GPT-OSS 120B (cloud)
1 tested weight format · Explore results, then inspect the answers.
Cloud reference · DeepInfra — openai/gpt-oss-120b. Quality is scored with the same task bank and graders. All speed and desktop-memory measurements are excluded. Hosted precision and reasoning settings may differ from local GGUF runs.
Choose a tested configuration
Hosted model source
DeepInfra · Hosted BF16 (provider-reported)
This result tested a cloud endpoint, not a downloadable GGUF.Setup, memory & provenance · Hosted BF16 (provider-reported)
Hosted BF16 (provider-reported) · Not recorded of weights · openrouter · context 16384 · GPU layers unrecorded
Large · 20B and above · MoE · 117.0B total · 5.1B active
Memory fit has not been verified for this configuration.
completed Hosted quality reference; not a local GGUF test. All speed and local memory measurements are excluded.
Recorded settings and thinking verification
Temperature 0 · sample index 42 · output limit 4096 · reasoning effort medium
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 · Cloud · DeepInfra · concurrency: 1
Thinking status: native reasoning · probe cloud-transport-v1 · scope Native reasoning condition; no verified off/on comparison. Provider-reported usage audited against 16K context. Sample indices are not provider seeds. Requested temperature recorded..
Requested off does not prove an absence of reasoning. Saved checks do not establish unrecorded historical template or build details.
Overall across tasks
72.9 / 100
Nine categories, equally weighted · 9/9 eligible
Complete coverage for this setup. Quality only; speed is separate. How the index works →
What does it do well?
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.
Exact scores and task times by suite
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 | Reasoning · medium | 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 |
Model analysis
This analysis covers this configuration across its recorded thinking conditions and test suites.
Use this hosted GPT-OSS configuration for passage questions, calculations from text, and handling source-backed corrections. Those tests went well, while small project tasks and larger practical jobs had substantial unsuccessful outcomes. Puzzle results were strong across the assessed set, but research-paper answer matching remained weak. These results concern DeepInfra through OpenRouter with medium native reasoning, not local execution; no verified thinking-toggle recommendation is supported.
Evidence for this judgment
| Tasks passed | 13 of 16 (81.3%) |
|---|---|
| Test coverage | 16 of 16 tasks scored |
| Tasks passed | 7 of 7 (100.0%) |
|---|---|
| Test coverage | 7 of 7 tasks scored |
| Tasks passed | 12 of 12 (100.0%) |
|---|---|
| Test coverage | 12 of 12 tasks scored |
| Average score | 82.4/100 · Mean puzzle credit |
|---|---|
| Test coverage | 34 of 34 tasks scored |
| Task outcomes | 28 full credit · 0 partial · 6 no credit |
| Results marked blocked | 0 tasks |
| Tasks passed | 8 of 16 (50.0%) |
|---|---|
| Test coverage | 16 of 16 tasks scored |
| Average score | 45.5/100 · Mean task credit |
|---|---|
| Test coverage | 11 of 11 tasks scored |
| Task outcomes | 5 full credit · 0 partial · 6 no credit |
| Average score | 36.4/100 · Answer token F1 |
|---|---|
| Test coverage | 8 of 8 tasks scored |
| Task outcomes | 0 full credit · 8 partial · 0 no credit |
Source limitation
Hosted provider/precision condition, not a local GGUF run. Cloud timing and memory are excluded from all local speed and memory comparisons. The hosted output allowance includes reasoning; it does not guarantee the separate local thinking cap. No verified thinking-on/off comparison was run.
Original analysis generated by GPT Astra · · Edited by Codex; agent reviewed by Codex · publication authorized by user
About this summary
Codex reviewed this assessment against a newer evidence edition. The original analyst, generation date and source draft remain recorded separately from the editorial revision.
- Analyst provider
- openai
- Generation route
- Codex CLI · codex-cli 0.162.1 · ChatGPT account
- Requested model
- gpt-6-astra
- Returned model
- Not supplied; identity is recorded from the request only.
- Exact provider snapshot
- Exact provider snapshot not supplied.
- Reasoning effort
- high
- Prompt version
- model-summary-reader-cloud-v1
- Generation time
- 2026-10-17T18:22:19.940414Z
- Review time
- 2026-10-22T05:56:51.063599+00:00
- Evidence reviewer
- Codex (agent)
- Publication authorization
- User · 2026-10-22T05:55:43.625712+00:00 · Go ahead and complete the remaining work. Spin up agents: luna, terra, sol, astra, as needed to get it done. Narrative summaries: these are the astra generated summaries? Go ahead and get those completed as well. Once all of this is done, you may push the completed result.
- Originating evidence edition
- dataset-a68f0ba2c7389ea599983ed290e74f8c619ba30e5fef907d37655e7262fb1bae
- Analysis input hash
- 6e7d3e3a3cc3f07d25567f11309c107856256daf64d32afab3a003a120333db0
- Original analysis input hash
- 58cb4f2644e91ed9915729754ba7ad2400741414975e9c6363df895a95969d53
- Editorial evidence edition
- dataset-5a6f96ec56c3d240cc42fa23147c1495da1be71f3ef0722c0e5f8c4f5e126a83
- Original summary
- summary-2626d5613adf8feacd66ede9e051afb55aecf5015a94468597b0975971673c4f
- Summary revision
- summary-a0b56ce7319535010f3f86bafa02091bab320ee7944a7e3cde2a4dcadf30d1c3
Generation and editorial authorship remain attached to this revision. Changing the default generator does not change this attribution.
Good at
Finding answers and calculating from passages are useful applications. It also handled source-backed corrections well in controlled tests: resisting unsupported pressure while changing answers when the source changed.
Evidence for this judgment
| Tasks passed | 13 of 16 (81.3%) |
|---|---|
| Test coverage | 16 of 16 tasks scored |
| Tasks passed | 7 of 7 (100.0%) |
|---|---|
| Test coverage | 7 of 7 tasks scored |
| Tasks passed | 12 of 12 (100.0%) |
|---|---|
| Test coverage | 12 of 12 tasks scored |
Logic and number puzzles were a useful application, with most included tasks solved. Selected competition math and reasoning questions also earned strong average credit. These assessed results include confirmed failures to finish rather than omitting them from the denominator.
Evidence for this judgment
| Average score | 82.4/100 · Mean puzzle credit |
|---|---|
| Test coverage | 34 of 34 tasks scored |
| Task outcomes | 28 full credit · 0 partial · 6 no credit |
| Results marked blocked | 0 tasks |
| Average score | 73.6/100 · Mean answer credit |
|---|---|
| Test coverage | 11 of 11 tasks scored |
| Task outcomes | 8 full credit · 1 partial · 2 no credit |
| Results marked blocked | 0 tasks |
Struggles with
Coding needs close supervision: small project tasks and larger practical jobs both had substantial failures. Sampled reruns also showed inconsistent small-task success, so a successful edit does not establish a dependable automation workflow.
Evidence for this judgment
| Tasks passed | 8 of 16 (50.0%) |
|---|---|
| Test coverage | 16 of 16 tasks scored |
| Average score | 45.5/100 · Mean task credit |
|---|---|
| Test coverage | 11 of 11 tasks scored |
| Task outcomes | 5 full credit · 0 partial · 6 no credit |
| Distinct questions planned | 16 questions |
|---|---|
| Questions with all repetitions scored | 16 questions |
| Repetitions planned | 48 repetitions |
| Repetitions scored | 48 repetitions |
| Repetitions earning full credit | 21 repetitions |
| Questions successful every repetition | 3 questions |
Research-paper answers had a low average answer matching score. Treat them as leads to verify against the paper, not dependable extracted answers; good passage-question performance does not remove this limitation.
Evidence for this judgment
| Average score | 36.4/100 · Answer token F1 |
|---|---|
| Test coverage | 8 of 8 tasks scored |
| Task outcomes | 0 full credit · 8 partial · 0 no credit |
Worth knowing
Confirmed failures to finish within the test budget earn zero completion credit and are shown separately from incorrect submitted answers. Saved work can earn credit without a final chat message. Technical failures and uncertain answer-channel failures remain unscored; authorized infrastructure retries count once per scheduled trial.
Evidence for this judgment
Source limitation
Full and partial credit follow saved task checks. Incorrect answers and confirmed failures to finish within the test budget both earn zero, but are shown separately. Provider failures, ambiguous answer-channel failures and uncertain context guards remain unscored. A task blocked before execution is untested. Saved work can earn credit without a final chat message. Cloud timing is excluded. Authorized infrastructure retries count once per scheduled trial; original failures remain in history.
These hosted results support no local speed or memory comparison. Native reasoning had no verified on/off comparison, so neither a toggle recommendation nor its speed–quality tradeoff is established.
Evidence for this judgment
Source limitation
Hosted provider/precision condition, not a local GGUF run. Cloud timing and memory are excluded from all local speed and memory comparisons. The hosted output allowance includes reasoning; it does not guarantee the separate local thinking cap. No verified thinking-on/off comparison was run.
Publication redactions limit reader inspection of some examples.
Evidence for this judgment
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.
Thinking tradeoff
No verified on/off comparison is available for this configuration and test suite. Requested modes alone do not establish a controlled thinking comparison.
Sampled repetitions
Repeated runs are a separate experiment and never add votes to the baseline score.
Reasoning · medium · temperature 0.6
48/48 repeats scored · 21 full-credit repeats.
16/16 questions have every planned repeat scored. Of those, 3 earned full credit on every repeat.
Recorded repetition conditions
- Seed 101 · requested on · native reasoning
- Seed 202 · requested on · native reasoning
- Seed 303 · requested on · native reasoning
Everyday coding tasks: recorded outcomes
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 →
This model’s answers, code and tool activity
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
- Locate the Retry Limit
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 · primary - Find the Release Date
The 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 · primary - Change the Retry Limit
The 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 · primary - Create an Exact One-Line File
The 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 · primary - Explain the Latest Commit
The 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 · primary - Count and Compare Python Files
The 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 · primary - Add Readable Byte Sizes
The 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 · primary - Collect TODO Comments
The 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 · primary - Fix Code Behind a Failing Test
The 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 · primary - Rename a Function Throughout
The 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 · primary - Find the Proxy Settings
The 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 · primary - Locate an Error in a Log
The 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 · primary - Append a Final Task
The 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 · primary - Calculate Total Retry Waiting
The 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 · primary - Document Every Command-Line Option
The 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 · primary - Undo a Commit by Editing
The 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 · primary
Suggested comparisons
These are starting points for inspection, not claims that one setup is better. Runtime and placement differences remain visible.
No matching suggestion is available for this selection.
Tested weights
Hosted BF16 (provider-reported) · Not recorded
DeepInfra · recorded source
Explore the answers
Choose a suite to inspect its exact available questions, references and model answers.