Evaluating Accuracy Degradation

While the primary motivation for quantizing Large Language Models (LLMs) is to enhance inference efficiency, this optimization comes at the cost of introducing numerical approximations. These approximations can potentially degrade the model's predictive quality. Therefore, a systematic evaluation of the accuracy impact is an indispensable part of the quantization workflow. This section details the methods and metrics used to assess how quantization affects an LLM's performance on language tasks.

Simply measuring latency or memory reduction, as covered previously, provides only one dimension of the evaluation. A faster, smaller model is of little value if its ability to generate coherent text, answer questions accurately, or perform its designated function is significantly compromised. We must verify that the quantized model maintains an acceptable level of quality for its intended application.

Evaluating Intrinsic Quality: Perplexity

Perplexity (PPL) is a common intrinsic metric used to evaluate language models. It measures how well a probability model predicts a sample. In the context of LLMs, it quantifies the model's uncertainty or "surprise" when predicting the next token in a sequence of text. A lower perplexity score indicates that the model is more confident and accurate in its predictions, suggesting better fluency and coherence.

Mathematically, for a sequence of tokens $w_1, w_2, ..., w_N$, perplexity is calculated as the exponential of the average negative log-likelihood per token:

$$PPL = \exp\left(-\frac{1}{N} \sum_{i=1}^N \log p(w_i | w_{<i})\right)$$

Where $p(w_i | w_{<i})$ is the probability assigned by the model to the $i$-th token, given the preceding tokens.

When evaluating a quantized model, you compute its perplexity on a representative test dataset and compare it to the perplexity of the original, full-precision model (e.g., FP32 or BF16) on the same dataset. An increase in perplexity indicates a potential degradation in the model's language modeling capability due to quantization.

However, perplexity has limitations. It primarily measures statistical correlation and fluency, not necessarily factual correctness, reasoning ability, or performance on specific downstream tasks. A model can achieve low perplexity while still generating nonsensical or incorrect outputs. Therefore, while useful for a quick assessment or relative comparison between quantization strategies, perplexity should not be the sole metric for accuracy evaluation.

Evaluating Extrinsic Quality: Downstream Task Benchmarks

A more comprehensive and often more meaningful way to assess accuracy degradation is through extrinsic evaluation on downstream tasks. This involves testing the quantized model's performance on specific benchmarks that reflect the tasks it is expected to perform in production.

Common benchmark suites used for evaluating LLMs include:

• General Language Understanding: GLUE, SuperGLUE provide a collection of diverse natural language understanding tasks.
• Massive Multitask Language Understanding (MMLU): Measures knowledge across a wide range of subjects, testing reasoning and factual recall.
• Code Generation: HumanEval, MBPP assess the model's ability to generate correct code snippets.
• Question Answering: Datasets like SQuAD, Natural Questions, TriviaQA evaluate comprehension and information retrieval.
• Summarization: CNN/Daily Mail, XSum measure the quality of generated summaries using metrics like ROUGE.
• Translation: WMT benchmarks evaluate translation quality using metrics like BLEU.
• Safety & Hallucination: Benchmarks like TruthfulQA or HaluEval specifically target model honesty and tendency to hallucinate.

The choice of benchmarks should align with the LLM's intended application domain. For instance, if deploying a model for customer support chatbots, evaluating on question-answering and dialogue benchmarks is more relevant than code generation.

The evaluation process involves:

1. Running the original (baseline) model on the chosen benchmark(s) to establish a reference score (e.g., accuracy, F1, ROUGE, BLEU, Exact Match).
2. Running the quantized model(s) (e.g., INT8, INT4-GPTQ, INT4-AWQ) on the same benchmark(s) under identical evaluation conditions.
3. Comparing the scores of the quantized models against the baseline.

Using a diverse set of benchmarks provides a more holistic view of the quantization impact across different model capabilities.

Setting Up the Evaluation

Rigorous evaluation requires careful setup:

• Evaluation Datasets: Select datasets that are representative of the data the model will encounter in deployment. Ensure the datasets are of sufficient size to yield statistically significant results. Use standard, well-vetted benchmark datasets where possible for comparability.
• Baseline Comparison: The most important comparison is between the quantized model and its original, unquantized version (typically FP16 or BF16, as FP32 is often too slow for LLM inference baseline). This isolates the effect of quantization. Ensure all other factors (generation parameters like temperature, top-p, evaluation script) are held constant.
• Comparing Quantization Strategies: Evaluate different quantization methods (e.g., naive PTQ, GPTQ, AWQ) and bit-precisions (e.g., INT8, INT4, NF4) side-by-side on the same benchmarks to understand their respective trade-offs.

Analyzing the Trade-off

The goal of evaluation is not just to measure accuracy drop but to understand the trade-off between accuracy and efficiency gains (latency reduction, memory savings). Plotting accuracy metrics against performance metrics can help visualize this relationship.

Accuracy on the MMLU benchmark versus average latency per token generated on a specific GPU. Lower latency is better (faster), and higher accuracy is better. Points closer to the top-left represent a more favorable trade-off.

Interpreting such plots helps in decision-making. For applications highly sensitive to latency but tolerant of a small accuracy dip, an aggressive quantization like INT4 might be acceptable. For tasks requiring maximum fidelity, INT8 or even staying with FP16/BF16 might be necessary, despite higher resource usage. The "acceptable" accuracy drop depends entirely on the specific use case and its tolerance for errors.

Factors Influencing Accuracy Degradation

The degree of accuracy degradation is influenced by several factors, some of which are discussed in other chapters:

• Quantization Algorithm: Advanced PTQ methods like GPTQ and AWQ are explicitly designed to minimize accuracy loss compared to simpler rounding techniques.
• Calibration Data: The quality and representativeness of the calibration dataset used in PTQ significantly impact the resulting accuracy.
• Model Architecture and Size: Larger models or models with certain architectural features (like specific activation functions or normalization layers) might exhibit different sensitivities to quantization. The presence of outliers in weights or activations is also a known challenge (covered in Chapter 5).
• Bit Precision: Lower bit precision (e.g., INT4, INT3) generally leads to greater efficiency gains but also carries a higher risk of accuracy degradation compared to INT8.

In summary, evaluating accuracy degradation is a non-negotiable step when deploying quantized LLMs. Relying on a combination of intrinsic metrics like perplexity for quick checks and extrinsic evaluation on relevant downstream task benchmarks provides a comprehensive understanding of the impact. Analyzing the trade-offs between accuracy and performance metrics allows for informed decisions about selecting the appropriate quantization strategy for your specific application requirements.