HackerPapers

arXiv:2610.19498cs.CR

What You Sign Is Not What You Run: The Verifiability Gap in Quantized LLM Supply Chains

Wei-Liang Liu, Cheng-Yen Tsai

HN submission. Found in a submission link or body. Submitters do not count as commenters in the main ranking; a submission is not an endorsement.

Abstract

Model signing authenticates the full-precision weights W an LLM is released with, yet users run a quantized artifact Q whose producing transformation is not uniquely determined under current disclosure. We separate the non-environment inputs from the execution environment E and measure a quantity that, to our knowledge, has not been measured before: the Independent Verifiability Rate (IVR), the fraction of a popularity-sampled GGUF ecosystem that a third party can re-derive bit-for-bit. Across the 200 most-downloaded Hugging Face GGUF repositories (198 in scope), no artifact or model card records the build environment, so under a recorded-inputs protocol the IVR is 0/198. Yet the artifacts are not irreproducible. On four in-sample repositories that disclose their inputs, the card's information alone reproduces no Q4_K_M file, but two coordinates the card omits - the build's floating-point-contraction setting and, for hybrid models, the per-tensor quantization recipe - re-derive 7/8 target-quant files bit-for-bit on x86 (5/8 on arm64); the fp16 re-derives from the provider's checkpoint, but the calibration imatrix must be shipped and hash-bound, since recomputing it did not match. An older release additionally pins the instruction set and did not re-derive. Reproducing the divergence reported with llama.cpp PR #25353, we show that E is a necessary coordinate and that one compiler setting yields a unique output across the tested platforms at negligible quality cost (+0.06% perplexity). As a security characterization, benign floating-point non-determinism separates from uniformly placed nibble-flip tampering above a detection floor that grows with the environments a verifier must allow, but a targeted embedding edit evades the statistic, so the proposed protocol rests on exact re-derivation; adversarial-fp16 attacks lie outside it. We release the audit data and a re-runnable harness.

arXiv comments
15 pages, 3 figures, 4 tables. Artifact: https://github.com/Rlonglong/gguf-verifiability-artifact
Journal reference
DOI
Subjects
cs.CRCryptography and Security cs.LGMachine Learning

On Hacker News

No comments linking this paper were found in the collected sources. Found in 1 HN submission from Oct 2026 to Oct 2026. Open submission discussions.

Comments linking this paper, per year.

Discussed in comments0 threads

No comments linking this paper were found in the collected sources. Open submission discussions.

Submitted to Hacker News

Connected through shared HN threads, not inferred similarity or a recommendation.