Join the conversation

Join the community of Machine Learners and AI enthusiasts.

Sign Up
savoji 
posted an update 1 day ago
Post
2,962
LFM3-1.7B from @LiquidAI is the #1 trending model on the Hub (855 likes). It takes about 1 GB at 4-bit, and in the vendor's own table it beats Qwen3.5 9B on several agent benchmarks.

The edge decision moves from "are small models good enough?" to "which architecture and runtime do I pick?" One 1.7B backbone now ships as text, VL-2B and Omni-2B checkpoints with open weights.

🔍 Architecture and speed
• 24 layers: 13 gated convolutions (kernel 7), 5 sliding-window attention (256 tokens), 6 global attention, chosen by a search over 14 device and backend targets
• llama.cpp Q4_0 at 32K context: 1.8 to 2.8x faster decode than the next model on 3 devices
• Full 128K context needs 1.6 GB of KV cache vs 4.3 GB (Qwen3.5-4B) and 5.6 GB (MiniCPM5-2B)

📊 Liquid AI's table
• Average 49.37 vs 47.24 for Qwen3.5 9B; BFCL V4 71.39 vs 62.83; WebArena-Verified 38.42 vs 28.94
• Qwen3.5 9B still wins SWE-bench Verified (51.20 vs 43.40) and GPQA Diamond (80.40 vs 63.37)

🛠️ Try it
• GGUF (174,177 downloads last month) runs in llama.cpp b11960+, Ollama and LM Studio; MLX 4-bit for Apple Silicon; SGLang for GPUs
• llama-cli -hf LiquidAI/LFM3-1.7B-GGUF:Q4_K_M --temp 0.1 --top-k 50 --repeat-penalty 1.1
• Omni-2B runs in the browser in the WebGPU Space

⚠️ Caveats
• The numbers are vendor-reported, with no independent reproduction in the sources. The card says it is not for agentic coding or complex multi-step reasoning.

LiquidAI/LFM3-1.7B
LiquidAI/LFM3-1.7B-GGUF
LiquidAI/LFM3-Omni-2B
LiquidAI/LFM3-Omni-2B-WebGPU

Has a sub-2B model held up on your own tool-calling harness?

• Medium: https://medium.com/p/05507e4e81c8
• Substack: https://sajjadpakdamansavoji.substack.com/p/liquid-ais-lfm3-turns-the-small-model
• X: https://x.com/saavoji/status/2117307514177941672
• Website: https://sajjadpsavoji.github.io/blog#liquid-ais-lfm3

Great writeup! The gated-convolution + sliding-window hybrid is a really interesting architecture choice for the sub-2B regime — the KV-cache numbers (1.6 GB at 128K vs 4.3 GB for Qwen3.5-4B) are the kind of practical win that matters for edge deployment.

On your question about sub-2B tool-calling: my hands-on experience is smaller (SmolLM2-360M), but I hit a relevant failure mode. On multiple-choice-style tool selection, the model had a massive positional prior — 'A' was chosen 43% of the time unconditionally, 'D' only 15%. Raw accuracy was 30%; after unconditioned PMI calibration (subtracting the prompt-only prior from each candidate logit) it jumped to 50%. A cyclic option-permutation diagnostic showed 0% position consistency, confirming the model was pattern-matching enumeration position rather than reasoning about the tool description.

I suspect any sub-2B model (including LFM3 at 1.7B) will show similar positional primacy unless the harness explicitly randomizes or calibrates. Worth checking if LiquidAI's BFCL numbers use fixed option ordering — if so, part of that 71.39 might be position luck rather than genuine tool selection.

The repetition/sampling side is also rough at this scale. On 360M I found that naive repetition penalties actually reward loops (negative logits divided by penalty become less negative), and that adaptive temperature coupled with Min-P 0.05 was the only combo that broke loops without leaking garbage tokens. Curious whether the 24-layer hybrid architecture changes the entropy landscape enough to make standard top-p/top-k behave better at 1.7B.

Congrats on getting it trending — the 1 GB at 4-bit + llama.cpp support makes it genuinely deployable. 🤗

·

Thanks, the PMI result is a good check. The model card and release post don't say how the BFCL run orders its tools, so I can't rule out position effects. LFM3 writes tool calls as XML function calls rather than picking a letter, which may help, but nothing I have tests that. The card gives no Min-P guidance, only top-k and a repetition penalty.

deleted

zq7quota probe

deleted
•
This comment has been hidden (marked as Spam)
deleted
•
This comment has been hidden (marked as Spam)

The thing is recently i used their model through their platform using OpenCode and when i asked it a very simple thing like, "upgrade this package from 1.9 to 1.15" it said it was okay because 1.9 > 1.15, like we were doing normal math. Anyway that is something i came by and it bothered me because they claim very good coding benchmarks.

·

That is a fair hit and it matches the card, which says the model is not recommended for agentic coding. Even in Liquid's own table it trails Qwen3.5 9B on SWE-bench Verified, 43.40 against 51.20. The strengths they claim are tool calling and structured output, so I would keep coding on a larger model.