Low-bit quantization reduces the cost of serving reasoning models but can substantially degrade long chains of thought. Each step reads cached keys and values spanning thousands of tokens, allowing quantization errors to accumulate along the trajectory. Standard calibration operates on short segments that omit the earlier context needed by later reasoning steps. Even when this context is retained, cache reconstruction error alone does not capture how quantization errors affect subsequent attention. We present RECAP, a post-training quantization method that calibrates reasoning models on the history they read. Dynamic-prefix calibration separates long historical context from short-block reconstruction. It regenerates prefix keys and values with the current quantizer and rotates the active block to supervise every position along the trajectory. Prefix read geometry further supervises historical cache errors according to their effects on attention outputs, weighting key and value errors asymmetrically. With both components applied only during calibration, RECAP outperforms the baseline across multiple reasoning models and quantization settings. Under W4A4KV4, RECAP improves accuracy over the baseline by 13.3 percentage points on MATH500 with DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Qwen-1.5B and 15.8 points on AIME-120 with Qwen3-4B. These results highlight the importance of preserving historical dependencies during calibration for low-bit reasoning.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Attention error and reasoning performance of DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Qwen-1.5B. (a) Cumulative normalized attention error with a 12K-token INT4 KV prefix. (b,c) MATH500 accuracy and re-tokenized output-length distributions under W4A4KV4, with BF16 as the reference.
Figure 2: Quantization sensitivity and calibration coverage. (a) A rule that finds the important cached step in one problem misses the important step in another. (b) Short calibration windows omit historical dependencies, while reconstructing every position in a long sequence incurs a higher computational cost per update. (c) The current step reads its cached history with unequal weight, so the same-size error on different steps has unequal influence.
Figure 3: RECAP overview. (a) Full-precision attention magnitudes alongside quantization errors for the baseline, prefix-only calibration, and RECAP in one reader window; bars give W4A4KV4 AIME-120 accuracy from Table 1 on R1-1.5B, R1-7B, and Qwen3-4B. (b) The calibration workflow rebuilds historical keys and values with the current quantizer and combines block reconstruction with a read-geometry penalty. (c) Dynamic prefixes retain historical context as the active block rotates along the reasoning trajectory. (d) Read geometry weights key errors by direction and value errors by read strength, as in Equation 10 ; prefix and head indices are omitted.
W4A4KV4
W4A8KV4
Model
Method
MATH
AIME
GSM
GPQA
LCB
Avg.
MATH
AIME
GSM
GPQA
LCB
Avg.
R1-1.5B
BF16
84.7
23.3
84.5
36.2
16.4
49.0
84.7
23.3
84.5
36.2
16.4
49.0
QuaRot
1.4
0.0
0.9
12.0
0.0
2.9
0.6
0.0
0.7
22.2
0.0
4.7
FlatQuant
66.1
8.6
76.8
32.0
7.5
38.2
67.1
9.6
80.4
32.8
7.8
39.5
RECAP
79.4
18.3
79.9
32.8
12.1
44.5
82.1
22.1
80.9
34.3
11.9
46.3
R1-7B
BF16
93.9
46.1
91.2
51.0
36.7
63.8
93.9
46.1
91.2
51.0
36.7
63.8
Table 1: Comparison of quantization methods on three reasoning models under W4A4KV4 and W4A8KV4. Scores are percentages, with BF16 (gray) as the reference. MATH, AIME, GSM, GPQA, and LCB denote MATH500, AIME-120, GSM8K, GPQA-Diamond, and LiveCodeBench; Avg. is their unweighted mean. Bold marks the best quantized method per model and setting. R1-1.5B/7B: DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Qwen-1.5B/7B.
Table 5
Appendix figures & tables2 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Configuration
Max prefix
Total context
Fit samples
Epochs
Updates/layer
Historical ablation
8K
12K
128
15
480
Default
12K
16K
64
32
512
Appendix
Table 3: Calibration budgets. Both configurations use a 4K active block, optimizer batch 4, and microbatch 1. Each position is reconstructed five times at 8K prefix and eight times at 12K.
Score
AUC
AP
P@10%
Codeword shrinkage
0.495
0.109
0.096
Residual-direction cluster
0.504
0.108
0.111
Position-bin shrinkage
0.429
0.091
0.053
Future-read count
0.495
0.107
0.091
Local V error
0.504
0.103
0.067
Appendix
Table 4: Importance-score transfer, averaged over four held-out trajectories. AP is average precision; P@10% is precision among the selected 10%. Future-read count uses information unavailable during calibration and is computed from a separate trace; it serves as a reference.
Quantization-aware training (QAT) aims to recover reasoning capabilities in low-bit large language models (LLMs). Existing recipes typically supervise the quantized student with the original full-precision model on fixed response sequences. However, the resulting low-bit quantized models still struggle on long-horizon reasoning tasks and often fail to terminate within a token budget that suffices for the full-precision model. We identify two challenges in closing this gap. First, fixed-response supervision leaves a mismatch between training prefixes and those encountered during student generation, and this trajectory divergence grows as responses lengthen. Second, on its own prefixes, the student underpredicts some next-token candidates and overpredicts others, and this distributional misalignment becomes more frequent at high-entropy prefixes. We present OnQ, a low-bit recovery pipeline that combines on-policy distillation and candidate-wise Dynamic KL. Starting from block-wise calibration, the quantized student generates responses and receives full-precision teacher supervision on its own prefixes. Dynamic KL weights forward and reverse KL by each candidate's teacher-student probability ratio to balance correction of under- and overprediction. Across Qwen3-1.7B, 4B, and 8B at 2- and 3-bit precision, OnQ achieves the highest nine-benchmark average, with the largest gains on long-horizon reasoning benchmarks. At 2 bits, it outperforms every baseline on every benchmark at every model size, improving the Qwen3-8B average by 10.26 points over the strongest baseline. It also produces shorter responses with fewer truncations and repetitive errors.
Boyuan Zheng, Jing Xiong, Chenwei Wu +8
University of Michigan, Ann Arbor · University of California, Santa Barbara · Meta AI
Quantization is widely used to reduce the inference cost of large language models, but its effect on reasoning models is not fully captured by final-answer accuracy or per-token latency. We show that low-bit post-training quantization can introduce a hidden test-time compute cost: quantized reasoning models often generate longer chains of thought even when they still answer correctly. Across mathematical reasoning, code generation, scientific question answering, and agentic tool-use benchmarks, we find that INT4/INT3 quantization can preserve accuracy but increase reasoning-token usage, offsetting the expected per-token speedup. To measure this effect, we introduce the CoT Token Inflation Ratio, which compares reasoning length between quantized and full-precision models averaged across all evaluation benchmarks. We further show that token inflation is accompanied by behavioral changes in the reasoning trace, including more intermediate steps and greater semantic repetition. These changes translate into measurable end-to-end real-world serving penalties. Finally, we evaluate mitigation strategies and find that prompting and decoding-time sampling offer inconsistent accuracy-length trade-offs, while quantization-aware training shows more promise in reducing both accuracy degradation and token inflation. Our results suggest that reasoning-token usage should be reported alongside accuracy when evaluating quantized reasoning models.
Xinyu Lian, Walid Krichene, Beichen Huang +4
University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign · Microsoft · Anyscale +1
Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) rely on long reasoning traces, making inference expensive. While low-bit quantization reduces per-token decoding cost, we show that aggressive 2-bit inference can fail to deliver end-to-end speedup because instability in the generation process inflates total token count. Instead of merely lowering answer accuracy, 2-bit quantization often produces much longer traces with repetitive loops, budget exhaustion, delayed commitment, and unclosed reasoning segments. We analyze full reasoning traces of Qwen3 reasoning models across mathematical and commonsense benchmarks and show that accuracy degradation is tightly linked to these process-level failures. To address them, we introduce two lightweight controls: FP16 planning, which gives the 2-bit model a short high-precision outline, and loop rescue, which detects repetitive traces and either commits to an earlier answer or falls back to FP16. On MATH-500, loop rescue improves Qwen3-8B accuracy from 17.2% to 74.2%, while planning plus loop rescue improves Qwen3-32B from 65.0% to 87.2%. Overall, our results show that extreme low-bit reasoning becomes practical when its failures are treated as controllable generation pathologies: with lightweight detection and selective FP16 support, 2-bit inference can recover accuracy while preserving real end-to-end speed. Our code is available at: https://github.com/brain-lab-research/quantized-reasoning.