Cosine Similarity Is Not Evidence: Measuring the Noise Floor of Interpretability Transfer Under Quantization
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
A statistic reported without the quantity needed to interpret it is not evidence. We develop that thesis for a concrete practice in AI safety. Interpretability artifacts are calibrated on full-precision weights, deployed on quantized ones, and certified as surviving the change by scale-invariant statistics (cosine similarity, correlation, AUROC) that are reported without their noise floor. For the difference-in-means direction estimator, the split-half floor is governed by one dimensionless number, kappa = nρ2/d. The closed form mathbbE[cos] ≈ (1+4/kappa)-1 is classical; the missing input is the class separation ρ, which we measure on real activations; no compression-transfer study we know of reports it. On Qwen2.5-1.5B-Instruct, ρ = 33--61 across depth, so two independent runs of the estimator agree to 0.978--0.994 by sampling alone. A published cosine of 0.996 between full-precision and quantized refusal directions therefore cannot be read as preservation without the n it was computed at, which is not reported. Where n is known, we judge each low-bit cosine against the split-half null measured within that quantized model, because a full-precision null assumes the low-bit estimator has the same variance. That assumption is exactly what a null exists to test. The result is plain: at INT4 the direction rotated, and the deficit exceeds the estimator's own noise. At INT8 we detect no movement, which is not an equivalence claim. We also show that a scale-invariant statistic cannot distinguish translation from attenuation of a transferred decision variable, although the two call for opposite remedies. We close with reporting recommendations that cost one forward pass. Code, data, and a one-cell reproduction are released at https://github.com/pvarshh/quantinterp
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 11 of its 17 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 12 Aug 2026.
Builds on
11 of 17 references.
References · 11
- 2024Refusal in Language Models Is Mediated by a Single Directioncited by 1,032
- 2022LLM.int8(): 8-bit Matrix Multiplication for Transformers at Scalecited by 906
- 2024Massive Activations in Large Language Modelscited by 294
- 2025Understanding (Un)Reliability of Steering Vectors in Language Modelscited by 47
- 2025Semantics at an Angle: When Cosine Similarity Works Until It Doesn'tcited by 13
- 2025Why Do Some Inputs Break Low-Bit LLM Quantization?cited by 9
- 2025Towards Understanding and Improving Refusal in Compressed Models via Mechanistic Interpretabilitycited by 7
- 2026Perplexity Can Miss SAE Feature Damage Under Quantizationcited by 5
- 2026Do Activation Monitors Survive Model Updates? Benchmarking, Predicting, and Repairing Activation-Monitor Stalenesscited by 5
- 2026What Cosine Similarity of Label Representations Can and Cannot Tell uscited by 1
- 2026Quality Is Not a Safety Proxy Under Quantizationcited by 1
Built on by
Not cited yet.
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2026The Illusion of Equivalency: Statistical Characterization of Quantization Effects in LLMs
- 2026Same Predictions, Different Reasons: The Effect of Quantization on Model Explanations
- 2023Intriguing Properties of Quantization at Scale
- 2026Comparing Linear Probes with Mahalanobis Cosine Similarity
- 2026Your CLIP has 164 dimensions of noise: Exploring the embeddings covariance eigenspectrum of contrastively pretrained vision-language transformers
- 2026Rethinking Layer Relevance in Large Language Models Beyond Cosine Similarity
- 2026Pre-Registering the Detectable Effect: A Paired-MDE Budget for 4-bit Quantization Benchmarks, with a Pilot Audit
- 2026Saturation Makes Quantization Error Additive: A Coverage Model with a Certificate