1 tested weight format · Explore results, then inspect the answers.
Unknown · 5.95 GB download
Links follow the selected quant and configuration.Unknown · 5.95 GB of weights · prism_vulkan · context 16384 · GPU layers 99
Large · 20B and above · dense · 26.9B total
Memory fit has not been verified for this configuration.
completed
Temperature 0 · seed 42 · output limit 4096 · reasoning effort unrecorded
RAM labels describe the test computer, not this model’s memory requirement. Speed comparisons keep the 32 GB and 128 GB runs separate.
Runtime build: unrecorded · Local · test machine with 32 GB RAM · concurrency: 1
Thinking status: native reasoning · probe 3 · scope Profile-bound diagnostic confirms native reasoning; separate checkpoint, no verified off condition..
Requested off does not prove an absence of reasoning. Saved checks do not establish unrecorded historical template or build details.
82.9 / 100
Nine categories, equally weighted · 9/9 eligible
Complete coverage for this setup. Quality only; speed is separate. How the index works →
Select a category to explore the answers. Bars show what happened on every planned task. Incorrect answers and failures to finish both earn zero; technical problems and untested tasks stay unscored.
Each suite has its own metric and fixed task bank. The balanced index weights categories equally; individual scores and evidence remain available below.
| Test suite | Thinking / Reasoning version | Details |
|---|---|---|
| Everyday coding tasksTask pass rate |
| |
| Larger practical tasksMean task credit |
| |
| Logic and number puzzlesMean puzzle credit |
| |
| Published hard problemsMean answer credit |
| |
| Following exact instructions · original campaignStrict prompt compliance |
| |
| Reading without guessingExact-match accuracy |
| |
| Calculating from a passageNumeric exact-match accuracy |
| |
| Reading research papersAnswer token F1 |
| |
| Resisting incorrect correctionsAll-branches pass rate |
| |
| Following exact instructions · 128 GB campaignStrict prompt compliance | Not planned |
This analysis covers this configuration across its recorded thinking conditions and test suites.
Use this native-reasoning model for small project edits and passage questions. It also succeeded on most larger practical tasks and handled logic puzzles well, making it useful beyond simple assistance. Research-paper answers were weak and need independent checking. On this test machine, small coding tasks took a median 52.9 seconds and larger tasks 333.3 seconds: useful results if you can tolerate the wait, rather than expect instant interaction.
| Tasks passed | 16 of 16 (100.0%) |
|---|---|
| Test coverage | 16 of 16 tasks scored |
| Tasks timed | 16 tasks |
| Typical time per task (median) | 52.9 seconds |
| Tasks passed | 15 of 16 (93.8%) |
|---|---|
| Test coverage | 16 of 16 tasks scored |
| Average score | 72.7/100 · Mean task credit |
|---|---|
| Test coverage | 11 of 11 tasks scored |
| Task outcomes | 8 full credit · 0 partial · 3 no credit |
| Tasks timed | 11 tasks |
| Typical time per task (median) | 333.3 seconds |
| Average score | 82.4/100 · Mean puzzle credit |
|---|---|
| Test coverage | 34 of 34 tasks scored |
| Task outcomes | 28 full credit · 1 partial · 5 no credit |
| Average score | 37.6/100 · Answer token F1 |
|---|---|
| Test coverage | 8 of 8 tasks scored |
| Task outcomes | 0 full credit · 7 partial · 1 no credit |
Source limitation
This is a native reasoning checkpoint. Its Instruct counterpart is a related checkpoint with different weights, not a matched thinking-off run of this GGUF.
Summary generated by GPT Astra · · Agent reviewed by Codex · publication authorized by user
Generation and editorial authorship remain attached to this revision. Changing the default generator does not change this attribution.
Small-project editing succeeded across these prompts and their repeats, while most larger practical tasks also succeeded. It is useful for project work beyond simple snippets, provided you check the finished result.
| Tasks passed | 16 of 16 (100.0%) |
|---|---|
| Test coverage | 16 of 16 tasks scored |
| Repetitions earning full credit | 48 repetitions |
|---|---|
| Repetitions scored | 48 repetitions |
| Repetitions planned | 48 repetitions |
| Questions successful every repetition | 16 questions |
| Questions with all repetitions scored | 16 questions |
| Distinct questions planned | 16 questions |
| Average score | 72.7/100 · Mean task credit |
|---|---|
| Test coverage | 11 of 11 tasks scored |
| Task outcomes | 8 full credit · 0 partial · 3 no credit |
Handles passage questions, calculations from passages, and detailed wording rules well. It also usually kept source-backed answers when challenged and updated them when the source changed.
| Tasks passed | 15 of 16 (93.8%) |
|---|---|
| Test coverage | 16 of 16 tasks scored |
| Tasks passed | 7 of 7 (100.0%) |
|---|---|
| Test coverage | 7 of 7 tasks scored |
| Tasks passed | 22 of 23 (95.7%) |
|---|---|
| Test coverage | 23 of 23 tasks scored |
| Tasks passed | 11 of 12 (91.7%) |
|---|---|
| Test coverage | 12 of 12 tasks scored |
Research-paper answers matched reference answers poorly overall. Treat it as an aid to check against the paper, not a dependable source of precise research conclusions.
| Average score | 37.6/100 · Answer token F1 |
|---|---|
| Test coverage | 8 of 8 tasks scored |
| Task outcomes | 0 full credit · 7 partial · 1 no credit |
Hard math and reasoning still need verification: some answers were partial or wrong. Larger practical work also needs supervision; despite succeeding on most tasks, it sometimes failed checks or did not finish.
| Average score | 72.6/100 · Mean answer credit |
|---|---|
| Test coverage | 11 of 11 tasks scored |
| Task outcomes | 7 full credit · 3 partial · 1 no credit |
| Partially correct answers | 3 tasks |
| Incorrect completed answers | 1 tasks |
| Average score | 72.7/100 · Mean task credit |
|---|---|
| Test coverage | 11 of 11 tasks scored |
| Task outcomes | 8 full credit · 0 partial · 3 no credit |
| Incorrect completed answers | 2 tasks |
| Failed to finish | 1 tasks |
This native-reasoning checkpoint has no verified thinking-off baseline. These results cannot establish whether thinking is worth its extra time; the separate Instruct checkpoint is not an on/off comparison.
Source limitation
This is a native reasoning checkpoint. Its Instruct counterpart is a related checkpoint with different weights, not a matched thinking-off run of this GGUF.
Publication redactions limit readers’ inspection of some evidence.
Source limitation
Some selected evidence has recorded publication redactions.
One weight format is recorded for this model. Additional tested formats will appear here when available.
No verified on/off comparison is available for this configuration and test suite. Requested modes alone do not establish a controlled thinking comparison.
Repeated runs are a separate experiment and never add votes to the baseline score.
48/48 repeats scored · 48 full-credit repeats.
16/16 questions have every planned repeat scored. Of those, 16 earned full credit on every repeat.
Find information in a small project, edit files and fix bugs.
Each segment counts tasks, not credit points. Partial credit varies by task.
Scoring and fixed question bank →
Select a question to read the original answer, tool calls and available code changes for this configuration and thinking setting.
1–16 of 16 matching questions · 16 in this version
The user asks where the project's retry-limit setting is defined and what value it holds. This exercises locating a named setting in code and reporting both its location and value.
basic-T1 · primaryThe user asks for the release date mentioned in a project notes document. This exercises reading a specified file and extracting a particular fact rather than guessing from outside knowledge.
basic-T2 · primaryThe user asks to change the project's retry limit to a specified value. This exercises finding the relevant setting and making a focused code edit rather than merely describing the change.
basic-T3 · primaryThe user asks to create a text file containing exactly one supplied line. This exercises basic file creation and precise instruction following, including avoiding extra text in the file.
basic-T4 · primaryThe user asks what the most recent Git commit changed in the project. This exercises inspecting recorded changes and turning them into a clear explanation of what was modified.
basic-T5 · primaryThe user asks how many Python files are in the application folder and which is largest. This exercises identifying relevant files, counting them, and comparing their sizes.
basic-T6 · primaryThe user asks to add a function that converts byte counts into readable sizes and remove the related TODO comment. This exercises implementing a small utility and updating the surrounding code consistently.
basic-T7 · primaryThe user asks to find every TODO comment in the Python code and append each to the project's task list on a separate line. This combines searching across files with collecting text into an existing document.
basic-T8 · primaryThe user asks to investigate a failing test and fix the application code without changing the test. This exercises diagnosing a bug while respecting an explicit limit on what may be edited.
basic-H1 · primaryThe user asks to rename a network function and update every place in the project that uses it. This exercises tracking references across files and making a coordinated change rather than editing only the definition.
basic-H2 · primaryThe user asks to find a proxy configuration file somewhere under the project's parent folder and report its host and port. This exercises searching beyond the project folder and reading configuration values.
basic-H3 · primaryThe user asks which error code appears in a long event log and on which line. This exercises finding a specific entry in a large file and reporting its precise location.
basic-H4 · primaryThe user asks to append a supplied release-related task as the final line of an existing task list. This exercises preserving existing content while adding exact text in the requested position.
basic-H5 · primaryThe user asks for the total time a network function spends sleeping when all attempts fail, worked out from the code. This exercises following retry logic and adding the delays along that failure path.
basic-H6 · primaryThe user asks for a project readme listing every command-line option with its help text. This exercises discovering the program's available options and transferring that information into complete, source-grounded documentation.
basic-H7 · primaryThe user asks to undo the latest Git commit's change by editing the file directly, without using Git to make changes. This exercises understanding a previous edit and reversing it under a method constraint.
basic-H8 · primaryThese are starting points for inspection, not claims that one setup is better. Runtime and placement differences remain visible.
Another checkpoint in the same total-parameter band and architecture category, with matching task controls.
Requested thinking on · Exploratory: incomplete or uncertain evidenceCompare these configurations →
prism-ml · recorded source
Ternary-Bonsai-2-27B-PTQ1_0.gguf · Exact GGUF file →Historical first-MiB hash only; not a full-file identity.
Choose a suite to inspect its exact available questions, references and model answers.