Join the conversation

Join the community of Machine Learners and AI enthusiasts.

Sign Up
SoulInPsyAbstract 
posted an update about 9 hours ago
Post
46
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.