HFEPX · Eval paper review

Quantization Effects on Tool-Failure Recovery Vary Across Prompts and Evaluation Designs

Yuhe Hu

Published

Oct 6, 2026

Citations

Trust level

Low

Usefulness score

0/100 (Low)

Extraction confidence

35% (Low)

Derived from extracted protocol signals and abstract evidence.

Rater population

Not reported

Signals refreshed

Oct 6, 2026

Open arXiv Find implementation Shortlist (0) RSS feed

Should you rely on this paper?

This paper is adjacent to HFEPX scope and is best used for background context, not as a primary protocol reference.

Use this as background context only. Do not make protocol decisions from this page alone.

Abstract-only analysis, low confidence

All signals on this page are inferred from the abstract only and may be inaccurate. Do not use this page as a primary protocol reference.

This paper looks adjacent to evaluation work, but not like a strong protocol reference.
The available metadata is too thin to trust this as a primary source.
The abstract does not clearly name benchmarks or metrics.

Best use

Background context only

Use if you need

A secondary eval reference to pair with stronger protocol papers.

What to verify

Read the full paper before copying any benchmark, metric, or protocol choices.

Main weakness

This paper looks adjacent to evaluation work, but not like a strong protocol reference.

Human feedback signal

Not explicit

Not explicit in abstract metadata

Evaluation signal

Detected

Eval setup described

Usefulness for eval research

0/100

Adjacent candidate

Treat as adjacent context, not a core eval-method reference.

If you are doing eval pipeline work, start here

Human Eval Papers LLM-as-Judge Papers Pairwise Preference Papers Tool-Use Evaluation Search

Abstract

Post-training quantization reduces the cost of deploying language-model agents, but its effect on recovery from temporary tool failures can depend on how recovery is evaluated. We compare 8-bit and 4-bit variants of Llama-3.1-8B-Instruct and Qwen2.5-7B-Instruct on twenty deterministic tool-use tasks and five prompts. The 8-bit-4-bit recovery comparison changes direction across prompts and evaluation targets. On tasks that both variants complete without faults under the same prompt, the difference ranges from 0 to +20.2 percentage points for Llama and from -50.0 to +35.0 points for Qwen. Full-pipeline point estimates favor 8-bit Llama under all five prompts, whereas the Qwen comparison changes direction across prompts. The evaluation target can also reverse the result. For Llama under one prompt, scoring each variant only on its own clean-passing tasks favors 4-bit by 17.5 points; scoring the same tasks for both variants gives no difference, while scoring the full pipeline favors 8-bit by 28.3 points. Executor leniency is a third such choice. Rescoring the same logs with strict output parsing, which 8-bit Llama violates far more often than 4-bit Llama under that prompt, turns that +28.3 into -15.0 while leaving Qwen essentially unchanged. These findings show that one prompt, one screened task set, and one scoring policy do not establish a stable conclusion about quantized-agent robustness. Evaluations should compare variants on matched tasks, report full-pipeline success for deployment decisions, state the scoring policy, and quantify uncertainty across tasks rather than injected fault sites.

What we could verify

These are the protocol signals we could actually recover from the available paper metadata. Use them to decide whether this paper is worth deeper reading.