mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

One Token Is Enough: Fingerprinting and Verifying Large Language Models from Single-Token Output Distributions

arXiv 2607.10252 ↗First posted 11 Jul 2026cs.CR cs.CL cs.LGcited by 6

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly consumed through opaque serving chains - API aggregators, resellers, and inference providers - in which the client has no technical means to confirm that the model answering is the model advertised, and recent audits show that a substantial fraction of commercial endpoints deviate from the vendor's reference weights. Existing identification techniques require long generated texts, token-level log-probabilities, adversarially crafted prompts, or the model owner's cooperation. We show that far weaker evidence suffices. We define a behavioral fingerprint of an LLM as the empirical distribution of its answers to trivial one-word prompts - "name a random number between 1 and 100" - collected across four languages at a cost of one output token per query. Measuring 165 models served via a large commercial aggregator (OpenRouter), we find that (i) these distributions are highly non-uniform (median cell entropy 1.0 bit) and model-specific: split halves of the same model's samples lie an order of magnitude closer than samples of different models; (ii) Jensen-Shannon divergence between fingerprints recovers model lineage, assigning a model to its documented family with 59.5% leave-one-out accuracy against an 18.4% chance rate; and (iii) a biometric-style verification protocol achieves a 7.3% equal error rate with the full 40-cell battery, and below 11% with eight probe cells - roughly a hundred single-token queries per audit. We further report ecosystem anomalies, including a proprietary-branded flagship endpoint distributionally indistinguishable from an open-weight Qwen model. The protocol, prompts, raw data, and analysis code are released for reproduction and operational use.

Key facts. Cited by 6 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 16 of its 23 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 11 Jul 2026.

Builds on

16 of 23 references.

References · 16

  1. 2023A Watermark for Large Language Modelscited by 667
  2. 2023Playing repeated games with Large Language Modelscited by 213
  3. 2021Algorithmic Monoculture and Social Welfarecited by 98
  4. 2022Picking on the Same Person: Does Algorithmic Monoculture lead to Outcome Homogenization?cited by 89
  5. 2024LLMmap: Fingerprinting For Large Language Modelscited by 56
  6. 2024Model Equality Testing: Which Model Is This API Serving?cited by 44
  7. 2025Are You Getting What You Pay For? Auditing Model Substitution in LLM APIscited by 35
  8. 2024TRAP: Targeted Random Adversarial Prompt Honeypot for Black-Box Identificationcited by 33
  9. 2025Idiosyncrasies in Large Language Modelscited by 32
  10. 2024Heads, Tails, and AI Fails: LLMs, Randomness, and Human Judgmentscited by 23
  11. 2025Auditing Black-Box LLM APIs with a Rank-Based Uniformity Testcited by 16
  12. 2023BDMMT: Backdoor Sample Detection for Language Models through Model Mutation Testingcited by 13
4 more
  1. 2025FIT-Print: Towards False-claim-resistant Model Ownership Verification via Targeted Fingerprintcited by 8
  2. 2024A Comparison of Large Language Model and Human Performance on Random Number Generation Taskscited by 7
  3. 2024BOSC: A Backdoor-based Framework for Open Set Synthetic Image Attributioncited by 6
  4. 2025Deterministic or probabilistic? The psychology of LLMs as random number generatorscited by 6

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 7 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2026: 6.

6 papers.