How does BitNet's performance degradation in regression compare to traditional low-precision quantization methods?

This archive doesn't directly address BitNet's regression performance versus traditional low-precision quantization methods—the preprints focus on specialized hardware (quantum circuits, FPGAs, HEP applications) rather than comparative benchmarks of BitNet against standard quantization baselines in regression tasks.

That said, one preprint does touch the relevant terrain: [AG-2025.04-1358] specifically evaluates BitNet across classification, regression, and generative modeling in high-energy physics, and reports that "while BitNet consistently performs competitively in classification tasks, its performance in regression and generation varies with the size and type of the network." However, it does not quantitatively compare BitNet's regression degradation to traditional low-precision methods (e.g., INT8, binary weights without BitNet's 1-bit activation design).

To answer your question properly, you'd need preprints that directly benchmark BitNet against quantized baselines (e.g., QAT, post-training quantization) on standard regression benchmarks—this archive doesn't provide that comparison.