This work proposes Correctness Agreement, a decision-level metric that can measure the intersection of correct predictions between the base model and its quantized variant, and finds that the base and quantized variants usually have a shift in behavior even when accuracy and perplexity are preserved.
Abstract
Post-Training Quantization has become widely used to compress large language models to make them deployable on resource-constrained devices. However, the evaluation of quantization methods mainly uses accuracy and perplexity, which cannot capture the behavioral changes in the quantized variants. In this work, we propose Correctness Agreement, a decision-level metric that can measure the intersection of correct predictions between the base model and its quantized variant. We use this metric across multiple models and quantization bit levels (8-bit to 2-bit), and we find that the base and quantized variants usually have a shift in behavior even when accuracy and perplexity are preserved. In order to explain this effect, we study the effect of quantization on the structure of the attention weights using statistical and distributional measures. The results reveal a breakpoint at low bit widths and show that query and key projections are more sensitive to quantization than the value and output projections. These results prove the illusion of equivalency between the base and quantized models and inspire behavioral evaluation beyond perplexity and accuracy for quantization methods.
Quantization is a powerful strategy to build capable and resource-efficient large language models (LLMs) by reducing the bitwidth of the parameters. While quantized LLMs achieve state-of-the-art performance on unperturbed inputs using standard predictive metrics, their performance on perturbed inputs, measured using reliability metrics, remains underexplored, despite its importance for reliable deployment. To address this gap, we first conduct a comprehensive reliability evaluation of quantized LLMs consisting of three key components: (1) Uncertainty: We assess the trustworthiness of LLMs quantized to 2, 3, 4, and 8 bits using six different quantization methods, employing established uncertainty metrics. (2) Calibration: We assess how well-calibrated the uncertainty estimates of quantized models are across model scales and bit precisions. (3) Robustness: We design character-level and word-level input perturbations to evaluate the reliability of quantized models under semantically-preserving variations in the inputs that arise in real-world applications. Second, we characterize how reliability scales with the total number of model bits. Our study reveals that while the performance scales monotonically with the total number of bits, the reliability scalings are nonlinear. A reliability peak occurs for 4-bit quantized models, indicating that quantizing moderately sized models offers the best reliability-efficiency trade-off. Additionally, our empirical findings reveal that quantization enhances the robustness of LLMs to natural input perturbations.
Sirine Ayadi, S'andor Dar'oczi, Stephan Günnemann et al.· Trans. Mach. Learn. Res.· 0 citations
Six state-of-the-art quantization methods are evaluated on two representative large code model families using the multilingual McEval and CoderEval benchmarks for Python and Java to provide practical guidance for selecting quantization strategies for deploying large code models on resource-constrained hardware.
Saima Afrin, MD Zahidul Haque, A. Mastropaolo· 0 citations
Mixed-precision quantization must decide which parts of a model to keep at higher precision. A common premise, shared by sensitivity-based methods such as HAWQ and CoopQ, is that the loss from quantizing a set of layers can be reconstructed from per-layer or pairwise sensitivities measured in isolation. We test this premise at the 4-bit weight-and-activation precisions now being deployed, treating the change in loss $f(S)$ from quantizing a layer set $S$ as a set function on the Boolean cube and analyzing it through two classical changes of basis. This analysis yields two findings. First, across configurations drawn from the deployment distribution, 85--93\% of the variance of $f$ is explained by per-layer effects alone. Second, a monotone transform of a sum of per-layer terms reproduces $f$'s ranking of configurations, misordering at most 2\% of pairs. We propose the coverage model $f(S)=c\bigl(1-\prod_{i\in S}(1-a_i)\bigr)$, which reproduces the measured variance profile of $f$ to within a few percent from its $L$ fitted break-rates. This structure supports two predictors of a configuration's loss, each with $L+1$ parameters. The additive model is the optimal first-order predictor. By Parseval's identity its mean-squared error equals the variance of $f$ left unexplained by per-layer effects, which we measure on full lattices, estimate out of sample at full-network scale, and report with every result as a certificate of how well any additive model can do. The coverage model itself is the second predictor. As allocators at matched memory, they attain the lowest KL divergence among the compared allocators on models from 30B to 355B parameters. Below four bits, the resulting allocations continue to solve code and reasoning tasks at budgets where allocations from gradient sensitivities no longer produce terminating generations.
Aggressive quantization disproportionately harms multilingual capability: in the sub-4B INT3 GPTQ regime, we measure 2-4x larger perplexity degradation on non-English languages than on English. We propose Language-Conditional Dequantization (LCD), a post-hoc method that attaches per-language rank-2 LoRA corrections to the linear layers of an already-quantized model, adding 0.12% parameters per language and training in under 20 minutes on a single GPU. Across Qwen2.5-3B and Llama-3.2-3B, LCD recovers 70-83% of the perplexity gap for non-Latin script languages and 17-28% of the GlobalMMLU accuracy gap, outperforming a language-agnostic correction of equal capacity by 3-9 points on typologically distant languages and a data-free low-rank baseline (LQER) by an order of magnitude. We further identify a perplexity-accuracy disconnect and trace it to where quantization concentrates damage: early-depth errors (Llama) propagate downstream and resist local correction, while late-depth errors (Qwen) do not. A layer-restricted variant of LCD validates this mechanism directly.
It is concluded that compression should not be treated as a way to remove memorized training data, and that extraction, not membership inference, is the number practitioners should be watching.
A benchmark that pairs a generative, multilingual stereotype probe with the refusal and multiple-choice controls that isolate open-ended generation, contrasts each build with and without reasoning, and rates the content severity of what it generates.