quantprobe 1.7.0

Probe-then-quantize for LLMs: measure a model's fragility curve, plan bit/tier placement by the tiered decode law, and emit ready-to-run llama.cpp recipes.

quantprobe

Placement beats budget

Where your bits sit — which layers, which memory tier — matters more than how many you have. Four falsification-tested laws for running big LLMs on hardware you already own, every number measured on one 2016 desktop (GTX 1060 6 GB · 16 GB DDR4 · SATA SSD).

▶ Try the interactive calculator: Will it run — and how fast? Pick any model + your machine → predicted tok/s, memory fit, quality cost, and your cheapest next upgrade — from the law below, with your config plotted against every validated measurement.

New here? → QUICKSTART.md gets you running in 60 seconds — or just pip install quantprobe && quantprobe auto qwen3-coder --run. The calculators (hw/plan/target/optimize) need nothing installed; the weight-touching commands drive llama.cpp (point quantprobe at it with --llama-dir, QUANTPROBE_LLAMA_DIR, or PATH; preview anything with --dry). 16 machine presets ship in (--machine): GTX 1060 → RTX 5090, Apple mac-m2/m3/m4-*, DGX Spark, Epyc — or pass raw specs. Multi-GPU / RAID? Comma lists aggregate: --vram 24,24 --disk-bw 14,14. Big-VRAM + disk-streaming rigs get the three-tier expert-cache row (v1.3).

---

What this is

My 2016 desktop can't run frontier models the way a datacenter does — so instead of brute force, I asked where every bit and byte should go, and answered it by measurement. Months of experiments later, the result is four laws, a 30-minute probe tool, copy-paste llama.cpp recipes, and one equation that predicts decode speed from 7B to 744B — validated against my own pre-registered predictions and against colibri's independently published 744B numbers.

Headline results

result	number
16B MoE, 2-bit, data-free, resident on a 6 GB card	ppl 6.31 → 6.96 (1.10×) — beats calibrated SOTA's gap-ratio
Same bytes, different layers (Gemma 4 12B, stock llama.cpp)	byte-identical files, 2.25 ppl apart (12.27 vs 10.02)
Gemma 4 12B depth-aware 2-bit	1.91× → 1.45× quality cost, ~4.5 GB resident
Qwen3-30B-A3B on the 2016 desktop	19.3 tok/s — hybrid placement, predicted 19 before measuring
GLM-4.5-Air 110B from a SATA drive, 16 GB RAM	0.19 tok/s — inside the law's pre-registered 0.2–0.3 band
RAM overclock (XMP, 2133→3000)	dense +52%, pre-registered ×1.41+

Why the evidence is unusually strong

Most benchmark posts report what happened. I report what I predicted before it happened — I wrote the number down, then ran the hardware, and this is the strongest form of empirical evidence I know how to produce:

prediction (made first)	measured (after)
110B streamed from SATA: 0.2–0.3 tok/s	0.19
RAM overclock scales in-RAM decode ×1.41+	×1.52
30B hybrid placement: ~19 tok/s	19.30 ± 0.88
a day-old 118B (Laguna S 2.1) streamed from this SATA drive: 0.2–0.4 (staked pre-download)	0.38 ± 0.17
colibri's own 128 GB / 25 GB tiers, from our η bands	land inside the bands

Add to that: a byte-identical control (two GGUFs the same size, 2.25 ppl apart — only placement differs), a full claim → script → log manifest (every number reproducible in-tree), and a set of documented dead ends (dynamic top-k, semantic paging, self-speculation — all measured-dead, because a law you only confirm is a law you haven't tested).

One frame, no cuts: Task Manager (16 GB @ 3000 MT/s, GTX 1060 6 GB, RAM at 91% — the hybrid placement using the whole machine) beside llama.cpp chatting Qwen3-30B-A3B at 20.4 tok/s generation — above the pre-registered 19. Raw logs, hardware attestation + GGUF SHA256: EVIDENCE.txt. Third bench run: 19.26 ± 0.45 (series 19.30 → 19.55 → 19.26).

Open pre-registrations — predictions staked publicly before measurement: colibri v1.1, five falsifiable predictions (2026-07-23) — dual-SSD scaling, int3 speedup, lattice-vs-scalar, AVX-512 tier-scoping, MTP×MoE antagonism — plus open bands on the CPU-only context slope and expert-pruning decode (all verdicts).

Live research track — Law 5 (prefill): protocol-first and scored same-day in weights/LAW5_PROTOCOL.md — 6 staked hits, 4 published misses, and one self-caught retraction corrected in public within the hour, including the measured recipe that cuts an agent's 8k-context turn cost from ~75 s to ~0.5 s. Next up, staked before launch: Law 6 — speculation economics, scoring in public the week of 2026-07-27.

The four placement laws

Full statements, each with its establishing measurement and a falsifiable prediction, in LAWS.md.

1. Rotation is rank-conditional. Incoherence rotation (QuIP#/QTIP/QuaRot) helps full-rank tensors (+0.006 ppl) and destroys low-rank bottlenecks (+1623 ppl) — a ~270,000× swing on effective rank alone.
2. Trained networks are dense everywhere. Experts sit exactly at the rate-distortion floor; routing is flat (even across domains — Jaccard 1.00 prose vs code); activations are diffuse. 2-bit is the floor.
3. Fragility is measurable, not predictable. Gemma late-fragile 4×, Mistral early-fragile 25× — architectural near-twins pointing opposite ways. Weight statistics mislead. Only a 30-minute functional probe decides.
4. The tiered decode law. tok/s = η(tier)·BW ÷ active-bytes, η collapsing per tier across 7B→744B and both projects' hardware. v1.1 adds the context term: each generated token also re-reads the whole KV cache from its tier — --ctx prices it, bench --depth measures it (measured here: 20.02 → 16.12 tok/s at 16k depth).

Install — and the eleven commands

pip install quantprobe
quantprobe auto qwen3-coder --tps 15 --run   # empty machine -> optimal quant chosen, fetched, chatting

Zero-config on your own box: quantprobe plan --gguf model.gguf auto-detects the machine and reads the model from the file. Presets/flags estimate any other machine. hw/plan/target/optimize need nothing else installed (auto needs network for the fetch); the rest drive stock llama.cpp (point at it with --llama-dir/QUANTPROBE_LLAMA_DIR/PATH; preview any command with --dry).

quantprobe auto qwen3-30b --tps 15                       # ONE command: optimizer picks bits, closest quant fetched, run command printed
quantprobe auto qwen3-30b --custom --run                 # THE PRODUCT: probe YOUR model, build its personalized depth-aware GGUF, launch it
quantprobe hw                                            # what the law sees on THIS machine (every value source-tagged)
quantprobe plan     --gguf model.gguf                    # zero-config prediction: placement + tok/s + the launch command
quantprobe optimize --tps 20                             # CHEAPEST PATH to a target: bits x placement x hardware, Pareto-ranked
quantprobe target   --tps 5 --machine gaming --ladder    # inverse: target -> smartest model + speed-intelligence ladder
quantprobe fetch    qwen3-30b ./models                   # robust, resumable download
quantprobe quantize --gguf f16.gguf --out 2bit.gguf      # COMPRESS: depth-aware ~2-bit GGUF (verified: loads + generates)
quantprobe probe    --gguf f16.gguf --eval wiki.test.raw # measure YOUR model's fragile band (~30 min); --apply builds it
quantprobe run      --gguf 2bit.gguf                     # plan the placement, then LAUNCH llama.cpp chat
quantprobe bench    --gguf 2bit.gguf --contribute        # predicted vs measured on your box; opt-in datapoint
quantprobe dashboard --gguf 2bit.gguf                    # the law LIVE: neuron galaxy + thinking toggle, every reply scored vs prediction

The loop is self-validating: plan predicted 17.5 for a file we then measured at 18.32 ± 0.17; the config months of research converged to is what optimize picks blind. A measured example of what that's worth: the same model, mis-specified vs law-routed, is 3.38 vs 18.32 tok/s (×5.4) — worked examples.

Help grow the law

quantprobe bench --contribute prints exactly what would be shared (hardware label, model, predicted-vs-measured) plus a pre-filled issue link — you review and submit; nothing is ever sent automatically. Contributed points land on the law chart; the ones outside the bands are the most valuable. Open falsifiable predictions anyone can settle: preregistrations/.

Deep dives

QUICKSTART.md	60-second start, three levels; recipes (own fine-tune, coding agents, hardware buying); Ollama interop
LAWS.md	the four laws — statements, measurements, falsifiable predictions, the general form
docs/EXAMPLES.md	worked examples with real outputs: zero-config, the ×5.4 optimizer A/B, probe walkthrough, troubleshooting
docs/HARDWARE.md	the 2016 box: exact specs, measured bandwidths, what the next euro buys
docs/DEEP-DIVE.md	what's new vs. what's built-on, parity tables, the 744B-at-home projection, repository map
preregistrations/	every staked prediction with its verdict — hits, the near-miss, and the honest miss
weights/LAW5_PROTOCOL.md	the live Law-5 research ledger — conventions, stakes, scores, and the retraction
papers/arxiv/	the paper (submission-ready LaTeX)
CHANGELOG.md	v1.0 → v1.5, every release

Honest limitations

• Perplexity on WikiText-2 is my primary metric; I haven't run task-level evals (MMLU/HellaSwag) yet.
• My fragility atlas covers four model families — enough to disprove universality, not to chart every architecture.
• 0.19 tok/s for a 110B is a capacity demonstration, not usable inference — the honest speed only arrives with faster storage.
• Speed numbers are single-stream decode on one machine (±25% across environments); the tiered-decode η values are fitted, not derived.
• No custom runtime: everything rides stock llama.cpp and streaming eval harnesses. The one CUDA kernel is verified in reference, not built.

Credits

colibri (744B on 25 GB, pure C) inspired the tier-streaming exploration. The quantization stack builds on llama.cpp and the QTIP/QuIP# incoherence codecs — whose central tool our first law bounds. Independent research by Federico Sciuca, AI-supported, on one desktop; every claim is measured, and every negative that redirected the work is documented. The Law 4 context term (v1.1) was prompted by u/RogerAI--fyi (Reddit), who correctly observed the original formulation omitted per-token KV reads — measured, confirmed, and shipped within a day.

License

MIT — see LICENSE. © 2026 Federico Sciuca.