Post‑training quantization of large language models reduces memory usage but can alter social biases in ways that aggregate metrics miss. In a large‑scale study of 50 quantized models on PostTrainingBiasBench, the authors discovered a phenomenon called quantization‑induced bias flipping, where up to 21% of responses switch from biased to unbiased or vice versa, especially for uncertain predictions and stronger quantization (4‑bit vs 8‑bit). These flips lead to asymmetric impacts across demographic groups, with some groups experiencing up to an 18.6% worsening of bias while others improve by 14.1%, resulting in misleadingly neutral overall scores.
Almost every large language model that reaches a broad audience is quantized: trained in full precision, then compressed for efficiency. This step is assumed harmless and its safety is rarely re-checked.
arXiv:2607. 08734v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: 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.
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.
The paper investigates where post‑training quantization (PTQ) harms large language models (LLMs) and how to best allocate a limited precision budget. By causally raising each layer to 8‑bit precision across nine open‑weight models, the authors find that quantization damage is diffuse rather than concentrated in specific task circuits or weight statistics, and that globally refining quantization granularity outperforms selectively protecting the most recoverable layers. They also observe that the residual accuracy loss is budget‑limited and that peak recovery locations correlate with architecture within families but not across families.
arXiv:2608. 19670v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) compression reduces deployment costs, but standard aggregate metrics like perplexity and accuracy often mask underlying behavioral shifts.
arXiv:2608. 08188v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: 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.
The paper investigates how model size and quantization affect social bias and abstention in question answering. Using the BBQ benchmark and models from Qwen3, Gemma-3, and SmolLM2, it finds that larger models improve accuracy but bias does not scale simply, while quantization effects differ across settings. Importantly, many configurations with fewer biased responses also show increased abstention, suggesting that lower bias may partly result from more frequent abstention.
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.
Post‑training quantization compresses large language models by storing weights at reduced precision, introducing errors into hidden states that could accumulate with depth. However, pretrained models accumulate far less hidden‑state error than randomly initialized ones, largely preserving downstream performance. The study identifies two key mechanisms: (1) each layer’s new error tends to oppose inherited error, partially canceling it, and (2) the LM‑head geometry preserves high‑rank token scores, mitigating output changes.
Large language models (LLMs) compression reduces deployment costs, but standard aggregate metrics like perplexity and accuracy often mask underlying behavioral shifts. In this work, we systematically evaluate 3 LLMs across 11 compression methods to investigate the effects of compression on knowledge retention, model confidence, and social bias.
The paper investigates how quantization affects large language models’ self‑explanations, examining natural language explanations and counterfactual examples across three quantization techniques and bit widths. Results show moderate declines in explanation quality (up to 4.4%) and faithfulness (up to 3.9%), with user studies indicating up to an 8.5% drop in coherence and trustworthiness. Larger models are less resilient in quality but remain more faithful, and no single quantization method consistently outperforms others across accuracy, quality, and faithfulness.
arXiv:2610.08559v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Activation steering has gained popularity as a lightweight inference-time debiasing technique for large language models. However, prior work reports...