Spaces:
Paused
Paused
| # ModelFit Index β Gap Analysis | |
| ## Framing the Gap | |
| Existing tools for local model selection fail RAG practitioners in five ways: | |
| ### Gap 1: Hardware Fit Is Not Automated | |
| Most tools require the user to manually look up VRAM requirements, compare to their GPU spec, and guess whether a model will fit. This: | |
| - Wastes time (download a model β OOM β try again). | |
| - Is error-prone (VRAM estimates online are often for different quantizations or outdated). | |
| - Is impossible without knowing quantization overhead, KV cache cost, and framework overhead. | |
| **ModelFit solution**: Hardware profiler probes CPU/GPU/VRAM/RAM locally. VRAM estimator computes fit before any download. Quantization recommender selects the best level for available hardware. | |
| --- | |
| ### Gap 2: Quantization Selection Is Unexplained | |
| Users face an alphabet soup of quantizations: q4_0, q4_k, q5_k_m, q8_0, gguf, gptq, awq, exl2. No existing tool explains: | |
| - What quality difference each level produces. | |
| - Which level fits a given GPU. | |
| - Whether KV cache overhead at long contexts will push them over the limit. | |
| **ModelFit solution**: Explicit quantization estimator with fit levels (comfortable / tight / not_recommended / impossible). All estimates clearly labelled. Benchmark runner measures actual quality at each level. | |
| --- | |
| ### Gap 3: RAG Quality Is Not Measured for Local Models | |
| Leaderboards (Open LLM, MTEB, Chatbot Arena) measure: | |
| - Academic reasoning (MMLU, ARC, GSM8k) | |
| - Embedding retrieval (MTEB) | |
| - Human preference (Arena) | |
| None measure: | |
| - Citation faithfulness (does the model cite the actual retrieved passage?) | |
| - Groundedness (is the answer supported by retrieved context?) | |
| - Abstention accuracy (does the model correctly say "I don't know"?) | |
| - Evidence coverage (are all relevant retrieved passages used?) | |
| **ModelFit solution**: RAG-specific benchmark tasks (citation, groundedness, abstention). These use local documents and local models β no cloud judge required. | |
| --- | |
| ### Gap 4: Speed Data Is Unreliable or Fabricated | |
| Online tok/s reports suffer from: | |
| - Different hardware (A100 vs. RTX 3090 vs. M2 Pro). | |
| - Different quantizations. | |
| - Different prompt/generation lengths. | |
| - Batch vs. single-request. | |
| - Framework differences (llama.cpp vs. vLLM vs. Ollama). | |
| **ModelFit solution**: Benchmarks run locally and produce hardware-attached results. Estimates are clearly labelled `is_estimate: true`. Measured results from benchmark runner are labelled `is_measured: true`. Community results are labelled with `verified_status`. | |
| --- | |
| ### Gap 5: Adapter Compatibility Is Undocumented for Inference | |
| PEFT/QLoRA documentation focuses on training setup. For inference: | |
| - Which quantized models accept LoRA adapters? | |
| - Can a GGUF model load a LoRA adapter? | |
| - Does an Ollama model support adapter merging? | |
| No tool answers these in the context of RAG deployment. | |
| **ModelFit solution**: `supports_adapters` flag in model metadata. Notes field captures adapter compatibility caveats. | |
| --- | |
| ## Summary Table | |
| | Gap | Existing coverage | ModelFit coverage | | |
| |---|---|---| | |
| | Automated hardware profiling | None (LM Studio partial) | β Full local probe | | |
| | VRAM estimation before download | None (manual TheBloke tables) | β Formula-based estimator | | |
| | Quantization recommendation | None | β Fit-aware recommender | | |
| | KV cache overhead estimation | None | β Context-length-aware | | |
| | RAG groundedness measurement | None locally | β Local benchmark | | |
| | Citation faithfulness | None locally | β Local benchmark | | |
| | Abstention accuracy | None | β Local benchmark | | |
| | Measured tok/s (not fabricated) | Community posts, unreproducible | β Local benchmark with hardware metadata | | |
| | Adapter compatibility info | HF cards (inconsistent) | β Registry metadata field | | |
| | Visual grounding model support | None indexed | β Vision model detection | | |
| | Community benchmark index | None structured | β Validated JSON schema | | |
| | RAG strategy β model integration | None | β ModelFit in query response | | |
| --- | |
| ## Who Benefits | |
| | User type | Pain point addressed | | |
| |---|---| | |
| | Consumer GPU user (8β16 GB VRAM) | Knows which models actually fit before pulling | | |
| | RAG practitioner | Knows which model produces grounded citations | | |
| | Research contributor | Can reproduce and share benchmark results | | |
| | Adapter fine-tuner | Knows which base models accept their adapter | | |
| | Visual document QA user | Knows which models support image grounding | | |
| | Multilingual RAG user | Knows which models handle non-English documents | | |