Flat Score, Amplified Failures: How the Error Budget Masks Damage in Quantized LLM Agents

Post-training quantization is widely used to deploy large language models in resource-constrained settings, yet its evaluation relies almost exclusively on accuracy and perplexity. We show that these metrics fail to capture behavioral changes induced by quantization. We introduce correctness agreement, a decision-level metric that measures overlap in correct predictions between a base model and its quantized variants, independent of absolute accuracy. Across multiple models and quantization schemes from 8-bit to 2-bit, we find that behavioral divergence emerges under moderate quantization even when task performance appears preserved. To explain this effect, we analyze quantization as a structural operator on attention weights and quantify layer-wise distortions using statistical and distributional measures. Our results reveal non-linear breakpoints at low bit-widths and show that query and key projections are consistently more sensitive than value and output projections. These findings expose an illusion of equivalence between base and quantized models and motivate behavioral evaluation beyond conventional performance metrics.

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.

Large Language Models are routinely compressed via post-training quantization to reduce inference costs and memory footprint for cloud and edge deployment, yet the impact of this compression on model quality remains poorly understood. Existing studies typically compare only two conditions (full-precision vs. a single quantized variant), rely on aggregate bias metrics, and evaluate a single model family, making it impossible to distinguish gradual degradation from threshold-dependent safety failures. We conduct a controlled empirical study of three instruction-tuned models (Qwen2.5-7B, Mistral-7B, Phi-3.5-mini) at five precision levels (BF16 through 3-bit) on 12,148 BBQ bias benchmark items across 5 random seeds, totaling 911,100 inference records. Our results reveal that 3-bit quantization causes 6-21% of previously unbiased items to develop new stereotypical behaviors, following a clear dose-response pattern confirmed via logistic regression, while models' willingness to select "unknown" answers declines by 17.4%. Crucially, these item-level changes are invisible to standard quality metrics: perplexity increases by less than 0.5% at 8-bit and under 3% at 4-bit across all three models, yet 2.5-5.6% of items already develop new biases at 4-bit. These findings demonstrate that aggregate evaluation metrics systematically miss fairness-critical degradation, underscoring the need for quality-aware compression protocols that explicitly test for bias emergence before deployment.