The temperature that maximizes pass@$k$ is often low for a small sampling budget and higher for a large budget. This pattern has been reported from Codex through recent multi-sample inference studies. It is not an algebraic property of pass@$k$: as Slocum et al. (ICLR 2025) observe, for one fixed task the maximizing temperature is independent of $k$. Building on that fixed-task observation and the hard/easy-task explanation, we give a formal population-level sufficient condition for the aggregate pattern. For task $X$, let $p_t(X)$ be one-sample success probability at temperature $t$, and define the conditional log-success response $m_t(u)=\mathbb{E}[\dot p_t(X)\mid p_t(X)=u]/u$. If $m_t(u)$ is nonincreasing in current success probability, then the normalized temperature derivative of aggregate pass@$k$ is nondecreasing in $k$. Consequently, derivative signs are nested across budgets; if each temperature-performance curve is strictly single-peaked, its unique maximizer is nondecreasing in $k$. The proof identifies the mechanism as a monotone-likelihood-ratio power tilt toward lower-success tasks. We derive a closed-form two-stratum phase diagram, including upward and downward regimes, and show that the marginal temperature derivative admits an exact $\mathrm{Beta}(2,k)$ kernel representation whose kernel concentrates at one-sample success of order $1/k$. Interpreting that scale as task-level localization additionally requires a regular, nonvanishing density-response factor near zero. A signed-moment representation yields diagnostic shape restrictions, while a short appendix records exact discrete refinements of the existing multi-configuration allocation formulation. No language model is trained, and no model query is used as an experimental measurement: the contribution is a conditional theory of an established empirical phenomenon, with assumptions that can be tested in future work.
Modern LLM deployments often combine quantization with higher sampling temperatures to reduce cost, latency, or repetition, yet safety evaluations usually treat these as fixed implementation details. We test whether models that are safe at FP16 with greedy decoding remain safe after quantization and stochastic sampling, or whether the two factors amplify each other. We evaluate 8 instruction-tuned models from five families across 3 precisions and 6 temperatures, covering 144 configurations on 7 harmfulness benchmarks and generating about 2.0 million responses, which are scored by a six-judge safety ensemble. Contrary to concerns that low-bit deployment erodes alignment, we find that standard quantization is approximately safety-neutral: for 7 of 8 models, AWQ INT4 keeps attack success within about 1.6 percentage points of FP16 or lowers it, with clear degradation only for SmolLM3-3B (34.5% to 44.1%). However, the larger risk comes from sampling: higher temperatures sharply increase decision instability, with DFR reaching 41.9% at T = 1.0, even when average ASR changes only modestly. The two factors do not compound: our Compound Degradation Index remains sub-additive (-0.071 to +0.018), indicating that quantization partially offsets rather than amplifies temperature-induced degradation. Finally, a per-benchmark breakdown shows that single-benchmark evaluation badly understates risk: several models scoring 0% on AdvBench exceed 80% on ManyHarm. Standard INT4/INT8 quantization can therefore be reasonable for well-aligned models, but safety claims should report multi-sample stability across multiple benchmarks rather than rely on a single benchmark at greedy decoding.