GPT-OSS 120B (stock)
1 tested weight format · Explore results, then inspect the answers.
Choose a tested configuration
Get this tested model
Q4_K_M · 62.77 GB download · 2 files required
Links follow the selected quant and configuration.Setup, memory & provenance · Q4_K_M
Q4_K_M · 62.77 GB of weights · rocm · context 16384 · GPU layers 99
Large · 20B and above · MoE · 116.8B total · Active parameter count not recorded
Memory fit has not been verified for this configuration.
completed
Recorded settings and thinking verification
Temperature 0 · seed 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 · Local · test machine with 128 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.
Overall across tasks
73.8 / 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 | Not planned | |
| 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 |
|
Model analysis
This analysis covers this configuration across its recorded thinking conditions and test suites.
Use this stock Q4_K_M configuration for small project edits and source-based assistance, rather than unattended research or larger projects. With native reasoning at medium effort, it handled routine coding well and resisted incorrect corrections while accepting genuine source updates. Larger practical work was uneven, and research-paper answers were weak. Small coding tasks took a median 49.4 seconds on this test machine.
Evidence for this judgment
| Tasks passed | 14 of 16 (87.5%) |
|---|---|
| Test coverage | 16 of 16 tasks scored |
| Tasks timed | 16 tasks |
| Typical time per task (median) | 49.4 seconds |
| Tasks passed | 12 of 12 (100.0%) |
|---|---|
| Test coverage | 12 of 12 tasks scored |
| Average score | 54.5/100 · Mean task credit |
|---|---|
| Test coverage | 11 of 11 tasks scored |
| Task outcomes | 6 full credit · 0 partial · 5 no credit |
| Average score | 33.5/100 · Answer token F1 |
|---|---|
| Test coverage | 8 of 8 tasks scored |
| Task outcomes | 0 full credit · 8 partial · 0 no credit |
Summary generated by GPT Astra · · Edited by Codex; agent reviewed by Codex root · publication authorized by user
About this summary
- Analyst provider
- openai
- Generation route
- Codex CLI · codex-cli 0.163.0 · 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-v8
- Generation time
- 2026-10-28T01:06:30.149176Z
- Review time
- 2026-10-28T01:07:17.281030+00:00
- Evidence reviewer
- Codex root (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-161a0c0b3366764cd46aca8c85ef893157074bade44c7f42829d071766da607e
- Analysis input hash
- b4ee3d7533a337fe8dbd80cef9b41320ad3c405abb158a0d49dbdbde1d02f122
- Summary revision
- summary-bd1ae69c75882ac878822c791fb2f364d28b303733ed3ffac91e637a27c1e2de
Generation and editorial authorship remain attached to this revision. Changing the default generator does not change this attribution.
Good at
Handles small project edits and tightly constrained responses well. Strong results on routine coding and wording, language and formatting requirements make it useful for bounded assistance, with checks still advisable.
Evidence for this judgment
| Tasks passed | 14 of 16 (87.5%) |
|---|---|
| Test coverage | 16 of 16 tasks scored |
| Tasks passed | 21 of 23 (91.3%) |
|---|---|
| Test coverage | 23 of 23 tasks scored |
Works well with short source passages: answering questions, calculating from their facts, and resisting incorrect corrections while accepting genuine source updates. These small tests support passage-based assistance, not a blanket endorsement for research.
Evidence for this judgment
| Tasks passed | 12 of 12 (100.0%) |
|---|---|
| Test coverage | 12 of 12 tasks scored |
| Tasks passed | 7 of 7 (100.0%) |
|---|---|
| Test coverage | 7 of 7 tasks scored |
| Tasks passed | 13 of 16 (81.3%) |
|---|---|
| Test coverage | 16 of 16 tasks scored |
Struggles with
Research-paper answers need substantial verification. Their low answer matching score reflects weak answer quality despite finishing the tasks; success with short passages did not carry over to this more demanding reading.
Evidence for this judgment
| Average score | 33.5/100 · Answer token F1 |
|---|---|
| Test coverage | 8 of 8 tasks scored |
| Task outcomes | 0 full credit · 8 partial · 0 no credit |
| Partially correct answers | 8 tasks |
| Failed to finish | 0 tasks |
Larger practical tasks and difficult math/reasoning need close checking: many finished outputs were incorrect, rather than unfinished. Logic and number puzzles were also uneven, so native reasoning is no guarantee of correctness.
Evidence for this judgment
| Average score | 54.5/100 · Mean task credit |
|---|---|
| Test coverage | 11 of 11 tasks scored |
| Task outcomes | 6 full credit · 0 partial · 5 no credit |
| Incorrect completed answers | 5 tasks |
| Failed to finish | 0 tasks |
| Average score | 46.7/100 · Mean answer credit |
|---|---|
| Test coverage | 11 of 11 tasks scored |
| Task outcomes | 5 full credit · 1 partial · 5 no credit |
| Incorrect completed answers | 5 tasks |
| Failed to finish | 0 tasks |
| Average score | 69.8/100 · Mean puzzle credit |
|---|---|
| Test coverage | 34 of 34 tasks scored |
| Task outcomes | 23 full credit · 1 partial · 10 no credit |
Worth knowing
This stock configuration uses native reasoning at medium effort. Without a matched thinking-off test, its results cannot establish whether reasoning improves quality enough to justify its time cost.
Evidence for this judgment
Source limitation
This is a native reasoning condition at its recorded effort, not a matched thinking-on/off experiment.
Source limitation
Stock, non-abliterated GPT-OSS 120B uses native reasoning at medium effort. No matched thinking-off condition exists in this campaign.
Publication redactions limit reader inspection of some evidence.
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.
What changed in these results
Stock, non-abliterated GPT-OSS 120B uses native reasoning at medium effort. No matched thinking-off condition exists in this campaign.
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 · 41 full-credit repeats.
16/16 questions have every planned repeat scored. Of those, 13 earned full credit on every repeat.
Recorded repetition conditions
- Seed 202 · requested on · native reasoning
- Seed 101 · 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
Q4_K_M · 62.77 GB
Publisher unresolved · legacy partial
gpt-oss-120b-Q4_K_M-00001-of-00002.ggufHistorical first-MiB hash only; not a full-file identity.
gpt-oss-120b-Q4_K_M-00002-of-00002.ggufHistorical first-MiB hash only; not a full-file identity.
Explore the answers
Choose a suite to inspect its exact available questions, references and model answers.