From Evaluation to Deployment — The Complete Fine-tuning Guide
Evaluate with Perplexity and KoBEST benchmarks, merge LoRA weights, and deploy with vLLM/Ollama/HuggingFace Spaces.
From Evaluation to Deployment — The Complete Fine-tuning Guide
In Part 1 we covered LoRA fundamentals and ran our first fine-tuning. In Part 2 we tackled QLoRA and Korean dataset construction. Training is done. Now two questions remain:
Series: Part 1: LoRA Theory | Part 2: QLoRA + Korean | Part 3 (this post)
- Did the model actually improve? (Evaluation)
- How do we serve it to users? (Deployment)
Related Posts
TurboQuant in vLLM on One A100 — Capacity, Speed, and Accuracy of All Four Presets on an 8B Model
vLLM 0.28, Qwen3-8B bf16, one A100 80GB: KV capacity, batched throughput, 32K decode, needle-in-haystack, and GSM8K for bf16, fp8, and all four TurboQuant presets — the 8B size vLLM's own study skipped.
TurboQuant From Scratch on Real KV Tensors — What 3 Bits Actually Cost, and Why the Forks Beat the Paper's Layout
PolarQuant in 60 lines of PyTorch on real KV from Llama-3.2-1B and Qwen3-8B: 3-bit costs +10% perplexity, k8v4 +0.2%, QJL only pays below 4 bits, and the block-32 layout explains half the forks' edge.
TurboQuant llama.cpp CUDA Fork, Measured on an A100 — turbo4 Matches q4_0, turbo3 Breaks at Long Context
Qwen3-8B Q4_K_M on one A100, six KV types: perplexity, prefill, decode-at-depth, and VRAM measured. turbo4 matches q4_0 quality and beats q8_0 decode 2.5x at depth; turbo3 triples perplexity at 32K context.