malaiwah/qwen38-27b-fidelity-suite-v3

Qwen3.8-27B distribution-fidelity suite v3 (held-out, 181 x 2048)

The frozen evaluation suite and the captured hidden states that let anyone recompute or contest the KL-divergence numbers published for `malaiwah/Qwen3.8-27B-K4` — without a GPU, without downloading any model, and without trusting the publisher.

Scope, stated up front. The captures in this snapshot are the iteration-1 set: malaiwah/Qwen3.8-27B-K4, unsloth/Qwen3.8-27B-NVFP4 and Qwen/Qwen3.8-27B-FP8 against the BF16 reference. The current published checkpoint, `malaiwah/Qwen3.8-27B-EXL3-K5K6` (mean KLD 0.008157), was measured on this same suite and this same LM head, but its captures are not in this dataset yet — see What is missing.

Protocol adopted from Kimi-K3 distribution fidelity: capture the BF16 hidden state after the final RMSNorm and before the LM head, then reconstruct complete full-vocabulary distributions offline through one shared BF16 LM head. Storage is 21 MB per context instead of 2.03 GB of fp32 logits, which is what makes many-context evaluation affordable.

What is measured

KL(BF16 reference || candidate) over the entire 248,320-token vocabulary, no top-k, two passes (log-sum-exp normalisers and argmax first, then divergence), float32 within a vocabulary chunk accumulated in float64 across chunks, source-cluster bootstrap. Also Jensen-Shannon divergence, top-1 agreement, tail quantiles, and per-stratum means.

Because both operands go through the same shared head, no candidate's own head quantization is counted. That is what makes the three candidates comparable, and it is why these are body-only numbers.

Headline results reproducible from these files

Analysis partition, 136 contexts, 278,392 scored positions (iteration 1):

Paired over the same contexts: K4 beats NVFP4 by 0.064242 (95 % CI [-0.08621, -0.04611], 136/136 contexts); FP8 beats K4 by 0.017611 (95 % CI [0.01256, 0.02368], 136/136 contexts).

Layout

Total 17.75 GiB. Every count and size below is the actual content of this revision.

suite-manifest.json          181 contexts: stratum, source cluster, partition, sentinel
                             flag, token SHA-256, contamination-scan result;
                             partitions 136 analysis / 45 qualification / 32 sentinels
tokens/                      181 x context-NNNN.json, the exact token IDs (2048 each)
reference-hidden/            181 x hidden_NNNN.safetensors, BF16 [2047, 5120], from
                             Qwen/Qwen3.8-27B, plus capture-manifest.json (per-file
                             SHA-256 + the runtime config used)         3.53 GiB
candidate-hidden/            three candidates, same shape and manifest  3.53 GiB each
  k4-online-k6/              malaiwah/Qwen3.8-27B-K4: EXL3 K4 MLP + online-K6 attention
  qwen-fp8/                  Qwen/Qwen3.8-27B-FP8
  unsloth-nvfp4/             unsloth/Qwen3.8-27B-NVFP4
sentinel-hidden/             two extra captures of the K4 runtime over the 32 sentinel
  repeat-02/, repeat-03/     contexts, for the noise floor              0.62 GiB each
lm-head/weight.safetensors   BF16 [248320, 5120], extracted from
                             Qwen/Qwen3.8-27B@1d4bf0f2, SHA-256 25a30fd5…dee4cfff  2.37 GiB
reports/                     8 JSON receipts:
                             report-{k4,fp8,nvfp4}-analysis.json  the three candidates
                             paired-k4-vs-{fp8,nvfp4}.json        the paired comparisons
                             noise-r1-vs-r2.json, noise-r2-vs-r3.json  the noise floor
                             qualification-bf16.json              live-vs-replay error
checksums.txt                SHA-256 of all 985 data files (everything but itself and
                             this README)

tokens/ is authoritative: retokenising source text does not reproduce the evaluation input. Verify integrity with sha256sum --check checksums.txt before use.

Reproduce a number

git clone https://github.com/malaiwah/qwen38-27b-exl3
hf download malaiwah/qwen38-27b-fidelity-suite-v3 --repo-type dataset --local-dir suite-v3

# recompute our published K4 result from the shipped captures (no model needed)
python qwen38-27b-exl3/tools/fidelity.py replay \
  --reference suite-v3/reference-hidden \
  --candidate suite-v3/candidate-hidden/k4-online-k6 \
  --head suite-v3/lm-head/weight.safetensors \
  --suite suite-v3 --filter analysis --out my-k4.json

# then compare receipts
python qwen38-27b-exl3/tools/fidelity.py paired \
  --a my-k4.json --b suite-v3/reports/report-nvfp4-analysis.json \
  --a-label mine --b-label nvfp4 --out my-paired.json

To score your own checkpoint, capture its hidden states over the same tokens (fidelity.py capture --suite suite-v3 ...) and replay against reference-hidden/.

Held-out corpus, and the contamination scan

Why held out matters: the previous version of this suite was built from exllamav3's bundled calibration corpora — the same text the EXL3 candidate was calibrated on, while the NVFP4 and FP8 candidates were calibrated elsewhere. That biased the comparison. Re-measuring on held-out text moved our own number from 0.026231 to 0.030736 (+17 %) and moved FP8's from 0.019309 to 0.013126 (-32 %). The published v3 numbers are the honest ones.

A 160-character shingle scan of every context against every exllamav3 calibration corpus reports 0 contaminated contexts, 0 hits (67,818 calibration shingles). Recorded in suite-manifest.json -> contamination_scan.

Token IDs are a lossless encoding of the source text, so the Wikipedia-derived strata carry CC BY-SA 4.0 attribution requirements; the Gutenberg strata are public domain; CPython is PSF-licensed; arXiv abstracts remain under their authors' terms. lm-head/weight.safetensors is one tensor extracted from Qwen/Qwen3.8-27B (Apache-2.0) and is redistributed under that licence.

Controls shipped with the data

The withdrawn CUDA-graph control

Earlier revisions of this card listed a fourth control, "CUDA-graph parity 0.000000 between graph and eager captures of the same checkpoint". It is withdrawn and is not shipped here. fidelity.py capture takes a single prefill forward, and the graph mode under test (cudagraph_mode=FULL_DECODE_ONLY) captures no prefill graph, so that measurement compared two runs of the same eager prefill code and could not have measured the decode path at all. The only claim it supports is "enabling graph decode does not change prefill numerics".

Re-measured on real decode steps (32 prompts x 32 greedy tokens, temperature 0, fixed seed, via the serving endpoint), graph and eager agree on 24/32 exact sequences with mean |delta logprob| 0.0118 on the chosen token, and each mode is internally deterministic (32/32 self-repeat). Unquantised BF16 on the same build drifts by the same amount (24/32, 0.0128), so the drift belongs to this build's CUDA-graph decode path and is not caused by the quantisation. Full result: docs/27-graph-decode-drift-control.md. These are decode-sequence receipts, not hidden-state captures, so they live in the research repo (receipts/decode-parity-*.json) rather than in this dataset.

What this snapshot now contains, and what it still does not

Added (this revision): the whole K5/K6 family's hidden-state captures, so every headline in the family's model cards is independently recomputable without a GPU or a checkpoint download:

reports-k5k6/ carries the matching replay reports and every paired receipt, including the two as-served (asymmetric-head) reports that attribute the K6 head: +0.000127 on the online build, +0.000125 on the hydrated one.

Still missing, stated plainly:

• —A post-selection result. Every number here is on the 136-context analysis partition, which guided recipe selection, and this suite's qualification partition is not source-disjoint from it: all 27 qualification clusters also appear in analysis, because the builder split contexts rather than source clusters. A v4 suite is being built from new documents with a group split; until it lands, treat these as development-set numbers.
• —Language coverage is narrower than the tags suggest. The multilingual stratum is 6 German and 1 Russian context; the builder tolerated under-filled strata. It now fails instead, and v4 fetches more languages.
• —No downstream task, multimodal-quality or long-context accuracy data. This dataset measures distribution divergence only.
• —No near-duplicate or semantic contamination scan. The exact 160-character shingle scan found zero overlap with exllamav3's calibration corpus, and an independent reviewer reproduced that at 80 characters too, but near-duplicates are untested.

Caveats, stated plainly

1. 1.Replay is not exact. Our live-vs-replayed qualification is 6.54e-04, about 500x worse than the 1.23e-06 the reference protocol reports on Kimi-K3. This was tested: storing the hidden states in fp32 instead of BF16 moved it only to 6.25e-04 (-4.5 %), so operand rounding is ~5 % of the floor and the rest is the implementation difference between the serving runtime's logit path and our replay. Paired comparisons are unaffected because both arms use the identical replay path, but absolute differences below ~1e-3 are not resolvable with these artifacts.
2. 2.2048-token contexts only. Nothing here measures long context, and the model supports 262,144.
3. 3.No dialogue/instruction, mathematics/reasoning, or structured/tool-call strata — exactly the distributions a thinking model is used for. 41 source clusters, versus 827 in the reference artifact.
4. 4.KLD ranks candidates within this artifact's frozen identities. It does not substitute for coding, reasoning, long-context, multimodal, tool-use or free-running generation evaluation, and thresholds from other models, corpora or tokenizers do not transfer.

Provenance