Lightweight but Linguistically Fair? Quantisation Robustness across Bavarian, German, and English

Post-training quantisation reduces the memory cost of large language models, but it remains unclear whether compression preserves language skills of regional varieties as reliably as their standard-language counterparts. We study this question for Bavarian, Standard German, and English using BAVGROUND, a multiple-choice benchmark, where 206 source questions are aligned across all three languages. Across 14 open-weight 7B--10B instruction models, we compare BF16 with 8-bit GPTQ and two 4-bit settings, GPTQ and AWQ. Eight-bit GPTQ remains close to BF16 and largely preserves the relative behaviour of the three languages, while 4-bit quantisation was found to be much less stable. The two 4-bit methods reduce average accuracy by about 1.4--1.5 percentage points and change 11.9--16.0% of BF16 decisions, with changes concentrated on examples where the BF16 model is already uncertain. This instability does not translate into a consistent Bavarian disadvantage. Although Bavarian, a low-resource dialect, has lower baseline accuracy than German and English, the language most affected at 4 bits varies across models and quantisation methods. Calibration further shapes these cross-language effects: the relative Bavarian--German effect changes with calibration language, while changing the calibration source has little average effect on GPTQ-4 but can affect AWQ-4 much more strongly. Free-form evaluation on five models further shows that 4-bit compression can degrade generated responses even in settings where multiple-choice accuracy changes only modestly, while 8-bit GPTQ remains comparatively stable. Overall, our results show that quantisation robustness for regional language varieties depends on the model, quantisation method, calibration data, and evaluation setting, and cannot be measured by aggregate multilingual accuracy alone.