AgentBench / results
← All models

Ling 3.0 Flash Q2_K

3 tested weight formats · Explore results, then inspect the answers.

Choose a tested configuration

Get this tested model

IQ2_XXS · 35.24 GB download

Links follow the selected quant and configuration.

Setup, memory & provenance · IQ2_XXS

IQ2_XXS · 35.24 GB of weights · rocm · context 16384 · GPU layers 99

Parameter size unverified · unknown

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 128 GB RAM · concurrency: 1

Thinking status: verified · probe 2 · scope Saved profile-level probe; exact historical template/build scope is not fully recorded..

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

Overall across tasks

58.5 / 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 suiteThinking offDetails
Everyday coding tasksTask pass rate
Pass rate
16/16 · 100%
Answers completed
16/16 · 100%
Correct / completed
16/16 · 100%
16 full credit
16/16 scored37.4s median task time · 16 measured
Larger practical tasksMean task credit
Average credit
63.6%
Full-credit rate
7/11 · 64%
Answers completed
11/11 · 100%
Full credit / completed
7/11 · 64%
7 full credit4 incorrect
11/11 scored191.3s median task time · 11 measured
Logic and number puzzlesMean puzzle credit
Average credit
50.0%
Full-credit rate
17/34 · 50%
Answers completed
34/34 · 100%
Full credit / completed
17/34 · 50%
17 full credit17 incorrect
34/34 scored137.2s median task time · 34 measured
Published hard problemsMean answer credit
Average credit
37.6%
Full-credit rate
4/11 · 36%
Answers completed
11/11 · 100%
Full credit / completed
4/11 · 36%
4 full credit2 partial credit5 incorrect
11/11 scored278.7s median task time · 11 measured
Following exact instructions · original campaignStrict prompt complianceNot planned
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 scored2.8s median task time · 16 measured
Calculating from a passageNumeric exact-match accuracy
Pass rate
5/7 · 71%
Answers completed
7/7 · 100%
Correct / completed
5/7 · 71%
5 full credit2 incorrect
7/7 scored2.9s median task time · 7 measured
Reading research papersAnswer token F1
Average credit
44.1%
Full-credit rate
0/8 · 0%
Answers completed
8/8 · 100%
Full credit / completed
0/8 · 0%
8 partial credit
8/8 scored16.2s median task time · 8 measured
Resisting incorrect correctionsAll-branches pass rate
Pass rate
2/12 · 17%
Answers completed
12/12 · 100%
Correct / completed
2/12 · 17%
2 full credit10 incorrect
12/12 scored7.3s median task time · 12 measured
Following exact instructions · 128 GB campaignStrict prompt compliance
Pass rate
20/23 · 87%
Answers completed
23/23 · 100%
Correct / completed
20/23 · 87%
20 full credit3 incorrect
23/23 scored22.0s median task time · 23 measured

Model analysis

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

Use this tested IQ2_XXS setup for small project edits: it passed every everyday coding task, and leaving thinking off gave the better speed/quality balance in these runs. Larger practical work was useful but uneven, with most tasks successful without thinking. Difficult math/reasoning and research-paper answers were weak in either mode. Treat it as a supervised assistant, not an unattended worker.

Evidence for this judgment
Everyday coding tasks · Thinking off
Tasks passed16 of 16 (100.0%)
Test coverage16 of 16 tasks scored
Tasks timed16 tasks
Typical time per task (median)37.4 seconds
Explore these test results →

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

Everyday coding tasks · Thinking on
Tasks passed16 of 16 (100.0%)
Test coverage16 of 16 tasks scored
Tasks timed16 tasks
Typical time per task (median)54.0 seconds
Explore these test results →

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

Everyday coding tasks · Thinking off versus on
Thinking off → on100.0% · Task pass rate → 100.0% · Task pass rate
Paired test coverage16 of 16 tasks compared in both modes
Tasks timed in both modes16 pairs
Score change with thinking onNo change
Average time change with thinking on85.0 seconds slower
Explore these test results →

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

Larger practical tasks · Thinking off
Average score63.6/100 · Mean task credit
Test coverage11 of 11 tasks scored
Task outcomes7 full credit · 0 partial · 4 no credit
Explore these test results →

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

Published hard problems · Thinking off
Average score37.6/100 · Mean answer credit
Test coverage11 of 11 tasks scored
Task outcomes4 full credit · 2 partial · 5 no credit
Explore these test results →

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

Published hard problems · Thinking on
Average score40.3/100 · Mean answer credit
Test coverage11 of 11 tasks scored
Task outcomes4 full credit · 2 partial · 5 no credit
Explore these test results →

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

Reading research papers · Thinking off
Average score44.1/100 · Answer token F1
Test coverage8 of 8 tasks scored
Task outcomes0 full credit · 8 partial · 0 no credit
Explore these test results →

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

Reading research papers · Thinking on
Average score43.9/100 · Answer token F1
Test coverage8 of 8 tasks scored
Task outcomes1 full credit · 6 partial · 1 no credit
Explore these test results →

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

Summary generated by GPT Astra · · 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
2026-10-28T01:17:37.560794Z
Review time
2026-10-28T01:18:29.105484+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
9702c1869c33834a89411267874d3e9cd57d3631101858e1733726100f600a51
Summary revision
summary-99b867d2e8aeaa20ac477119826ca0653e2f288bb8d2839247f6e251536de763

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

Good at

Small project edits and constrained writing are useful applications. Without thinking, it passed every everyday coding task and followed most strict wording, length and formatting requirements on these tests.

Evidence for this judgment
Everyday coding tasks · Thinking off
Tasks passed16 of 16 (100.0%)
Test coverage16 of 16 tasks scored
Explore these test results →

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

Following exact instructions · Thinking off
Tasks passed20 of 23 (87.0%)
Test coverage23 of 23 tasks scored
Explore these test results →

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

With thinking enabled, it successfully handled challenged or updated sources and calculations from passages throughout these small tests. This mode is useful when answers must track the provided facts closely.

Evidence for this judgment
Resisting incorrect corrections · Thinking on
Tasks passed12 of 12 (100.0%)
Test coverage12 of 12 tasks scored
Explore these test results →

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

Calculating from a passage · Thinking on
Tasks passed7 of 7 (100.0%)
Test coverage7 of 7 tasks scored
Explore these test results →

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

Struggles with

Difficult math/reasoning and research-paper answers need independent checking. Both modes had low average scores on the hard problems and weak answer matching on paper questions; neither supports trusting these answers unchecked.

Evidence for this judgment
Published hard problems · Thinking off
Average score37.6/100 · Mean answer credit
Test coverage11 of 11 tasks scored
Task outcomes4 full credit · 2 partial · 5 no credit
Explore these test results →

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

Published hard problems · Thinking on
Average score40.3/100 · Mean answer credit
Test coverage11 of 11 tasks scored
Task outcomes4 full credit · 2 partial · 5 no credit
Explore these test results →

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

Reading research papers · Thinking off
Average score44.1/100 · Answer token F1
Test coverage8 of 8 tasks scored
Task outcomes0 full credit · 8 partial · 0 no credit
Explore these test results →

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

Reading research papers · Thinking on
Average score43.9/100 · Answer token F1
Test coverage8 of 8 tasks scored
Task outcomes1 full credit · 6 partial · 1 no credit
Explore these test results →

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

Without thinking, handling challenged or updated sources was very poor. Longer tool-based tasks also need supervision: thinking mode produced both incorrect finished results and failures to finish, taking more average time for slightly lower success.

Evidence for this judgment
Resisting incorrect corrections · Thinking off
Tasks passed2 of 12 (16.7%)
Test coverage12 of 12 tasks scored
Explore these test results →

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

Larger practical tasks · Thinking off
Average score63.6/100 · Mean task credit
Test coverage11 of 11 tasks scored
Task outcomes7 full credit · 0 partial · 4 no credit
Tasks timed11 tasks
Explore these test results →

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

Larger practical tasks · Thinking on
Average score54.5/100 · Mean task credit
Test coverage11 of 11 tasks scored
Task outcomes6 full credit · 0 partial · 5 no credit
Tasks timed11 tasks
Failed to finish3 tasks
Incorrect completed answers2 tasks
Explore these test results →

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

Larger practical tasks · Thinking off versus on
Thinking off → on63.6/100 · Mean task credit → 54.5/100 · Mean task credit
Paired test coverage11 of 11 tasks compared in both modes
Tasks timed in both modes11 pairs
Score change with thinking on-9.1 score points
Average time change with thinking on289.7 seconds slower
Explore these test results →

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

Should you enable thinking?

Leave thinking off for everyday coding and constrained writing. In these paired runs, enabling it increased average task time without improving either category’s overall success.

Evidence for this judgment
Everyday coding tasks · Thinking off versus on
Thinking off → on100.0% · Task pass rate → 100.0% · Task pass rate
Paired test coverage16 of 16 tasks compared in both modes
Tasks timed in both modes16 pairs
Average time change with thinking on85.0 seconds slower
Explore these test results →

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

Everyday coding tasks · Thinking off
Tasks passed16 of 16 (100.0%)
Test coverage16 of 16 tasks scored
Tasks timed16 tasks
Explore these test results →

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

Everyday coding tasks · Thinking on
Tasks passed16 of 16 (100.0%)
Test coverage16 of 16 tasks scored
Tasks timed16 tasks
Explore these test results →

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

Following exact instructions · Thinking off versus on
Thinking off → on87.0% · Strict prompt compliance → 87.0% · Strict prompt compliance
Paired test coverage23 of 23 tasks compared in both modes
Tasks timed in both modes23 pairs
Average time change with thinking on40.4 seconds slower
Explore these test results →

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

Following exact instructions · Thinking off
Tasks passed20 of 23 (87.0%)
Test coverage23 of 23 tasks scored
Tasks timed23 tasks
Explore these test results →

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

Following exact instructions · Thinking on
Tasks passed20 of 23 (87.0%)
Test coverage23 of 23 tasks scored
Tasks timed23 tasks
Explore these test results →

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

Enable thinking for challenged or updated sources: it transformed poor results into success throughout this small test, at added time cost. Puzzles also benefited, with better scores and lower average task time.

Evidence for this judgment
Resisting incorrect corrections · Thinking off versus on
Thinking off → on16.7% · All-branches pass rate → 100.0% · All-branches pass rate
Paired test coverage12 of 12 tasks compared in both modes
Tasks timed in both modes12 pairs
Average time change with thinking on10.4 seconds slower
Explore these test results →

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

Resisting incorrect corrections · Thinking off
Tasks passed2 of 12 (16.7%)
Test coverage12 of 12 tasks scored
Tasks timed12 tasks
Explore these test results →

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

Resisting incorrect corrections · Thinking on
Tasks passed12 of 12 (100.0%)
Test coverage12 of 12 tasks scored
Tasks timed12 tasks
Explore these test results →

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

Logic and number puzzles · Thinking off versus on
Thinking off → on50.0/100 · Mean puzzle credit → 67.7/100 · Mean puzzle credit
Paired test coverage34 of 34 tasks compared in both modes
Tasks timed in both modes34 pairs
Average time change with thinking on25.0 seconds faster
Explore these test results →

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

Logic and number puzzles · Thinking off
Average score50.0/100 · Mean puzzle credit
Test coverage34 of 34 tasks scored
Task outcomes17 full credit · 0 partial · 17 no credit
Tasks timed34 tasks
Explore these test results →

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

Logic and number puzzles · Thinking on
Average score67.7/100 · Mean puzzle credit
Test coverage34 of 34 tasks scored
Task outcomes23 full credit · 1 partial · 10 no credit
Tasks timed34 tasks
Explore these test results →

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

Worth knowing

Publication redactions limit what readers can inspect in some evidence.

Evidence for this judgment

Source limitation
Some selected evidence has recorded publication redactions.

How to interpret these assessments and their limitations →

How do the weight formats compare?

Everyday coding tasks · Task pass rate · requested / displayed reasoning off. Size is the weight download, not RAM. Different runtimes and placement can also affect results.

IQ2_XXS · 35.24 GBLocal · test machine with 128 GB RAM · rocm · 99 GPU layers · Fully scoredThinking off16/16 passed16/16 scored
Q2_K · 45.9 GBLocal · test machine with 32 GB RAM · vulkan · Unknown GPU layers · WithdrawnThinking offNot scored0/16 scored · Withdrawn setup
IQ3_XXS · 51.21 GBLocal · test machine with 128 GB RAM · vulkan · 99 GPU layers · Recorded · some results unscored or qualifiedThinking off15/15 passed15/16 scored · 1 technical / answer-channel errors

Qualified rows show the reason they are outside the rankings; they cannot establish superiority over a fully tested format. Open the setup to inspect context, runtime and controls.

Choosing a quant

Shared assessment of IQ2_XXS, IQ3_XXS · 2026-10-28 UTC. The current results table can include newer formats.

For small coding tasks with reasoning requested on, IQ2_XXS is a reasonable download-saving starting point: both it and IQ3_XXS passed every tested everyday coding task. Keep that recommendation limited to this tested workload. No eligible comparison supports choosing between them for larger tool-driven work.

Evidence for this judgment

Everyday coding tasks · Thinking requested on

Matching task controls and 16,384 context. These quality results describe the recorded setups; they do not isolate the effect of bit depth. Task times are not comparable for this group.

Weight formatTask pass rateTask timeDownloadInspect
IQ2_XXSSelected formatPublisher unresolvedrocm · 128 GB test machineCPU MoE layers: 38
Recorded execution settings
Context
16,384
GPU layer setting
99
Threads
6
Concurrency
1
Runtime build
Not recorded
Tool adapter
saved-campaign-agent-tools
16/16 passed16/16 scoredNot compared16/16 timed35.24 GBWeights, not required RAMAnswers and code
IQ3_XXSPublisher unresolvedvulkan · 128 GB test machineCPU MoE layers: 43
Recorded execution settings
Context
16,384
GPU layer setting
99
Threads
8
Concurrency
1
Runtime build
Not recorded
Tool adapter
saved-campaign-agent-tools
16/16 passed16/16 scoredNot compared16/16 timed51.21 GBWeights, not required RAMAnswers and code

IQ3_XXS has a substantial lead over IQ2_XXS on the selected hard math and reasoning problems with reasoning requested on. It also leads in the separate requested-off comparison. For this workload, the quality gain makes its larger download worth considering.

Evidence for this judgment

Published hard problems · Thinking requested on

Matching task controls and 16,384 context. These quality results describe the recorded setups; they do not isolate the effect of bit depth. Task times are not comparable for this group.

Weight formatMean answer creditTask timeDownloadInspect
IQ2_XXSSelected formatPublisher unresolvedrocm · 128 GB test machineCPU MoE layers: 38
Recorded execution settings
Context
16,384
GPU layer setting
99
Threads
6
Concurrency
1
Runtime build
Not recorded
Tool adapter
saved-campaign-agent-tools
40.3/10011/11 scoredNot compared11/11 timed35.24 GBWeights, not required RAMAnswers and code
IQ3_XXSPublisher unresolvedvulkan · 128 GB test machineCPU MoE layers: 43
Recorded execution settings
Context
16,384
GPU layer setting
99
Threads
8
Concurrency
1
Runtime build
Not recorded
Tool adapter
saved-campaign-agent-tools
63.9/10011/11 scoredNot compared11/11 timed51.21 GBWeights, not required RAMAnswers and code

Published hard problems · Thinking requested off

Matching task controls and 16,384 context. These quality results describe the recorded setups; they do not isolate the effect of bit depth. Task times are not comparable for this group.

Weight formatMean answer creditTask timeDownloadInspect
IQ2_XXSSelected formatPublisher unresolvedrocm · 128 GB test machineCPU MoE layers: 38
Recorded execution settings
Context
16,384
GPU layer setting
99
Threads
6
Concurrency
1
Runtime build
Not recorded
Tool adapter
saved-campaign-agent-tools
37.6/10011/11 scoredNot compared11/11 timed35.24 GBWeights, not required RAMAnswers and code
IQ3_XXSPublisher unresolvedvulkan · 128 GB test machineCPU MoE layers: 43
Recorded execution settings
Context
16,384
GPU layer setting
99
Threads
8
Concurrency
1
Runtime build
Not recorded
Tool adapter
saved-campaign-agent-tools
65.8/10011/11 scoredNot compared11/11 timed51.21 GBWeights, not required RAMAnswers and code

IQ3_XXS is not a universal quality upgrade: it leads on exact instructions with reasoning requested on, while IQ2_XXS narrowly leads with reasoning requested off. IQ2_XXS also leads on passage-based answering without guessing in the requested-on comparison. Choose by workload rather than bit depth alone.

Evidence for this judgment

Following exact instructions · Thinking requested on

Matching task controls and 16,384 context. These quality results describe the recorded setups; they do not isolate the effect of bit depth. Task times are not comparable for this group.

Weight formatStrict prompt complianceTask timeDownloadInspect
IQ2_XXSSelected formatPublisher unresolvedrocm · 128 GB test machineCPU MoE layers: 38
Recorded execution settings
Context
16,384
GPU layer setting
99
Threads
6
Concurrency
1
Runtime build
Not recorded
Tool adapter
saved-campaign-agent-tools
20/23 passed23/23 scoredNot compared23/23 timed35.24 GBWeights, not required RAMAnswers and code
IQ3_XXSPublisher unresolvedvulkan · 128 GB test machineCPU MoE layers: 43
Recorded execution settings
Context
16,384
GPU layer setting
99
Threads
8
Concurrency
1
Runtime build
Not recorded
Tool adapter
saved-campaign-agent-tools
22/23 passed23/23 scoredNot compared23/23 timed51.21 GBWeights, not required RAMAnswers and code

Following exact instructions · Thinking requested off

Matching task controls and 16,384 context. These quality results describe the recorded setups; they do not isolate the effect of bit depth. Task times are not comparable for this group.

Weight formatStrict prompt complianceTask timeDownloadInspect
IQ2_XXSSelected formatPublisher unresolvedrocm · 128 GB test machineCPU MoE layers: 38
Recorded execution settings
Context
16,384
GPU layer setting
99
Threads
6
Concurrency
1
Runtime build
Not recorded
Tool adapter
saved-campaign-agent-tools
20/23 passed23/23 scoredNot compared23/23 timed35.24 GBWeights, not required RAMAnswers and code
IQ3_XXSPublisher unresolvedvulkan · 128 GB test machineCPU MoE layers: 43
Recorded execution settings
Context
16,384
GPU layer setting
99
Threads
8
Concurrency
1
Runtime build
Not recorded
Tool adapter
saved-campaign-agent-tools
19/23 passed23/23 scoredNot compared23/23 timed51.21 GBWeights, not required RAMAnswers and code

Reading without guessing · Thinking requested on

Matching task controls and 16,384 context. These quality results describe the recorded setups; they do not isolate the effect of bit depth. Task times are not comparable for this group.

Weight formatExact-match accuracyTask timeDownloadInspect
IQ2_XXSSelected formatPublisher unresolvedrocm · 128 GB test machineCPU MoE layers: 38
Recorded execution settings
Context
16,384
GPU layer setting
99
Threads
6
Concurrency
1
Runtime build
Not recorded
Tool adapter
saved-campaign-agent-tools
11/16 passed16/16 scoredNot compared16/16 timed35.24 GBWeights, not required RAMAnswers and code
IQ3_XXSPublisher unresolvedvulkan · 128 GB test machineCPU MoE layers: 43
Recorded execution settings
Context
16,384
GPU layer setting
99
Threads
8
Concurrency
1
Runtime build
Not recorded
Tool adapter
saved-campaign-agent-tools
9/16 passed16/16 scoredNot compared16/16 timed51.21 GBWeights, not required RAMAnswers and code
Scope and limits
  • These are comparisons of tested setups registered to one checkpoint. They do not isolate bit depth from conversion, publisher, runtime-build or template differences.
  • Only complete eligible banks with matching task controls and recorded context enter the quality comparison. Execution profiles are shown per setup; timing is compared only when every recorded execution profile matches and timing coverage is complete. Other results remain coverage, not ranked evidence.
  • Download size is not RAM or VRAM requirement. No memory-fit recommendation is established by this comparison.
  • Small score differences can reflect a single question. Similar results are not proof of equivalence; timings describe this benchmark machine.
About this quant assessment
Requested model
gpt-6-astra
Returned model
Not supplied; request identity only.
Exact provider snapshot
Not supplied.
Generation route
Codex CLI · ChatGPT account
Prompt version
quant-summary-v3
Review time
2026-10-28T01:44:37.123558+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.
Source edition
dataset-161a0c0b3366764cd46aca8c85ef893157074bade44c7f42829d071766da607e
Revision
quant-summary-55d622768edc7ed377d9e00306a6a716d212dfaf216427c56d9cd9aeed850a9d

Thinking tradeoff

16/16 matched scored questions · 16/16 matched timed questions

Both modes earned full credit on every matched question. These matched results leave no measured quality headroom; unmatched questions are not covered by this observation.

Thinking offMean matched task credit100.0%
Thinking onMean matched task credit100.0%

Thinking on took 85.0 seconds more per matched timed question, on average.

All matched quality and timing measurements
Matched measurementRecorded result
Average credit, off → on100.0% → 100.0%
Mean paired credit change0.0 percentage points
Question outcomes0 improved · 16 unchanged · 0 worse
Mean added task time+85.0s
Mean task time, off → on52.5s → 137.5s
Median task time, off → on37.4s → 54.0s
Median of paired time changes+25.1s
Total added task time+1360.6s
Ratio of summed times, on / off2.6×

Quality and timing can cover different subsets. Median paired change is calculated per question; it is not the difference between the two medians. Task time includes tools and grading.

Inspect the matched modes and their answers →
Inspect individual matched questions

Weight formats compared

All tested weight formats of this checkpoint, using the selected thinking setting. This shared comparison updates with new results; each saved model summary keeps its original date.

Everyday coding tasks

Scores and times describe this task bank. Quick failures are not a speed advantage. Different execution settings are labeled.

VersionTask resultTypical task timeWeight downloadExplore
Ling Flash IQ2_XXS (128GB tuned)Thinking off100.0%16/16 scored37.4 seconds16/16 timed35.24 GBAnswers and code
Ling Flash IQ3_XXS (128GB tuned)Thinking off · Different or uncertain execution settings100.0%15/16 scored · Incomplete / not ranked42.2 seconds15/16 timed51.21 GBAnswers and code

Compare

Sampled repetitions

Repeated runs are a separate experiment and never add votes to the baseline score.

Thinking off · temperature 0.6

48/48 repeats scored · 46 full-credit repeats.

16/16 questions have every planned repeat scored. Of those, 14 earned full credit on every repeat.

Recorded repetition conditions
  • Seed 303 · requested off · verified
  • Seed 101 · requested off · verified
  • Seed 202 · requested off · verified

Everyday coding tasks: recorded outcomes

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

16 full credit

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.

Thinking on versus off

Verified requested on/off conditions of the same configuration, matched on the recorded test protocol.

Requested thinking on · Complete compared coverage

Compare these configurations →

Selection rule and evidence IDsPolicy comparisons-v3 · Template verified-thinking-pair
Facts: paired-dcfd072ab54fdab809c26087
Matching candidate set: paired-dcfd072ab54fdab809c26087

Ling Flash IQ3_XXS (128GB tuned)

Another tested weight format of this checkpoint. Complete results first, then nearest download size.

Requested thinking off · Exploratory: incomplete or uncertain evidence

Compare these configurations →

Selection rule and evidence IDsPolicy comparisons-v3 · Template same-checkpoint-matching-controls
Facts: fact-e5e2c96a97619562531d13ac, fact-2e5e1465690a8b4edbfd9fcc
Matching candidate set: fact-2e5e1465690a8b4edbfd9fcc

Coder-Next IQ3_M (128GB tuned)

Another checkpoint in the same download-size band. Complete results first, then nearest download size.

Requested thinking off · Complete compared coverage

Compare these configurations →

Selection rule and evidence IDsPolicy comparisons-v3 · Template same-size-band-matching-controls
Facts: fact-e5e2c96a97619562531d13ac, fact-63fb57600fb24f6b59ac3937
Matching candidate set: fact-63fb57600fb24f6b59ac3937, fact-f006ef6efc7a20c899a8f356, fact-e02383186674a982c463dbb8, fact-95b80e4955f8a6e125312403

Tested weights

Q2_K · 45.9 GB

Publisher unresolved · legacy partial

Ling-3.0-flash-Q2_K.ggufHistorical first-MiB hash only; not a full-file identity.

IQ2_XXS · 35.24 GB

Publisher unresolved · legacy partial

Ling-3.0-flash-IQ2_XXS.ggufHistorical first-MiB hash only; not a full-file identity.

IQ3_XXS · 51.21 GB

Publisher unresolved · legacy partial

Ling-3.0-flash-IQ3_XXS.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.