Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This study investigates the impact of quantization on bias in large language models (LLMs), revealing that while quantized models maintain performance on standard safety evaluations, they exhibit significant bias in open-ended responses, with about 24% to 27% of answers containing stereotypes across multiple languages. The research introduces QuantiBias, a benchmark designed to measure this bias by isolating open-ended generation from other response types, demonstrating that quantization can inadvertently increase bias even in models that appear safe under conventional assessments. The findings highlight the necessity for re-evaluating quantized models for open-ended bias, as traditional checks fail to capture this critical aspect of model behavior.
Quantization can increase bias in LLMs, with models generating stereotypes in one in four open-ended responses despite passing standard safety evaluations.
Almost every large language model that reaches a broad audience is quantized: trained in full precision, then compressed for efficiency. This step is assumed harmless and its safety is rarely re-checked. We find its principal side effect is increased bias that standard safety evaluation misses. Holding the model, its training, and the prompts fixed, a quantized model still refuses harmful requests, still avoids over-refusing benign prompts, and still selects the unbiased multiple-choice answer. Yet asked an open-ended question, the same model volunteers stereotypes in all eight languages we probe, in roughly one in four open-ended answers under an independent judge (~24% to ~27% across the compression ladder): it passes every standard check and still reaches users measurably more biased. The selective gap is a robust finding; whether open-ended bias further increases with compression is less certain, sensitive to the judge that scores it. We address both with \textbf{QuantiBias}, a benchmark that pairs a generative, multilingual stereotype probe with the refusal and multiple-choice controls that isolate open-ended generation, contrasts each build with and without reasoning, and rates the content severity of what it generates. Across two backbone models (Qwen and Gemma), a five-family screen, and eight benchmarks, quantizers allocate their extra precision by capability data that carries no bias-prevention signal, and reasoning before answering roughly halves the effect on some families while doing nothing on others. A quantized build must be re-evaluated for open-ended bias, not only on the short-form safeguards it already passes.
