arXiv Machine Learning By Sahil Kadadekar

Quality Is Not a Safety Proxy Under Quantization

Read the original on arXiv Machine Learning →

arXiv:2606. 10154v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Quantized checkpoints are often screened first with quality metrics and only later, if at all, with direct safety tests.

Machine-generated by The Flow from the publisher's headline and feed description — not written or checked by a human. The full article lives at arXiv Machine Learning.

arXiv Machine Learning
Sep 22

The Effect of Quantization on Clinical Benchmarks: Accuracy and Safety Across Model Families

The study evaluates how quantization affects accuracy and safety of five 7‑8B language models on clinical benchmarks. INT8 GPTQ shows minimal degradation (≤1.9%) across tasks, while INT4 causes substantial, model‑dependent drops, especially in high‑risk scenarios and safety metrics. Recovery methods such as clinical calibration substitution and QLoRA fine‑tuning yield mixed results, underscoring the need for task‑specific validation.

By Leonard Twagirayezu, Prasenjit Mitra
arXiv AI
Sep 1

Decomposing Wrong-Consensus Agreement in LLM Self-Consistency

The paper investigates the nature of agreement among repeated samples of large language models (LLMs), showing that strong agreement can arise even for incorrect answers. It introduces a pluralistic agreement index, Gamma, which is decomposed into a mechanical component driven solely by per‑case answer preferences and a residual component that captures preference‑unexplained agreement. Experiments on GPT‑4.1 and several open‑weight models demonstrate that mechanical agreement dominates in many settings, while the residual varies with benchmark type and sampling protocol.

By Lizhuo Zhang, Mengmeng Tang, Chenfeng Long, Xiaoyong Tang, Xiang Luo