AgentBench / results
← All models

LFM2.5 8B-A1B Q4_0

1 tested weight format · Explore results, then inspect the answers.

Choose a tested configuration

Get this tested model

Q4_0 · 4.84 GB download

Links follow the selected quant and configuration.

Setup, memory & provenance · Q4_0

Q4_0 · 4.84 GB of weights · vulkan · context 16384 · GPU layers 99

Medium · 5–under 20B · MoE · 8.5B 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 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: ignored switch · probe 2 · scope Observed reasoning despite an off request; toggle is not verified..

Requested off does not prove an absence of reasoning. Saved checks do not establish unrecorded historical template or build details.

Overall across tasks

43.5 / 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 suiteReasoning enabled (observed; requested off)Details
Everyday coding tasksTask pass rate
Pass rate
9/16 · 56%
Answers completed
15/16 · 94%
Correct / completed
9/15 · 60%
9 full credit6 incorrect1 failed to finish
16/16 scored5.9s median task time · 16 measured
Larger practical tasksMean task credit
Average credit
27.3%
Full-credit rate
3/11 · 27%
Answers completed
10/11 · 91%
Full credit / completed
3/10 · 30%
3 full credit7 incorrect1 failed to finish
11/11 scored19.4s median task time · 11 measured
Logic and number puzzlesMean puzzle credit
Average credit
32.6%
Full-credit rate
10/34 · 29%
Answers completed
19/34 · 56%
Full credit / completed
10/19 · 53%
10 full credit5 partial credit4 incorrect15 failed to finish
34/34 scored21.2s median task time · 34 measured
Published hard problemsMean answer credit
Average credit
18.2%
Full-credit rate
2/11 · 18%
Answers completed
5/11 · 45%
Full credit / completed
2/5 · 40%
2 full credit3 incorrect6 failed to finish
11/11 scored20.0s median task time · 11 measured
Following exact instructions · original campaignStrict prompt compliance
Pass rate
21/23 · 91%
Answers completed
22/23 · 96%
Correct / completed
21/22 · 95%
21 full credit1 incorrect1 failed to finish
23/23 scored7.5s median task time · 23 measured
Reading without guessingExact-match accuracy
Pass rate
9/16 · 56%
Answers completed
16/16 · 100%
Correct / completed
9/16 · 56%
9 full credit7 incorrect
16/16 scored1.6s median task time · 16 measured
Calculating from a passageNumeric exact-match accuracy
Pass rate
1/7 · 14%
Answers completed
7/7 · 100%
Correct / completed
1/7 · 14%
1 full credit6 incorrect
7/7 scored2.2s median task time · 7 measured
Reading research papersAnswer token F1
Average credit
37.3%
Full-credit rate
0/8 · 0%
Answers completed
8/8 · 100%
Full credit / completed
0/8 · 0%
7 partial credit1 incorrect
8/8 scored6.2s median task time · 8 measured
Resisting incorrect correctionsAll-branches pass rate
Pass rate
7/12 · 58%
Answers completed
12/12 · 100%
Correct / completed
7/12 · 58%
7 full credit5 incorrect
12/12 scored4.7s median task time · 12 measured
Following exact instructions · 128 GB campaignStrict prompt complianceNot planned

Model analysis

This analysis covers this configuration across its recorded thinking conditions and test suites.

Consider this configuration for tightly constrained writing. It follows wording and formatting rules well, but small coding tasks are uneven, larger-task completion is low, and difficult reasoning exposes clear limits. Reasoning was observed despite the off request: these are reasoning-enabled observations, and the unexecuted duplicate condition does not establish a thinking-toggle benefit or cost.

Evidence for this judgment
Following exact instructions · Reasoning enabled (observed; requested off)
Tasks passed21 of 23 (91.3%)
Test coverage23 of 23 tasks scored
Explore these test results →

View this model’s answers, code and tool activity →

Everyday coding tasks · Reasoning enabled (observed; requested off)
Tasks passed9 of 16 (56.3%)
Test coverage16 of 16 tasks scored
Tasks timed16 tasks
Typical time per task (median)5.9 seconds
Generation speed195.7 tokens/second
Explore these test results →

View this model’s answers, code and tool activity →

Larger practical tasks · Reasoning enabled (observed; requested off)
Average score27.3/100 · Mean task credit
Test coverage11 of 11 tasks scored
Task outcomes3 full credit · 0 partial · 8 no credit
Explore these test results →

View this model’s answers, code and tool activity →

Published hard problems · Reasoning enabled (observed; requested off)
Average score18.2/100 · Mean answer credit
Test coverage11 of 11 tasks scored
Task outcomes2 full credit · 0 partial · 9 no credit
Explore these test results →

View this model’s answers, code and tool activity →

Source limitation
Some requested reasoning conditions lack verified control.

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-v6
Generation time
2026-10-12T05:38:52.370040Z
Review time
2026-10-22T05:55:43.638678+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-b1aa28e61ea9ce402d5617e636622c22565093f8849fd66537b5f4353d228521
Analysis input hash
db4b67066e8a3adac6f7f081358910a4c5cb39c436370b1776060dd08b38b44d
Original analysis input hash
5d7408cc26c55764bd2f9b76217a1d07aa650b5abfe52940b4a560ec3eea5e14
Editorial evidence edition
dataset-5a6f96ec56c3d240cc42fa23147c1495da1be71f3ef0722c0e5f8c4f5e126a83
Original summary
summary-fafba33fd03e377869d48348383b7447b232e5ad36bc424d17175dc24c3401ca
Summary revision
summary-5edbcfe28503ef161dc425f105d679c0ffd6a72d06f4a52a27870fb7900ec7fc

Generation and editorial authorship remain attached to this revision. Changing the default generator does not change this attribution.

Contributing analyses (12)
  • GPT Astra ·
    Analysis stage
    suite_analysis
    Requested / returned model
    gpt-6-astra / Not supplied
    Exact provider snapshot
    Exact provider snapshot not supplied.
    Reasoning effort
    high
    Prompt version
    model-summary-v3
    Analysis input hash
    82876a7db033ce6ef0b6bd2f88185d78401000fe04527fe57ed6fa6e49515029
    Summary revision
    summary-0344da7352d3ef5c45c2ec666d94ade52496fc21c2824469321376d8443ebc44
    Input summary revisions
    Direct evidence analysis
  • GPT Astra ·
    Analysis stage
    suite_analysis
    Requested / returned model
    gpt-6-astra / Not supplied
    Exact provider snapshot
    Exact provider snapshot not supplied.
    Reasoning effort
    high
    Prompt version
    model-summary-v3
    Analysis input hash
    14f1911416dce4969ca2080dc10db786fd140cf1f7b5439ad7471257ad94d8e5
    Summary revision
    summary-0da8b34cf0ca805600e8a0264efb5b705bb1ac75eb59e16d78d05c742e2fcd63
    Input summary revisions
    Direct evidence analysis
  • GPT Astra ·
    Analysis stage
    suite_analysis
    Requested / returned model
    gpt-6-astra / Not supplied
    Exact provider snapshot
    Exact provider snapshot not supplied.
    Reasoning effort
    high
    Prompt version
    model-summary-v3
    Analysis input hash
    a2b55da35e9ac2140f21046a9c9c19a722d43e5c2e780d0a30678a3cd3ce6b73
    Summary revision
    summary-137b86483d364326f128ac8b55cdbb3fffe11c1d9bc66caff62c6bd7f82cbdfa
    Input summary revisions
    Direct evidence analysis
  • GPT Astra ·
    Analysis stage
    suite_analysis
    Requested / returned model
    gpt-6-astra / Not supplied
    Exact provider snapshot
    Exact provider snapshot not supplied.
    Reasoning effort
    high
    Prompt version
    model-summary-v3
    Analysis input hash
    e171fd432a362addc8b8beecd1b71c3422e208aa473ed08fc1129649aed44f42
    Summary revision
    summary-1cb7bdb76c4356a5e9ad587e11f7e67f074241569166fecaf34cc91300d7f869
    Input summary revisions
    Direct evidence analysis
  • GPT Astra ·
    Analysis stage
    suite_analysis
    Requested / returned model
    gpt-6-astra / Not supplied
    Exact provider snapshot
    Exact provider snapshot not supplied.
    Reasoning effort
    high
    Prompt version
    model-summary-v3
    Analysis input hash
    1b823524f2358c859bbd107350d4a8449087a3fd5704ec0e6be397617fac4dfa
    Summary revision
    summary-46c079ad2e50dafda7dfaa75cc54c37bdc23283576bfe3e2036a533272cb9fd7
    Input summary revisions
    Direct evidence analysis
  • GPT Astra ·
    Analysis stage
    subject_synthesis
    Requested / returned model
    gpt-6-astra / Not supplied
    Exact provider snapshot
    Exact provider snapshot not supplied.
    Reasoning effort
    high
    Prompt version
    model-summary-v3
    Analysis input hash
    e19871b012acee6ea7b2355c37f7bc8c3143a75c1dd4b4361bdff896f3b15f23
    Summary revision
    summary-61eb8dfa96b0105b8745dc93b22e09699ca2c77ca47d65969f132ee9831b1bb4
    Input summary revisions
    summary-0344da7352d3ef5c45c2ec666d94ade52496fc21c2824469321376d8443ebc44, summary-0da8b34cf0ca805600e8a0264efb5b705bb1ac75eb59e16d78d05c742e2fcd63, summary-137b86483d364326f128ac8b55cdbb3fffe11c1d9bc66caff62c6bd7f82cbdfa, summary-1cb7bdb76c4356a5e9ad587e11f7e67f074241569166fecaf34cc91300d7f869, summary-46c079ad2e50dafda7dfaa75cc54c37bdc23283576bfe3e2036a533272cb9fd7, summary-85e5f602839b7b2958f9888ccfcf3244e185a01ad3a182e4678a18f2a5fbe05a, summary-867c4225eb886be639c35c6c530baebe07138108f6bbce0443e04f31e684332f, summary-88f2eb287f0b3d0bfa3186270e7a723ea6b67bd8617e631f41e3d5899e24821d, summary-da6c2f32fbe6702ead6977626280f3d29764727de9042423d14f5abb730cafee
  • GPT Astra ·
    Analysis stage
    suite_analysis
    Requested / returned model
    gpt-6-astra / Not supplied
    Exact provider snapshot
    Exact provider snapshot not supplied.
    Reasoning effort
    high
    Prompt version
    model-summary-v3
    Analysis input hash
    0757cd102f9fa429ba1192e66a7dfaa51aff21185b9a1a91800254869a95f92e
    Summary revision
    summary-85e5f602839b7b2958f9888ccfcf3244e185a01ad3a182e4678a18f2a5fbe05a
    Input summary revisions
    Direct evidence analysis
  • GPT Astra ·
    Analysis stage
    suite_analysis
    Requested / returned model
    gpt-6-astra / Not supplied
    Exact provider snapshot
    Exact provider snapshot not supplied.
    Reasoning effort
    high
    Prompt version
    model-summary-v3
    Analysis input hash
    be5cfbc73c4b58a1b21354a9d63865cacd43ded7e4a55b6347e123b1e3728caa
    Summary revision
    summary-867c4225eb886be639c35c6c530baebe07138108f6bbce0443e04f31e684332f
    Input summary revisions
    Direct evidence analysis
  • GPT Astra ·
    Analysis stage
    suite_analysis
    Requested / returned model
    gpt-6-astra / Not supplied
    Exact provider snapshot
    Exact provider snapshot not supplied.
    Reasoning effort
    high
    Prompt version
    model-summary-v3
    Analysis input hash
    e954b51e8f9ecd9b3681c27a4efd6df82f104d249de0d0b73040b90490440a6e
    Summary revision
    summary-88f2eb287f0b3d0bfa3186270e7a723ea6b67bd8617e631f41e3d5899e24821d
    Input summary revisions
    Direct evidence analysis
  • GPT Astra ·
    Analysis stage
    example_analysis
    Requested / returned model
    gpt-6-astra / Not supplied
    Exact provider snapshot
    Exact provider snapshot not supplied.
    Reasoning effort
    high
    Prompt version
    model-summary-v3
    Analysis input hash
    c287e31de6adbd15b98114a48ad474e4fa8c866e1910488a81bf0913025acacd
    Summary revision
    summary-91b0c8f9b98d43d36fd6a6fc988774238c508ef3127b0e60a800291ca13ff33e
    Input summary revisions
    Direct evidence analysis
  • GPT Astra ·
    Analysis stage
    suite_synthesis
    Requested / returned model
    gpt-6-astra / Not supplied
    Exact provider snapshot
    Exact provider snapshot not supplied.
    Reasoning effort
    high
    Prompt version
    model-summary-v3
    Analysis input hash
    9ff98df2121219260c912c5501ab6d4c257ef0e19e833bf531a04240b609f35e
    Summary revision
    summary-da6c2f32fbe6702ead6977626280f3d29764727de9042423d14f5abb730cafee
    Input summary revisions
    summary-91b0c8f9b98d43d36fd6a6fc988774238c508ef3127b0e60a800291ca13ff33e, summary-f8554dc0910f74ccc02bad38bc78529dbc09142536b2a5609f69ac0b3d439db6
  • GPT Astra ·
    Analysis stage
    example_analysis
    Requested / returned model
    gpt-6-astra / Not supplied
    Exact provider snapshot
    Exact provider snapshot not supplied.
    Reasoning effort
    high
    Prompt version
    model-summary-v3
    Analysis input hash
    55ff3f78bd28890c35121454f0506f079bdcdd1647893b0bdc169aa1b0baf6da
    Summary revision
    summary-f8554dc0910f74ccc02bad38bc78529dbc09142536b2a5609f69ac0b3d439db6
    Input summary revisions
    Direct evidence analysis

Good at

Follows demanding wording, length, language and formatting instructions well in the requested-off baseline. That makes constrained drafting a sensible use, while still checking the final output.

Evidence for this judgment
Following exact instructions · Reasoning enabled (observed; requested off)
Tasks passed21 of 23 (91.3%)
Test coverage23 of 23 tasks scored
Explore these test results →

View this model’s answers, code and tool activity →

Keeping source-backed answers under pressure and updating them when evidence changes succeeded on a modest majority of these tests. Results remain uneven, so verify consequential corrections. Reasoning was observed despite the off request.

Evidence for this judgment
Resisting incorrect corrections · Reasoning enabled (observed; requested off)
Tasks passed7 of 12 (58.3%)
Test coverage12 of 12 tasks scored
Explore these test results →

View this model’s answers, code and tool activity →

Struggles with

Small-project edits are uneven across tasks, and larger practical work usually fails to complete successfully. Keep coding supervised rather than expecting autonomous app-building, information organization or file investigation.

Evidence for this judgment
Everyday coding tasks · Reasoning enabled (observed; requested off)
Tasks passed9 of 16 (56.3%)
Test coverage16 of 16 tasks scored
Explore these test results →

View this model’s answers, code and tool activity →

Larger practical tasks · Reasoning enabled (observed; requested off)
Average score27.3/100 · Mean task credit
Test coverage11 of 11 tasks scored
Task outcomes3 full credit · 0 partial · 8 no credit
Explore these test results →

View this model’s answers, code and tool activity →

Puzzles, difficult math and passage calculations are weak. Research-paper answers also match reference answers poorly overall. One checked example had a supporting-paragraph mismatch; another failed the required answer format. Verify both the answer and its evidence.

Evidence for this judgment
Published hard problems · Reasoning enabled (observed; requested off)
Average score18.2/100 · Mean answer credit
Test coverage11 of 11 tasks scored
Task outcomes2 full credit · 0 partial · 9 no credit
Explore these test results →

View this model’s answers, code and tool activity →

Logic and number puzzles · Reasoning enabled (observed; requested off)
Average score32.6/100 · Mean puzzle credit
Test coverage34 of 34 tasks scored
Task outcomes10 full credit · 5 partial · 19 no credit
Explore these test results →

View this model’s answers, code and tool activity →

Calculating from a passage · Reasoning enabled (observed; requested off)
Tasks passed1 of 7 (14.3%)
Test coverage7 of 7 tasks scored
Explore these test results →

View this model’s answers, code and tool activity →

Reading research papers · Reasoning enabled (observed; requested off)
Average score37.3/100 · Answer token F1
Test coverage8 of 8 tasks scored
Task outcomes0 full credit · 7 partial · 1 no credit
Explore these test results →

View this model’s answers, code and tool activity →

Example 1: Reading research papers
Reasoning enabled (observed; requested off). Final result: 90.9/100 · Answer token F1. A final score does not describe every tool step; this example supports a behavior observation, not a whole-test conclusion.
View the question and recorded answer →

Example 2: Reading research papers
Reasoning enabled (observed; requested off). Final result: no credit. A final score does not describe every tool step; this example supports a behavior observation, not a whole-test conclusion.
View the question and recorded answer →

Worth knowing

Reasoning was observed despite requesting it off. These are reasoning-enabled observations, not verified thinking-off runs. The unexecuted duplicate toggle is omitted, and no matched thinking benefit or cost is established.

Evidence for this judgment

Source limitation
Some requested reasoning conditions lack verified control.

Source limitation
Reasoning was observed despite requesting it off. These are reasoning-enabled observations, not verified thinking-off runs or a matched on/off experiment. The unexecuted duplicate toggle is omitted from presentation totals.

Publication redactions and withheld or absent exported material limit readers’ inspection of selected examples; they do not establish that the model lacked the inputs.

Evidence for this judgment

Source limitation
Some selected evidence has recorded publication redactions.

How to interpret these assessments and their limitations →

One weight format is recorded for this model. Additional tested formats will appear here when available.

What changed in these results

Reasoning was observed despite requesting it off. These are reasoning-enabled observations, not verified thinking-off runs or a matched on/off experiment. The unexecuted duplicate toggle is omitted from presentation totals.

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 enabled (observed; requested off) · temperature 0.6

48/48 repeats scored · 29 full-credit repeats.

16/16 questions have every planned repeat scored. Of those, 6 earned full credit on every repeat.

Recorded repetition conditions
  • Seed 101 · requested off · ignored switch
  • Seed 202 · requested off · ignored switch
  • Seed 303 · requested off · ignored switch

Everyday coding tasks: recorded outcomes

Find information in a small project, edit files and fix bugs.

9 full credit6 incorrect1 failed to finish

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
Filters change this list, not the fixed scoring denominator. Search currently covers question IDs, titles and available task explanations. Focus a control to load prompt/outcome search where this edition provides it.

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_0 · 4.84 GB

LiquidAI · recorded source

LFM2.5-8B-A1B-Q4_0.gguf · Exact GGUF file →Historical 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.