跳到正文
研踪PaperTrail
← 研踪 PaperTrail

arXiv:2611.02368 · v1

Beyond Accuracy: How Quantization Affects Coding Agents

首次提交 2026-11-02 09:30
版本更新 2026-11-02 09:30
雷达观测 2026-11-04 23:42
arXiv ↗PDF ↗

摘要

Agents are increasingly used for coding tasks, but the inference cost of large language models (LLMs) limits where they can run. Quantization reduces model size, but its effects on coding agents that execute and revise programs remain underexplored. We compare BF16 with 4-bit AWQ and GPTQ for Qwen2.5-Coder-Instruct (7B, 14B, and 32B) and Devstral-Small-2507 (24B) on OJBench coding problems across three seeds. We detect no statistically significant accuracy loss for any of the coding agents. However, final accuracy can conceal substantial behavioral changes: AWQ reduces Qwen-7B one-shot solves from 17 to 0 while increasing loop-based solves from 10 to 25. All Qwen-32B successes involve tool use, whereas Devstral rarely makes a valid executor call. Failure profiles also differ: Qwen-32B produces far more compilation errors than the smaller Qwen models, rising slightly under quantization, while Devstral's failures shift significantly from runtime errors toward wrong answers and timeouts. These findings indicate that quantization robustness in coding agents should be assessed through solution trajectories, tool use, and failure modes, in addition to final accuracy.

作者备注:Accepted at the NeurIPS 2026 Workshop on Small Language Models for Agentic Systems (SLM-Agents), Paris, France

AI 论文解读

基于摘要 · 非全文审阅

此版本尚未生成 AI 解读。解读由后台任务生成并按论文版本保存,登录后共享已有结果。

版本差异

目前只观测到一个版本,无法比较变化。之后收录新版本时,会在这里对照标题、作者、分类和摘要。

观测到的版本

相邻记录可能跳过中间版本;首次发现 v2 及以上也会标为版本更新。

v1 · 2026-11-02 09:30 · 最新观测版本

Beyond Accuracy: How Quantization Affects Coding Agents

Agents are increasingly used for coding tasks, but the inference cost of large language models (LLMs) limits where they can run. Quantization reduces model size, but its effects on coding agents that execute and revise programs remain underexplored. We compare BF16 with 4-bit AWQ and GPTQ for Qwen2.5-Coder-Instruct (7B, 14B, and 32B) and Devstral-Small-2507 (24B) on OJBench coding problems across three seeds. We detect no statistically significant accuracy loss for any of the coding agents. However, final accuracy can conceal substantial behavioral changes: AWQ reduces Qwen-7B one-shot solves from 17 to 0 while increasing loop-based solves from 10 to 25. All Qwen-32B successes involve tool use, whereas Devstral rarely makes a valid executor call. Failure profiles also differ: Qwen-32B produces far more compilation errors than the smaller Qwen models, rising slightly under quantization, while Devstral's failures shift significantly from runtime errors toward wrong answers and timeouts. These findings indicate that quantization robustness in coding agents should be assessed through solution trajectories, tool use, and failure modes, in addition to final accuracy.

查看此版本解读 →查看此版本原文 ↗