cs.LGAug 6, 2026

Which Decisions Low-Bit Quantization Breaks, and How to Predict Them

Authors: Zekun Wu, Swati Dhiman, Adriano Koshiyama

Organizations: Holistic AI · UCL Centre for Artificial Intelligence, University College London

Abstract

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.

Explore similar work

CardsList
Jul 29, 2026cs.LG

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

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 τ2τ^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 ±\pm7.5 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.
Jiwon Jang, Kisu Yang, Heuiseok Lim +1
QuantizationLarge Language Models FailEqual Error RateLarge Language Model AgentsPost-Hoc
AskPDF
Aug 8, 2026cs.AI

Quantization Degradation in Large Language Models: A Signal-Noise Perspective

Post-training quantization reduces the deployment cost of large language models, yet how severely a quantized model degrades is not determined by bit-width alone. We systematically study weight-only post-training quantization across bit-widths, quantization methods, model scales and downstream tasks on multiple model families. We observe that such degradation varies substantially across these factors: 4-bit quantization usually preserves performance, 2-bit often causes broad degradation, and at 3-bit, degradation becomes apparent but varies markedly with task type, quantization method and model scale. To explain this variability, we use the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) to measure how strongly quantization perturbs full-precision representations. We trace degradation back to two linked processes: how quantization errors arise within individual modules, and how they accumulate across layers. First, a source SNR decomposition shows that newly introduced errors depend on three factors: the magnitude of the weight error, the strength of the task-specific signal, and how strongly the quantization error aligns with task-specific activations. Different factors affect these components in distinct ways. Second, a cross-layer propagation analysis shows that these errors can be attenuated, preserved, or amplified as they pass across layers, and that larger models benefit from weaker error amplification. Together, these results establish that quantization degradation is governed by how errors are introduced at the source and how they accumulate across the network.
Chenxi Zhou, Pengfei Cao, Jinyu Ye +5
Quantization EffectsPost-Training QuantizationQuantizationLarge Language Model ScaleDegradation
AskPDF
May 2, 2026cs.LG

Quantization Undoes Alignment: Bias Emergence in Compressed LLMs Across Models and Precision Levels

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.
Plawan Kumar Rath, Rahul Maliakkal
Large Language Model QuantizationLow-Bit QuantizationQuantizationLarge LanguageInference CostPrecision+1
AskPDF