lablab-ai-amd-developer-hackathon/CyberSecQwen-4B
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Actions Projects Releases Wiki Activity

初始化项目，由ModelHub XC社区提供模型

Browse Source 
Model: lablab-ai-amd-developer-hackathon/CyberSecQwen-4B
Source: Original Platform
This commit is contained in:
ModelHub XC
2026-06-16 07:45:17 +08:00
commit 0dbbbcb757
8 changed files with 488 additions and 0 deletions
Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

36
.gitattributes vendored Normal file
View File

@@ -0,0 +1,36 @@
*.7z filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text
*.arrow filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text
*.bin filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text
*.bz2 filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text
*.ckpt filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text
*.ftz filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text
*.gz filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text
*.h5 filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text
*.joblib filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text
*.lfs.* filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text
*.mlmodel filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text
*.model filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text
*.msgpack filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text
*.npy filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text
*.npz filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text
*.onnx filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text
*.ot filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text
*.parquet filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text
*.pb filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text
*.pickle filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text
*.pkl filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text
*.pt filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text
*.pth filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text
*.rar filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text
*.safetensors filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text
saved_model/**/* filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text
*.tar.* filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text
*.tar filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text
*.tflite filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text
*.tgz filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text
*.wasm filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text
*.xz filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text
*.zip filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text
*.zst filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text
*tfevents* filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text
tokenizer.json filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text

325
README.md Normal file
View File

@@ -0,0 +1,325 @@
---
license: apache-2.0
library_name: transformers
pipeline_tag: text-generation
base_model: Qwen/Qwen3-4B-Instruct-2507
tags:
- cybersecurity
- cti
- cwe-classification
- vulnerability-analysis
- security
- lora
- peft
- amd
- rocm
- mi300x
- flash-attention-2
language:
- en
metrics:
- accuracy
model-index:
- name: CyberSecQwen-4B
results:
- task:
type: text-classification
name: CWE Classification (CTI-RCM)
dataset:
name: CTI-Bench
type: cti-bench
split: cti-rcm
metrics:
- type: accuracy
value: 0.6664
name: strict_acc (5-trial mean)
verified: false
- task:
type: multiple-choice
name: Cyber Threat Intel Multiple Choice (CTI-MCQ)
dataset:
name: CTI-Bench
type: cti-bench
split: cti-mcq
metrics:
- type: accuracy
value: 0.5868
name: strict_acc (5-trial mean)
verified: false
---
# CyberSecQwen-4B — Model Card
> 🏆 **AMD Developer Hackathon submission.** Full project writeup, demo video, and judging context at **[lablab.ai/ai-hackathons/amd-developer/athena19/cybersecqwen-4b-cti-specialist-fine-tuned-on-amd](https://lablab.ai/ai-hackathons/amd-developer/athena19/cybersecqwen-4b-cti-specialist-fine-tuned-on-amd)**.
## Model Information
CyberSecQwen-4B is a 4B-parameter language model specialized for defensive cybersecurity tasks, fine-tuned from [Qwen3-4B-Instruct-2507](https://huggingface.co/Qwen/Qwen3-4B-Instruct-2507). It is purpose-built for two evaluation skills measured by [CTI-Bench](https://github.com/xashru/cti-bench): mapping CVE descriptions to their CWE category (CTI-RCM) and answering cyber threat intelligence multiple-choice questions (CTI-MCQ).
Under the evaluation protocol of [Foundation-Sec-8B (arXiv:2504.21039)](https://arxiv.org/abs/2504.21039), CyberSecQwen-4B retains **97.3% of Foundation-Sec-Instruct-8B's CTI-RCM accuracy** while exceeding its CTI-MCQ by **+8.7 points**, at half the parameter count.
The full training, merge, and evaluation pipeline runs end-to-end on a single AMD Instinct MI300X 192GB instance using ROCm + vLLM + FlashAttention-2. A companion model trained with the same recipe on Gemma-4-E2B-it — [Gemma4Defense-2B](https://huggingface.co/athena129/Gemma4Defense-2B) — converges to the same CTI-RCM accuracy within 0.9 points (0.6754 vs 0.6664), demonstrating that the result is recipe-driven rather than substrate-specific.
| | |
|---|---|
| Base model | Qwen/Qwen3-4B-Instruct-2507 |
| Parameters | 4.0B total (3.6B non-embedding) |
| Architecture | Qwen3 (RoPE, GQA 32:8, head_dim=128, 36 layers) |
| Context length | 32,768 native |
| Adapter | LoRA r=64, alpha=64, dropout=0.05 |
| Precision | bfloat16 |
| Languages | English |
| License | Apache 2.0 |
## Intended Use
### Intended Use Cases
CyberSecQwen-4B is intended for security practitioners, researchers, and engineers working on:
- **CWE classification** — mapping vulnerability descriptions (CVEs, advisories) to MITRE CWE categories
- **Cyber threat intelligence Q&A** — answering structured questions about cybersecurity concepts, attacks, controls
- **Defensive analysis assistants** — supporting human analysts who triage CVEs, prioritize patches, or document threat-actor behavior
- **Cybersecurity benchmarking on AMD hardware** — as a reference fine-tune for the AMD MI300X stack and a comparator for compact-model performance on CTI-Bench
### Downstream Use
The model can be used as a building block in:
- Security operations center (SOC) ticket triage tools that suggest a likely CWE for an incoming CVE
- Vulnerability management dashboards that pre-classify CVE feeds before human review
- Internal cyber knowledge bases / chat assistants for security teams
- Reference deployments demonstrating CTI workloads on AMD MI300X via vLLM ROCm
### Out-of-Scope Use
The following uses are out-of-scope and are neither recommended nor intended use cases:
1. **Generating harmful content** — the model must not be used to produce exploit code, weaponized proof-of-concept payloads, attacker tradecraft, or instructions that materially aid offensive operations.
2. **Critical security decisions without human oversight** — the model should not auto-execute remediation, blocklist updates, account lockouts, or any action whose reversal carries cost; outputs are advisory and require qualified human review.
3. **Legal or medical advice** — the model is trained on cybersecurity domain content and is not appropriate for legal, medical, or other regulated-advice contexts.
4. **Non-security use cases** — general chat, code generation, summarization, translation, or other domains outside its specialization will produce lower-quality output than purpose-built models.
5. **Violation of laws or regulations** — including but not limited to unauthorized vulnerability scanning, illegal data access, or misuse contrary to applicable cybersecurity statutes (CFAA, GDPR, etc.).
## Hardware Requirements
The numbers below are first-principles estimates from the bf16 weight footprint plus typical KV-cache overhead at the trained 4096-token context. They are not measured throughput numbers; for production deployment, profile against your specific traffic pattern.
| Specification | CyberSecQwen-4B | Foundation-Sec-Instruct-8B (reference) |
|---|---|---|
| Parameters (total / non-embedding) | 4.0 B / 3.6 B | 8 B |
| bf16 weight file on disk | ~8.0 GB | ~16 GB |
| Inference VRAM, weights only (bf16) | ~8 GB | ~16 GB |
| Inference VRAM, weights + 4 K KV cache (bf16) | ~9–10 GB | ~17–18 GB |
| Single-GPU class (bf16, headroom for batch ≥ 1) | Fits on any 12 GB+ consumer card | Typically requires a 24 GB+ datacenter card |
| AMD Instinct MI300X 192 GB (validated) | Fits trivially with very large batch / long context | Fits trivially |
Notes:
- Compute (FLOPs / token) is approximately proportional to the parameter count at fixed context length, so per-token inference cost is roughly **0.50×** that of an 8 B model.
- Quantized variants (int8, int4) further reduce VRAM by ~½ and ~¼ respectively. The released checkpoint is bf16 only; community quantization is not validated by the authors of this release.
- This model has been validated end-to-end on AMD Instinct MI300X via vLLM ROCm + FlashAttention-2; consult the "How to Get Started" section below for the exact serving command on AMD hardware.
## How to Get Started with the Model
```python
from transformers import AutoModelForCausalLM, AutoTokenizer
import torch
model_id = "athena129/CyberSecQwen-4B"
tokenizer = AutoTokenizer.from_pretrained(model_id)
model = AutoModelForCausalLM.from_pretrained(
model_id,
torch_dtype=torch.bfloat16,
device_map="auto",
)
cve = ("A deserialization vulnerability in the destruct() function of Laravel "
"v8.5.9 allows attackers to execute arbitrary commands.")
messages = [{
"role": "user",
"content": (
"Analyze the following CVE description and map it to the appropriate CWE. "
"Provide a brief justification for your choice. "
"Ensure the last line of your response contains only the CWE ID.\n\n"
f"CVE Description: {cve}"
),
}]
prompt = tokenizer.apply_chat_template(messages, tokenize=False, add_generation_prompt=True)
inputs = tokenizer(prompt, return_tensors="pt").to(model.device)
output = model.generate(**inputs, max_new_tokens=256, temperature=0.3, do_sample=True)
print(tokenizer.decode(output[0][inputs["input_ids"].shape[1]:], skip_special_tokens=True))
```
### Serving via vLLM on AMD MI300X
```bash
docker run --rm --network=host --device=/dev/kfd --device=/dev/dri \
-e VLLM_ROCM_USE_AITER=1 -e TORCH_BLAS_PREFER_HIPBLASLT=1 \
vllm/vllm-openai-rocm:latest \
--model athena129/CyberSecQwen-4B \
--served-model-name cybersecqwen-4b \
--attention-backend TRITON_ATTN \
--dtype bfloat16 \
--max-model-len 4096 \
--gpu-memory-utilization 0.9
```
## Training and Evaluation
### Training Data
The model was trained on a combined cybersecurity corpus of approximately **14,776 supervised records**:
- **CTI-RCM 2021 (decontaminated)** — CVE → CWE classification examples drawn from MITRE/NVD public records dated 2021. Items appearing in the CTI-Bench evaluation splits were explicitly removed prior to training. (~6,776 records)
- **CVE / CTI synthetic Q&A** — defensive-analyst-style cyber question–answer pairs grounded in CVE descriptions. (~8,000 records)
Decontamination matters here: an earlier internal version of this work showed roughly 72% test-set overlap when trained on undeduplicated CTI corpora, producing inflated CTI-RCM scores that did not generalize. The released model trains exclusively on the 2021 cohort with overlap items removed.
### Methodology
This model uses **direct supervised fine-tuning (SFT)** of an instruction-tuned base via LoRA. The training recipe was selected through a controlled-experiment series across multiple trained variants spanning two model families and several corpus compositions, with multi-trial benchmark validation locking the released hyperparameters.
Key methodological choices that informed the released recipe:
- **Direct SFT, not knowledge distillation.** Knowledge-distillation variants from a larger 20B teacher model (CyberPal-2.0-20B) were evaluated during recipe development. At the corpus sizes tested (≤ 15K supervised records), direct SFT on the curated corpus outperformed distillation on the headline benchmarks. The released model is direct SFT only.
- **Decontaminated training data.** An earlier internal iteration showed ~72% test-set overlap when trained on undeduplicated CTI corpora, producing inflated CTI-RCM scores that did not generalize. The released model trains exclusively on the 2021 cohort with CTI-Bench overlap items removed.
- **Instruction-tuned base, not pre-trained base.** Direct SFT on the IT checkpoint preserves the existing format priors (terse-answer multiple-choice convention) better than SFT on the pre-trained base; comparable runs on base checkpoints (Qwen3-4B-Base + identical recipe) showed substantial CTI-MCQ format-binding decay at the same corpus scale.
- **Recipe portability across substrates was an explicit design goal.** The same corpus + hyperparameters were applied independently to Gemma-4-E2B-it ([Gemma4Defense-2B](https://huggingface.co/athena129/Gemma4Defense-2B)). Both models converge to within 0.9 points on CTI-RCM, providing a built-in robustness check that the result is recipe-driven rather than substrate-specific.
- **Multi-trial benchmarking.** All headline numbers are means of 5 independent trials with random sampling seeds at temperature 0.3; standard deviations are reported alongside.
- **AMD MI300X end-to-end pipeline.** Training, adapter merging, and evaluation all run on a single AMD Instinct MI300X 192 GB instance via PyTorch + ROCm + Hugging Face transformers + PEFT + TRL inside the official vLLM ROCm Docker image. FlashAttention-2 is enabled in training for forward-and-backward passes; vLLM serves with TRITON_ATTN backend for inference.
### Training Setup
| Hyperparameter | Value |
|---|---|
| Adapter | LoRA, r=64, alpha=64, dropout=0.05 |
| Target modules | q_proj, k_proj, v_proj, o_proj, gate_proj, up_proj, down_proj |
| Learning rate | 5e-5 |
| Schedule | cosine, warmup_ratio=0.05 |
| Weight decay | 0.01 |
| Per-device batch size | 2 |
| Gradient accumulation | 8 (effective batch = 16) |
| Epochs | 10 |
| Max sequence length | 4096 |
| Precision | bfloat16 |
| Attention implementation | flash_attention_2 |
| Random seed | 42 |
The base model was Qwen3-4B-Instruct-2507, an instruction-tuned variant with Apache 2.0 licensing. Training was performed end-to-end on a single AMD Instinct MI300X 192GB instance via the AMD Developer Cloud, using PyTorch + ROCm 7 + Hugging Face transformers, peft, and trl 0.29.1 inside the official `vllm/vllm-openai-rocm` Docker image.
FlashAttention-2 is enabled because Qwen3-4B's attention head dimension (128) fits within the gfx942 shared-memory budget on AMD MI300X — the same FA2 approach is not viable on Gemma-4 due to its 512 head_dim on global-attention layers, which is why the companion Gemma4Defense-2B trains with sdpa instead.
### Evaluation
Evaluated under the [Foundation-Sec-8B protocol (arXiv:2504.21039 §B.3-B.4)](https://arxiv.org/abs/2504.21039): zero-shot for instruction-tuned models, 5-shot for pretrained base models, dataset's own `Prompt` column as the user message, no system prompt, temperature 0.3, max-tokens 512, concurrency 32. Reported numbers are the mean of **5 independent trials** with random sampling seeds; standard deviations are reported alongside.
#### Headline result
| Benchmark | Metric | CyberSecQwen-4B | Foundation-Sec-Instruct-8B | Δ |
|---|---|---:|---:|---:|
| **CTI-MCQ** (2,500 items) | strict_acc, 5-trial mean ± std | **0.5868 ± 0.0029** | 0.4996 | **+8.7 pp** |
| **CTI-RCM** (1,000 items) | strict_acc, 5-trial mean ± std | **0.6664 ± 0.0023** | 0.6850 | -1.9 pp |
Parseable rates were 100% on CTI-RCM and 98.1% on CTI-MCQ — the model produces well-formed outputs in the expected response convention.
#### Pre / post fine-tune comparison
The improvement attributable to this fine-tune over its starting checkpoint:
| Stage | CTI-RCM | CTI-MCQ |
|---|---:|---:|
| Qwen3-4B-Instruct-2507 (raw, instruction-tuned base) | 0.519 | 0.473 |
| **CyberSecQwen-4B (this fine-tune)** | **0.6664** | **0.5868** |
| **Lift** | **+15.1 pp** | **+12.0 pp** |
Qwen3-4B-Instruct-2507's raw CTI-MCQ score (0.473) is substantially lower than its corresponding base model's score (0.667) under the chat-template evaluation — the same instruction-tuning-collapses-MCQ effect we observe for Foundation-Sec-Instruct (-15.6 pp vs Foundation-Sec base). This fine-tune recovers and exceeds the IT starting point on both subsets, restoring most of the MCQ format binding the instruction tuning eroded while delivering a substantial CTI-RCM lift.
#### Comparison to other cybersecurity-relevant models we evaluated
All numbers below were measured by us under the protocol above (with the noted shot count), not quoted from third-party papers. CyberPal-2.0-20B numbers reflect a single-trial run at our protocol — its own paper reports 0.874 / 0.757 using a different prompt template (Figure 11 of arXiv:2510.14113); the +2pp MCQ match validated our harness, while the RCM gap likely reflects the template difference.
| Model | Size | CTI-RCM | CTI-MCQ | Notes |
|---|---:|---:|---:|---|
| Foundation-Sec-8B (base) | 8B | 0.745 | 0.655 | 5-shot pretrained reference |
| Foundation-Sec-Instruct-8B | 8B | **0.685** | **0.500** | 0-shot, our TARGET |
| CyberPal-2.0-20B (cyber-pal-security/CyberOss-2.0-20B) | 20B | 0.728* | 0.738* | independently verified at our protocol |
| **CyberSecQwen-4B** (this model) | 4B | **0.6664 ± 0.0023** | **0.5868 ± 0.0029** | 5-trial mean ± std |
| [Gemma4Defense-2B](https://huggingface.co/athena129/Gemma4Defense-2B) (companion) | 2.3B | 0.6754 ± 0.0035 | 0.6042 ± 0.0090 | same recipe, different substrate |
| Qwen3-4B-Instruct-2507 (raw) | 4B | 0.519 | 0.473 | 0-shot, our base |
| Qwen3-4B-Base (raw) | 4B | 0.517 | 0.667 | 5-shot |
| Gemma-4-E4B-it (raw) | 5.1B effective | 0.618 | 0.666 | 0-shot |
| Gemma-4-E4B-base (raw) | 5.1B effective | 0.588 | 0.666 | 5-shot |
\* Single-trial values from our independent reproduction.
#### Key highlights
- Beats Foundation-Sec-Instruct-8B on CTI-MCQ by +8.7 points at half the parameter count.
- Stays within ~2 points of Foundation-Sec-Instruct-8B on CTI-RCM under the same evaluation protocol.
- Cross-substrate companion ([Gemma4Defense-2B](https://huggingface.co/athena129/Gemma4Defense-2B)) reproduces the CTI-RCM result within 0.9 points using the same recipe on a different model family.
- Independent reproduction of CyberPal-2.0-20B at the Foundation-Sec protocol confirms its CTI-MCQ accuracy within 2 points of its paper claim.
- Trained, merged, and evaluated end-to-end on a single AMD MI300X 192GB instance with FlashAttention-2 enabled.
## Limitations
1. **Domain-specific knowledge limitations.** The model is trained on cybersecurity domain text and is not a general assistant. Tasks outside this domain will produce lower-quality output than purpose-built general models.
2. **Time-anchored training data.** The CTI-RCM training cohort is drawn from 2021 records. Vulnerability classes that emerged or rose in prevalence after 2021 (e.g., AI/ML-specific weaknesses, recent supply-chain CWEs) are under-represented in training and will be classified less accurately.
3. **English-only.** All training and evaluation data are in English; multilingual cyber tasks will degrade.
4. **CTI-RCM gap.** Foundation-Sec-Instruct-8B remains stronger on CTI-RCM under this protocol (-1.9 point gap). Production deployments where CWE classification is the primary metric should benchmark both models on their specific input distribution.
5. **No safety RLHF.** The model is supervised-fine-tuned only; the training data emphasizes defensive-analyst framing but no formal reinforcement-learning safety alignment was applied.
6. **Chat template note.** The repository ships with a minimal training-aligned `chat_template.jinja` matching the format used during SFT (Qwen `<|im_start|>` / `<|im_end|>` user-and-assistant turns, no thinking-mode block). Inference via `tokenizer.apply_chat_template(messages, tokenize=False, add_generation_prompt=True)` produces correctly-formatted prompts; downstream tooling that injects system prompts or thinking-mode toggles outside this template may degrade output quality.
### Recommendations
1. **Always have qualified security professionals review model outputs before implementation** for any operational use case (patch prioritization, ticket routing, blocklisting).
2. **Use this model as an assistive tool rather than a replacement for expert human judgment**, especially for novel vulnerability classes outside the 2021 training cohort.
3. **Validate on your own input distribution** before deployment. Public CTI-Bench performance does not perfectly transfer to internal advisory feeds, vendor-proprietary CWE taxonomies, or non-English content.
4. **Monitor for drift.** As new CVE / CWE patterns emerge, periodically re-evaluate; consider supplementing with retrieval over a current vulnerability knowledge base for time-sensitive queries.
5. **Apply standard prompt-injection mitigations** when wrapping the model in agentic workflows that accept external content (advisory feeds, scraped pages); domain-SFT does not confer prompt-injection resistance.
## Companion Model
[Gemma4Defense-2B](https://huggingface.co/athena129/Gemma4Defense-2B) is a sister release fine-tuned with the same training corpus and hyperparameters, on the Gemma-4-E2B-it base. The two models converge to within 0.9 points on CTI-RCM (0.6664 Qwen vs 0.6754 Gemma, 5-trial mean) — the same recipe produces equivalent task performance across two distinct model families. The Gemma variant is licensed under the Gemma Terms of Use; CyberSecQwen-4B (Apache 2.0) is appropriate for use cases where Gemma terms are not a fit.
## Citation
If you use this model, please cite:
```bibtex
@misc{cybersecqwen2026,
title = {CyberSecQwen-4B: A Compact CTI Specialist Fine-Tuned from Qwen3-4B-Instruct-2507 on AMD MI300X},
author = {Mulia, Samuel},
year = {2026},
publisher = {Hugging Face},
url = {https://huggingface.co/athena129/CyberSecQwen-4B}
}
```
The evaluation protocol is from:
```bibtex
@article{foundation-sec-8b,
title = {Foundation-Sec-8B: A Cybersecurity-Specialized Language Model},
author = {Cisco Foundation AI},
journal = {arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.21039},
year = {2025},
url = {https://arxiv.org/abs/2504.21039}
}
```
The benchmark is from:
```bibtex
@misc{cti-bench,
title = {CTI-Bench: A Benchmark Suite for Cybersecurity LLMs},
author = {Alam, Md Tanvirul and Bhusal, Dipkamal and Park, Youngja and Rastogi, Nidhi},
year = {2024},
url = {https://github.com/xashru/cti-bench}
}
```

7
chat_template.jinja Normal file
View File

@@ -0,0 +1,7 @@
{%- for message in messages -%}
<|im_start|>{{ message['role'] if message['role'] != 'system' else 'user' }}
{{ message['content'] }}<|im_end|>
{% endfor -%}
{%- if add_generation_prompt -%}
<|im_start|>assistant
{% endif -%}

71
config.json Normal file
View File

@@ -0,0 +1,71 @@
{
"architectures": [
"Qwen3ForCausalLM"
],
"attention_bias": false,
"attention_dropout": 0.0,
"bos_token_id": 151643,
"dtype": "bfloat16",
"eos_token_id": 151645,
"head_dim": 128,
"hidden_act": "silu",
"hidden_size": 2560,
"initializer_range": 0.02,
"intermediate_size": 9728,
"layer_types": [
"full_attention",
"full_attention",
"full_attention",
"full_attention",
"full_attention",
"full_attention",
"full_attention",
"full_attention",
"full_attention",
"full_attention",
"full_attention",
"full_attention",
"full_attention",
"full_attention",
"full_attention",
"full_attention",
"full_attention",
"full_attention",
"full_attention",
"full_attention",
"full_attention",
"full_attention",
"full_attention",
"full_attention",
"full_attention",
"full_attention",
"full_attention",
"full_attention",
"full_attention",
"full_attention",
"full_attention",
"full_attention",
"full_attention",
"full_attention",
"full_attention",
"full_attention"
],
"max_position_embeddings": 262144,
"max_window_layers": 36,
"model_type": "qwen3",
"num_attention_heads": 32,
"num_hidden_layers": 36,
"num_key_value_heads": 8,
"pad_token_id": null,
"rms_norm_eps": 1e-06,
"rope_parameters": {
"rope_theta": 5000000,
"rope_type": "default"
},
"sliding_window": null,
"tie_word_embeddings": true,
"transformers_version": "5.7.0",
"use_cache": true,
"use_sliding_window": false,
"vocab_size": 151936
}

13
generation_config.json Normal file
View File

@@ -0,0 +1,13 @@
{
"bos_token_id": 151643,
"do_sample": true,
"eos_token_id": [
151645,
151643
],
"pad_token_id": 151643,
"temperature": 0.7,
"top_k": 20,
"top_p": 0.8,
"transformers_version": "5.7.0"
}

3
model.safetensors Normal file
View File

@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1
oid sha256:63881a91d6e951a9ee2fef41c14c9049a8e5d8500dd10b5f07de741feaaa0b92
size 8044982080

3
tokenizer.json Normal file
View File

@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1
oid sha256:be75606093db2094d7cd20f3c2f385c212750648bd6ea4fb2bf507a6a4c55506
size 11422650

30
tokenizer_config.json Normal file
View File

@@ -0,0 +1,30 @@
{
"add_prefix_space": false,
"backend": "tokenizers",
"bos_token": null,
"clean_up_tokenization_spaces": false,
"eos_token": "<|im_end|>",
"errors": "replace",
"extra_special_tokens": [
"<|im_start|>",
"<|im_end|>",
"<|object_ref_start|>",
"<|object_ref_end|>",
"<|box_start|>",
"<|box_end|>",
"<|quad_start|>",
"<|quad_end|>",
"<|vision_start|>",
"<|vision_end|>",
"<|vision_pad|>",
"<|image_pad|>",
"<|video_pad|>"
],
"is_local": false,
"local_files_only": false,
"model_max_length": 1010000,
"pad_token": "<|endoftext|>",
"split_special_tokens": false,
"tokenizer_class": "Qwen2Tokenizer",
"unk_token": null
}