Join the conversation

Join the community of Machine Learners and AI enthusiasts.

Sign Up
pankajpandey-devย 
posted an update 3 days ago
Post
4038
๐Ÿ‡ฎ๐Ÿ‡ณ Qwen3.5-9B Hindi Instruct โ€” it stops thinking in English
Ask base Qwen3.5-9B a question in Hindi and it burns hundreds of tokens thinking in English inside its think block before a single Devanagari word appears โ€” then code-switches in the answer. I fine-tuned it to close the think block instantly and reply in pure, native Hindi.
โœ… Model (16-bit): pankajpandey-dev/qwen3.5-9b-hindi-instruct
โœ… GGUF (Q4/Q5/Q8): pankajpandey-dev/qwen3.5-9b-hindi-instruct-GGUF
โœ… Try it in the browser: pankajpandey-dev/qwen3.5-9b-hindi-demo
Recipe: Unsloth + LoRA (r=16, response-only loss) on 12.9k Hindi pairs โ€” AI4Bharat anudesh + dolly-hi + wikiHow-hi + Aya Hindi (human-written). The Q4_K_M is 5.4 GB and runs on a plain laptop CPU.
New in this run vs my earlier models: mixed in long-form native sources (wikiHow) after my last eval showed the fine-tune traded detail for conciseness โ€” this one keeps answers detailed and native.
Part of my weekly ๐Ÿ‡ฎ๐Ÿ‡ณ Hindi LLM Series. Feedback welcome ๐Ÿ™
#Hindi #IndicNLP #Qwen #GGUF #LocalLLM #Unsloth

The token-burn is the real story here, not the language switch. Reasoning in English before a single Devanagari word is pure latency tax if that trace never reaches the answer.

You caught the last run trading detail for conciseness. Did closing the think block cost any accuracy on multi-step Hindi questions, or was the English thinking never load-bearing to begin with?

ยท

Fair callout โ€” I don't actually know yet. My checks were informal, not a real multi-step eval.
Hunch: for simple factual/instructional prompts (most of my training data), the English trace was probably just habit, not load-bearing. For chained reasoning (math, multi-hop), it might matter more โ€” I didn't test that specifically.
Planning to run a small multi-step Hindi eval (with/without forced-open think block) and post numbers. Open to using a benchmark if you have one you trust.

The eval you want is the ablation itself, not a leaderboard. Same multi-hop Hindi prompts, think-block forced open vs closed, measure both answer accuracy and whether the English trace ever changed the answer.

On ready sets: MILU has Hindi but it is knowledge recall, not chained reasoning. MGSM skips Hindi entirely, so a small hand-checked GSM8K-hi slice beats a big noisy auto-translation here.

Will you log think-block token count per answer? If closed matches open on accuracy, that token count is your whole latency win, quantified.

ยท

Yeah honestly haven't run that test yet, but you're right that's the real one to run.
Idea is โ€” same multi-hop Hindi prompts, run once with think forced open, once closed, see if accuracy actually moves or if that English reasoning was just... there, not really doing anything.
For data, skipping MILU (it's recall, not real reasoning) and MGSM doesn't even have Hindi. So just hand-checking a small GSM8K-hi slice myself instead of auto-translating โ€” didn't want noise messing with the results.
And yeah will track think-block token count too. If closed keeps the same accuracy as open, that's basically free speed, no tradeoff. Will post numbers once I run it.