You likely mean sampler, not decoder. And no, the stronger the quantization, the more the output token probabilities diverge from the non-quantized model. With a sampler you can't recover any meaningful accuracy. If you force the sampler to select tokens that won't repeat, you're just trading repetitive gibberish for non-repetitive gibberish.

> You likely mean sampler, not decoder.

Indeed, that's posting before being fully awake.

> And no, the stronger the quantization, the more the output token probabilities diverge from the non-quantized model. With a sampler you can't recover any meaningful accuracy.

OF course you can't recover any accuracy, but LLM are in fact prone to this kind of repetition no matter what, this is a known failure mode that's why samplers aimed at avoiding this have been designed over the past few years.

> If you force the sampler to select tokens that won't repeat, you're just trading repetitive gibberish for non-repetitive gibberish.

But it won't necessary be gibberish! even a highly quantized R1 has still much more embedded information than a 14 or even 32B model, so I don't see why it should output more gibberish than smaller models.

Oh yes one could provide a repetition penalty for example - the issue is it's not just repetition that's the issue. I find it rather forgets what it already saw, and so hence it repeats stuff - it's probably best to backtrack, then delete the last few rows in the KV cache.

Another option is to employ min_p = 0.05 to force the model not to generate low prob tokens - it can help especially in the case when the 1.58bit model generates on average 1/8000 tokens or so an "incorrect" token (for eg `score := 0`)

You can deal with this through various sampling methods, but it doesn't actually fix the fried model.