Establishing the Relationship Between Jacobian Sensitivity and Perturbation Propagation in Post-Training Quantized Convolutional Neural Networks

Authors

  • Keya Abel Juma Jomo Kenyatta University of Agriculture and Technology, Kenya Author
  • Michael Kimwele Jomo Kenyatta University of Agriculture and Technology, Kenya Author
  • Jael S Wekesa Jomo Kenyatta University of Agriculture and Technology, Kenya Author

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.54536/ajicti.v1i1.8296

Abstract

Post-training quantization (PTQ) is widely used to deploy convolutional neural networks (CNNs) on resource-constrained edge devices because it reduces model size, memory use and computational requirements without retraining. However, PTQ introduces numerical approximation errors whose effects may differ across architectures. This study examined the relationship between Jacobian sensitivity and perturbation propagation in post-training quantized CNNs using an Affine-Jacobian framework. Six architectures, MobileNetV2, InceptionV3, DenseNet121, VGG16, NASNetMobile and EfficientNetB0, were quantized from FP32 to INT8 using TensorFlow Lite without retraining. Local sensitivity was quantified using the Frobenius norm of the Jacobian matrix, while post-quantization robustness was evaluated through progressively increasing Gaussian perturbations on a Raspberry Pi edge platform. The architectures showed substantial differences in Jacobian sensitivity and perturbation response. MobileNetV2 recorded the largest mean Jacobian norm, whereas InceptionV3 showed the largest accuracy degradation at the highest reported noise level. Exploratory architecture-level analysis nevertheless indicated a positive association between Jacobian sensitivity and degradation, although the relationship was not perfectly monotonic and, with only six architectures, was not statistically conclusive at the 0.05 level. The findings therefore support the Affine-Jacobian framework as a promising sensitivity-based explanation of quantization robustness rather than as definitive proof of a universal predictor. The study provides a basis for sensitivity-aware model selection and further validation across additional architectures and deployment conditions.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Banner, R., Nahshan, Y., Hoffer, E., & Soudry, D. (2019). Post training 4-bit quantization of convolutional networks for rapid-deployment. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 32, 7948–7956.

Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2023). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods approach (6th ed.). Sage Publications.

Gholami, A., Kim, S., Dong, Z., Yao, Z., Mahoney, M. W., & Keutzer, K. (2022). A survey of quantization methods for efficient neural network inference. In L. O. Hall, K. Bowyer, D. Goldgof, P. Phillips, & J. Sarkar (Eds.), Low-Power Computer Vision: Improve the Efficiency of Artificial Intelligence (pp. 291–326). Chapman and Hall/CRC.

Goodfellow, I., Bengio, Y., & Courville, A. (2016). Deep learning. MIT Press.

Hanin, B., & Rolnick, D. (2019). Complexity of linear regions in deep networks. Proceedings of the 36th International Conference on Machine Learning, 97, 2596–2604.

Higham, N. J. (2002). Accuracy and stability of numerical algorithms (2nd ed.). Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics.

Jacob, B., Kligys, S., Chen, B., Zhu, M., Tang, M., Howard, A., Adam, H., & Kalenichenko, D. (2018). Quantization and training of neural networks for efficient integer-arithmetic-only inference. Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2704–2713.

Jakubovitz, D., & Giryes, R. (2018). Improving DNN robustness to adversarial attacks using Jacobian regularization. Proceedings of the European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV) Workshops, 514–529.

LeCun, Y., Bengio, Y., & Hinton, G. (2015). Deep learning. Nature, 521(7553), 436–444.

Montúfar, G. F., Pascanu, R., Cho, K., & Bengio, Y. (2014). On the number of linear regions of deep neural networks. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 27, 2924–2932.

Nagel, M., Amjad, R. A., van Baalen, M., Louizos, C., & Blankevoort, T. (2021). Up or down? Adaptive rounding for post-training quantization. Proceedings of the 38th International Conference on Machine Learning, 139, 7197–7206.

Novak, R., Bahri, Y., Abolafia, D. A., Pennington, J., & Sohl-Dickstein, J. (2018). Sensitivity and generalization in neural networks: An empirical study. International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR).

Saltelli, A., Ratto, M. Andres, T., Campolongo, F., Cariboni, J., Gatelli, D., Saisana, M., & Tarantola, S. (2008). Global sensitivity analysis: The primer. John Wiley & Sons.

Shi, W., Cao, J., Zhang, Q., Li, Y., & Xu, L. (2016). Edge computing: Vision and challenges. IEEE Internet of Things Journal, 3(5), 637–646.

Stewart, G. W., & Sun, J.-G. (1990). Matrix perturbation theory. Academic Press.

Zhang, X., Liu, Y., Wang, H., & Chen, Z. (2023). A comprehensive review of post-training quantization for deep neural networks. ACM Computing Surveys, 56(2), 1–36.

Downloads

Published

2026-09-07

How to Cite

Juma, K. A. ., Kimwele, M. ., & Wekesa, J. S. . (2026). Establishing the Relationship Between Jacobian Sensitivity and Perturbation Propagation in Post-Training Quantized Convolutional Neural Networks. American Journal of ICT and Innovation, 1(1), 90-96. https://doi.org/10.54536/ajicti.v1i1.8296