Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 cited by

Investigating the Impact of Quantization Methods on the Safety and Reliability of Large Language Models

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2502.15799 v2 pith:YJH3PLLA submitted 2025-02-18 cs.CR cs.AI

classification cs.CRcs.AI
keywords safetymethodsmodelsfourquantizationacrossbenchmarksevaluations
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

Large Language Models (LLMs) are powerful tools for modern applications, but their computational demands limit accessibility. Quantization offers efficiency gains, yet its impact on safety and trustworthiness remains poorly understood. To address this, we introduce OpenMiniSafety, a human-curated safety dataset with 1.067 challenging questions to rigorously evaluate model behavior. We publicly release human safety evaluations for four LLMs (both quantized and full-precision), totaling 4.268 annotated question-answer pairs. By assessing 66 quantized variants of these models using four post-training quantization (PTQ) and two quantization-aware training (QAT) methods across four safety benchmarks including human-centric evaluations we uncover critical safety performance trade-offs. Our results show both PTQ and QAT can degrade safety alignment, with QAT techniques like QLORA or STE performing less safely. No single method consistently outperforms others across benchmarks, precision settings, or models, highlighting the need for safety-aware compression strategies. Furthermore, precision-specialized methods (e.g., QUIK and AWQ for 4-bit, AQLM and Q-PET for 2-bit) excel at their target precision, meaning that these methods are not better at compressing but rather different approaches.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Item Response Theory for AI Safety

    cs.AI 2026-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Using item response theory on 192 models and eight safety benchmarks, this paper finds three latent safety factors, cuts evaluation cost by 97-99% with adaptive item selection, and detects naive sandbagging and API mo...

  2. QuantiBias: Benchmarking Quantization-Induced Bias in LLMs

    cs.CL 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Quantization leaves refusal and multiple-choice bias checks flat while open-ended stereotype endorsement remains high (~24–27% under an independent judge), a gap standard safety evaluations miss.

  3. Preserving Fairness and Safety in Quantized LLMs Through Critical Weight Protection

    cs.CL 2026-01 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Quantization tends to degrade LLM fairness and safety—more in non-English tasks—and preserving top sensitivity-ranked weights in FP16 mostly mitigates the loss.

Pith tools