Compress and Forget: bitsandbytes Quantization Amplifies Proactive Interference in LLMs

Proactive interference (PI) is a documented failure mode in large language models in which retrieval of a repeatedly overwritten value degrades as prior overwrites accumulate, mirroring a classical phenomenon in human working memory. Post-training quantization (PTQ) is now the default deployment path for open-weight models, yet its effect on this failure mode has not been tested. We evaluate three precision levels (FP16, INT8, INT4/NF4, via bitsandbytes) across three architecturally distinct instruction-tuned models (Qwen2.5-7B-Instruct, Mistral-7B-Instruct-v0.3, Phi-3.5-mini-instruct), holding the retrieval task fixed. INT4 quantization significantly reduces accuracy under high interference in every model (e.g., from 81.0% to 68.3% for Qwen), confirmed by paired McNemar's tests ($p \le 2.6 \times 10^{-6}$) and a mixed-effects regression spanning all interference levels; INT8, often assumed safe, also carries a smaller but real penalty in two of three models. The effect is specific to semantically similar (word-type) distractors and reverses sign under a numeric control condition, and is mechanistically linked to a rise in same-key intrusion errors under INT4 (from 21.5% to 24.6% of trials, $p = 4.8 \times 10^{-7}$). A follow-up ablation shows the effect originates in the quantized transformer backbone rather than the output projection layer. These results suggest that bitsandbytes 4-bit quantization can impose an additional cost on applications relying on long, updatable, semantically dense contexts, even when aggregate benchmark accuracy appears largely unaffected. We release our code and tokenizer-verified vocabulary construction method at https://github.com/ShayanShahrabi/compress-and-forget

Workflow Cards: Structured Summaries of Workflow Executions Using Provenance Data

Model Cards and Data Cards have demonstrated the value of structured, human-readable documentation for machine learning artifacts, capturing their context, parameters, limitations, and intended use. However, these practices remain focused on static artifacts (the datasets and trained models themselves) while overlooking the workflow executions that produce, transform, and evaluate them. Such executions hold critical details about data preparation, parameter choice, runtime behavior, resource use, and intermediate transformations, precisely where bias, performance variation, and reproducibility gaps tend to originate. To close this gap, we introduce Workflow Cards: structured summaries that condense the machine-readable provenance data of a workflow execution into a form both humans and large language models (LLMs) can read and analyze. This paper has two main parts. First, it defines a Workflow Card template informed by a representative set of provenance questions that surface from the execution-level data missing from Model and Data Cards. Second, it evaluates how effectively LLMs use Workflow Cards to understand workflow executions compared with querying provenance databases through a schema-based interface. Results show that Workflow Cards provide execution-level information absent from existing card types, such as Model Cards and Data Cards, thereby filling an important documentation gap; and that Workflow Cards nearly double answer quality compared with schema-based querying, consistently across LLM-as-a-Judge and human assessments.

The Illusion of Equivalency: Statistical Characterization of Quantization Effects in LLMs

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. We introduce correctness agreement, a decision-level metric that measures overlap in correct predictions between a base model and its quantized variants, independent of absolute accuracy. Across multiple models and quantization schemes from 8-bit to 2-bit, we find that behavioral divergence emerges under moderate quantization even when task performance appears preserved. To explain this effect, we analyze quantization as a structural operator on attention weights and quantify layer-wise distortions using statistical and distributional measures. Our results reveal non-linear breakpoints at low bit-widths and show that query and key projections are consistently more sensitive than value and output projections. These findings expose an illusion of equivalence between base and quantized models and motivate behavioral evaluation beyond conventional performance metrics.

Displacement Is Not Direction: Evaluating Fidelity Metrics for Quantized LLM Deployment

Fidelity metrics, such as per-token KL divergence (KLD) against a high-precision reference, are often used in practice as low-cost proxies for benchmark quality. We test this practice on a 28-quant cohort of Qwen3.6-35B-A3B and a 41-quant cohort of Devstral-Small-2-24B, evaluated across a suite of downstream benchmarks. We find that KLD is strongly correlated with benchmark score over the full cohort ($ρ=-0.72$ on Qwen and $ρ=-0.86$ on Devstral, both with $p<0.001$). However, this relationship collapses to non-significance in the near-baseline silent zone ($ρ=+0.00$ on Qwen and $ρ=-0.24$, $p=0.36$, on Devstral). This collapse persists across 14 measurement variants, including different KLD aggregations, perplexity formulations, top-1 agreement, calibration corpora, and context lengths. At the per-prompt level, KLD has only weak failure-prediction power on code, with failed-vs-passed geometric-mean ratios in $[1.08,1.22]$ across five models on LiveCodeBench, and fails as a cross-model router, achieving only $42.3\%-49.4\%$ accuracy on disagreement prompts. We trace the collapse to a structural decomposition: KLD primarily measures the volume of disagreement with the reference, with silent-zone composite $ρ=+0.94$ ($p<0.001$) on Qwen and $+0.55$ ($p=0.03$) on Devstral, while its relationship to the direction of those disagreements is weak and task-conditional.

Does Compression Preserve Uncertainty? A Unified Benchmark for Quantized and Sparse LLMs via Conformal Prediction

Model compression techniques such as quantization and pruning are widely used to reduce the deployment cost of large language models (LLMs), with existing evaluations focusing almost exclusively on accuracy preservation. However, in safety-critical applications, a model's ability to reliably quantify its own uncertainty is equally important. We ask: does compression preserve this ability? To answer this question, we benchmark 12 LLMs under various compression configurations across five NLP tasks, using conformal prediction to provide a rigorous, distribution-free measure of uncertainty. Our experiments reveal that: (I) compression frequently decouples accuracy from uncertainty; (II) larger models absorb compression-induced uncertainty far more effectively than smaller ones; and (III) uncertainty inflation is often threshold-like rather than gradual. These results suggest that accuracy-only evaluation is insufficient for assessing the deployment readiness of compressed LLMs, and that uncertainty-aware benchmarking should be a standard component of model compression pipelines.