This work tracks 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, and measures the margin, the picked option's score minus its best alternative's, which removes the protection a large margin affords.
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.
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 $\tau^2$-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 $\pm$7.5 points. The process tells a different story. Quantization amplifies the failure the model already exhibits at full precision (tool-name hallucination in telecom, with the same directional trend in retail entity errors) by up to 2.5$\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 et al.· 1 citation
This study looks at how confidence patterns shift when cutting data precision to 4 bits using NF4, applied post-training on Phi-3.5-Mini-Instruct, a small-scale language model packing 3.8 billion parameters. Shrinking precision cuts down memory demands while speeding up output creation; however, what remains unclear is how such squeezing affects the way models rate their own sureness, measured via average prediction strength for each produced word unit. Rather than measuring correctness, the spotlight falls strictly on differences in how certain the system sounds across full-detail versus reduced-bit forms. Evaluation runs on ninety thoughtfully picked prompts split evenly among three kinds: factual assertions, fictional statements, and subjective stances. Hesitation creeps into quantized outputs across the board, their probability scores dipping five point seven six percent on average. Not every category bends the same way under pressure; made-up stories barely shift at all, while claims about reality sag a bit more. Opinions? Those take the hardest hit, certainty plummeting close to ten points lower. The same rules applied throughout, yet outcomes were split wide open based on what kind of knowledge was asked for. Oddly enough, false confidence shows up almost exclusively when facts are invented outright: the slimmed-down model gets things wrong but acts sure of itself, unlike its full-sized counterpart. This odd behavior earns the name “confident hallucination.” You might think shrinking models would show clear drops in accuracy or fluency, but standard metrics miss it completely. What matters instead is whether each guess lines up with the truth that matches how safely such systems can be used. Nowhere near steady, these dips shift with each kind of job. Shrinking a model can quietly erode reliability—something standard tests often miss. Where does it really show up? High-stakes areas rely on consistent results.
Gupta Iddhant· Indian Journal of Computer S...· 0 citations
This work measures, on identical inputs, how model scale and 4-bit quantization affect two confidence signals in the Qwen2-VL family: the confidence a model states in natural language, and its own mean token probability over the answer it generates, and argues that error-detection AUROC is the metric that exposes the difference between the two signals.
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.
Low-bit quantization makes small reasoning models inexpensive to deploy but can degrade their chains of thought. This motivates decoder-side monitors that intervene when generation becomes unreliable. We show that a natural candidate, the centered token log-probability increment $\log p(w_t)+H_t$, is the wrong observable for this purpose. Under the model's own sampling law it is a mean-zero martingale by construction, so it measures sampling self-consistency rather than trajectory health and is nearly silent during confident repetition, where both $\log p(w_t)$ and entropy are close to zero. We introduce a training-free decoding controller that combines (i) a degeneration-aware alarm score fusing token uncertainty with explicit verbatim repetition and (ii) a calibrated e-process-inspired sequential detector. The raw product process is Ville-valid under a conditional-mean null, while the deployed CUSUM-floored statistic is treated as an empirical change detector because the score is history-dependent and autocorrelated. On GSM8K with DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Qwen-1.5B in FP16 and INT4, calibration turns a monitor that fires on 93--95% of generations into a selective detector of failing traces ($\phi \approx 0.3$, precision $\approx 0.6$ against a 0.38 base rate). In this pilot, the controller reduces measured verbatim-degeneration signals and yields a positive but statistically inconclusive INT4 accuracy change from 63% to 69% (paired McNemar $p=0.18$, $n=100$), at a 28% token-budget cost. We also find that non-termination, rather than looping, is the dominant failure mode on GSM8K. The main contribution is methodological: an explanation of why centered token log-probability is inadequate for decoder monitoring and a calibrated, cautiously evaluated replacement.
El Hassane, Ettifouri, Ayoub Belfatmi et al.· 0 citations
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.
