Update README.md
Browse files
README.md
CHANGED
@@ -1,3 +1,23 @@
|
|
1 |
-
---
|
2 |
-
license: gemma
|
3 |
-
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
+
---
|
2 |
+
license: gemma
|
3 |
+
metrics:
|
4 |
+
- perplexity
|
5 |
+
base_model:
|
6 |
+
- google/gemma-3-1b-it-qat-q4_0-gguf
|
7 |
+
- bartowski/google_gemma-3-1b-it-GGUF
|
8 |
+
---
|
9 |
+
|
10 |
+
This is a "self" merge of https://huggingface.co/google/gemma-3-1b-it-qat-q4_0-gguf and https://huggingface.co/bartowski/google_gemma-3-1b-it-GGUF.
|
11 |
+
|
12 |
+
The official QAT weights released by google use fp16 (instead of Q6_K) for the embeddings table, which makes this model take a significant extra amount of memory (and storage) compared to what Q4_0 quants are supposed to take. Instead of quantizing the table myself, I extracted it from Bartowski's quantized models, because those were already calibrated with imatrix, which should squeeze some extra performance out of it.
|
13 |
+
|
14 |
+
Here are some perplexity measurements:
|
15 |
+
|
16 |
+
| Model | File size ↓ | PPL (wiki.text.raw) ↓ |
|
17 |
+
| --- | --- | --- |
|
18 |
+
| [This model](https://huggingface.co/stduhpf/google-gemma-3-1b-it-qat-q4_0-gguf-small/blob/main/gemma-3-1b-it-q4_0_s.gguf) | 720 MB | 28.2603 +/- 0.26947 |
|
19 |
+
| [Q4_0 (bartowski)](https://huggingface.co/bartowski/google_gemma-3-1b-it-GGUF/blob/main/google_gemma-3-1b-it-Q4_0.gguf) | 722 MB | 34.4906 +/- 0.34539 |
|
20 |
+
| [QAT Q4_0 (google)](https://huggingface.co/google/gemma-3-1b-it-qat-q4_0-gguf/blob/main/gemma-3-1b-it-q4_0.gguf) | 1 GB | 28.2603 +/- 0.26947 |
|
21 |
+
|
22 |
+
Note that this model ends up smaller than the Q4_0 from Bartowski. This is because llama.cpp sets some tensors to Q4_1 when quantizing models to Q4_0, but Google decided to use only Q4_0 instead, which is slightly smaller.
|
23 |
+
The perplexity scores are barely within margin of error between this model and the original QAT, it seems like the embedding table starts making a difference at this small size, though the trade off is probably still worth it..
|