Hidden Reliability Risks in Large Language Models: Systematic Identification of Precision-Induced Output Disagreements

Greedy decoding from large language models is commonly treated as deterministic. We show it is not precision-invariant: the same model, prompt, and decoding algorithm produce different outputs in BF16 versus FP16 on identical hardware. Across our evaluations of six models (1.1B-7B parameters, four families; divergence additionally characterised at 12B) and three benchmarks, 49-100% of prompts diverge; a single token flip often cascades into trajectory-level divergence. We develop an empirical error-propagation analysis and find that 22 layers of accumulated body error do not distinguish flipping from non-flipping steps; the outcome depends primarily on the top-two logit margin at the LM head relative to the directional perturbation between the top-two candidates. The analysis makes five testable predictions about intervention outcomes, including that applying more FP32 compute (broader scope) makes agreement worse. The experiments match all five predictions. The best-performing low-overhead intervention we evaluate, selective FP32 LM head recomputation, triggered only when the margin falls below a threshold, delivers +22-36 pp exact agreement on A10G (+12-21 pp on L4 and A100) at less than 4% latency overhead in low-batch (batch size <=4) single-stream inference. We map the applicability boundary across six models and four batch sizes, and hypothesise that training-time precision stability is a determining factor. The method is a partial mitigation rather than a universal determinism guarantee: its benefit vanishes when body-originated error dominates, including at batch size >=8 and under end-to-end FP8 in our tests.

As Large Language Models (LLMs) deploy into mission-critical domains (e.g., finance, medicine, and law), output reproducibility has become a strict system requirement. While practitioners use greedy decoding to eliminate algorithmic stochasticity, empirical deployments with 16-bit precisions still exhibit catastrophic output divergence across heterogeneous GPUs. Through SASS-level profiling, we reveal that this inconsistency is fundamentally driven by truncation errors introduced during downcasting at kernel boundaries. However, achieving reproducibility via a global FP32 pipeline incurs prohibitive system penalties: bypassing 16-bit hardware accelerators hurts compute efficiency, while upcasting the KV cache doubles memory overhead. To bridge this gap, we propose Hybrid Error ALleviation (HEAL), a targeted intervention that approximates FP32 precision while resolving hardware constraints through two targeted mechanisms. First, recognizing that floating-point formats underutilize their bit-width for Q, K, V tensors, HEAL applies INT16 quantization that preserves numerical stability without expanding the KV cache footprint. Second, HEAL synthesizes high-precision matrix multiplications via an algebraic error compensation strategy, executing entirely on high-throughput 16-bit Tensor Cores. To evaluate our approach practically, we introduce MCR-Bench, a benchmark targeting reproducibility in mission-critical tasks. HEAL achieves the same level of reproducibility on downstream tasks as the FP32 baseline while reducing the performance overhead by up to 7.1x.

Deployment of Large Language Models (LLMs) on memory-constrained edge devices relies heavily on aggressive post-training quantization. However, evaluating these models is largely based on zero-shot task accuracy, which depends solely on argmax predictions and is insensitive to changes in the underlying predictive distribution. Consequently, accuracy can exhibit unstable, non-monotonic behavior under progressive quantization, masking substantial fidelity loss relative to the BFloat16 (BF16) uncompressed base model and providing misleading deployment signals. We introduce a distribution-sensitive evaluation framework quantifying information loss in quantized LLMs as the divergence between full-vocabulary predictive distributions at the token decision boundary. We compute statistical distances, including Jensen-Shannon Divergence and Total Variation Distance, between outputs of full-precision and quantized models, enabling a fine-grained analysis of distributional shift. Using this framework, we quantify probability mass displacement and distributional drift relative to the BF16 reference, capturing predictive distribution changes not reflected in top-1 accuracy. We conduct a 120-run experimental matrix across five foundation architectures and four reasoning benchmarks under progressive quantization regimes, from uncompressed BF16 to Q2_K, providing a systematic fidelity analysis. Our results show divergence metrics generally increase under stronger quantization, complementing task accuracy with a fidelity signal. Across tested llama-cpp schemes, mixed-precision Q4_K generally yields lower divergence than uniform Q4_0 at similar memory footprints. These findings motivate distribution-aware evaluation as a practical diagnostic complement to task accuracy; they do not directly establish correctness, calibration, safety, or user-perceived quality.