Skip to content

Conversation

@jvm123
Copy link
Contributor

@jvm123 jvm123 commented Jun 5, 2025

The new, alternate model syntax introduced in commit f84be60 was not loaded into the LLMConfig object correctly.

Old syntax (still supported):

llm:
  primary_model: "llama-3.3-70b"
  primary_model_weight: 0.8
  secondary_model: "llama-4-scout-17b-16e-instruct"
  secondary_model_weight: 0.2

New n-ensemble syntax:

llm:
  models:
    - name: "llama-3.3-70b"
      weight: 0.8
    - name: "llama-4-scout-17b-16e-instruct"
      weight: 0.2
  evaluator_models:
    - name: "llama-3.3-70b"
      weight: 1.0

The LLMConfig dataclass used default values for primary_model & secondary_model, which the post_init() function gave priority to and overwrote any possible setting in llm:models.

@codelion
Copy link
Member

codelion commented Jun 6, 2025

I will merge them over the weekend. Thank you for the fix.

@codelion codelion merged commit 2701f08 into algorithmicsuperintelligence:main Jun 9, 2025
3 checks passed
@jvm123 jvm123 deleted the bug-LLMConfig branch June 9, 2025 08:04
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants