LFM2.5-8B-A1B text-to-SQL, bf16

LiquidAI/LFM2.5-8B-A1B fine-tuned on text-to-SQL, merged and left in bf16. It is the ceiling arm of a panel of 7 arms: every quantized arm below was made from this checkpoint and allocated the same byte budget, so their accuracies differ by method and not by size.

What this is

base model LiquidAI/LFM2.5-8B-A1B
fine-tune lora r=32, 1.0 epoch over 49,905 text-to-SQL conversations
training data gretelai/synthetic_text_to_sql, Salesforce/wikisql, b-mc2/sql-create-context
quantization none -- this is the bf16 fine-tune every quantized arm was made from
size on disk 15.773 GiB (16.0000 bits per parameter)
loads with transformers

Results

Execution match on 12,000 held-out text-to-SQL problems: the generated query is run against the schema and compared to the reference result set.

arm exec match size bits/param
bf16 84.29% 15.773 GiB 16.0000
gptq_4b 82.07% 4.097 GiB 4.1565
awq_4b 81.77% 4.097 GiB 4.1565
dq_4b 82.84% 4.096 GiB 4.1547
gptq_3b 60.76% 3.104 GiB 3.1488
awq_3b 57.92% 3.104 GiB 3.1488
dq_3b 79.89% 3.103 GiB 3.1475

This arm, by evaluation source:

eval source exec match items
gretel 72.02% 3,063
wikisql 88.50% 8,937

How this arm compares

McNemar exact over the per-item hits, so every row is a paired test on the same problems in the same order. p (Holm) is step-down corrected within the family the panel declared, not within this card.

comparison delta (pts) 95% CI p p (Holm) verdict
4b GPTQ vs bf16 -2.22 [-2.66, -1.79] 1.61e-23 3.23e-23 separated
4b AWQ vs bf16 -2.52 [-2.98, -2.07] 2.52e-28 7.55e-28 separated
4b DynQuant vs bf16 -1.45 [-1.84, -1.06] 2.09e-13 2.09e-13 separated
3b GPTQ vs bf16 -23.53 [-24.38, -22.69] 0 0 separated
3b AWQ vs bf16 -26.37 [-27.25, -25.50] 0 0 separated
3b DynQuant vs bf16 -4.40 [-4.96, -3.84] 1.82e-53 7.29e-53 separated

What is not claimed

  • Storage, measured; throughput, not. The number reported here is bytes on disk and execution match. This card makes no claim about decode speed or peak VRAM against an fp16 baseline, because this panel did not measure either.
  • One task. Execution match on held-out text-to-SQL is what was scored. It says nothing about how this arm behaves on anything else, and a quantization that holds one task can lose another.

Install

This checkpoint is plain bf16 and loads with transformers alone. It is the ceiling arm of a DynQuant panel: the quantized arms in the table above are this same fine-tune at a fraction of the size, and those need the package.

pip install dynquant

Source, format spec, and the allocator that produced their bit maps: https://github.com/kambojvikram/dynquant

Usage

from transformers import AutoModelForCausalLM, AutoTokenizer

model = AutoModelForCausalLM.from_pretrained("VikramPal/LFM2.5-8B-A1B-text2sql-bf16", device_map="cuda")
tokenizer = AutoTokenizer.from_pretrained("VikramPal/LFM2.5-8B-A1B-text2sql-bf16")

Provenance

  • panel model: /workspace/runs/s4/lfm25-8b-a1b.text2sql/merged
  • parameters counted: 8,467,856,128
  • byte target: --
  • fine-tune: 1560 steps, train loss 0.1114, 6.7 h
  • fine-tune commit: d0d33f3bce6f3f59359ce704b16040c7e9ba78f5
  • evaluation: 12,000 problems in 59 min
Downloads last month
-
Safetensors
Model size
8B params
Tensor type
F32
·
BF16
·
Inference Providers NEW
This model isn't deployed by any Inference Provider. 🙋 Ask for provider support

Model tree for VikramPal/LFM2.5-8B-A1B-text2sql-bf16

Finetuned
(39)
this model