language:
- en
license: apache-2.0
library_name: transformers
tags:
- sql
- forensics
- text-to-sql
- llama
- fine-tuned
base_model: unsloth/Llama-3.2-3B-Instruct
datasets:
- pawlaszc/mobile-forensics-sql
metrics:
- accuracy
model-index:
- name: ForensicSQL-Llama-3.2-3B
results:
- task:
type: text-to-sql
name: Text-to-SQL Generation
dataset:
type: mobile-forensics
name: SQLiteDS — Mobile Forensics SQL Dataset (corrected)
metrics:
- type: accuracy
value: 91
name: Overall Accuracy (without app name)
- type: accuracy
value: 95.1
name: Easy Queries Accuracy
- type: accuracy
value: 87.5
name: Medium Queries Accuracy
- type: accuracy
value: 88.9
name: Hard Queries Accuracy
ForensicSQL-Llama-3.2-3B
Model Description
ForSQLiteLM (ForensicSQL-Llama-3.2-3B) is a fine-tuned Llama 3.2-3B model specialized for generating SQLite queries from natural language requests against mobile forensic databases. The model converts investigative questions into executable SQL queries across a wide range of forensic artifact databases — WhatsApp, Signal, iMessage, Android SMS, iOS Health, WeChat, Instagram, blockchain wallets, and many more.
This model was developed as part of a research project and accompanying journal paper investigating LLM fine-tuning for forensic database analysis, and is integrated into FQLite, an established open-source forensic analysis tool.
Key result: 91.0% execution accuracy on a 100-example held-out test set — within 4 percentage points of GPT-4o (95.0%) evaluated under identical conditions (McNemar test: p ≈ 0.39, not significant at α = 0.05), while running fully locally with no internet connectivity required.
Model Details
| Property | Value |
|---|---|
| Base Model | meta-llama/Llama-3.2-3B-Instruct |
| Fine-tuning Method | Full fine-tune (bf16) |
| Training Dataset | SQLiteDS — 800 training examples, 191 forensic artifact categories |
| Training Framework | Hugging Face Transformers |
| Best Val Loss | 0.3043 (7 epochs) |
| Model Size (bf16) | ~6 GB |
| Hardware Required | 16 GB unified memory (Apple M-series) or equivalent GPU |
Performance
Overall Results (fixed dataset, n=100, best configuration)
| Metric | Value |
|---|---|
| Overall Accuracy | 91.0% (91/100) |
| 95% CI (Wilson) | [83.8%, 95.2%] |
| Executable Queries | 92/100 |
| GPT-4o Accuracy | 95.0% (gap: 4 pp, p ≈ 0.39) |
| Base Model (no fine-tuning) | 35.0% |
| Improvement over base | +56 pp |
Accuracy by Query Difficulty
| Difficulty | Accuracy | n | 95% CI | vs. GPT-4o |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Easy (single-table) | 95.1% | 39/41 | [83.9%, 98.7%] | 0.0 pp |
| Medium (joins, aggregation) | 87.5% | 28/32 | [71.9%, 95.0%] | 0.0 pp |
| Hard (CTEs, window functions) | 88.9% | 24/27 | [71.9%, 96.1%] | −3.7 pp |
ForSQLiteLM matches GPT-4o exactly on Easy and Medium queries. The remaining gap is concentrated on Hard queries (complex CTEs, window functions, multi-table joins).
Accuracy by Forensic Domain
| Domain | Accuracy | n | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|---|
| Messaging & Social | 100.0% | 28/28 | [87.9%, 100.0%] |
| Android Artifacts | 94.4% | 17/18 | [74.2%, 99.0%] |
| Productivity & Other | 88.9% | 16/18 | [67.2%, 96.9%] |
| iOS CoreData | 84.0% | 21/25 | [65.3%, 93.6%] |
| Finance & Crypto | 81.8% | 9/11 | [52.3%, 94.9%] |
Prompt Configuration Ablation
| Configuration | Overall | Easy | Medium | Hard | iOS |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| WITHOUT App Name ★ | 91.0% | 95.1% | 87.5% | 88.9% | 84.0% |
| WITH App Name | 88.0% | 92.7% | 87.5% | 81.5% | 88.0% |
★ Primary configuration — omitting the application name from the prompt yields 3 pp higher overall accuracy. Interestingly, including the app name helps iOS CoreData schemas (+4 pp) but hurts Hard queries (−7.4 pp); the primary configuration without app name is recommended for general use.
Post-Processing Pipeline Contribution
| Component | Queries saved |
|---|---|
| Execution feedback (retry) | 7 |
| Alias normalization | 18 |
| Column corrections (Levenshtein) | 2 |
Training Progression
| Configuration | Val Loss | Accuracy | Δ |
|---|---|---|---|
| Base model (no fine-tuning) | — | 35.0% | — |
| Fine-tuned, no augmentation | — | 68.0% | +33 pp |
| + Data augmentation (3.4×) | — | 74.0% | +6 pp |
| + Extended training (7 epochs) | 0.3617 | 84.0% | +10 pp |
| + Post-processing pipeline | 0.3617 | 87.0% | +3 pp |
| + Execution feedback | 0.3617 | 90.0% | +3 pp |
| + Corrected training dataset (v5) | 0.3043 | 91.0% | +1 pp |
Intended Use
Primary Use Cases
- Mobile forensics investigations: automated SQL query drafting against seized device databases
- Integration into forensic tools (FQLite, Autopsy, ALEAPP/iLEAPP workflows)
- Research in domain-specific Text-to-SQL
- Educational use for learning forensic database analysis
Important: This Model is a Drafting Assistant
ForSQLiteLM is not a replacement for SQL expertise. It generates candidate queries that require review by a practitioner with sufficient SQL knowledge before any reliance is placed on their results. The 91.0% accuracy means approximately 1 in 11 queries contains an error. In court-admissible or case-critical work, all outputs must be independently validated.
Out-of-Scope Use
- Autonomous forensic decision-making without human review
- Production systems requiring >95% guaranteed accuracy
- General-purpose SQL generation outside the forensic domain
- Non-SQLite databases (PostgreSQL, MySQL, etc.)
How to Use
Quick Start (Transformers)
from transformers import AutoModelForCausalLM, AutoTokenizer
import torch
model_name = "pawlaszc/ForensicSQL-Llama-3.2-3B"
tokenizer = AutoTokenizer.from_pretrained(model_name)
model = AutoModelForCausalLM.from_pretrained(
model_name,
torch_dtype=torch.bfloat16,
device_map="auto"
)
model.eval()
schema = """
CREATE TABLE message (
ROWID INTEGER PRIMARY KEY,
text TEXT,
handle_id INTEGER,
date INTEGER,
is_from_me INTEGER,
cache_has_attachments INTEGER
);
CREATE TABLE handle (
ROWID INTEGER PRIMARY KEY,
id TEXT,
service TEXT
);
"""
request = "Find all messages received in the last 7 days that contain attachments"
# Note: do NOT use apply_chat_template — use plain-text prompt
prompt = f"""Generate a valid SQLite query for this forensic database request.
Database Schema:
{schema}
Request: {request}
SQLite Query:
"""
inputs = tokenizer(prompt, return_tensors="pt", truncation=True, max_length=2048)
inputs = {k: v.to(model.device) for k, v in inputs.items()}
with torch.no_grad():
outputs = model.generate(
**inputs,
max_new_tokens=300,
do_sample=False, # greedy decoding — do not change
)
input_length = inputs['input_ids'].shape[1]
sql = tokenizer.decode(outputs[0][input_length:], skip_special_tokens=True)
print(sql.strip())
Important: Use plain-text tokenization (do not call
apply_chat_template). The model was trained and evaluated with a plain-text prompt format. Usedo_sample=False(greedy decoding) for reproducible results.
Python Helper Class
class ForensicSQLGenerator:
def __init__(self, model_name="pawlaszc/ForensicSQL-Llama-3.2-3B"):
from transformers import AutoModelForCausalLM, AutoTokenizer
import torch
self.tokenizer = AutoTokenizer.from_pretrained(model_name)
self.model = AutoModelForCausalLM.from_pretrained(
model_name,
torch_dtype=torch.bfloat16,
device_map="auto"
)
self.model.eval()
def generate_sql(self, schema: str, request: str) -> str:
prompt = (
"Generate a valid SQLite query for this forensic database request.\n\n"
f"Database Schema:\n{schema}\n\n"
f"Request: {request}\n\n"
"SQLite Query:\n"
)
inputs = self.tokenizer(
prompt, return_tensors="pt", truncation=True, max_length=2048
)
inputs = {k: v.to(self.model.device) for k, v in inputs.items()}
input_length = inputs["input_ids"].shape[1]
with torch.no_grad():
outputs = self.model.generate(
**inputs, max_new_tokens=300, do_sample=False
)
sql = self.tokenizer.decode(
outputs[0][input_length:], skip_special_tokens=True
)
# Return first statement only, normalized
return sql.strip().split("\n")[0].strip().rstrip(";") + ";"
# Usage
generator = ForensicSQLGenerator()
sql = generator.generate_sql(schema, "Find all unread messages from the last 24 hours")
print(sql)
With Ollama / llama.cpp (GGUF)
# With llama.cpp
./llama-cli -m forensic-sql-q4_k_m.gguf \
--temp 0 \
-p "Generate a valid SQLite query for this forensic database request.
Database Schema:
CREATE TABLE sms (_id INTEGER PRIMARY KEY, address TEXT, body TEXT, date INTEGER);
Request: Find all messages sent after midnight
SQLite Query:"
# With Ollama — create a Modelfile
cat > Modelfile << 'EOF'
FROM ./forensic-sql-q4_k_m.gguf
PARAMETER temperature 0
PARAMETER num_predict 300
EOF
ollama create forensic-sql -f Modelfile
ollama run forensic-sql
Training Details
Dataset — SQLiteDS
- Total examples: 1,000 (800 train / 100 val / 100 test), fixed random seed 42
- Forensic artifact categories: 191
- Reference query validation: All 1,000 reference queries validated for execution correctness against in-memory SQLite; 50 queries (5%) corrected before final training
- Augmentation: 3.4× expansion via instruction paraphrasing, WHERE clause reordering, and LIMIT injection — augmented examples confined to training split only
- Dataset: pawlaszc/mobile-forensics-sql
- License: CC BY 4.0
Hyperparameters
| Parameter | Value |
|---|---|
| Training method | Full fine-tune (no LoRA) |
| Precision | bfloat16 |
| Epochs | 7 |
| Learning rate | 2e-5 (peak) |
| LR scheduler | Cosine with warmup |
| Batch size | 1 + gradient accumulation 4 |
| Max sequence length | 2048 |
| Optimizer | AdamW |
| Hardware | Apple M-series, 16 GB unified memory |
| Training time | ~17.6 hours |
| Best val loss | 0.3043 (epoch 7) |
Key Training Insight: Sequence Length
Early training runs with max_seq_length=512 truncated 92% of examples, causing
the model to learn schema generation (CREATE TABLE) instead of queries — resulting
in only ~50% accuracy. Setting max_seq_length=2048 eliminated truncation and
improved accuracy from 50% to 68% before augmentation, and to 91% after all
training components were applied.
Limitations
Known Issues
- iOS CoreData Schemas (84.0%): The Z-prefix column naming convention
(e.g.,
ZISFROMME,ZTIMESTAMP) provides no semantic signal from column names alone, making these schemas harder to reason about. - Hard Queries — 3.7 pp gap to GPT-4o: Complex CTEs, recursive queries, and window functions are the primary remaining challenge.
- Finance & Crypto (81.8%, n=11): Small test set; confidence intervals are wide. Interpret with caution.
- ~1 in 11 error rate: Approximately 9% of generated queries will contain errors. Expert review of all outputs is required before use in investigations.
When Human Review is Especially Important
- Complex multi-table queries with CTEs or window functions
- Case-critical or court-admissible investigations
- Any query that will be used to draw conclusions about a suspect
- Queries involving rare or unusual forensic artifact schemas
Evaluation
- Test set: 100 examples, held-out, seed=42, non-augmented
- Metric: Execution accuracy — query is correct iff it executes without error AND returns a result set identical to the reference query
- Reference validation: All reference queries validated for execution correctness before evaluation; 5 broken queries in the test set were corrected
- Evaluation script: Available in the dataset repository on Zenodo ([DOI])
Citation
If you use this model or the SQLiteDS dataset in your research, please cite:
@article{pawlaszczyk2026forsqlitelm,
author = {Dirk Pawlaszczyk},
title = {AI-Based Automated SQL Query Generation for SQLite Databases
in Mobile Forensics},
journal = {Forensic Science International: Digital Investigation},
year = {2026},
note = {FSIDI-D-26-00029}
}
License
Apache 2.0 — following the base Llama 3.2 license terms.
Acknowledgments
- Base model: Meta's Llama 3.2-3B-Instruct
- Training framework: Hugging Face Transformers
- Forensic tool integration: FQLite
- Schema sources: iLEAPP, ALEAPP, Autopsy (used under their respective open-source licenses)
Additional Resources
- Dataset (Zenodo): [SQLiteDS — DOI to be added on publication]
- Dataset (HuggingFace): pawlaszc/mobile-forensics-sql
- FQLite integration: github.com/pawlaszczyk/fqlite
- Paper: FSIDI-D-26-00029 (under review)
Disclaimer: ForSQLiteLM is intended for research and forensic practitioner use. All generated SQL queries must be reviewed by a qualified practitioner before execution in live forensic investigations. The authors accept no liability for incorrect conclusions drawn from unvalidated model outputs.