise linear quantizer, SAFT = sensitivity-aware finetuning, VFT = vanilla finetuning.

PLQSAFTVFTSet5Set14BSD100Urban100
26.8325.0424.5723.12
30.5027.7127.0325.12
29.4526.9526.2724.40
29.8727.2426.5524.57
31.5428.2627.3625.61

PLQ alone lifts the MinMax baseline by 3.67 / 2.67 / 2.46 / 2.00 dB. Vanilla finetuning hurts relative to sensitivity-aware finetuning — treating every layer the same way actively wastes the calibration budget.

Citation

BibTeX

@inproceedings{wang2025outlier,
  title     = {Outlier-Aware Post-Training Quantization for Image Super-Resolution},
  author    = {Wang, Hailing and Lu, Jianglin and Zhang, Yitian and Fu, Yun},
  booktitle = {Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV)},
  year      = {2025}
}

Acknowledgements. Our implementation builds on AdaBM and EDSR-PyTorch, and the piecewise quantizer primitives follow PWLQ. We thank the authors for releasing their code.