The Joint Effect of Quantization and Sampling Temperature on LLM Safety Alignment: A Factorial Analysis
Authors: Hari Prasad, Ritam Pal
Organizations: Conscious Engines
Abstract
Modern LLM deployments often combine quantization with higher sampling temperatures to reduce cost, latency, or repetition, yet safety evaluations usually treat these as fixed implementation details. We test whether models that are safe at FP16 with greedy decoding remain safe after quantization and stochastic sampling, or whether the two factors amplify each other. We evaluate 8 instruction-tuned models from five families across 3 precisions and 6 temperatures, covering 144 configurations on 7 harmfulness benchmarks and generating about 2.0 million responses, which are scored by a six-judge safety ensemble. Contrary to concerns that low-bit deployment erodes alignment, we find that standard quantization is approximately safety-neutral: for 7 of 8 models, AWQ INT4 keeps attack success within about 1.6 percentage points of FP16 or lowers it, with clear degradation only for SmolLM3-3B (34.5% to 44.1%). However, the larger risk comes from sampling: higher temperatures sharply increase decision instability, with DFR reaching 41.9% at T = 1.0, even when average ASR changes only modestly. The two factors do not compound: our Compound Degradation Index remains sub-additive (-0.071 to +0.018), indicating that quantization partially offsets rather than amplifies temperature-induced degradation. Finally, a per-benchmark breakdown shows that single-benchmark evaluation badly understates risk: several models scoring 0% on AdvBench exceed 80% on ManyHarm. Standard INT4/INT8 quantization can therefore be reasonable for well-aligned models, but safety claims should report multi-sample stability across multiple benchmarks rather than rely on a single benchmark at greedy decoding.
Key-value (KV) cache quantization is widely used to reduce Large Language Model (LLM) inference memory, yet existing evaluations solely focus on measuring perplexity and accuracy without assessing the safety impact. In this study, we explore alignment preservation under KV cache quantization. Across eleven instruction-tuned models (3.8B-72B) and five benchmarks (1,894 prompts), we find that low-bit quantization can silently destroy safety alignment: Mistral-7B loses 15.2% of its refusals at only 1.03x perplexity, and no universal safe bit-width exists, with sharp model-specific phase transitions invisible to standard metrics. We identify that the root cause is geometric: safety features occupy a low-dimensional activation subspace 10^2-10^3x more vulnerable to quantization noise than the full representation space perplexity averages over. Inspired by this observation, we propose Per-Channel Reduction (PCR), a diagnostic that classifies each model into one of three mechanistic failure modes: outlier-crushes-safety, where safety lives in non-outlier channels collaterally damaged by outlier-driven scale factors; outlier-as-safety, where safety overlaps outlier channels and finer granularity cannot rescue it; and multi-layer dilution, where safety is distributed across many layers and per-layer fixes fail. PCR predicts the correct mitigation direction on all nine primary models and one held-out model from an independent family using 20 calibration prompts. PCR generalizes across unseen prompts, models, and production quantizers, including KIVI with up to 97.2% recovery, succeeding where attention-based allocation methods fail. The resulting training-free protocol, requiring approximately 35 GPU-minutes, recovers up to 97% of lost alignment at minimal memory overhead, addressing vulnerabilities confirmed in production vLLM serving with FP8 KV cache on NVIDIA GPUs.
LLM-as-judge ("grader") components are now standard in evaluation harnesses, including safety evaluations where a pass/fail verdict may gate downstream deployment decisions. A widespread assumption is that setting the grader's sampling temperature to 0 makes grading deterministic. We test this assumption against a real safety-evaluation codebase (Japan AISI's open-source aisev) and show it fails on two levels. First, the harness invokes its grader without setting temperature or seed; the underlying provider silently applies its default of 1.0, so items near the decision boundary flip pass/fail across identical runs (per-item disagreement up to ~50% over 20 runs). Second, pinning temperature=0 reduces but does not eliminate flips: across 690 API calls spanning two providers, three model tiers, and five sampling configurations, 1-2 of 7 borderline items remain non-reproducible even under forced greedy decoding (top_k=1). Claude Opus 4.7/4.8 has since deprecated temperature entirely, rendering the primary mitigation inapplicable to newer model generations. These findings expose a structural gap: evaluation harnesses that report single-run verdicts without variance or grader-disagreement metrics can present noise as a safety property. We release a reproduction harness (690 calls, 7 conditions) and recommend that harnesses treat grader disagreement as a first-class health metric alongside the scores themselves.
Safety alignment of Large Language Models (LLMs) is extremely fragile, as fine-tuning on a small number of benign samples can erase safety behaviors learned from millions of preference examples. Existing studies attempt to explain this phenomenon by comparing parameters and hidden states before and after fine-tuning, but overlook their dynamic evolution during fine-tuning. In this paper, we uncover a critical mechanism underlying safety degradation by analyzing parameter dynamics, where benign fine-tuning causes parameters to cumulatively drift toward danger-aligned directions, progressively undermining the model's safety. This finding suggests that samples contributing more to this drift has greater fine-tuning risks. Based on this insight, we propose a method of Sample-Level Quantification of Safety Degradation (SQSD), which quantifies the influence of each training sample on safety degradation. Specifically, SQSD computes continuous risk scores to samples by measuring their induced parameter updates' projection difference between danger and safety directions. Extensive experiments across multiple models and datasets demonstrate that SQSD effectively quantifies sample-level fine-tuning risks and exhibits strong transferability across model architectures, parameter scales, and parameter-efficient methods.