arXiv AI By Hari Prasad, Ritam Pal

The Joint Effect of Quantization and Sampling Temperature on LLM Safety Alignment: A Factorial Analysis

Read the original on arXiv AI →

arXiv:2606. 29581v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Modern LLM deployments routinely compress models and raise sampling temperature to reduce cost, latency, or repetition, yet safety evaluations usually treat these choices as fixed implementation details.

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 AI.

Hugging Face Trending Papers
Jun 28

The Joint Effect of Quantization and Sampling Temperature on LLM Safety Alignment: A Factorial Analysis

Modern LLM deployments routinely compress models and raise sampling temperature to reduce cost, latency, or repetition, yet safety evaluations usually treat these choices as fixed implementation details. This leaves a practical uncertainty: does a model that is safe at FP16 and greedy decoding remain safe after it is quantized and sampled stochastically, or do the two deployment knobs amplify one another?

arXiv Machine Learning
Aug 31

The Instability of Safety: How Random Seeds and Temperature Expose Inconsistent LLM Refusal Behavior

The paper challenges the assumption that large language models (LLMs) produce deterministic safety responses by examining how random seeds and temperature settings affect refusal decisions. Across four instruction‑tuned models and 876 harmful prompts, 18‑28% of prompts flipped between refusal and compliance depending on sampling configuration, with higher temperatures reducing decision stability. The authors introduce a Safety Stability Index (SSI) and recommend multi‑sample evaluation protocols that account for stochastic variation rather than relying on single‑shot tests.

By Erik Larsen
arXiv Machine Learning
Sep 2

The Structure of Quantization Damage in LLMs: Why the Next Bit Should Be Spent Globally

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.

By Jundong Hu, Shekar Ramachandran