Quantization Effects on Tool-Failure Recovery Vary Across Prompts and Evaluation Designs
What it is
This paper investigates how post-training quantization (8-bit vs 4-bit) affects the ability of LLM agents to recover from temporary tool failures. It demonstrates that the performance difference between quantized variants is not stable, as the direction and magnitude of the impact change depending on the specific prompt used, the evaluation target (e.g., full pipeline vs. clean-passing tasks), and the strictness of output parsing.
The problem it solves
The lack of stable, reproducible conclusions regarding the impact of quantization on agent reliability, where results can reverse based on arbitrary evaluation choices like prompt selection or scoring strictness.
What you could use it for
- Designing robust evaluation protocols for quantized LLM agents
- Selecting appropriate quantization levels for tool-using agents based on specific deployment constraints
- Understanding the sensitivity of agent reliability to prompt engineering and scoring policies
Read the source ↗Back to the library →
Summary written by an AI model from the source; check the source before you rely on it.