arXiv:2609.07901v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Weight quantization largely determines the economics of serving open-weight LLMs. Its costs are usually assessed with capability benchmarks, on which 4...
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:2608.20873v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Every way of teaching a deployed language model something new -- full fine-tuning, adapter merging, model editing -- replaces the released checkpoint,...
arXiv:2608.28809v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Extreme low-bit inference offers a route toward smaller models and constrained deployment. Ternary language models restrict weights to $\{-1,0,+1\}$, a...
arXiv:2607. 09999v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: We show that post-training quantization can silently alter how large language models reason even when task accuracy is preserved.
The study investigates how post‑training quantization (PTQ) affects proactive interference (PI) in large language models. Using bitsandbytes, the authors compare FP16, INT8, and INT4/NF4 precision across three instruction‑tuned models and find that INT4 quantization markedly degrades accuracy under high interference, with INT8 also incurring a smaller penalty in two of the three models. The degradation is linked to increased same‑key intrusion errors and originates in the quantized transformer backbone rather than the output layer.
arXiv:2606. 03002v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Quantization is a standard path to deploying large language models, and a quantized model is typically judged acceptable when its perplexity or downstream accuracy stays close to the full-precision original.
arXiv:2605.11467v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Reasoning models post-hoc rationalize answers they have already committed to internally, producing chains of *reasoning theater*: deliberativ...
arXiv:2608. 03842v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: When a language model fails on surface-perturbed input (typos, OCR noise, homophones), "which layer is responsible" has three natural operationalizations: where representations diverge most (sensitivity), where restoring clean activations recovers the prediction (causality), and where a small adapter can repair the damage (compensatory capacity) - and we show these three layer maps dissociate.
arXiv:2607. 09786v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Length-penalized reinforcement learning can shorten chain-of-thought reasoning while hiding an influence that drives the model's answer.
The paper introduces Latent Space Refusal Anchoring (LSR‑Anchoring), a training‑free technique that extracts a refusal direction from English prompts and applies it to the residual stream of instruction‑tuned models at inference time. The primary variant, Mean‑Activation Steering (MAS), works across several architectures (Llama‑3‑8B, Llama‑3.1‑70B, Mistral‑7B‑Instruct, Qwen2.5‑7B), restoring safety for low‑resource African languages with minimal performance loss, while a refined SAE‑Derived Steering (SDS) further reduces KL divergence without degrading legitimate prompt performance. The method shows positive transfer for Yoruba, Igbo, Igala, and Hausa, but fails for Arabic, suggesting a geometric mismatch rather than a data scarcity issue.
The study examines how two small instruction‑tuned language models, Qwen2.5‑1.5B and Llama‑3.2‑1B, respond to user pushback on TriviaQA. When initially correct, the models flip to a wrong answer in about 42–43% of cases, with the effectiveness of different pushback styles varying by model. Attempts to decode capitulation from the pre‑response residual stream fail under a rigorous validation protocol, revealing overfitting and a measurement hazard that underestimates capitulation by 18–24 percentage points.