birgermoell

oellm-9b-256k-reasoning-v1

README

License: apache-2.0

Usage

python
import torch
from transformers import AutoModelForCausalLM, AutoTokenizer

model_id = "birgermoell/oellm-9b-256k-reasoning-v1"
tokenizer = AutoTokenizer.from_pretrained(model_id)
model = AutoModelForCausalLM.from_pretrained(
    model_id,
    dtype=torch.bfloat16,
    device_map="auto",
).eval()

messages = [{
    "role": "user",
    "content": "En låda innehåller 18 röda och 12 blå kulor. Vad är sannolikheten att dra en blå kula? Resonera steg för steg.",
}]
inputs = tokenizer.apply_chat_template(
    messages,
    add_generation_prompt=True,
    return_tensors="pt",
    return_dict=True,
).to(model.device)

with torch.inference_mode():
    # Greedy decoding caused two of five published diagnostic examples to stall.
    # This is an initial sampling setting, not a benchmark-selected optimum.
    torch.manual_seed(0)
    if torch.cuda.is_available():
        torch.cuda.manual_seed_all(0)
    output = model.generate(
        **inputs,
        do_sample=True,
        temperature=0.6,
        top_p=0.95,
        max_new_tokens=512,
        eos_token_id=tokenizer.eos_token_id,
        pad_token_id=tokenizer.pad_token_id,
    )
print(tokenizer.decode(output[0, inputs["input_ids"].shape[1]:], skip_special_tokens=True))

The sampling values above are a literature-informed starting point to reduce greedy-loop risk. They have not yet been selected by a checkpoint-specific accuracy/loop-rate sweep; evaluate them for the target task. The verbatim diagnostics below deliberately retain greedy decoding as a reproducible stress test.

The configuration retains max_position_embeddings=262144 and RoPE theta 64,000,000. This stage trained at 16,384 tokens and did not re-evaluate long-context retrieval. Treat 262K as an architectural limit, not a demonstrated reasoning length for this checkpoint. Inference near the limit requires substantial multi-GPU KV-cache memory.

Verbatim reasoning examples

These are deterministic outputs from this exact published BF16 checkpoint, generated on an AMD MI250X by LUMI job 21492664. Each prompt was run independently with the native chat template, no system prompt, greedy decoding (do_sample=False), seed 20260824, and a limit of 768 new tokens. The prompts were fixed before generation. The assessment column was added by manually checking the output against the reference answer; outputs were not edited to make the model look better.

Table with columns: Language / task, Reference answer, Observed result, Assessment
Language / task	Reference answer	Observed result	Assessment
English, purchase/change	€4.25	€4.25; stopped after 121 tokens	Correct
Swedish, probability	`2/5 = 40 %`	derived `12/30 = 0.4 = 40%`, then repeated itself until the 768-token limit without a final answer	Incomplete
German, rate/distance	40 km	8,100 km	Incorrect; misread 90 km in 1.5 hours as 90 km/h and mixed hours with minutes

The complete unabridged artifact, including all five prompts, raw outputs, parsed traces/answers, token counts, stop conditions, and per-output SHA-256 hashes, is in examples.json (file SHA-256 890cac7bcf2048f0db852ba8a356a2ec4809a959d5e264365d5523a1c99f4c37). The three complete generations are reproduced below, together with the truncated Swedish trace requested for inspection. The French sample is retained in full in the JSON but is not duplicated here because it ends in a long repetition loop.

Why the repetition loops occur

The two stalled examples used greedy decoding. Research on neural-text degeneration and reasoning models shows that greedy/low-temperature decoding can amplify a learned preference for an easy cyclic action—such as restating or re-checking—over a harder progress-making step. Once a phrase or reasoning state repeats, the generated prefix can reinforce the same continuation, and EOS may never become the highest-probability next token. Sampling can reduce looping by allowing escape, but it does not repair the underlying learning error.

This checkpoint's mixture was 85.11% reasoning-source tokens, dominated by synthetic teacher traces, so transferred overthinking is a credible contributor; it is not proven to be the only cause. The corrected LUMI audit found 7 strict lexical-repetition candidates in a 25,351-row stratified sample (0.0276%); several strongest signatures are formula/translation patterns, so this does not support a simple theory that the model copied many literal prose loops. The repository contains the full checkpoint-specific causal assessment, primary-paper review, privacy-safe audit report, and decoder/training mitigation plan in docs/REPETITION_LOOPS.md. Keep this release experimental and measure answer accuracy together with loop rate before selecting a sampled or repetition-penalized inference configuration.

Prompt

A shop sells notebooks for €4.50 each. Lina buys 3 notebooks and also pays €2.25 for a pen. She pays with €20. How much change should she receive? Reason step by step, then clearly state the final answer.

Verbatim model output

text
Lina buys 3 notebooks for €4.50 each, so she pays €4.50 * 3 = €13.50.
She also pays €2.25 for a pen.
So she pays a total of €13.50 + €2.25 = €15.75.
She pays with €20, so she receives €20 - €15.75 = €4.25 change.
Thus, Lina should receive \boxed{4.25} euros in change.

Prompt

En låda innehåller 18 röda och 12 blå kulor. En kula dras slumpmässigt. Vad är sannolikheten att kulan är blå? Svara både som ett förkortat bråk och i procent. Resonera steg för steg och ange sedan slutsvaret tydligt.

Verbatim <think> reasoning trace

The generation reached the 768-token limit before emitting </think> or a separate answer.

text
Okay, let's see. The problem is about finding the probability that a randomly drawn ball is blue from a box with 18 red and 12 blue balls. Hmm, probability questions can be tricky, but let me break it down step by step.

First, I need to figure out the total number of balls in the box. The question says there are 18 red and 12 blue. So, adding those together gives 18 + 12 = 30 balls in total. That's the denominator in the probability fraction.

Now, the numerator is the number of blue balls. The problem states there are 12 blue balls. So, the probability should be 12 divided by 30. Let me write that as a fraction: 12/30.

Wait, but the question asks for the probability both as a fraction and in percentage. So, first, I need to convert the fraction to a percentage. To do that, I can multiply the fraction by 100. So, 12/30 times 100. Let me calculate that. 12 times 100 is 1200, and 30 times 100 is 3000. So, 1200/3000 simplifies to 60/150, which is 3/7.5. Wait, that can't be right. Wait, 1200 divided by 3000 is 60/150, which is 3/7.5. But 3/7.5 is the same as 6/15, which is 2/5. Hmm, maybe I made a mistake here. Let me check again.

Wait, 12/30 is 0.4, which is 40%. So, 12/30 is 40%? Wait, no. Wait, 12 divided by 30 is 0.4, which is 40%? Wait, 12 divided by 30 is 0.4, which is 40%? Wait, 12 divided by 30 is 0.4, which is 40%? Wait, 12 divided by 30 is 0.4, which is 40%? Wait, 12 divided by 30 is 0.4, which is 40%? Wait, 12 divided by 30 is 0.4, which is 40%? Wait, 12 divided by 30 is 0.4, which is 40%? Wait, 12 divided by 30 is 0.4, which is 40%? Wait, 12 divided by 30 is 0.4, which is 40%? Wait, 12 divided by 30 is 0.4, which is 40%? Wait, 12 divided by 30 is 0.4, which is 40%? Wait, 12 divided by 30 is 0.4, which is 40%? Wait, 12 divided by 30 is 0.4, which is 40%? Wait, 12 divided by 30 is 0.4, which is 40%? Wait, 12 divided by 30 is 0.4, which is 40

The trace reaches the correct value 12/30 = 0.4 = 40%, but then enters a repetition loop. The reference answer is 2/5 = 40%; the model did not produce a completed final-answer segment. The visible reasoning also switches to English even though the user prompt is Swedish.

Prompt

Ein Zug fährt mit gleichbleibender Geschwindigkeit 90 km in 1,5 Stunden. Wie weit fährt er in 40 Minuten? Begründe deine Rechnung Schritt für Schritt und nenne dann das Endergebnis klar.

Verbatim <think> reasoning trace

text
Okay, let's see. The problem is about a train traveling at a constant speed of 90 km/h for 1.5 hours. I need to find out how far it goes in 40 minutes. Hmm, first, I should convert the time from hours to minutes because the speed is given in km/h, and the time is in hours. Right, 1 hour is 60 minutes, so 1.5 hours is 1.5 multiplied by 60. Let me calculate that. 1.5 times 60 is 90 minutes. So the time is 90 minutes.

Now, the distance is speed multiplied by time. So 90 km/h times 90 minutes. Let me do that multiplication. 90 times 90. Let's see, 90 times 100 is 9000, but since it's 90 times 90, that's 8100. Wait, 90 times 90 is 8100. So the distance is 8100 km. Let me check that again. 90 times 90: 90*90. 90*100 is 9000, minus 90*10 is 900, so 9000 - 900 is 8100. Yeah, that's right.

So the answer should be 8100 km. Let me make sure I didn't make any mistakes in the conversion or the calculation. The time was converted correctly from 1.5 hours to 90 minutes. Then the speed is 90 km/h, multiplied by 90 minutes. The calculation seems straightforward. I think that's right.

Verbatim answer after </think>

text
Der Zug fährt mit einer konstanten Geschwindigkeit von 90 km/h für 1,5 Stunden. Um die Zeit in Minuten umzurechnen, multipliziere man 1,5 Stunden mit 60 Minuten/Stunde: 1,5 × 60 = 90 Minuten. Die Distanz ist die Geschwindigkeit (90 km/h) mal die Zeit (90 Minuten). Berechne 90 × 90: 90 × 100 = 9000, minus 90 × 10 = 900, also 8100 km.

**Antwort:** Der Zug fährt **8100 km** in 40 Minuten.

The correct calculation is (90 km / 90 min) × 40 min = 40 km.

Prompt

En una granja hay gallinas y conejos. En total hay 14 cabezas y 40 patas. ¿Cuántos conejos y cuántas gallinas hay? Razona paso a paso y termina con una respuesta final clara.

Verbatim model output

text
## Paso 1: Determinar el número de patas de las gallinas y los conejos.
Hay 14 cabezas en total, y cada gallina tiene 2 patas y cada conejo tiene 4 patas.

## Paso 2: Calcular el número total de patas.
Primero, calcule el número total de patas de las gallinas: 14 gallinas * 2 patas/gallina = 28 patas.
Luego, calcule el número total de patas de los conejos: 40 patas - 28 patas (de las gallinas) = 12 patas.

## Paso 3: Calcular el número de conejos.
Cada conejo tiene 4 patas, por lo que el número total de conejos es 12 patas / 4 patas/conejo = 3 conejos.

## Paso 4: Calcular el número de gallinas.
El número total de patas es 28 patas, y el número total de patas de las gallinas es 28 patas - 12 patas (de los conejos) = 16 patas.
Cada gallina tiene 2 patas, por lo que el número total de gallinas es 16 patas / 2 patas/gallina = 8 gallinas.

## Paso 5: Determinar el número total de conejos y gallinas.
El número total de conejos es 3 y el número total de gallinas es 8.

La respuesta final es: $\boxed{3}$

The correct simultaneous-equation solution is 6 rabbits and 8 chickens. The model's result also fails its own 14-head constraint.

Model lineage and architecture

Table with columns: Field, Value
Field	Value
Released checkpoint	reasoning-v1 step 2,000
Parent	`birgermoell/oellm-9b-256k-sft@08359ad61333263c067edaf290067fea5b103d34`
Earlier base	`openeurollm/oellm-9b-256k-theta64m-prelude`
Architecture	dense `Qwen3ForCausalLM`
Parameters	9,101,947,904
Layers / hidden size	36 / 4,096
Attention heads / KV heads	32 / 8

Training data

The immutable builder selected 1,130,994 unique conversations and 2,097,196,255 rendered tokens. Complete conversations outside 64–16,384 tokens were rejected rather than truncating an answer. Selection was token-budgeted, globally shuffled with seed 20260818, and deduplicated using a language-scoped SHA-256 of the normalized user prompt. Specialized and language-targeted sources claimed duplicate prompts before the broad Dolci pools.

Table with columns: Materialized slice, Rows, Rendered tokens, Share, Terms recorded in manifest
Materialized slice	Rows	Rendered tokens	Share	Terms recorded in manifest
OpenEuroLLM multilingual reasoning traces v0.2 pilot (37 non-English languages)	3,351	15,725,624	0.75%	CC-BY-4.0
Nemotron v2 math, decontaminated	91,910	72,850,226	3.47%	CC-BY-4.0
Nemotron v2 code, decontaminated	26,020	41,630,061	1.99%

Pinned revisions and per-source processing are in the reasoning-v1 recipe and its human-readable source cards. The materialized manifest SHA-256 is f92330319af5f917b6d9a01898d2a5dfc8f322b6d4250db1ce2111baafe077d1; the 6.83 GB training Parquet SHA-256 is 7cbb6ba4a69f457b50ffc89a124f20335719633c32e4ef47a3a844bbf48407ff.

Dataset terms are not replaced by this model repository's Apache-2.0 weight license. The replay slice inherits a composite lineage from Tulu 3 and EuroBlocks, and users should review all linked upstream cards for their use case.

Training procedure

This is assistant-only supervised fine-tuning, not RL, RLVR, DPO, or GRPO. TRL received structured conversations and a template with assistant-generation masks; prompt/user tokens were excluded from the loss. Conversations were packed after rendering.

Table with columns: Hyperparameter, Value
Hyperparameter	Value
Method	full-parameter TRL SFT, assistant-only loss
Sequence length	16,384
Global sequence batch	64 (one sequence per GCD, no gradient accumulation)
Optimizer steps	2,000 (0.9945 effective epoch)
Packed input tokens reported	2.086 billion
Optimizer	AdamW, zero weight decay
Learning-rate schedule	peak `3e-6`, cosine decay, 3% warmup
Precision	BF16 training; BF16 release export

The job ran from 2026-08-19 16:58 EEST to 2026-08-20 03:34 EEST. Framework versions were TRL 0.28.0, Transformers 5.12.1, PyTorch 2.9.1+ROCm 6.4, Datasets 5.0.0, and Tokenizers 0.22.2. The exact training repository commit was f5621b4d7dd211499693dea918339ac92ccfd438.

Evaluation

Protocol

The parent and checkpoints at steps 500, 1,000, 1,500, and 2,000 were evaluated with lm-evaluation-harness 0.4.11, Transformers 5.2.0, PyTorch 2.7.1+ROCm, BF16, batch size 1, the native chat template, greedy decoding, and seed 20260821. All runs saved raw generations. The parent and candidate used identical prompts and decoding. Full array: LUMI job 21443216.

These results are useful for checkpoint comparison, not clean estimates of generalization. The parent's earlier SFT mixture contains math/instruction datasets related to some benchmarks; the reasoning-v1 additions use decontaminated OpenEuroLLM copies, but the 15% exact replay preserves the parent data lineage.

Parent vs released step 2,000

Scores are percentages. Arrows show whether higher is better (all listed metrics: higher is better).

Table with columns: Benchmark / metric, Parent SFT, Step 2,000, Δ
Benchmark / metric	Parent SFT	Step 2,000	Δ
GSM8K 4-shot, strict exact match	30.78	29.34	-1.44
GSM8K 4-shot, flexible extract	30.93	29.57	-1.36
ARC-Challenge 25-shot, normalized accuracy	50.09	51.88	+1.79
ARC-Challenge 25-shot, accuracy	44.97	46.76	+1.79

MGSM strict-match scores were 0.0–0.4% for both parent and candidates because responses rarely matched the benchmark's strict output form; flexible extraction is reported above, and both metrics remain in the raw evaluation artifacts.

Checkpoint sweep (seven completed tasks)

The partial macro below is the unweighted mean of configured primary metrics over GSM8K, ARC-Challenge, IFEval, MMLU college computer science, and German/Spanish/French MGSM. MATH-500 is excluded because its four candidate jobs exceeded the initial 12-hour limit. This is a diagnostic summary, not a release gate.

Table with columns: Checkpoint, Seven-task partial macro
Checkpoint	Seven-task partial macro
Parent SFT	29.83
Step 500	28.44
Step 1,000	27.97
Step 1,500	28.75
Step 2,000 (this release)	28.67

The published step is the final training checkpoint requested for release; it is not presented as the best aggregate checkpoint. The extended candidate MATH-500 rerun is tracked as LUMI job 21483191, and the card will be updated if those results complete.

Not evaluated

GPQA Diamond was not run because the evaluation account did not have access to the gated dataset.
MBPP was not claimed because the pinned harness container's code-execution metric did not initialize reliably. MMLU college computer science is only a code-related knowledge check, not a substitute for executable code generation.
Long-context retrieval, safety/red-teaming, factuality, calibration, and broad multilingual instruction following were not re-evaluated on this checkpoint.

Validation and reproducibility

Step-2,000 audit job 21426582 exhaustively scanned 399 tensors and 9,101,947,904 values: nonfinite=0.
The released BF16 export is independently checked for uniform BF16 dtype, architecture/tokenizer invariants, all-value finiteness, finite GPU logits, and non-empty English/Swedish/German generation.
Export manifest and validation reports are included as export_manifest.json and validation.json in this repository.
Training/evaluation code and the detailed run record are available in BirgerMoell/oellm-reasoning-training.

Intended use

Research on multilingual reasoning-SFT mixtures and checkpoint behavior.
A reproducible starting point for controlled preference optimization, RLVR, verifier training, or capability-repair experiments.
Comparative evaluation against the parent SFT model.

Do not use this model as an authoritative source for mathematics, code, medicine, law, finance, or other high-stakes decisions. Verify answers independently.

Limitations and risks

The evaluation shows a large instruction-following regression; prompts with format constraints may be ignored more often than by the parent.
Generated reasoning traces can be fluent but incorrect, self-contradictory, or fabricated. A visible chain of thought is not evidence that the answer is correct.
The model may switch languages, especially inside long reasoning traces, and European-language coverage is uneven.
Safety behavior was protected only indirectly through 15% exact SFT replay and was not separately validated after this stage.
Synthetic teacher traces dominate the reasoning mixture and can transfer teacher errors, style, verbosity, and biases.
No preference-alignment or deployment hardening was performed after reasoning SFT.

License and attribution

The model weights are released under Apache-2.0, inherited from the parent model. Training datasets retain their own licenses and attribution requirements; see the training-data table and linked source cards. This card does not re-license any dataset.

Available on FriendliAI

Dedicated Endpoints

Run this model inference on single tenant GPU with unmatched speed and reliability at scale.

Learn more

Container

Run this model inference with full control and performance in your environment.

Learn more

Model Details

Model Provider

birgermoell

Model Tree

Base

birgermoell/oellm-9b-256k-sft

Fine-tuned

this model

Input Modalities

Text

Output Modalities

Text

Supported Functionality

Dedicated EndpointsContainer

Explore FriendliAI today

Get started Talk to an engineer

README

License: apache-2.0

Usage

python
import torch
from transformers import AutoModelForCausalLM, AutoTokenizer

model_id = "birgermoell/oellm-9b-256k-reasoning-v1"
tokenizer = AutoTokenizer.from_pretrained(model_id)
model = AutoModelForCausalLM.from_pretrained(
    model_id,
    dtype=torch.bfloat16,
    device_map="auto",
).eval()

messages = [{
    "role": "user",
    "content": "En låda innehåller 18 röda och 12 blå kulor. Vad är sannolikheten att dra en blå kula? Resonera steg för steg.",
}]
inputs = tokenizer.apply_chat_template(
    messages,
    add_generation_prompt=True,
    return_tensors="pt",
    return_dict=True,
).to(model.device)

with torch.inference_mode():
    # Greedy decoding caused two of five published diagnostic examples to stall.
    # This is an initial sampling setting, not a benchmark-selected optimum.
    torch.manual_seed(0)
    if torch.cuda.is_available():
        torch.cuda.manual_seed_all(0)
    output = model.generate(
        **inputs,
        do_sample=True,
        temperature=0.6,
        top_p=0.95,
        max_new_tokens=512,
        eos_token_id=tokenizer.eos_token_id,
        pad_token_id=tokenizer.pad_token_id,
    )
print(tokenizer.decode(output[0, inputs["input_ids"].shape[1]:], skip_special_tokens=True))

Verbatim reasoning examples

Table with columns: Language / task, Reference answer, Observed result, Assessment
Language / task	Reference answer	Observed result	Assessment
English, purchase/change	€4.25	€4.25; stopped after 121 tokens	Correct
Swedish, probability	`2/5 = 40 %`	derived `12/30 = 0.4 = 40%`, then repeated itself until the 768-token limit without a final answer	Incomplete
German, rate/distance	40 km	8,100 km	Incorrect; misread 90 km in 1.5 hours as 90 km/h and mixed hours with minutes

Why the repetition loops occur

Prompt

A shop sells notebooks for €4.50 each. Lina buys 3 notebooks and also pays €2.25 for a pen. She pays with €20. How much change should she receive? Reason step by step, then clearly state the final answer.

Verbatim model output

text
Lina buys 3 notebooks for €4.50 each, so she pays €4.50 * 3 = €13.50.
She also pays €2.25 for a pen.
So she pays a total of €13.50 + €2.25 = €15.75.
She pays with €20, so she receives €20 - €15.75 = €4.25 change.
Thus, Lina should receive \boxed{4.25} euros in change.

Prompt

En låda innehåller 18 röda och 12 blå kulor. En kula dras slumpmässigt. Vad är sannolikheten att kulan är blå? Svara både som ett förkortat bråk och i procent. Resonera steg för steg och ange sedan slutsvaret tydligt.

Verbatim <think> reasoning trace

The generation reached the 768-token limit before emitting </think> or a separate answer.

text
Okay, let's see. The problem is about finding the probability that a randomly drawn ball is blue from a box with 18 red and 12 blue balls. Hmm, probability questions can be tricky, but let me break it down step by step.

First, I need to figure out the total number of balls in the box. The question says there are 18 red and 12 blue. So, adding those together gives 18 + 12 = 30 balls in total. That's the denominator in the probability fraction.

Now, the numerator is the number of blue balls. The problem states there are 12 blue balls. So, the probability should be 12 divided by 30. Let me write that as a fraction: 12/30.

Wait, but the question asks for the probability both as a fraction and in percentage. So, first, I need to convert the fraction to a percentage. To do that, I can multiply the fraction by 100. So, 12/30 times 100. Let me calculate that. 12 times 100 is 1200, and 30 times 100 is 3000. So, 1200/3000 simplifies to 60/150, which is 3/7.5. Wait, that can't be right. Wait, 1200 divided by 3000 is 60/150, which is 3/7.5. But 3/7.5 is the same as 6/15, which is 2/5. Hmm, maybe I made a mistake here. Let me check again.

Wait, 12/30 is 0.4, which is 40%. So, 12/30 is 40%? Wait, no. Wait, 12 divided by 30 is 0.4, which is 40%? Wait, 12 divided by 30 is 0.4, which is 40%? Wait, 12 divided by 30 is 0.4, which is 40%? Wait, 12 divided by 30 is 0.4, which is 40%? Wait, 12 divided by 30 is 0.4, which is 40%? Wait, 12 divided by 30 is 0.4, which is 40%? Wait, 12 divided by 30 is 0.4, which is 40%? Wait, 12 divided by 30 is 0.4, which is 40%? Wait, 12 divided by 30 is 0.4, which is 40%? Wait, 12 divided by 30 is 0.4, which is 40%? Wait, 12 divided by 30 is 0.4, which is 40%? Wait, 12 divided by 30 is 0.4, which is 40%? Wait, 12 divided by 30 is 0.4, which is 40%? Wait, 12 divided by 30 is 0.4, which is 40%? Wait, 12 divided by 30 is 0.4, which is 40

Prompt

Ein Zug fährt mit gleichbleibender Geschwindigkeit 90 km in 1,5 Stunden. Wie weit fährt er in 40 Minuten? Begründe deine Rechnung Schritt für Schritt und nenne dann das Endergebnis klar.

Verbatim <think> reasoning trace

text
Okay, let's see. The problem is about a train traveling at a constant speed of 90 km/h for 1.5 hours. I need to find out how far it goes in 40 minutes. Hmm, first, I should convert the time from hours to minutes because the speed is given in km/h, and the time is in hours. Right, 1 hour is 60 minutes, so 1.5 hours is 1.5 multiplied by 60. Let me calculate that. 1.5 times 60 is 90 minutes. So the time is 90 minutes.

Now, the distance is speed multiplied by time. So 90 km/h times 90 minutes. Let me do that multiplication. 90 times 90. Let's see, 90 times 100 is 9000, but since it's 90 times 90, that's 8100. Wait, 90 times 90 is 8100. So the distance is 8100 km. Let me check that again. 90 times 90: 90*90. 90*100 is 9000, minus 90*10 is 900, so 9000 - 900 is 8100. Yeah, that's right.

So the answer should be 8100 km. Let me make sure I didn't make any mistakes in the conversion or the calculation. The time was converted correctly from 1.5 hours to 90 minutes. Then the speed is 90 km/h, multiplied by 90 minutes. The calculation seems straightforward. I think that's right.

Verbatim answer after </think>

text
Der Zug fährt mit einer konstanten Geschwindigkeit von 90 km/h für 1,5 Stunden. Um die Zeit in Minuten umzurechnen, multipliziere man 1,5 Stunden mit 60 Minuten/Stunde: 1,5 × 60 = 90 Minuten. Die Distanz ist die Geschwindigkeit (90 km/h) mal die Zeit (90 Minuten). Berechne 90 × 90: 90 × 100 = 9000, minus 90 × 10 = 900, also 8100 km.

**Antwort:** Der Zug fährt **8100 km** in 40 Minuten.

The correct calculation is (90 km / 90 min) × 40 min = 40 km.

Prompt

En una granja hay gallinas y conejos. En total hay 14 cabezas y 40 patas. ¿Cuántos conejos y cuántas gallinas hay? Razona paso a paso y termina con una respuesta final clara.

Verbatim model output

text
## Paso 1: Determinar el número de patas de las gallinas y los conejos.
Hay 14 cabezas en total, y cada gallina tiene 2 patas y cada conejo tiene 4 patas.

## Paso 2: Calcular el número total de patas.
Primero, calcule el número total de patas de las gallinas: 14 gallinas * 2 patas/gallina = 28 patas.
Luego, calcule el número total de patas de los conejos: 40 patas - 28 patas (de las gallinas) = 12 patas.

## Paso 3: Calcular el número de conejos.
Cada conejo tiene 4 patas, por lo que el número total de conejos es 12 patas / 4 patas/conejo = 3 conejos.

## Paso 4: Calcular el número de gallinas.
El número total de patas es 28 patas, y el número total de patas de las gallinas es 28 patas - 12 patas (de los conejos) = 16 patas.
Cada gallina tiene 2 patas, por lo que el número total de gallinas es 16 patas / 2 patas/gallina = 8 gallinas.

## Paso 5: Determinar el número total de conejos y gallinas.
El número total de conejos es 3 y el número total de gallinas es 8.

La respuesta final es: $\boxed{3}$

The correct simultaneous-equation solution is 6 rabbits and 8 chickens. The model's result also fails its own 14-head constraint.

Model lineage and architecture

Table with columns: Field, Value
Field	Value
Released checkpoint	reasoning-v1 step 2,000
Parent	`birgermoell/oellm-9b-256k-sft@08359ad61333263c067edaf290067fea5b103d34`
Earlier base	`openeurollm/oellm-9b-256k-theta64m-prelude`
Architecture	dense `Qwen3ForCausalLM`
Parameters	9,101,947,904
Layers / hidden size	36 / 4,096
Attention heads / KV heads	32 / 8

Training data

Table with columns: Materialized slice, Rows, Rendered tokens, Share, Terms recorded in manifest
Materialized slice	Rows	Rendered tokens	Share	Terms recorded in manifest
OpenEuroLLM multilingual reasoning traces v0.2 pilot (37 non-English languages)	3,351	15,725,624	0.75%	CC-BY-4.0
Nemotron v2 math, decontaminated	91,910	72,850,226	3.47%	CC-BY-4.0
Nemotron v2 code, decontaminated	26,020	41,630,061	1.99%

Training procedure

Table with columns: Hyperparameter, Value
Hyperparameter	Value
Method	full-parameter TRL SFT, assistant-only loss
Sequence length	16,384
Global sequence batch	64 (one sequence per GCD, no gradient accumulation)
Optimizer steps	2,000 (0.9945 effective epoch)
Packed input tokens reported	2.086 billion
Optimizer	AdamW, zero weight decay
Learning-rate schedule	peak `3e-6`, cosine decay, 3% warmup
Precision	BF16 training; BF16 release export

Evaluation

Protocol

Parent vs released step 2,000

Scores are percentages. Arrows show whether higher is better (all listed metrics: higher is better).

Table with columns: Benchmark / metric, Parent SFT, Step 2,000, Δ
Benchmark / metric	Parent SFT	Step 2,000	Δ
GSM8K 4-shot, strict exact match	30.78	29.34	-1.44
GSM8K 4-shot, flexible extract	30.93	29.57	-1.36
ARC-Challenge 25-shot, normalized accuracy	50.09	51.88	+1.79
ARC-Challenge 25-shot, accuracy	44.97	46.76	+1.79

Checkpoint sweep (seven completed tasks)

Table with columns: Checkpoint, Seven-task partial macro
Checkpoint	Seven-task partial macro
Parent SFT	29.83
Step 500	28.44
Step 1,000	27.97
Step 1,500	28.75
Step 2,000 (this release)	28.67

Not evaluated

GPQA Diamond was not run because the evaluation account did not have access to the gated dataset.
MBPP was not claimed because the pinned harness container's code-execution metric did not initialize reliably. MMLU college computer science is only a code-related knowledge check, not a substitute for executable code generation.
Long-context retrieval, safety/red-teaming, factuality, calibration, and broad multilingual instruction following were not re-evaluated on this checkpoint.

Validation and reproducibility

Step-2,000 audit job 21426582 exhaustively scanned 399 tensors and 9,101,947,904 values: nonfinite=0.
The released BF16 export is independently checked for uniform BF16 dtype, architecture/tokenizer invariants, all-value finiteness, finite GPU logits, and non-empty English/Swedish/German generation.
Export manifest and validation reports are included as export_manifest.json and validation.json in this repository.
Training/evaluation code and the detailed run record are available in BirgerMoell/oellm-reasoning-training.

Intended use

Research on multilingual reasoning-SFT mixtures and checkpoint behavior.
A reproducible starting point for controlled preference optimization, RLVR, verifier training, or capability-repair experiments.
Comparative evaluation against the parent SFT model.

Do not use this model as an authoritative source for mathematics, code, medicine, law, finance, or other high-stakes decisions. Verify answers independently.

Limitations and risks

The evaluation shows a large instruction-following regression; prompts with format constraints may be ignored more often than by the parent.
Generated reasoning traces can be fluent but incorrect, self-contradictory, or fabricated. A visible chain of thought is not evidence that the answer is correct.
The model may switch languages, especially inside long reasoning traces, and European-language coverage is uneven.
Safety behavior was protected only indirectly through 15% exact SFT replay and was not separately validated after this stage.
Synthetic teacher traces dominate the reasoning mixture and can transfer teacher errors, style, verbosity, and biases.
No preference-alignment or deployment hardening was performed after reasoning SFT.