arXiv subjects

Sahil Kadadekar

Publications and source records attributed to Sahil Kadadekar.

3 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

Speculative Decoding at Temperature Zero: A Scoped Safety-Invariance Screen with a 48,072-Sample Expansion

Speculative decoding accelerates inference by letting a draft model propose tokens for a target model to verify, raising a concrete safety question: at temperature zero, can draft-side behavior leak into safety-scored outputs? We answer with Typical-Acceptance Invariance Screen (TAIS), a behavioral-equivalence screen that pairs target-only and speculative outputs on the same safety battery and requires byte-identity evidence, TOST equivalence at +/-3pp, and per-task Cohen's h below a calibrated null cutoff of |h| < 0.1. Applied to a 16,783-sample confirmatory core plus 44,066 matched expansion samples (fp16/bf16 execution, canonical and DPO-adversarial drafts, GPTQ-4bit drafts, two seeds, and four safety benchmarks), the tested temperature-zero vLLM stacks show no detectable safety divergence under TAIS. The largest absolute Cohen's h on matched target-only versus speculative refusal is 0.024, roughly an order of magnitude below the conventional trivial-effect floor; 25 of 27 per-task TOST contrasts pass at the +/-3pp margin (the two non-pass contrasts are capability-domain Wald-CI edge cases at identical ceiling rates, not genuine non-equivalence); the DPO-adversarial draft produces byte-identical output to the canonical draft across 4,006 samples; and bf16 changes 36%-53% of output bytes without moving any per-task safety rate outside equivalence. A separate 4,006-sample 70B production-scale probe, which lacks a matched 70B target-only arm and is therefore not counted as a TAIS pass, produces AdvBench refusal 0.839 over 700 AdvBench completions with 95% Wilson CI [0.809, 0.864]. We make no claim about sampling temperatures, untested frameworks, untested model families, or tree-speculation variants such as EAGLE and Medusa.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2026

Quality Is Not a Safety Proxy Under Quantization

Quantized checkpoints are often screened first with quality metrics and only later, if at all, with direct safety tests. This paper audits that shortcut on a matched 51-row matrix spanning 6 models, 4 families, a 7-level GGUF ladder, and AWQ/GPTQ INT4 checkpoints. In this matrix the shortcut fails: all 36 quality-safety pairings split direction across models, and 9 hidden-danger rows plus 1 near-hidden-danger row show quality stable or improved while refusal falls by 12-68 percentage points. Seven of the 11 AWQ/GPTQ rows are hidden-danger. A four-probe mechanistic follow-up over the 17 Hugging Face-backed FP16/AWQ/GPTQ cells does not rescue it: entropy, refusal-direction, and calibration probes are weak or null separators of dangerous rows, and although probe-identified safety-associated neurons absorb 1.39$\times$ more quantization error overall ($p < 5 \times 10^{-7}$), the effect is not regime-specific. Claude Sonnet 4 relabels 11,470 items in a predefined stratified set, agrees with the primary gemma3:12b judge on 89.9\% of rows ($\kappa = 0.873$, 95\% CI [0.866, 0.881]), and changes 0/10 hidden-danger cells. A calibrated study-internal behavioral screen -- the Refusal Template Stability Index (RTSI), built from four refusal-template drift features and calibrated on this matrix -- routes 10/10 hidden- or near-hidden-danger rows to direct safety testing (Wilson 95\% CI lower bound 0.72) while leaving 23 of 45 non-baseline rows in a low-risk bucket under both in-sample scoring and row-level leave-one-out validation; on the same matrix, the best single-feature baselines (unique-prefix-rate-delta, raw refusal-rate delta) recover 9/10 and 8/10 respectively at matched bucket size, and cross-stack transfer requires recalibration. For the quantized checkpoints, model families, and safety outcomes studied here, retained quality cannot waive direct safety evaluation.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2026

A Paired Testing Protocol for Batch-Conditioned Refusal Robustness in LLM Serving

Safety evaluations of language models often treat serving configuration as fixed background infrastructure, but batch condition is an untested treatment variable whenever the same prompt may be evaluated alone, in a synchronized batch, or inside a continuous-batching scheduler. We synthesize four artifact-backed studies into a paired testing protocol: Study A combines local discovery, scorer-corrected adjudication, and true-batching confirmation; Study B tests cross-model generalization; Study C tests continuous-batch composition; and Study D runs a batch-invariant-kernel ablation. The local test finds safety-label changes more often than capability-label changes (0.51% vs. 0.14%), but adjudication of 63 candidate rows leaves only 17 genuine behavioral flips, implying a corrected full-set rate of 0.16%. The 15-model extension finds no detectable universal safety-over-capability skew: flips are near parity (0.94x), alignment type has no detectable association ($p=0.942$, $\eta^2=0.033$), and output instability is the strongest tested fragility screen ($r=0.909$, bootstrap 95% CI [0.65, 0.97]). In the targeted kernel ablation, standard vLLM reproduces 22/55 label flips on current score-flip candidates, while enabling VLLM_BATCH_INVARIANT=1 reduces the same test to 0/55 flips; the composition test separately finds no aggregate effect at 4.7pp sensitivity. The testing recommendation is exact-stack validation: evaluate refusal at the served batch setting, pair safety prompts with capability controls, and report low-rate directional flips separately from aggregate null effects.

cs.LG↗