aiqbench analysis
Standard perplexity metrics can mask significant degradation in sparse-autoencoder (SAE) feature fidelity during model quantization, where behavioral improvements may coincide with the loss of over 18% of active interpretability features. This graded feature damage suggests that relying solely on downstream accuracy is insufficient for validating quantized models intended for interpretability workflows. Practitioners should incorporate feature-level audits alongside traditional compression benchmarks to ensure that interpretability findings remain valid after weight rounding.
Perplexity Can Miss SAE Feature Damage Under Quantization
arXiv:2606.03002v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Quantization is a standard path to deploying large language models, and quantized models are typically judged acceptable when perplexity or downstream accuracy remains close to the full-precision original. But behavioral parity need not imply feature fidelity: the sparse-autoencoder (SAE) features used to interpret a full-precision model may change after weight rounding. We test this directly by using a frozen SAE as a fixed measurement basis, encoding full-precision and round-to-nearest (RTN) quantized activations on identical tokens, and measuring per-feature survival by Pearson correlation across bit-widths from INT8 to INT4 on Pythia-70M and Gemma-2-2B. Our central finding is that perplexity can miss feature damage: on Gemma-2-2B, INT7 improves perplexity while degrading 18.7% of active SAE features, and under sliding-window evaluation INT6 also improves perplexity while only 51.3% of active features survive. Feature survival is graded rather than cliff-like, with 62.4% of active Pythia features and 51.3% of active Gemma features surviving at INT6; most non-surviving features are blurred rather than fully damaged. Survival is also predictable from full-precision feature statistics alone, with cross-validated AUC 0.92--0.97 and peak activation as the strongest marginal predictor. Finally, RTN quantization and matched-perplexity magnitude pruning damage strongly overlapping feature sets, with Jaccard overlap 0.79--0.86 and damage-score Spearman correlation 0.98. These results show that behavioral metrics alone are insufficient evidence that full-precision interpretability findings transfer to quantized models, motivating feature-level audits of compression.
Abstract:Quantization is a standard path to deploying large language models, and quantized models are typically judged acceptable when perplexity or downstream accuracy remains close to the full-precision original. But behavioral parity need not imply feature fidelity: the sparse-autoencoder (SAE) features used to interpret a full-precision model may change after weight rounding. We test this directly by using a frozen SAE as a fixed measurement basis, encoding full-precision and round-to-nearest (RTN) quantized activations on identical tokens, and measuring per-feature survival by Pearson correlation across bit-widths from INT8 to INT4 on Pythia-70M and Gemma-2-2B. Our central finding is that perplexity can miss feature damage: on Gemma-2-2B, INT7 improves perplexity while degrading 18.7% of active SAE features, and under sliding-window evaluation INT6 also improves perplexity while only 51.3% of active features survive. Feature survival is graded rather than cliff-like, with 62.4% of active Pythia features and 51.3% of active Gemma features surviving at INT6; most non-surviving features are blurred rather than fully damaged. Survival is also predictable from full-precision feature statistics alone, with cross-validated AUC 0.92--0.97 and peak activation as the strongest marginal predictor. Finally, RTN quantization and matched-perplexity magnitude pruning damage strongly overlapping feature sets, with Jaccard overlap 0.79--0.86 and damage-score Spearman correlation 0.98. These results show that behavioral metrics alone are insufficient evidence that full-precision interpretability findings transfer to quantized models, motivating feature-level audits of compression.
Machine Learning (cs.LG); Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI)
arXiv:2606.03002 [cs.LG]
(or arXiv:2606.03002v2 [cs.LG] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2606.03002 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.
Full text under the publisher's open licence · 320 words
Related coverage
The Illusion of Equivalency: Statistical Characterization of Quantization Effects in LLMs
arXiv · Aug 24, 2026
Joint Structural Pruning and Mixed-Precision Quantization for LLM Compression
arXiv · Jun 9, 2026
How Quantization Changes Interpretable Features: A Sparse Autoencoder Analysis of Language Models
arXiv · Jun 3, 2026
GaugeQuant: Online Learning of Quantization-Optimal Bases from LLM Symmetries
arXiv · Jul 25, 2026