Instructions to use enseven/lfm-2.5-think-code with libraries, inference providers, notebooks, and local apps. Follow these links to get started.
- Libraries
- PEFT
How to use enseven/lfm-2.5-think-code with PEFT:
from peft import PeftModel from transformers import AutoModelForCausalLM base_model = AutoModelForCausalLM.from_pretrained("LiquidAI/LFM2.5-1.2B-Thinking") model = PeftModel.from_pretrained(base_model, "enseven/lfm-2.5-think-code") - Notebooks
- Google Colab
- Kaggle
LFM2.5-1.2B-Thinking β KodCode LoRA fine-tune (documented negative result)
LoRA fine-tune (r=32, Ξ±=64, attention + MLP modules, 1 epoch, LR 1e-4, bf16, 4096-token packing)
of LiquidAI/LFM2.5-1.2B-Thinking on
KodCode-V1-SFT-R1 β 70% code-only
r1_solution targets, 30% chain-of-thought β formatted for the LFM2.5 chat template
(dataset).
Evaluation result: the fine-tune made the model worse at code
Sealed HumanEval+ benchmark (128 never-before-used tasks, greedy decoding, one sample per task, EvalPlus v0.1.10, pinned llama.cpp runtime, restricted offline containers):
| Row | plus pass@1 (scored) | plus rate (absence = 0) | tokens / task | extraction yield |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Base model (BF16 GGUF) | 0.5545 (56/101) | 0.4375 | β1,654 | 0.789 |
| This adapter (merged BF16) | 0.4048 (51/126) | 0.3984 | β148 | 0.984 |
| Q8_0 of this adapter | 0.4173 (53/127) | 0.4141 | β128 | 0.992 |
| Q6_K of this adapter | 0.3889 (49/126) | 0.3828 | β151 | 0.984 |
Paired on the 99 tasks scored for both models: the fine-tune passes 49 versus the base model's 56 (β7.1 pp; 16 gained, 23 lost). "Absence = 0" counts unextractable outputs as failures; the scorer's pass@1 silently drops them from the denominator, which flatters a broken model β both views are reported.
Mechanism. The fine-tune learned to skip the base model's reasoning traces: output length collapsed ~11Γ (β1,654 β β148 tokens per task), which is also why extraction yield and decode speed improved. Those discarded reasoning tokens were doing the work. A 33-task pilot before the sealed run showed the same direction.
Recommendation
- For deployment on HumanEval-style code generation, use the base model.
- GGUF artifacts used in this evaluation (including the base-model baseline): enseven/lfm-2.5-think-code-GGUF.
- This adapter is published as a documented negative result. Do not build on it expecting coding gains. The next iteration would preserve the reasoning path and execution-verify training targets β see the repository's evaluation notes.
Provenance
- Evaluated adapter revision:
e01354fecc52e62b9ca86399da10e9e40ebf51e9(unchanged since training). - Benchmark: EvalPlus HumanEval+ v0.1.10; frozen prompt
lfm-code-v1; per-task extraction-failure policy (failures score zero, never repaired or retried); all generation and scoring inside restricted offline containers. - Full evidence chain (frozen suites, raw generations, extraction and scoring runs, manifests):
GitHub β lfm2.5-finetune-code
(
reports/e3/,reports/e4/). - Attached summary reports: pilot-report.json, e4-report.json.
License
CC BY-NC 4.0 β inherited from the KodCode-V1-SFT-R1 training data. The MIT license in the GitHub repository applies to its code, not to this adapter.
- Downloads last month
- -
Model tree for enseven/lfm-2.5-think-code
Base model
LiquidAI/LFM2.5-1.2B-Base