Thanks to visit codestin.com
Credit goes to github.com

Skip to content

test(m-gpu-moe-3): FALSIFY-SWIGLU-CPU-CUDA-005 — SwiGLU intrinsic precision is ulp-scale, NOT the amplifier (#1583 PR-3j)#1818

Merged
noahgift merged 4 commits into
mainfrom
feat/m-gpu-moe-3-falsify-swiglu-cpu-cuda-005
May 19, 2026
Merged

test(m-gpu-moe-3): FALSIFY-SWIGLU-CPU-CUDA-005 — SwiGLU intrinsic precision is ulp-scale, NOT the amplifier (#1583 PR-3j)#1818
noahgift merged 4 commits into
mainfrom
feat/m-gpu-moe-3-falsify-swiglu-cpu-cuda-005

Conversation

@noahgift

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Summary

Fifth falsifier in the M-GPU-MOE-3 cascade. Tests CPU `f32::exp` vs CUDA `ex2.approx.f32 * LOG2_E` precision parity on the SwiGLU activation across 5 input distributions.

Per #1816's pivot ranking, SwiGLU was the highest-EV remaining candidate because:

  • Both Q4_K and Q6_K MoE FFN paths reach SwiGLU at the same point (qtype-agnostic).
  • CPU `expert_swiglu_quantized` uses `f32::exp` (libm, ~1 ulp).
  • CUDA `FusedSwigluKernel` uses `ex2.approx.f32` with `LOG2_E` multiplier (PTX intrinsic, ~2 ulps).
  • Algebraically equivalent sigmoid; different f32 precision behavior.

Empirical result (lambda-vector RTX 4090)

```
distribution lo hi max_abs max_rel cpu_l2

uniform -1.00 1.00 5.960e-8 2.369e-7 11.300
moderate -5.00 5.00 1.907e-6 4.303e-7 362.262
extreme_neg -20.00 -10.00 4.657e-9 9.970e-7 0.107
extreme_pos 10.00 20.00 0.000e0 0.000e0 14930.386
mixed -20.00 20.00 7.629e-6 9.803e-7 5998.385
```

Hypothesis FALSIFIED. rel_diff stays at ulp-scale (≤ 1e-6) across all distributions, including extreme [-20, 20] range. The intrinsic precision differential is NOT visible at the activation level.

Notable: `extreme_pos` gives rel_diff = 0.0 exactly — both intrinsics converge to `silu(g) ≈ g` since `exp(-g) ≈ 0` in both, and the multiply is bit-identical.

Cumulative cascade status — 6 hypotheses ruled out

  1. ✅ Per-matvec Q6_K reduction-order on synthetic (test(m-gpu-moe-3): FALSIFY-Q6K-FP-ACC-001 — per-matvec divergence is ulp-scale, NOT the 0.94-cos source (#1583 PR-3f) #1801)
  2. ✅ Activation distribution amplification (test(m-gpu-moe-3): FALSIFY-Q6K-AMP-002 — activation amplification ALSO falsified, only chain-length remains (#1583 PR-3g) #1805)
  3. ✅ Accumulator-chain length compounding (test(m-gpu-moe-3): FALSIFY-Q6K-CHAIN-003 — chain length ALSO falsified; all 3 hypotheses eliminated (#1583 PR-3h) #1811)
  4. ✅ Per-matvec Q6_K on real Qwen3 weights (test(m-gpu-moe-3): FALSIFY-Q6K-REAL-WEIGHT-004 — real Q6_K matches synthetic + qtype-mix structural finding (#1583 PR-3i) #1816)
  5. ✅ Q6_K-specific root cause — structural qtype-mix (test(m-gpu-moe-3): FALSIFY-Q6K-REAL-WEIGHT-004 — real Q6_K matches synthetic + qtype-mix structural finding (#1583 PR-3i) #1816)
  6. ✅ SwiGLU activation parity (this PR)

Remaining candidates after this PR

  1. 🎯 Q4_K real-weight matvec parity (next HIGHEST EV) — has not been directly tested CPU vs CUDA on real Qwen3 Q4_K weights. Q4_K kernel path is structurally different from Q6_K (different super-block layout, different reduction shape).
  2. Compositional FFN-block — full gate × up × SwiGLU × down × weighted-sum on real weights + real activations. The 5-op chain on real distributions may exhibit divergence that no single primitive shows.
  3. Top-K weighted-sum accumulation order — bit-identical by code inspection but worth empirical verification.

What this PR ships

  • `crates/aprender-serve/tests/falsify_swiglu_cpu_cuda_005.rs` (~310 LOC)
    • 1 `#[ignore]` integration test (5-distribution sweep, ~0.12s on RTX 4090)
    • 5 unit tests on helpers (synthetic_range, cpu_swiglu identity behavior at extreme/zero gate, max_rel_diff)

Test plan

  • `cargo check -p aprender-serve --features cuda --test falsify_swiglu_cpu_cuda_005` clean
  • `cargo test --release --features cuda -p aprender-serve --test falsify_swiglu_cpu_cuda_005 -- --ignored --nocapture` PASS on lambda-vector with empirical sweep emitted

Cross-refs

🤖 Generated with Claude Code

…cision is ulp-scale, NOT the amplifier (#1583 PR-3j)

Fifth falsifier in M-GPU-MOE-3 cascade. Tests CPU `f32::exp` vs
CUDA `ex2.approx.f32 * LOG2_E` parity on the SwiGLU activation across
5 input distributions (uniform/moderate/extreme_neg/extreme_pos/mixed).

## Empirical result (lambda-vector RTX 4090)

```
distribution      lo      hi    max_abs     max_rel     cpu_l2
------------------------------------------------------------------
uniform        -1.00    1.00   5.960e-8    2.369e-7      11.300
moderate       -5.00    5.00   1.907e-6    4.303e-7     362.262
extreme_neg   -20.00  -10.00   4.657e-9    9.970e-7       0.107
extreme_pos    10.00   20.00    0.000e0     0.000e0   14930.386
mixed         -20.00   20.00   7.629e-6    9.803e-7    5998.385
```

**Hypothesis FALSIFIED.** rel_diff stays at ulp-scale (≤ 1e-6) across
all distributions, including the most extreme [-20, 20] range. The
`ex2.approx.f32` vs `f32::exp` precision differential is NOT
visible at the SwiGLU activation level.

## Cumulative cascade status — 6 hypotheses ruled out

1. Per-matvec Q6_K reduction-order on synthetic (#1801)
2. Activation distribution amplification (#1805)
3. Accumulator-chain length compounding (#1811)
4. Per-matvec Q6_K on real Qwen3 weights (#1816)
5. Q6_K-specific root cause — structural qtype-mix (#1816)
6. SwiGLU activation parity (this PR)

## Remaining candidates

1. Q4_K real-weight matvec parity (highest EV next)
2. Compositional FFN-block chain on real Qwen3 weights
3. Top-K weighted-sum accumulation order

## What this PR ships

- `tests/falsify_swiglu_cpu_cuda_005.rs` — 1 #[ignore] integration
  test (5-distribution sweep, ~0.12s on RTX 4090) + 5 unit tests on
  helpers (synthetic_range, cpu_swiglu identity behavior, max_rel_diff).

Per `feedback_falsifier_cascade_decomposes_magnitude.md` — 1 PR ≈
1 falsifier.

## Cross-refs

- Issue: #1583 (M-GPU-MOE-3)
- Predecessors: #1801, #1805, #1811, #1816
- CPU side: `expert_swiglu_quantized` in qwen3_moe_load.rs
- CUDA side: `CudaExecutor::fused_swiglu_host` (uses FusedSwigluKernel
  PTX with ex2.approx.f32)

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 <[email protected]>
@noahgift noahgift merged commit ecd3ebf into main May 19, 2026
10 checks passed
@noahgift noahgift deleted the feat/m-gpu-moe-3-falsify-swiglu-cpu-cuda-005 branch May 19, 2026 19:07
noahgift added a commit that referenced this pull request May 19, 2026
…CUDA Q4_K matvec 237,775× divergence vs CPU (#1583 PR-3k) (#1821)

Sixth falsifier in M-GPU-MOE-3 cascade. The structural finding in
#1816 (3 of 7 problem layers use Q4_K for ffn_down_exps) suggested
Q4_K kernel as the highest-EV remaining candidate. This PR
empirically confirms it.

## EMPIRICAL RESULT — DISCHARGE-CLASS FINDING

lambda-vector RTX 4090, real Qwen3-Coder-30B-A3B Q4_K bytes:

source tensor: blk.0.attn_k.weight (16 rows × 512 cols, 4608 bytes)
  cos          = 0.999994
  max_rel_diff = 5.469e-2  ← 5.47 PERCENT per-element error
  cpu_l2       = 0.754
  gpu_l2       = 0.755

**237,775× amplification** over #1816's Q6_K real-weight baseline (2.281e-7).
Three orders of magnitude beyond anything in #1801/#1805/#1811/#1816/#1818.

## Why this explains the 0.94-cos drop in #1583

- 3 of 7 problem layers (L7/L9/L12) use Q4_K ffn_down_exps directly
- All 7 problem layers use Q4_K for ffn_gate_exps + ffn_up_exps
- Per-matvec ~5% error compounds across 128 experts × MoE FFN block
- Naturally produces the 0.94-cos cumulative drop on real-model forward

## CASCADE DISCHARGE

The M-GPU-MOE-3 cascade has empirically pinned root cause to:
  CudaExecutor::q4k_matvec vs CPU fused_q4k_parallel_matvec on real
  Qwen3 Q4_K bytes.

Q6_K was a red herring — the original #1583 framing led the cascade
through 5 dead-end hypotheses before #1816's structural finding
redirected to Q4_K.

## Fix scope (multi-week, references in #1583 as PR-3h+)

1. Bisect WHICH part of the CUDA Q4_K path produces the 5% delta:
   dequant (Q4_K → f32), reduction (warp-shuffle), or both
2. Align CUDA Q4_K kernel reduction order to match CPU
   fused_q4k_parallel_matvec rayon midi-tile reduction
3. Re-run qwen3_moe_per_layer_gpu_parity.rs — verify all 48 layers
   move from ~85% to 100% cos≥0.99
4. Flip qwen3-moe-forward-gpu-v1 v1.7.0 → v1.8.0 ACTIVE_RUNTIME

## What this PR ships

- tests/falsify_q4k_real_weight_006.rs — direct sibling of #1816's
  Q6_K test but for Q4_K. 1 #[ignore] integration test (2.2s on RTX
  4090) + 5 unit tests.

The 6-PR cascade structure:
  #1801 Q6_K synthetic ulp-scale
  #1805 activation distribution flat
  #1811 chain length flat
  #1816 Q6_K real ulp-scale + qtype-mix structural pivot
  #1818 SwiGLU intrinsic ulp-scale
  #1816+#1818 + this PR = ROOT CAUSE PINNED to Q4_K kernel

Per feedback_falsifier_cascade_decomposes_magnitude.md — 1 PR ≈
1 falsifier. Per feedback_predict_then_verify_closes_cascade.md —
this PR's measurement closes the M-GPU-MOE-3 root-cause search;
fix-PR is separate scope.

## Cross-refs

- Issue: #1583 (M-GPU-MOE-3)
- Predecessors: #1801, #1805, #1811, #1816, #1818
- Real-model sibling: tests/qwen3_moe_per_layer_gpu_parity.rs
  (FALSIFY-QW3-MOE-PER-LAYER-001)

Co-authored-by: Noah Gift <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.7 <[email protected]>
noahgift added a commit that referenced this pull request May 19, 2026
…es Q8K activation quant, CUDA uses f32 — different algorithms (#1583 PR-3l DISCHARGE) (#1822)

Seventh falsifier in M-GPU-MOE-3 cascade. Bisects #1821's 5% Q4_K
divergence by comparing THREE paths on identical Q4_K bytes:

A = CPU fused_q4k_parallel_matvec      (production-MoE path)
B = CPU dequantize_q4_k_to_f32 + naive_f32_matvec (isolates dequant)
C = CUDA q4k_matvec                     (suspected broken in #1821)

## EMPIRICAL RESULT — INVERTS #1821

           pair      rel_diff         1-cos
   A vs B (CPU)      2.883e-2      7.093e-6   ← CPU fused ≠ CPU dequant
A vs C (CPU-GPU)      2.883e-2      7.033e-6   ← CPU fused ≠ CUDA
B vs C (deq-GPU)      5.028e-7     -1.192e-7   ← CPU dequant ≈ CUDA ✅

**CUDA q4k_matvec is CORRECT.** Path B (manual CPU dequant + naive
f32 dot) matches path C (CUDA) to ulp-scale 5e-7.

**CPU fused_q4k_parallel_matvec is the divergent path.** It
disagrees with BOTH the CPU naive-dequant reference AND CUDA by
the SAME 2.88% delta.

## True root cause — CPU pre-quantizes activations

parallel_k.rs:181-182 docstring confirms:
  'Pre-quantizes f32 activations to Q8_K once per matmul, enabling
   integer-only inner loops (maddubs) for ~4-8x speedup'

So:
  CPU fused_q4k_parallel_matvec  = Q4_K(W) × Q8_K(quantize(f32_act))
  CUDA q4k_matvec                = Q4_K(W) × f32_act       (no quant)

**They compute DIFFERENT MATHEMATICAL OPERATIONS.** The 2.88%
per-matvec delta is the lossy Q8_K activation quantization.

## What this means for M-GPU-MOE-3 (#1583)

The 0.94-cos drop on real Qwen3 L7/L9/L12/L20/L23/L29/L46 is
**NOT a kernel correctness bug**. It is the natural compositional
consequence of CPU using Q8K activation quant while CUDA uses f32
activations. 2-3% per-matvec compounds across 128 experts × 48
layers to produce the observed ~6% cumulative drop.

#1583's original framing (kernel-level reduction-order alignment
in Q6_K) was triple-wrong: not reduction-order, not Q6_K, not
kernel-correctness. The actual issue is an **activation-qtype
algorithm mismatch** between CPU and CUDA Q4_K paths.

## Fix paths (multi-week, M-GPU-MOE-3 fix scope)

OPTION 1: CPU uses f32 activations (match CUDA)
  - Add fused_q4k_f32_parallel_matvec (no Q8K step)
  - Slows CPU (loses maddubs 4-8× speedup)

OPTION 2: CUDA uses Q8_K activations (match CPU) — RECOMMENDED
  - Add Q8_K activation quant before q4k_matvec
  - Could be FASTER on GPU via DP4A integer ops on Ampere+
  - Modest CUDA kernel scope

OPTION 3: Accept divergence — relax contract cos threshold
  - Update qwen3-moe-forward-gpu-v1 to cos≥0.93
  - Cheapest

## Full cascade discharge

Seven falsifiers, six wrong hypotheses, one true root cause:

  #1801 Q6_K synthetic reduction-order      → ulp-scale
  #1805 activation distribution             → flat
  #1811 chain length compounding            → flat
  #1816 Q6_K real weights + qtype-mix       → ulp-scale + L7/9/12 are Q4_K
  #1818 SwiGLU intrinsic precision          → ulp-scale
  #1821 Q4_K real weights (CPU as truth)    → 5% — misattributed CUDA
  THIS  Q4_K bisection                      → CPU has Q8K quant step

## What this PR ships

- tests/falsify_q4k_bisect_dequant_007.rs — three-path bisection
  (~330 LOC), 1 #[ignore] integration test (2.2s on RTX 4090) +
  5 unit tests.

Per feedback_test_methodology_can_fake_bugs.md — this PR is the
textbook case of why bisection beats single-comparison parity tests.
#1821 used the CPU as ground truth without verifying the CPU was
implementing the same operation as CUDA.

Co-authored-by: Noah Gift <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.7 <[email protected]>
noahgift added a commit that referenced this pull request May 19, 2026
…de DISCHARGE amendment (#1583 spec advancement) (#1825)

Discharge amendment for the full M-GPU-MOE-3 cascade. Seven falsifier
PRs (#1801, #1805, #1811, #1816, #1818, #1821, #1822) empirically pinned
the true root cause of the 0.94-cos drop on real Qwen3 layers
L7/L9/L12/L20/L23/L29/L46.

## TRUE root cause

  CPU fused_q4k_parallel_matvec  = Q4_K(weights) × Q8_K(activations)
  CUDA q4k_matvec                = Q4_K(weights) × f32_activations

Different mathematical operations. The 2.88% per-matvec delta is lossy
Q8_K activation quantization. Compounded across 128 experts × 48 layers,
it produces the observed ~6% cumulative cos drop.

## What this amendment REFUTES

- v1.7.2's 'per-expert SwiGLU f32 intermediates' attribution
  → refuted by #1818 (SwiGLU intrinsic precision is ulp-scale)
- v1.0.0..v1.7.1 'Q6_K fp-accumulator-order' framing
  → refuted by #1801 (synthetic ulp-scale) + #1816 (real Q6_K ulp-scale)
- Q6_K-specific root-cause hypothesis
  → refuted by #1816's structural finding (L7/L9/L12 are Q4_K, not Q6_K)

## Status change

  v1.7.2: ACTIVE_ALGORITHM_LEVEL (with wrong SwiGLU attribution)
  v1.8.0: ACTIVE_ALGORITHM_LEVEL_WITH_DOCUMENTED_DIVERGENCE
          - 47/48 layers cos≥0.99 stands
          - root cause documented (activation-qtype algorithm mismatch)
          - L47 cliff is the natural compositional consequence
          - 0.94-cos on 7 problem layers is documented, not a bug

## Fix paths (OUT OF SCOPE for this PR; tracked as M-GPU-MOE-3 PR-4)

OPTION 1: CPU uses f32 activations (slow CPU)
OPTION 2: CUDA uses Q8_K activations (RECOMMENDED — DP4A faster)
          PackedDp4aQ4KQ8Kernel already exists; just need CUDA
          f32→Q8_K activation quant kernel to feed it.
OPTION 3: Document divergence; relax cos threshold

## Validation

- python3 yaml.safe_load: PASS
- pv validate contracts/qwen3-moe-forward-gpu-v1.yaml: 0 errors, 0 warnings

## Cross-refs

- Issue: #1583 (M-GPU-MOE-3)
- Cascade: #1801, #1805, #1811, #1816, #1818, #1821, #1822
- Sibling: tests/qwen3_moe_per_layer_gpu_parity.rs
  (FALSIFY-QW3-MOE-PER-LAYER-001) — real-model parity gate

Co-authored-by: Noah Gift <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.7 <[email protected]>
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant