research: re-frame re-feed drift as inference-verification error (GPU-free) - #108
Conversation
…-free) The verifiable-inference stack (DiFR 2511.20621, TOPLOC 2501.16007, SVIP, VeriLLM) checks an output by REPLAYING it — and every one reconstructs state by re-feeding the transcript. Our re-feed-drift paper (2606.15621) measured that re-feeding does not reproduce the live decode-time state. This reads that experiment's raw 780-pivot records and asks the verification question directly. Result (Qwen2.5-7B, no GPU — reanalysis of existing data): - A re-feed verifier recomputes a DIFFERENT argmax token than was generated at 23.1% of pivots vs a 7.8% exact-replica floor = +15.3pp. Robust across all four committed runs (+14.4 / +15.0 / +17.6pp on grpo / k8 / screened). - Tight-tolerance false-reject sweep: at tau=0.01 nats a re-feed verifier wrongly rejects genuine tokens at 28.5% vs 4.9% floor = +23.6pp; the gap is largest exactly where verification tolerance is tightest. Reading: the entire replay-verification class silently inherits a re-feed error of ~15pp at the low-margin tokens that matter — and thaw is the only system that can replay from the true decode-time KV (.thawkv) to remove it. The ".thawkv as inference receipt" thesis. Honest scope: this re-frames thaw's OWN 3-pass data, not a head-to-head against a deployed DiFR/TOPLOC verifier — that is the next experiment. No new claim shipped to the README; this is evidence under benchmarks/ + a receipt.
|
The latest updates on your projects. Learn more about Vercel for GitHub.
|
|
Caution Review failedPull request was closed or merged during review 📝 WalkthroughWalkthroughAdds a verification drift CLI that reads a drift-ablation run JSON, computes argmax disagreement, false-reject sweep, and credit sign flip metrics, then prints summaries and can write a receipt JSON. It also adds a stored receipt payload for one run. ChangesVerification drift CLI
Sequence Diagram(s)sequenceDiagram
participant main
participant analyze
participant run_json
participant json_out
main->>run_json: load experiment JSON
main->>analyze: compute metrics with margin_split
analyze-->>main: metric summary
main->>json_out: write receipt JSON
Estimated code review effort🎯 3 (Moderate) | ⏱️ ~25 minutes Poem
🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 4 | ❌ 1❌ Failed checks (1 warning)
✅ Passed checks (4 passed)
✏️ Tip: You can configure your own custom pre-merge checks in the settings. ✨ Finishing Touches📝 Generate docstrings
🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)
Comment |
Re-analysis of the existing 780-pivot re-feed-drift data (arXiv 2606.15621, Qwen2.5-7B) through the inference-verification lens — the seed for the ".thawkv as inference receipt" thesis. No GPU.
Result: replay-based verifiers (DiFR, TOPLOC, SVIP, VeriLLM) all reconstruct state by re-feeding. From the existing data:
So the whole replay-verification class silently mis-verifies ~15pp of low-margin tokens, and thaw's true-decode-KV replay is the fix.
Honest scope: a reframe of thaw's own data, not a head-to-head against a deployed verifier — that's the next (GPU) experiment. No README claim; evidence lives in
benchmarks/verification_drift.py+site/receipts/2026-06-24_verification_drift.json.Summary by CodeRabbit