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

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.07781 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2610.07781/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Placed in Tool learning and function calling, one of 16 directions in LLM agents and tool use.
- Builds on 11 of its 13 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 6 Oct 2026.

## Placed in

- LLM agents and tool use / [Tool learning and function calling](https://mlsanity.com/agents/tool-learning-and-function-calling/)

## Builds on (most cited first, 11 of 11)

- [The Llama 3 Herd of Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2407.21783/) (2024)
- [Qwen2.5 Technical Report](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2412.15115/) (2024)
- [τ-bench: A Benchmark for Tool-Agent-User Interaction in Real-World Domains](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.12045/) (2024)
- [τ2-Bench: Evaluating Conversational Agents in a Dual-Control Environment](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2506.07982/) (2025)
- [The case for 4-bit precision: k-bit Inference Scaling Laws](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2212.09720/) (2022)
- [Flaw or Artifact? Rethinking Prompt Sensitivity in Evaluating LLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2509.01790/) (2025)
- [Brittlebench: Quantifying LLM robustness via prompt sensitivity](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2603.13285/) (2026)
- [When Tools Fail: Benchmarking Dynamic Replanning and Anomaly Recovery in LLM Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2606.05806/) (2026)
- [Can Compressed LLMs Truly Act? An Empirical Evaluation of Agentic Capabilities in LLM Compression](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.19433/) (2025)
- [Diagnosis Before Recovery: Turning Agent Failures into Selective Self-Correction](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2608.11772/) (2026)
- [Flat Score, Amplified Failures: How the Error Budget Masks Damage in Quantized LLM Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2607.27275/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

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.