Which specific model? and are tools available? I would say that there is lots of RL with tool use, but that the reasoning traces are not always perfect. In general, models think about things that might be wrong, but will recover from this poor line of thinking.
This was using llama-serve on my local which by default gave it current time & unhelpfully "get_info" which is specific to the browser
The full request was
```
{"messages":[{"content":"What animal lays the biggest egg?","role":"user"}],"return_progress":true,"sse_ping_interval":1,"stream":true,"tools":[{"function":{"description":"Returns the current local date and time in ISO 8601 format, with the IANA time zone name","name":"get_datetime","parameters":{"properties":{},"required":[],"type":"object"}},"type":"function"},{"function":{"description":"Get runtime info (OS name), may call when user asks about local files or shell commands","name":"get_info","parameters":{"properties":{},"required":[],"type":"object"}},"type":"function"}],"reasoning_format":"auto","reasoning_control":true,"backend_sampling":false,"timings_per_token":true}
```
Disabling tools removes the bit about mentioning instructions.
Just an interesting detail I noticed.
Do y'all have any penalty/regularization w.r.t. reasoning traces or is it pure SFT -> RL?
interesting, I didn't see it on the playground or on my local llama-server.
SFT -> RL. In our fine-tuning notebooks, we typically say that rollouts that go past the max context length (too much reasoning) get 0 reward, so there is slight pressure for shorter reasoning, but I don't think we have strong regularization. I think the agreed-upon recipe is to first make the model smarter (longer reasoning), then teach it to reason faster/denser.
(I work at Liquid.) Probably, yes. Per the blog, the last 3.5T tokens of pre-training were a mid-training stage with a larger share of agentic traces and tool calls, and SFT covered tool calling and agentic traces too, because the text model is post-trained to live inside agent harnesses. With an empty system prompt it seems to assume it's in one. I'd try a short system prompt that says no tools are available, and if it still does it, a note on the Hugging Face model page would help the team.
Is interesting how the live mode is restarting the text every 30 sec, wonder how it can impact a thing that may be agreed over several minutes.
Say I would like to get action items out of an hour long recording, am I supposed to go straight from the audio with LFM3-Audio-2B? Or is it transcribe first and give the text to LFM3-1.7B?
What if I want to fine-tune the action items routine. How many labelled examples do you estimate such task may need?
It all depends on your hardware and throughput requirements. Suppose
1. I were building for my work laptop (M4 Max, 36GB RAM)
2. I had a batched use cases (transcribing + making action items for all meetings in a day)
I would use the LFM3-Audio-2B for ASR (audio -> text transcript) and then LFM3-1.7B for extracting particular action items and adding them to my tool of choice (Linear, Jira, Notes app, etc).
If you can fine-tune (100+ labeled samples, and a GPU), you likely can fine-tune LFM3-Audio-2B for audio -> action items in a single step.
What makes it cool? What should make me go "oh yeah let's go"?
From what I can see by skimming the document, I would assume "something something specialized use-cases", but what does that mean? And what does it mean assuming I have attention deficit?
If you want to do local classification/image processing, I think the d1-2B is amazing, it can run on 1GB of unified RAM.
Now that it's released and I have weekends off again, I'm going to play with the VL-2B model and the d1-2B and see if I can prompt it to control a small Lego robot arm like this https://bricksrl.github.io/ProjectPage/
If you like agents, I think the 1.7B is very strong for its size and can be used to automate small stuff like classifying emails, cleaning your downloads folder, etc.
It can also be fine-tuned for specific use cases with SFT/DPO/GRPO. The blog post talks about fine-tuning for wind-turbine classification. If there's things you want to automate, but GPT-6-Luna is not strong enough, and bigger models are too expensive, you might fine-tune one of the LFM3 models and use it locally for repetitive tasks.
It's a model designed to be tiny and still functional, unlike other larger models that are just scaled down and then run into problems (doom loops, intelligence/reasoning failure, tool call failure). You use it when you want a fine-tuned tiny model processing text/audio/video on multiple platforms. (I don't work for them but this is my takeaway)
unfortunately the models are still stronger without extra modalities. So LFM3-1.7B is better at pure text tasks than all other models. the LFM3-VL-2B is better at text/vision tasks than the Omni, the Audio model is a stronger ASR/TTS model than the Omni, etc.
It's a goal of ours to continue unifying training across modalities so that there is truly one model, instead of just this shared pre-trained backbone.
Yes! LFM3-VL-2B is a very strong OCR model for its size, especially given how general a model it is. You can also fine-tune it with a specific output format and it will dramatically improve. We have a Google Colab here: https://colab.research.google.com/github/Liquid4All/cookbook...
Did y'all do any particular work that makes these models great for moderation? One of the issues between cloud models vs local is that often people are trying to push the limit of what their hardware can do and it doesn't leave too much headroom for moderation to make the models a little more constrained for kids or schools to use locally, or just for family in general who don't want accidental unhinged results.
In the past I've noticed that some LFM were way better at moderation than much larger models. Not necessarily prejudging what is acceptable, but allowing you to interrogate content with a series of questions to customize the moderation. Other models I tested were far worse.
Decision models are like the next optimization in that direction, but none of the benchmarks for the popular models ever show how good they are at tasks like content moderation. The smaller and more efficient we can get that workload, the more that it can simply be on by default in a lot of use cases without feeling like you're giving up a lot of performance, creative freedom or accuracy. You can't have a high number of false positives or people would rather take control back.
We need local content moderation to be cool, efficient, accurate and configurable so that people can get the higher quality results which unsafe models tend to produce, while filtering out the unsafe results fast enough that it can even be done in an agentic way and fed back into the model to steer its results.
Can you describe more in terms of what moderation you want? I can say with confidence that we don't train for the typical adult-only content you can see on some "de-safe'd" models, but it's not clear to me exactly what you're asking about. We can also discuss over email if you prefer.
I am seeing the following in the reasoning trace:
> However, the instructions say I must use available tools when answering questions.
On "What animal lays the biggest egg?" with no system prompt
I assume this is something baked into the model through lots of RL with tool use?
Which specific model? and are tools available? I would say that there is lots of RL with tool use, but that the reasoning traces are not always perfect. In general, models think about things that might be wrong, but will recover from this poor line of thinking.
This was using llama-serve on my local which by default gave it current time & unhelpfully "get_info" which is specific to the browser
The full request was
``` {"messages":[{"content":"What animal lays the biggest egg?","role":"user"}],"return_progress":true,"sse_ping_interval":1,"stream":true,"tools":[{"function":{"description":"Returns the current local date and time in ISO 8601 format, with the IANA time zone name","name":"get_datetime","parameters":{"properties":{},"required":[],"type":"object"}},"type":"function"},{"function":{"description":"Get runtime info (OS name), may call when user asks about local files or shell commands","name":"get_info","parameters":{"properties":{},"required":[],"type":"object"}},"type":"function"}],"reasoning_format":"auto","reasoning_control":true,"backend_sampling":false,"timings_per_token":true} ```
Disabling tools removes the bit about mentioning instructions.
Just an interesting detail I noticed.
Do y'all have any penalty/regularization w.r.t. reasoning traces or is it pure SFT -> RL?
interesting, I didn't see it on the playground or on my local llama-server.
SFT -> RL. In our fine-tuning notebooks, we typically say that rollouts that go past the max context length (too much reasoning) get 0 reward, so there is slight pressure for shorter reasoning, but I don't think we have strong regularization. I think the agreed-upon recipe is to first make the model smarter (longer reasoning), then teach it to reason faster/denser.
(I work at Liquid.) Probably, yes. Per the blog, the last 3.5T tokens of pre-training were a mid-training stage with a larger share of agentic traces and tool calls, and SFT covered tool calling and agentic traces too, because the text model is post-trained to live inside agent harnesses. With an empty system prompt it seems to assume it's in one. I'd try a short system prompt that says no tools are available, and if it still does it, a note on the Hugging Face model page would help the team.
Is interesting how the live mode is restarting the text every 30 sec, wonder how it can impact a thing that may be agreed over several minutes. Say I would like to get action items out of an hour long recording, am I supposed to go straight from the audio with LFM3-Audio-2B? Or is it transcribe first and give the text to LFM3-1.7B? What if I want to fine-tune the action items routine. How many labelled examples do you estimate such task may need?
It all depends on your hardware and throughput requirements. Suppose
1. I were building for my work laptop (M4 Max, 36GB RAM)
2. I had a batched use cases (transcribing + making action items for all meetings in a day)
I would use the LFM3-Audio-2B for ASR (audio -> text transcript) and then LFM3-1.7B for extracting particular action items and adding them to my tool of choice (Linear, Jira, Notes app, etc).
If you can fine-tune (100+ labeled samples, and a GPU), you likely can fine-tune LFM3-Audio-2B for audio -> action items in a single step.
In a few words: Why should I care about this?
What makes it cool? What should make me go "oh yeah let's go"?
From what I can see by skimming the document, I would assume "something something specialized use-cases", but what does that mean? And what does it mean assuming I have attention deficit?
Depends on what you care about.
If you want to do local classification/image processing, I think the d1-2B is amazing, it can run on 1GB of unified RAM.
Now that it's released and I have weekends off again, I'm going to play with the VL-2B model and the d1-2B and see if I can prompt it to control a small Lego robot arm like this https://bricksrl.github.io/ProjectPage/
If you like agents, I think the 1.7B is very strong for its size and can be used to automate small stuff like classifying emails, cleaning your downloads folder, etc.
It can also be fine-tuned for specific use cases with SFT/DPO/GRPO. The blog post talks about fine-tuning for wind-turbine classification. If there's things you want to automate, but GPT-6-Luna is not strong enough, and bigger models are too expensive, you might fine-tune one of the LFM3 models and use it locally for repetitive tasks.
No weekends. We need you to get back to work on the next 8B.
It's a model designed to be tiny and still functional, unlike other larger models that are just scaled down and then run into problems (doom loops, intelligence/reasoning failure, tool call failure). You use it when you want a fine-tuned tiny model processing text/audio/video on multiple platforms. (I don't work for them but this is my takeaway)
[dead]
Was there any intent behind the audio encoder representation or was it frozen backbone -> co adaptation?
Is LFM3-Omni-2B worse or roughly equal at vision tasks compared to LFM3-VL-2B?
In other words: Should I select the model that matches my desired capability set or just use Omni?
unfortunately the models are still stronger without extra modalities. So LFM3-1.7B is better at pure text tasks than all other models. the LFM3-VL-2B is better at text/vision tasks than the Omni, the Audio model is a stronger ASR/TTS model than the Omni, etc.
It's a goal of ours to continue unifying training across modalities so that there is truly one model, instead of just this shared pre-trained backbone.
Is it a parameter count problem? Ie why are you not seeing the cross modality bump in performance?
Congrats for the achievement!
I'm curious if this model would be useful for OCR or at least text documents parsing (PDF, DOCX, etc.), what do you think?
Yes! LFM3-VL-2B is a very strong OCR model for its size, especially given how general a model it is. You can also fine-tune it with a specific output format and it will dramatically improve. We have a Google Colab here: https://colab.research.google.com/github/Liquid4All/cookbook...
Fantastic, I need to try it! Thanks!!
Did y'all do any particular work that makes these models great for moderation? One of the issues between cloud models vs local is that often people are trying to push the limit of what their hardware can do and it doesn't leave too much headroom for moderation to make the models a little more constrained for kids or schools to use locally, or just for family in general who don't want accidental unhinged results.
In the past I've noticed that some LFM were way better at moderation than much larger models. Not necessarily prejudging what is acceptable, but allowing you to interrogate content with a series of questions to customize the moderation. Other models I tested were far worse.
Decision models are like the next optimization in that direction, but none of the benchmarks for the popular models ever show how good they are at tasks like content moderation. The smaller and more efficient we can get that workload, the more that it can simply be on by default in a lot of use cases without feeling like you're giving up a lot of performance, creative freedom or accuracy. You can't have a high number of false positives or people would rather take control back.
We need local content moderation to be cool, efficient, accurate and configurable so that people can get the higher quality results which unsafe models tend to produce, while filtering out the unsafe results fast enough that it can even be done in an agentic way and fed back into the model to steer its results.
Can you describe more in terms of what moderation you want? I can say with confidence that we don't train for the typical adult-only content you can see on some "de-safe'd" models, but it's not clear to me exactly what you're asking about. We can also discuss over email if you prefer.