README.md

metadata

base_model: google/gemma-4-E4B-it-qat-q4_0-unquantized
library_name: peft
license: gemma
tags:
  - lora
  - 3d-printing
  - microfactory
  - build-small-hackathon
  - peft
  - chief-engineer
  - qat

Microfactory Node: 3D Printer (LoRA v3 QAT)

I trained this LoRA on top of the QAT-trained gemma-4-E4B-it-qat-q4_0-unquantized base. It runs parallel to v2: the same O'Brien judgment, but I wanted to see if fine-tuning on a Quantization-Aware-Trained base keeps more quality after q4_0 GGUF conversion.

What it does

Give it a print job — material, geometry, room temperature and humidity — and it returns structured Advice JSON:

• Settings: nozzle_temp, bed_temp, retraction_mm, fan_pct, first_layer_fan_pct
• Risk regions: where on the part, what risk, why, anchor hint
• Reasoning: what transfers from prior knowledge and why

Training

Parameter	Value
Base model	google/gemma-4-E4B-it-qat-q4_0-unquantized
Method	LoRA (PEFT)
Rank	r=4, α=8
Epochs	1
Learning rate	2e-4
Batch size	2 × 4 gradient accumulation
Max sequence length	1536
Dataset	180 train / 80 eval (live-generated on Modal A10G)
GPU	NVIDIA A10G (24GB)
Framework	TRL SFTTrainer + transformers 5.x

Same low-rank, single-epoch setup as v2. The variable is the QAT base.

Dataset

I generated the training set by driving the base model across a grid of 4 materials × 5 geometries × 3 temperatures × 3 humidities (train), with 2 temperatures × 2 humidities held out for eval. Each example is a chat-format pair: system prompt describing the job → structured Advice JSON response.

I kept targets noisy — temperature=0.7, top_p=0.95 — to prevent template memorization.

Usage

from peft import PeftModel
from transformers import AutoModelForCausalLM, AutoTokenizer
import torch

tok = AutoTokenizer.from_pretrained("google/gemma-4-E4B-it-qat-q4_0-unquantized")
base = AutoModelForCausalLM.from_pretrained(
    "google/gemma-4-E4B-it-qat-q4_0-unquantized",
    dtype=torch.bfloat16,
    device_map="auto"
)
tuned = PeftModel.from_pretrained(base, "kylebrodeur/microfactory-node-lora-v3-qat")

messages = [{"role": "user", "content": "Your prompt here"}]
inputs = tok.apply_chat_template(messages, return_tensors="pt", add_generation_prompt=True).to(tuned.device)
out = tuned.generate(**inputs, max_new_tokens=512, do_sample=True, temperature=0.7)
print(tok.decode(out[0], skip_special_tokens=True))

Safety

This adapter proposes settings. It does not validate them. A deterministic Spine clamps every proposed value against hard material bounds before any printer sees them. The LoRA gives the opinion; the Spine has the veto.

Iteration history

Version	Base	Rank	Epochs	Dataset	Result
v1	gemma-3-1b-it	r=16	3	deterministic	❌ Parroted template
v2	gemma-4-E4B-it	r=4	1	live-generated	✅ Well-Tuned
v3	gemma-4-E4B-it-qat-q4_0-unquantized	r=4	1	live-generated	✅ Well-Tuned (QAT-trained — better fidelity after q4_0 quant)

v1 taught me what not to do. v3 tests whether QAT pre-training helps the quantized artifact.

Limitations

This adapter is narrow by design, and it will fail loudly outside that narrow band.

• Materials and geometries outside the training grid — The grid covered four materials and five geometries. Hand it an exotic filament or an unusual geometry and it will guess confidently. That guess is extrapolation, not recall.
• Humid PETG stringing — Small Gemmas can return perfectly valid JSON with bad physics. During early driving I saw a lesson recommend slightly higher nozzle temperature to fight humid-PETG stringing, when the correct move is lower. Schema validation does not catch that. The human reads the plan before it runs.
• Multi-tool or multi-material prints — These were not in the training grid. Expect invented tool-change behavior.
• ABS without an enclosure — The model may propose settings that ignore chamber drafts. The Spine clamps individual values, but it does not model enclosure physics.
• Mechanically risky combinations — Very small layer heights paired with aggressive retraction can pass JSON schema and still fail on the bed. That is why La Forge inspects and the human decides.
• No live sensor feedback — It predicts from precedent and stops. It does not see actual bed adhesion, layer curling, or nozzle state. The printer and the human close the loop.
• QAT-specific quant mismatch — The QAT base was trained for q4_0. If you pick q4_k_m you get a balanced default, but it is slightly off the quant the base prepared for. Use q4_0 for highest fidelity.
• Single-epoch, low-rank LoRA on a specialized base — It has not deeply rewritten base knowledge, and the QAT base is already a specialized artifact. Ask it something far from 3D printing and it may behave less like general Gemma than v2 does. That is the trade-off.

Try it via GGUF (Ollama / llama.cpp)

Two quantized GGUFs of this adapter, merged into the QAT base, are published. Both live in kylebrodeur/microfactory-node-gguf and on the public Ollama registry:

Quant	HF Hub file	ollama run … (registry tag)	Why pick this one
q4_k_m	microfactory-node-v3-qat.gguf (5.1 GB)	kylebrodeur/microfactory-node-v3-qat	Balanced default
q4_0 (QAT-native)	microfactory-node-v3-qat-q4_0.gguf (4.9 GB)	kylebrodeur/microfactory-node-v3-qat:q4_0	Highest fidelity — this is the quant the QAT base was trained for

# Public Ollama registry (one-liner)
ollama run kylebrodeur/microfactory-node-v3-qat        # q4_k_m, recommended
ollama run kylebrodeur/microfactory-node-v3-qat:q4_0   # QAT-native quant

# Direct from HF Hub (template/system/params auto-applied)
ollama run hf.co/kylebrodeur/microfactory-node-gguf:microfactory-node-v3-qat.gguf
ollama run hf.co/kylebrodeur/microfactory-node-gguf:microfactory-node-v3-qat-q4_0.gguf

See the full publishing runbook for the merge → quantize → upload pipeline. The non-QAT sibling lives at microfactory-node-lora-v2.

License

This adapter inherits the Gemma license from its base model.