When Bits Break Recourse: Counterfactual-Faithful Quantization

Quantization is known to hurt below four bits, but nobody can say which of a model's decisions will change at a given bit-width. This matters most where a model acts rather than answers: a compressed agent stops calling its tools and, one bit lower, loses roughly half its safety refusals, while benchmark scores barely move. Prior work assumes the added noise has a roughly fixed size, which would make confident decisions safe. We measure the decision instead: the margin, the picked option's score minus its best alternative's, tracked before and after quantization across 16 models from 8 families under round-to-nearest, seven under AWQ, two under GPTQ and one under GGUF, at 8 down to 2 bits. The damage is proportional, not fixed in size: the margin is multiplied by a factor that collapses with bit-width (median 0.86 at 4 bits, 0.33 at 3, 0.00 at 2), which we call margin shrinkage. Contraction removes the protection a large margin affords; the model's own biases pick the direction: at 3 bits the decision to call a tool collapses toward inaction while the choice of which tool is untouched. No additive account, including one whose noise grows with the margin, wins a single damaged whether-to-call or safety cell (378 of 378). Given a condition's own constants the relation predicts held-out flip rates to a median 1.7 points, calibrated per decision (error 0.004 over 161,744 predictions), no flip used in the fit. Borrowed constants are wrong by 18-33 points at 3 bits, so the paired margin set has to be measured per model and bit-width: it locates breaking decisions without replacing measurement. At 4 bits the measurement is anchored to behaviour (the most likely token over the whole vocabulary is one of the item's two options in 85% of tool items); we treat the 2-bit floor as where the instrument stops measuring. No label-free repair we tested recovers more than one more bit does.

Post-training quantization (PTQ) converts a trained full-precision model into low-bit weights without task-level retraining, while quantization-aware training (QAT) incorporates quantization into the training loop. Although PTQ is efficient and often accurate at moderate bitwidths, it can fail sharply at aggressive bitwidths; QAT is more expensive but can often recover the lost accuracy. We propose a unified geometric framework that explains both PTQ failure and QAT recovery. We model full-precision training as following a low-loss \emph{river} inside a wider \emph{valley}: a normal neighborhood of the river forms a nearly flat \emph{basin}, while leaving this basin incurs a sharp loss increase. When the quantization grid is comparable to the basin width, local PTQ objectives, including rounding and Hessian-based second-order reconstruction, can select a high-loss deployed quantized point outside the basin even when nearby low-loss quantized points exist. In this regime, straight-through-estimator-based QAT has a useful bias: it evaluates gradients at the deployed quantized weights while updating latent full-precision weights, causing the gradient to sense the valley wall and acquire an inward component that steers subsequent quantized iterates back into the basin. We formalize this mechanism through a local landscape model, construct a geometric PTQ failure mode, and prove finite-time QAT recovery under local quantizer-compatibility assumptions. Experiments across vision and language models under multiple neural-network quantization schemes corroborate the predicted basin-crossing failure of PTQ and the corresponding recovery mechanism of QAT.

Post-training quantization to 4-bit weights is widely reported to be nearly lossless. We test this claim for multi-turn, tool-calling agents, where it now matters most. On $τ^2$-bench, across two open-weight model families in dense and MoE variants and two domains (eight cells, 456 episodes each, at 16-, 8-, and 4-bit weights), quantization indeed looks free on the standard metric. No cell shows a score change that survives multiple-comparison correction, and in the cell that carries the largest process damage, equivalence testing bounds the change within $\pm$7.5 points. The process tells a different story. Quantization amplifies the failure the model already exhibits at full precision (tool-name hallucination in telecom, with the same directional trend in retail entity errors) by up to 2.5$\times$ in volume (+17.6 points per task), while creating essentially no new failures. The failure set is the same at every precision (rank correlation $\geq$ 0.94, 0.18% novel events). The score stays flat because the benchmark's ten-error budget absorbs the extra failures. Shrinking the budget to two errors re-exposes a score gap of 17 points, and it does so only in the one cell where quantization added error volume, exactly as the masking account predicts. A targeted error-repair prompt, run for five telecom models at every precision, removes the damage exactly and only where it lives. Both diagnostics, the per-channel error rate and success under a shrinking budget, come from logs benchmarks already collect; we suggest reporting them alongside task reward.