Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Q-resafe: Assessing Safety Risks and Quantization-aware Safety Patching for Quantized Large Language Models

T0 review · 5 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read Quantization quietly erodes LLM safety, and Q-resafe's sparse weight patch restores it to pre-quantization levels.

desk verdict A broad and useful safety evaluation plus a plausible patching method, but the main quantitative claim is unverifiable because the paper never shows the patching prompts are held out of evaluation. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.20251 v1 pith:NSYFCDEV submitted 2025-06-25 cs.LG cs.AI

Kejia Chen , Jiawen Zhang , Jiacong Hu , Yu Wang , Jian Lou , Zunlei Feng , Mingli Song This is my paper
classification cs.LGcs.AI
keywords quantizationLLMsafetyalignmentdirectpreferenceoptimizationsafety-criticalweightsattacksuccessratemodelcompressionjailbreakrobustness
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper claims that quantization, across all four methods it tests (AWQ, AQLM, LLM-QAT, QLoRA), degrades the safety of aligned large language models, and that the degradation deepens at lower bit-widths and when calibration data contains harmful content. It proposes Q-resafe, a patching procedure that restores a quantized model's safety to roughly its pre-quantization level by editing only a small subset of safety-critical weights, guided by preference pairs in which the full-precision model's response is the winner and the quantized model's response is the loser. In the reported experiments, Q-resafe keeps attack success rate increases over the FP16 baseline between 0.4% and 13.6%, while unpatched quantized baselines rise by 16.6% to 92.3%, with utility scores largely unchanged. If this holds, quantization can be used for efficient deployment without accepting a large safety penalty.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is a masked, quantization-aware DPO update: the objective maximizes the log-ratio of the patched model's probability of the teacher response over the quantized reference model's probability, while the constraint $Q=Q_0+\text{Quant}(M_Q\odot AB)$ restricts changes to a LoRA update $AB$ masked by $M_Q$. Safety-critical weights are identified by the SNIP score $I(W_{ij},x)=|W_{ij}\cdot \nabla_{Q_{ij}}\mathcal{L}(x)|$, averaged over a calibration set, with the top-$\tau$ percentile masked for update and the mask recomputed every $K$ iterations. This combination is what lets the method transfer safety from the pre-quantization model while leaving most quantized weights untouched, preserving utility.

What would settle it

Take a pre-quantization model with a high baseline ASR (for example, an aligned model known to fail a particular jailbreak suite) and run Q-resafe unchanged. If the patched quantized model's ASR tracks the teacher's unsafe responses instead of approaching zero, the teacher-as-oracle premise is the bottleneck. Equivalently, measure the harmfulness score of the teacher responses in the generated Dpatch; if a meaningful fraction are flagged harmful, the patched model inherits that ceiling.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim, stated as the authors would state it, is that the safety loss caused by quantization is not an unavoidable cost of compression: it can be re-aligned by updating only the weights most responsible for safety behavior. Q-resafe builds a preference dataset without human labels by generating responses from the full-precision model and the quantized model for the same prompts, then applies DPO under a LoRA parameterization where a binary mask, derived from SNIP sensitivity scores and refreshed periodically, permits updates only on the top-\tau percentile of safety-critical weights. The reported result is that this sparse, targeted patch brings the attack success rate of INT4 and INT8 models close to the FP16 baseline across benign, indirectly harmful, and directly harmful calibration settings, while MT-Bench and AlpacaEval scores stay comparable to the pre-quantization model.

Load-bearing premise

The pre-quantization model is treated as a reliable safety oracle: its responses are always the preferred ('winner') responses in DPO training. The paper's own Table 2 shows Gemma-7B-Instruct has a 9.2% attack success rate at baseline, so roughly one in eleven teacher responses used as training targets may be harmful, which caps how safe the patched model can become.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Quantized models deployed without Q-resafe carry a measurably higher jailbreak risk, especially at INT4 and when quantization-assisting data contains harmful or obedience-inducing examples.
  • Patching is cheap enough for practical use: Q-resafe restores safety in about 1.2 GPU hours, compared with 3.4-9.6 hours for SFT or DPO on the same models.
  • The same masking scheme works for fine-tuning-free quantization methods (AWQ) by keeping safety-critical weights at 16 bits and quantizing the rest, limiting ASR increase to at most 0.8%.
  • Safety patching extends across quantization families (PTQ, QAT, and bitsandbytes formats such as LLM.int8, NF4, and FP4), suggesting the approach is not tied to one compression scheme.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The teacher-as-oracle assumption implies the patched model's safety ceiling is the teacher's own safety, so Q-resafe cannot remove harmful behaviors the full-precision model already exhibits; using a stronger external teacher, which the paper mentions but does not test, would be the natural experiment.
  • Because the method's evaluation centers on AdvBench-style harmful instructions, its generalization to broader jailbreak families (multilingual, role-play, indirect injection) is untested; a natural extension would be to benchmark patched models on a wider attack suite.
  • The SNIP-based mask is recomputed on utility-oriented calibration data; whether the same sparse mask transfers across safety dimensions or attack types is not established, and would determine whether one patch generalizes.
  • If safety-critical weights are largely shared across tasks, Q-resafe's one-epoch quick patch could become a routine post-quantization step in deployment pipelines, but the paper does not demonstrate this sharing directly.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

5 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents a safety assessment of quantized LLMs across four quantization methods (AWQ, AQLM, LLM-QAT, QLoRA) and three quantization-assisting dataset risk levels (benign, indirectly harmful, directly harmful), using Llama-2-7B-Chat and Gemma-7B-Instruct at INT4 and INT8. The authors then propose Q-resafe, a DPO-based safety patching method that constructs preference pairs from the pre-quantization model and the quantized model, identifies safety-critical weights via SNIP scores, and updates only those weights through masked LoRA. Experiments report that Q-resafe keeps ASR increases over the FP16 baseline at 0.4-13.6%, whereas unpatched quantized baselines show increases of 16.6-92.3% (Figure 1, Tables 4 and 5). Ablations cover the effect of the update threshold tau, comparison with SFT/DPO, and different bit-widths.

Significance. The paper covers a broad evaluation matrix (PTQ vs QAT, three calibration-risk levels, two models, multiple bit-widths) and proposes a practical, low-cost safety patching method (about 1.2 GPU hours on 7B models). If the reported results are confirmed on held-out evaluation data, the method would be a useful tool for restoring safety in quantized deployment. The release of models, code, and a project page is a positive step for reproducibility. The main caveat is that the current reporting does not establish that the evaluation set is disjoint from the patching data, which is necessary to support the claimed generalization in the abstract.

major comments (5)
  1. [Section 3.1, Section 4.2, Section 5.1] The central generalization claim is not supported because the paper never states that the prompts used to construct Dpatch are excluded from the AdvBench evaluation set. Section 3.1 constructs Risk-III from 10 randomly selected AdvBench examples; Section 5.1 later says the harmful dataset consists of 100 harmful examples; Section 5 evaluates safety using the same metrics and settings as Section 3, where ASR is measured on harmful instructions. Since Algorithm 1 builds Dpatch from Dcalib (Section 4.2), any overlap between Dpatch and the evaluation set allows Q-resafe to achieve low ASR by memorizing refusals rather than by restoring general safety. Please specify the exact split (e.g., held-out AdvBench subset) and report results separately for prompts that were and were not used in patching.
  2. [Section 3.2, Section 5, Appendix A.1] Several prose ASR values do not match the tables, and the key hyperparameter differs between the main text and the appendix. For example, the AQLM prose reports 73.5% for Risk-II Llama while Table 3 shows 75.5%; the Gemma Risk-I prose reports 23.5% while Table 3 shows 25.3%; the LLM-QAT prose reports 82.1% and 83.7% for Llama Risk-II and Risk-III while Table 3 shows 82.9% and 71.2%. Additionally, Section 5 sets the LoRA rank r=2048, whereas Appendix A.1 lists LoRA r=128. These inconsistencies make the experimental record unreliable and must be reconciled.
  3. [Section 4.2, Table 2] The safety-patching dataset labels every pre-quantization model response as the preferred (winner) response. Table 2 shows that Gemma-7B-Instruct has a 9.2% ASR at baseline, so roughly one in eleven teacher responses used for patching may themselves be harmful. The paper does not measure or filter the harmfulness of the teacher's responses in Dpatch. This caps the achievable safety of the patched model and could train it to prefer harmful outputs. Please report the ASR of the teacher's generated Dpatch responses and show the effect of excluding or down-weighting harmful teacher outputs.
  4. [Section 5.1, Table 4] For AWQ, Q-resafe is implemented as mixed-precision weight protection (keeping the identified safety-critical weights at 16 bits and quantizing the rest to 4 bits) without any DPO training, which is a different mechanism from the Algorithm 1 description. The paper calls both variants Q-resafe without clarifying whether Table 4 is an alternative design, an ablation, or a separate contribution. This ambiguity makes it difficult to attribute the reported safety improvements to the proposed DPO-based patching versus the mixed-precision strategy.
  5. [Section 5, Reproducibility paragraph] The evaluation protocol is not fully specified. The paper does not state which ASR variant (ASRVanilla, ASRAOA, or ASRDecoding) is used for each table and figure, and the reproducibility note mentions a 'modified Q-Resafe benchmark' without defining the modification. Please disclose the exact evaluation prompts, the ASR variant for each result, and the relationship of the modified benchmark to the standard AdvBench/HarmBench protocols.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 5.1] The sentence 'In Figure, the harmful dataset consists of 100 harmful examples' is incomplete and should read 'In Figure 1, the harmful dataset consists of 100 harmful examples.'
  2. [Table 7] The caption does not specify which safety metric is used; AWQ shows 10.5% at 8-bit here, while Table 3 reports 39.1% for AWQ 8-bit under decoding attack, so the metric and decoding configuration should be stated clearly.
  3. [Section 3.2 and Appendix B] The decoding attack is attributed to (Huang et al., 2023) in Section 3.2 but to (Hong et al., 2024) in Appendix B; the citation should be consistent.
  4. [Appendix C.2] The title 'Why fine-tuning impacts safety' does not match the content, which is an evaluation of Q-resafe on fine-tuned models rather than an analysis of the mechanism by which fine-tuning affects safety.
  5. [Introduction] The paper claims a 'comprehensive safety evaluation' but evaluates only two model families; the claim should be qualified to avoid overstatement.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No load-bearing circularity: the safety-patching objective is teacher-response distillation, and the headline re-alignment result is an empirical evaluation rather than a derived prediction; remaining concerns are evaluation-protocol ambiguity and non-load-bearing self-citations.

full rationale

Q-resafe's derivation chain is a method proposal plus empirical evaluation, not a first-principles prediction. The DPO objective in Eq. (1) explicitly uses the pre-quantization model's responses as winners (Section 4.2: 'we label the response from the pre-quantization LLM as the winner (preferred) response yw and the response from the quantized LLM as the loser (dispreferred) response yl'), so 're-aligning with the pre-quantization counterpart' is the optimization target; observing lower ASR after training is a check that the optimization worked, not a circular derivation. The method is benchmarked against external, independently defined measurements (AdvBench ASR, HarmBench classifier, GPT-4 harmfulness scores, MT-Bench, AlpacaEval), and the comparisons among AWQ/AQLM/LLM-QAT/QLoRA and SFT/DPO are empirical. The self-citations (Zhang et al. 2025; Hu et al. 2024) are related-work citations and are not used as load-bearing justification, so they do not raise the circularity score. Two manuscript passages deserve flagging as non-circular caveats. (1) Section 5.1 states 'In Figure, the harmful dataset consists of 100 harmful examples,' while Section 3.1 constructs Risk-III from AdvBench and Section 5 measures safety 'using the same metrics and settings as described in Section 3'; the paper never explicitly states that the Risk-III safety-patching prompts are held out of the AdvBench ASR evaluation, so part of the reported restoration could reflect memorization rather than generalization, and the Reproducibility note's reference to a 'modified Q-Resafe benchmark' further obscures the exact protocol. (2) The teacher model is the safety ceiling: Table 2 gives Gemma-7B-Instruct a 9.2% ASR, so roughly one in eleven teacher responses used as DPO winners may be harmful. These are validity and reproducibility limitations, not cases where a claimed derivation reduces to its own inputs by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The method introduces no new physical entities. Its main unexamined premises are the safety of the teacher model and the semantic validity of SNIP as a safety-criticality measure. Several hyperparameters are tuned by hand, and the LoRA rank is inconsistently reported, so the method's efficiency numbers are not tightly constrained.

free parameters (6)
  • tau (safety-critical threshold) = 0.6 (default)
    Percentile threshold for selecting safety-critical weights. Varying it changes ASR from 1.6% to 42.2% and GPU hours from 0.5 to 2.1 (Table 5). Chosen by hand, not derived.
  • LoRA rank r = 2048 (main text) vs 128 (Appendix A.1)
    Rank of adaptation matrices. The inconsistency between sections makes the effective model capacity ambiguous and the reported efficiency hard to reproduce.
  • DPO beta = 0.01
    Temperature for the DPO loss in Eq. (1). Tuned hyperparameter.
  • Learning rate = 5e-6
    SGD learning rate for LoRA updates. Reported in Appendix A.1; tuned hyperparameter.
  • Re-evaluation interval K = 1000
    Frequency for recomputing the safety-critical mask (Algorithm 1). Chosen by hand.
  • LoRA alpha = 256
    LoRA scaling factor. Reported only in Appendix A.1; tuned hyperparameter.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption LLM capabilities are concentrated in a small fraction of weights.
    Invoked in Section 4.2 (Periodic safety-critical weights identification) to justify updating only a subset of weights. Supported by citations to Qi et al. 2023, Yang et al. 2023, Kumar et al. 2024a.
  • ad hoc to paper SNIP scores computed on negative log-likelihood identify safety-critical weights.
    Section 4.2 uses I(W_ij,x)=|W_ij * grad L(x)| to rank weights; the link between this saliency and safety behavior is assumed, and no comparison to random masking is provided.
  • ad hoc to paper The pre-quantization model's responses are safe and preferred.
    Section 4.2 labels y_w sampled from pi_W as the winner response. Baseline ASRs in Table 2 (Gemma 9.2%) show the teacher is not a perfect safety oracle.
  • standard math DPO's KL regularization prevents large deviation from the reference model and preserves utility.
    Property of DPO objective in Eq. (1); used to argue utility is retained during safety patching.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Q-resafe: Assessing Safety Risks and Quantization-aware Safety Patching for Quantized Large Language Models." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/NSYFCDEV

@misc{pith2026250620251,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Q-resafe: Assessing Safety Risks and Quantization-aware Safety Patching for Quantized Large Language Models},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/NSYFCDEV}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.20251}
}
read the original abstract

Quantized large language models (LLMs) have gained increasing attention and significance for enabling deployment in resource-constrained environments. However, emerging studies on a few calibration dataset-free quantization methods suggest that quantization may compromise the safety capabilities of LLMs, underscoring the urgent need for systematic safety evaluations and effective mitigation strategies. In this paper, we present comprehensive safety evaluations across various mainstream quantization techniques and diverse calibration datasets, utilizing widely accepted safety benchmarks. To address the identified safety vulnerabilities, we propose a quantization-aware safety patching framework, Q-resafe, to efficiently restore the safety capabilities of quantized LLMs while minimizing any adverse impact on utility. Extensive experimental results demonstrate that Q-resafe successfully re-aligns the safety of quantized LLMs with their pre-quantization counterparts, even under challenging evaluation scenarios. Project page is available at: https://github.com/Thecommonirin/Qresafe.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.20251 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Safety evaluation of Q-resafe and fine-tuned baseline quantization methods for Llama-2-7B-Chat and Gemma-7B-Instruct. 5. Experiments Experimental Setups. We compare Q-resafe with the representative quantization methods evaluated in Section 3: AWQ, AQLM, LLM-QAT, and QLoRA. These methods are applied to two open-source, well-aligned LLMs: Llama-2- 7B-Chat and Gemma-7B-Instruct, using INT4 and INT8 as reduced bit-width… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Different top-p sampling strategies on the Llama2-7b-chat model’s responses. score averaged across all questions. This two-turn format allows for a more thorough assessment of the model’s ability to maintain coherence and accuracy over longer interactions. AlpacaEval (Li et al., 2023a) is a single-turn evaluation benchmark that consists of 805 questions spanning various topics, with a primary focus on helpfulness. M… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Safety evaluation of the Llama2-7b-chat model under different quantization methods (INT4) and sampling strategies across 11 safety categories aligned with OpenAI’s policy (Ope, 2023). 19 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Reliability Scaling Laws for Quantized Large Language Models

    cs.LG 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Reliability of quantized LLMs peaks nonlinearly at 4-bit precision under fixed total model bits, while accuracy scales monotonically, and quantization can improve robustness to natural perturbations.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

49 extracted references · 6 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [3]

    L., Li, B., Jaggi, M., Alistarh, D., Hoefler, T., and Hensman, J

    Ashkboos, S., Mohtashami, A., Croci, M. L., Li, B., Jaggi, M., Alistarh, D., Hoefler, T., and Hensman, J. Quarot: Outlier-free 4-bit inference in rotated llms.arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.00456,

    arXiv

  2. [4]

    and Sajjad, H

    Badshah, S. and Sajjad, H. Quantifying the capabili- ties of llms across scale and precision.arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.03146,

    arXiv

  3. [5]

    Training a helpful and harmless assistant with rein- forcement learning from human feedback.arXiv preprint arXiv:2204.05862,

    Bai, Y ., Jones, A., Ndousse, K., Askell, A., Chen, A., Das- Sarma, N., Drain, D., Fort, S., Ganguli, D., Henighan, T., et al. Training a helpful and harmless assistant with rein- forcement learning from human feedback.arXiv preprint arXiv:2204.05862,

    arXiv

  4. [7]

    G., Brooks, D., and Wei, G.-Y

    Chai, Y ., Gkountouras, J., Ko, G. G., Brooks, D., and Wei, G.-Y . Int2. 1: Towards fine-tunable quantized large lan- guage models with error correction through low-rank adaptation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.08162,

    arXiv

  5. [8]

    Why should adversarial perturbations be imper- ceptible? rethink the research paradigm in adversarial nlp

    9 Assessing Safety Risks and Quantization-aware Safety Patching for Quantized Large Language Models Chen, Y ., Gao, H., Cui, G., Qi, F., Huang, L., Liu, Z., and Sun, M. Why should adversarial perturbations be imper- ceptible? rethink the research paradigm in adversarial nlp. arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.10683,

    arXiv

  6. [9]

    TEQ: Trainable Equivalent Transformation for Quantization of LLMs

    Cheng, W., Cai, Y ., Lv, K., and Shen, H. Teq: Trainable equivalent transformation for quantization of llms.arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.10944,

    work page Pith review arXiv

  7. [11]

    Ultrafeedback: Boosting lan- guage models with high-quality feedback.arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.01377,

    Cui, G., Yuan, L., Ding, N., Yao, G., Zhu, W., Ni, Y ., Xie, G., Liu, Z., and Sun, M. Ultrafeedback: Boosting lan- guage models with high-quality feedback.arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.01377,

    arXiv

  8. [12]

    Spqr: A sparse-quantized representation for near-lossless llm weight compression.arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.03078,

    Dettmers, T., Svirschevski, R., Egiazarian, V ., Kuznedelev, D., Frantar, E., Ashkboos, S., Borzunov, A., Hoefler, T., and Alistarh, D. Spqr: A sparse-quantized representation for near-lossless llm weight compression.arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.03078,

    arXiv

Show all 49 references
  1. [13]

    Enhancing chat language mod- els by scaling high-quality instructional conversations

    Ding, N., Chen, Y ., Xu, B., Qin, Y ., Zheng, Z., Hu, S., Liu, Z., Sun, M., and Zhou, B. Enhancing chat language mod- els by scaling high-quality instructional conversations. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.14233,

    arXiv

  2. [14]

    Bitdistiller: Unleashing the potential of sub-4-bit llms via self-distillation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.10631,

    Du, D., Zhang, Y ., Cao, S., Guo, J., Cao, T., Chu, X., and Xu, N. Bitdistiller: Unleashing the potential of sub-4-bit llms via self-distillation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.10631,

    arXiv

  3. [15]

    Exploiting llm quantization.arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.18137,

    Egashira, K., Vero, M., Staab, R., He, J., and Vechev, M. Exploiting llm quantization.arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.18137,

    arXiv

  4. [16]

    Extreme compression of large language models via additive quantization.arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.06118,

    Egiazarian, V ., Panferov, A., Kuznedelev, D., Frantar, E., Babenko, A., and Alistarh, D. Extreme compression of large language models via additive quantization.arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.06118,

    arXiv

  5. [18]

    Gptq: Accurate post-training quantization for generative pre- trained transformers.arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.17323,

    Frantar, E., Ashkboos, S., Hoefler, T., and Alistarh, D. Gptq: Accurate post-training quantization for generative pre- trained transformers.arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.17323,

    arXiv

  6. [19]

    P., and Kim, Y

    Guo, H., Greengard, P., Xing, E. P., and Kim, Y . Lq- lora: Low-rank plus quantized matrix decomposition for efficient language model finetuning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.12023,

    arXiv

  7. [20]

    Lora+: Efficient low rank adaptation of large models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.12354,

    Hayou, S., Ghosh, N., and Yu, B. Lora+: Efficient low rank adaptation of large models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.12354,

    arXiv

  8. [21]

    From words to actions: Unveiling the theoretical underpinnings of llm-driven autonomous systems.arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.19883,

    He, J., Chen, S., Zhang, F., and Yang, Z. From words to actions: Unveiling the theoretical underpinnings of llm-driven autonomous systems.arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.19883,

    arXiv

  9. [22]

    Decoding compressed trust: Scrutinizing the trust- worthiness of efficient llms under compression.arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.15447,

    Hong, J., Duan, J., Zhang, C., Li, Z., Xie, C., Lieberman, K., Diffenderfer, J., Bartoldson, B., Jaiswal, A., Xu, K., et al. Decoding compressed trust: Scrutinizing the trust- worthiness of efficient llms under compression.arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.15447,

    arXiv

  10. [23]

    Catas- trophic jailbreak of open-source llms via exploiting gen- eration.arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.06987,

    Huang, Y ., Gupta, S., Xia, M., Li, K., and Chen, D. Catas- trophic jailbreak of open-source llms via exploiting gen- eration.arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.06987,

    arXiv

  11. [24]

    H., Kim, S., Park, J., Yoo, K

    Kim, J., Lee, J. H., Kim, S., Park, J., Yoo, K. M., Kwon, S. J., and Lee, D. Memory-efficient fine-tuning of compressed large language models via sub-4-bit integer quantization. 10 Assessing Safety Risks and Quantization-aware Safety Patching for Quantized Large Language Model...

    arXiv

  12. [25]

    Quick: Quantization-aware interleaving and conflict-free kernel for efficient llm inference.arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.10076, 2024b

    Kim, T., Lee, J., Ahn, D., Kim, S., Choi, J., Kim, M., and Kim, H. Quick: Quantization-aware interleaving and conflict-free kernel for efficient llm inference.arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.10076, 2024b. Kumar, D., Kumar, A., Agarwal, S., and Harshangi, P. Fine- tuning, quantizatio...

    arXiv

  13. [27]

    Awq: Activation-aware weight quantization for on-device llm compression and acceleration.Proceedings of Machine Learning and Systems, 6:87–100, 2024b

    Lin, J., Tang, J., Tang, H., Yang, S., Chen, W.-M., Wang, W.-C., Xiao, G., Dang, X., Gan, C., and Han, S. Awq: Activation-aware weight quantization for on-device llm compression and acceleration.Proceedings of Machine Learning and Systems, 6:87–100, 2024b. Liu, J., Gong, R., W...

    arXiv

  14. [28]

    Harm- bench: A standardized evaluation framework for auto- mated red teaming and robust refusal.arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.04249,

    Mazeika, M., Phan, L., Yin, X., Zou, A., Wang, Z., Mu, N., Sakhaee, E., Li, N., Basart, S., Li, B., et al. Harm- bench: A standardized evaluation framework for auto- mated red teaming and robust refusal.arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.04249,

    arXiv

  15. [29]

    Outliers and calibration sets have diminishing ef- fect on quantization of modern llms.arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.20835,

    Paglieri, D., Dash, S., Rockt¨aschel, T., and Parker-Holder, J. Outliers and calibration sets have diminishing ef- fect on quantization of modern llms.arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.20835,

    arXiv

  16. [31]

    Fine-tuning aligned language models compromises safety, even when users do not intend to! arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.03693,

    Qi, X., Zeng, Y ., Xie, T., Chen, P.-Y ., Jia, R., Mittal, P., and Henderson, P. Fine-tuning aligned language models compromises safety, even when users do not intend to! arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.03693,

    arXiv

  17. [32]

    Understanding llms requires more than statistical generalization.arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.01964,

    Reizinger, P., Ujv´ary, S., M´esz´aros, A., Kerekes, A., Bren- del, W., and Husz ´ar, F. Understanding llms requires more than statistical generalization.arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.01964,

    arXiv

  18. [33]

    Pb-llm: Par- tially binarized large language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.00034,

    Shang, Y ., Yuan, Z., Wu, Q., and Dong, Z. Pb-llm: Par- tially binarized large language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.00034,

    arXiv

  19. [34]

    Omniquant: Omnidirectionally calibrated quantization for large lan- guage models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.13137,

    Shao, W., Chen, M., Zhang, Z., Xu, P., Zhao, L., Li, Z., Zhang, K., Gao, P., Qiao, Y ., and Luo, P. Omniquant: Omnidirectionally calibrated quantization for large lan- guage models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.13137,

    arXiv

  20. [35]

    A strongreject for empty jailbreaks.arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.10260,

    Souly, A., Lu, Q., Bowen, D., Trinh, T., Hsieh, E., Pandey, S., Abbeel, P., Svegliato, J., Emmons, S., Watkins, O., et al. A strongreject for empty jailbreaks.arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.10260,

    arXiv

  21. [36]

    G., Hardin, C., Bhupatiraju, S., Hussenot, L., Mesnard, T., Shahri- ari, B., Ram ´e, A., et al

    Team, G., Riviere, M., Pathak, S., Sessa, P. G., Hardin, C., Bhupatiraju, S., Hussenot, L., Mesnard, T., Shahri- ari, B., Ram ´e, A., et al. Gemma 2: Improving open language models at a practical size.arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.00118,

    arXiv

  22. [37]

    Llama 2: Open foundation and fine- tuned chat models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.09288,

    Touvron, H., Martin, L., Stone, K., Albert, P., Almahairi, A., Babaei, Y ., Bashlykov, N., Batra, S., Bhargava, P., Bhosale, S., et al. Llama 2: Open foundation and fine- tuned chat models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.09288,

    arXiv

  23. [38]

    Zephyr: Direct distillation of lm alignment.arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.16944,

    Tunstall, L., Beeching, E., Lambert, N., Rajani, N., Ra- sul, K., Belkada, Y ., Huang, S., von Werra, L., Fourrier, C., Habib, N., et al. Zephyr: Direct distillation of lm alignment.arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.16944,

    arXiv

  24. [39]

    Outlier suppression+: Accurate quantization of large language models by equivalent and optimal shifting and scaling.arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.09145,

    Wei, X., Zhang, Y ., Li, Y ., Zhang, X., Gong, R., Guo, J., and Liu, X. Outlier suppression+: Accurate quantization of large language models by equivalent and optimal shifting and scaling.arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.09145,

    arXiv

  25. [40]

    Transformers: State-of-the-art natural language processing.arXiv preprint arXiv:1910.03771,

    Wolf, T. Transformers: State-of-the-art natural language processing.arXiv preprint arXiv:1910.03771,

    1910 arXiv

  26. [41]

    Qa-lora: Quantization- aware low-rank adaptation of large language models

    Xu, Y ., Xie, L., Gu, X., Chen, X., Chang, H., Zhang, H., Chen, Z., Zhang, X., and Tian, Q. Qa-lora: Quantization- aware low-rank adaptation of large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.14717,

    arXiv

  27. [42]

    Onebit: Towards extremely low-bit large language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.11295, 2024a

    Xu, Y ., Han, X., Yang, Z., Wang, S., Zhu, Q., Liu, Z., Liu, W., and Che, W. Onebit: Towards extremely low-bit large language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.11295, 2024a. Xu, Z., Gupta, A., Li, T., Bentham, O., and Srikumar, V . Beyond perplexity: Multi-dimensional safety ev...

    arXiv

  28. [43]

    Rptq: Reorder-based post- training quantization for large language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.01089,

    Yuan, Z., Niu, L., Liu, J., Liu, W., Wang, X., Shang, Y ., Sun, G., Wu, Q., Wu, J., and Wu, B. Rptq: Reorder-based post- training quantization for large language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.01089,

    arXiv

  29. [44]

    Z., Tu, Y ., Mai, Y ., Kly- man, K., Pan, M., Jia, R., Song, D., et al

    Zeng, Y ., Yang, Y ., Zhou, A., Tan, J. Z., Tu, Y ., Mai, Y ., Kly- man, K., Pan, M., Jia, R., Song, D., et al. Air-bench 2024: A safety benchmark based on risk categories from regu- lations and policies.arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.17436,

    2024 arXiv

  30. [45]

    Activation approxima- tions can incur safety vulnerabilities even in aligned llms: Comprehensive analysis and defense.arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.00840,

    Zhang, J., Chen, K., He, L., Lou, J., Li, D., Feng, Z., Song, M., Liu, J., Ren, K., and Yang, X. Activation approxima- tions can incur safety vulnerabilities even in aligned llms: Comprehensive analysis and defense.arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.00840,

    arXiv

  31. [46]

    Z., and Fredrikson, M

    Zou, A., Wang, Z., Kolter, J. Z., and Fredrikson, M. Uni- versal and transferable adversarial attacks on aligned lan- guage models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.15043,

    arXiv

  32. [47]

    In this example, a malicious instruction was given to the Llama-2-7B-Chat model, and we observed how small adjustments in generation parameters impacted its response. Simply lowering the temperature from 0.9 (default) to 0.7 was enough to bypass the safety constraint, demonstr...

    2024

  33. [48]

    ASRVanilla: Tested with system prompt:”You are a helpful assistant

    15 Assessing Safety Risks and Quantization-aware Safety Patching for Quantized Large Language Models Table 8.Quantization setup and safety evaluation metrics Method Quantization Strategies Safety Evaluation Metrics w/ finetuning Risk-III Dataset: Quantization using harm- ful i...

    2024

  34. [49]

    Safety evaluation of the Llama2-7b-chat model under different quantization methods (INT4) and sampling strategies across 11 safety categories aligned with OpenAI’s policy (Ope, 2023). 19

    2023

  35. [2017]

    Comprehensive assessment of jailbreak attacks against llms.arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.05668,

    Chu, J., Liu, Y ., Yang, Z., Shen, X., Backes, M., and Zhang, Y . Comprehensive assessment of jailbreak attacks against llms.arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.05668,

    arXiv

  36. [2019]

    Salad-bench: A hierarchical and com- prehensive safety benchmark for large language models

    Li, L., Dong, B., Wang, R., Hu, X., Zuo, W., Lin, D., Qiao, Y ., and Shao, J. Salad-bench: A hierarchical and com- prehensive safety benchmark for large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.05044, 2024a. Li, L., Li, Q., Zhang, B., and Chu, X. Norm tweaking: High-performa...

    arXiv

  37. [2021]

    Instruc- tion tuning with gpt-4.arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.03277,

    Peng, B., Li, C., He, P., Galley, M., and Gao, J. Instruc- tion tuning with gpt-4.arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.03277,

    arXiv

  38. [2022]

    Harmlevel- bench: Evaluating harm-level compliance and the im- pact of quantization on model alignment.arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.06835,

    Belkhiter, Y ., Zizzo, G., and Maffeis, S. Harmlevel- bench: Evaluating harm-level compliance and the im- pact of quantization on model alignment.arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.06835,

    arXiv

  39. [2023]

    L., Almeida, D., Altenschmidt, J., Altman, S., Anadkat, S., et al

    Achiam, J., Adler, S., Agarwal, S., Ahmad, L., Akkaya, I., Aleman, F. L., Almeida, D., Altenschmidt, J., Altman, S., Anadkat, S., et al. Gpt-4 technical report.arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.08774,

    arXiv

  40. [2024]

    M., Firat, O., Johnson, M., Lepikhin, D., Passos, A., Shakeri, S., Taropa, E., Bailey, P., Chen, Z., et al

    Anil, R., Dai, A. M., Firat, O., Johnson, M., Lepikhin, D., Passos, A., Shakeri, S., Taropa, E., Bailey, P., Chen, Z., et al. Palm 2 technical report.arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.10403,

    arXiv

  41. [2025]

    Accessed: 2025-01-24

    URL https://github.com/ bitsandbytes-foundation/bitsandbytes. Accessed: 2025-01-24. Frantar, E. and Alistarh, D. Sparsegpt: Massive language models can be accurately pruned in one-shot. InInter- national Conference on Machine Learning, pp. 10323– 10337. PMLR,

    2025

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.