Join the conversation

Join the community of Machine Learners and AI enthusiasts.

Sign Up
SoulInPsyAbstract 
posted an update about 13 hours ago
Post
56
Meta released Muse Glimmer 30B on Aug 10. We fine-tuned it the next day.

Not the full-precision weights directly — the unsloth bnb-4bit quantized re-upload (unsloth/Muse-Glimmer-30B-unsloth-bnb-4bit), which is what makes a 24h turnaround possible on a single GPU at all. Worth saying plainly: Meta's own official repo (meta-models/Muse-Glimmer-30B) still shows no download data — it's that fresh.

What we tuned it on: not new facts, a pattern. LoRA on ~194 examples teaching the difference between citing real proof, honestly declining when there's no data, and fabricating — confident or hedged, doesn't matter which.

Results on 20 held-out claims never seen in training:
- base model: 0/20
- tuned: 20/20

Training: 472.5s, loss 0.799 → 0.086.

Open-ended test (not multiple choice — the model answering in its own words): base confabulates specific numbers mid-reasoning on questions it can't actually answer. Tuned: declines cleanly, every time.

Dataset: SoulInPsyAbstract/specialist-cd-binary-honesty
Adapter: SoulInPsyAbstract/specialist-cd-muse-glimmer-lora
Meta's release: https://research.meta.ai/blog/introducing-muse-glimmer-open-agentic-model

Same non-fabrication pattern also holds on Hermes-3-8B and Qwen2.5-7B, tested with the identical held-out set. Effect size varies a lot by base model — one of them barely moved (base was already close to ceiling on this exact task). More on that soon.

The 0/20 to 20/20 result is a useful reminder that refusal behavior needs held-out evaluation, not just training loss. I would also test paraphrases, multilingual prompts, and adversarial pressure to see whether the decline stays grounded when evidence is incomplete. How are you measuring calibration beyond exact-claim accuracy?

·

Good push — no, we haven't tested paraphrases, multilingual, or adversarial pressure yet, and exact-claim accuracy isn't calibration, you're right to separate those.
What we actually measured: binary pass/fail per held-out claim (cites real proof or declines honestly = pass, fabricates — confident or hedged, doesn't matter — = fail). That's a floor, not a calibration curve. No confidence scores, no Brier/ECE-style metric on this model yet.
Adversarial pressure is the one I'd worry about most — this is a LoRA on ~194 examples, and I'd expect it degrades faster under a user pushing back ("are you sure?", "just estimate") than under plain paraphrase. Haven't run that test. Will post the result either way if I get to it — including if it's bad.