How Does Quantization Impact Privacy Risk on LLMS for Code?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Large language models for code (LLMs4Code) rely heavily on massive training data, including sensitive data, such as cloud service credentials of the projects and personal identifiable information of the developers, raising serious privacy concerns. Membership inference (MI) has recently emerged as an effective tool for assessing privacy risk by identifying whether specific data belong to a model's training set. In parallel, model compression techniques, especially quantization, have gained traction for reducing computational costs and enabling the deployment of large models. However, while quantized models still retain knowledge learned from the original training data, it remains unclear whether quantization affects their ability to retain and expose privacy information. Answering this question is of great importance to understanding privacy risks in real-world deployments. In this work, we conduct the first empirical study on how quantization influences task performance and privacy risk simultaneously in LLMs4Code. To do this, we implement widely used quantization techniques (static and dynamic) to four representative model families, namely Pythia, CodeGen, GPT-Neo, and starcoder2. Our results demonstrate that quantization has a significant impact on reducing the privacy risk relative to the original model. We also uncover a positive correlation between task performance and privacy risk, indicating an underlying trade-off. Moreover, we reveal the possibility that quantizing larger models could yield better balance than using full-precision small models. Finally, we demonstrate that these findings generalize across different architectures, model sizes and MI methods, offering practical guidance for safeguarding privacy when deploying compressed LLMs4Code.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".