AgentBench / results
← All models

Qwen3.5 2B Q4_K_M

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

Choose a tested configuration

Get this tested model

Q4_K_M · 1.28 GB download

Links follow the selected quant and configuration.

Setup, memory & provenance · Q4_K_M

Q4_K_M · 1.28 GB of weights · rocm · context 16384 · GPU layers 99

Small · under 5B · dense · 1.9B total

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: verified · probe 1 · 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

38.3 / 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 scored4.3s median task time · 16 measured
Larger practical tasksMean task credit
Average credit
36.4%
Full-credit rate
4/11 · 36%
Answers completed
8/11 · 73%
Full credit / completed
4/8 · 50%
4 full credit4 incorrect3 failed to finish
11/11 scored15.6s median task time · 11 measured
Logic and number puzzlesMean puzzle credit
Average credit
35.4%
Full-credit rate
12/34 · 35%
Answers completed
34/34 · 100%
Full credit / completed
12/34 · 35%
12 full credit2 partial credit20 incorrect
34/34 scored31.5s median task time · 34 measured
Published hard problemsMean answer credit
Average credit
19.4%
Full-credit rate
2/11 · 18%
Answers completed
11/11 · 100%
Full credit / completed
2/11 · 18%
2 full credit2 partial credit7 incorrect
11/11 scored30.2s median task time · 11 measured
Following exact instructions · original campaignStrict prompt compliance
Pass rate
15/23 · 65%
Answers completed
23/23 · 100%
Correct / completed
15/23 · 65%
15 full credit8 incorrect
23/23 scored2.8s median task time · 23 measured
Reading without guessingExact-match accuracy
Pass rate
7/16 · 44%
Answers completed
16/16 · 100%
Correct / completed
7/16 · 44%
7 full credit9 incorrect
16/16 scored0.6s 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 scored0.8s median task time · 7 measured
Reading research papersAnswer token F1
Average credit
5.8%
Full-credit rate
0/8 · 0%
Answers completed
8/8 · 100%
Full credit / completed
0/8 · 0%
1 partial credit7 incorrect
8/8 scored2.2s median task time · 8 measured
Resisting incorrect correctionsAll-branches pass rate
Pass rate
3/12 · 25%
Answers completed
12/12 · 100%
Correct / completed
3/12 · 25%
3 full credit9 incorrect
12/12 scored0.8s 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.

Use it for small project edits with thinking off, not as an unattended assistant for longer work. It passed every small-coding task in the baseline run, but larger practical tasks and difficult math exposed major limits. Thinking deserves selective use, especially when calculating from a passage.

Evidence for this judgment
Everyday coding tasks · Thinking off
Tasks passed16 of 16 (100.0%)
Test coverage16 of 16 tasks scored
Typical time per task (median)4.3 seconds
Tasks timed16 tasks
Explore these test results →

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

Larger practical tasks · Thinking off
Average score36.4/100 · Mean task credit
Test coverage11 of 11 tasks scored
Task outcomes4 full credit · 0 partial · 7 no credit
Explore these test results →

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

Published hard problems · Thinking off
Average score19.4/100 · Mean answer credit
Test coverage11 of 11 tasks scored
Task outcomes2 full credit · 2 partial · 7 no credit
Explore these test results →

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

Calculating from a passage · Thinking off versus on
Thinking off → on14.3% · Numeric exact-match accuracy → 85.7% · Numeric exact-match accuracy
Paired test coverage7 of 7 tasks compared in both modes
Score change with thinking on+71.4 score points
Average time change with thinking on9.4 seconds slower
Tasks timed in both modes7 pairs
Explore these test results →

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

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
2026-10-12T05:46:49.795351Z
Review time
2026-10-22T07:26:27.214229+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
72473b645d27dbdffa981134c19409a0d8ec15688bf5560acb427c77bbdfc541
Original analysis input hash
b79a407e27684097dca01c4024153af54ea3040fcb6af9f9fbdbc228782b1583
Editorial evidence edition
dataset-5a6f96ec56c3d240cc42fa23147c1495da1be71f3ef0722c0e5f8c4f5e126a83
Original summary
summary-ee4bfad989798b3e0da61e19ed1076b35f5b29459c1f4d1ac7d4e190963604f5
Summary revision
summary-d9b025bed47463020deaefd7ace7a4f9ac83513189fc45c9bedaab915b6fa0fd

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

Contributing analyses (27)
  • 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
    b0800c22656841e06ee0216167eb3f1b74513262a83daba8e30d7d04ad0bdfd9
    Summary revision
    summary-00fc3092528f4d772272fae842fcac2cd1ef0d59386eba9b5663691860d4d25f
    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
    54173c2dcb237644ed8ccadda39119cd81dd2fa46a49efcb581d8d94c2f52d3f
    Summary revision
    summary-051427ae348acd23701c5656f5cf434ab6f8de13220a6936a969bbeb24a5b087
    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
    81c12cd534e7f6cb609fd3962e6095ce3e48710a9772699ad4a8e2b4e25b0306
    Summary revision
    summary-0eb6c20b532b150bc4df870c08ee4766b5bfb7dab13e8a2b95e85d90931d1170
    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
    b1fb120cfe590adf2e9da4a29df9c4de316b77284511fec59ecf4ccb7361d2d5
    Summary revision
    summary-18816727c01588f9069e505b1186b8f3cb5d0e0eef4a6447c5898ceded3db9c7
    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
    15aadc5fd93a10b8c1889a7d00fa548778d7dafd3a1a25524f49b098b176bfb4
    Summary revision
    summary-1c7e637729569bace2df95a8f5e04a9021f2954e10d59c531caaa47c00e8d82b
    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
    ca4c55b2afa06fee07caa29a2bdf84a9dbbb64a8a1c28ab3237d1fdd3f9aa50d
    Summary revision
    summary-1dc273fbb86b74ae8a9c7ea9d188ef36fb2a04186b3a8c6f729b978818a3f127
    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
    4b82944e151da6c7f541faf1f02cf71559b556a495ca6e03262d16f2211b7ca6
    Summary revision
    summary-37a81e38ae0cc740ab25fd36cbb0a60766c7d708330f6d66d56c2306ae657857
    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
    36e1ac5ffdf9597564f8df291c9dd7eeb91f97eaf6333cb61ae7abf60b03332f
    Summary revision
    summary-3f728b0700981391a67ba27c536743a4e0540a69a965c08ba817ea36968e8fe0
    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
    2096dd2660e861d4c0c5c4b877e957b98c86bb5c52185509d26fc0682051b689
    Summary revision
    summary-57ced8fe43075d23a5a010daa041b8db739aee35017052cafbbb39b2ab3dc773
    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
    2999d634e5fbff1be8fce5c94a3d2e0982204248b154d261faec8e38c11d7793
    Summary revision
    summary-68780b1db79e9a6a8db0ae309577ab353d53bb79d0eeb8a6eec3e605aaaa9ba1
    Input summary revisions
    summary-18816727c01588f9069e505b1186b8f3cb5d0e0eef4a6447c5898ceded3db9c7, summary-1c7e637729569bace2df95a8f5e04a9021f2954e10d59c531caaa47c00e8d82b, summary-3f728b0700981391a67ba27c536743a4e0540a69a965c08ba817ea36968e8fe0, summary-8d0dd26d48c5c3a27352d05f189fcaee495b711dc70493a45cc54eee54d57a03, summary-92eb2d7996e32ad9dd5dc0ba389e652be332e603274a9f538dfc1c8c273e6ace, summary-9c376aaf8a7a1eee04ed02ee686cc67be2d71cee8c7ff73f465c39b88e2837b3, summary-a1eb71f6a20a9d041defc67f954ef788a44cacda921a3508586e8430b4b38416, summary-a5d7e77aa054356751b71747f3c00b6f1e6d3253989921ae8c5ebbc497a34237, summary-eebe6d4de9c5cc71b0b033ae6b14c400b3fe58e64e16d555cfb32ff0ce2606d0
  • 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
    d324667ff768fd5a380d7d46020e7e1a725d23323ebf324a6592af025d2aa557
    Summary revision
    summary-766cc1067a36fa5719ac367a4e2744440ff17df40ff2ebb862fa80c95e1a7f53
    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
    d89883bc8ea5b3d97413961763ca7f3ba8c912dbf62e320d6dc2037a0356dca8
    Summary revision
    summary-8d0dd26d48c5c3a27352d05f189fcaee495b711dc70493a45cc54eee54d57a03
    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
    3193c35a528ce260078498526e32799c1cb9e153067193cdb6527d3404d82343
    Summary revision
    summary-92eb2d7996e32ad9dd5dc0ba389e652be332e603274a9f538dfc1c8c273e6ace
    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
    98489020c555c6cee020080cdf74f06ed1d14ef931c467c820f6039b58affe7c
    Summary revision
    summary-972c5226c81eb8b8489c293f9411c8d57ea09d1884abecc2fe33f06a9c970d2a
    Input summary revisions
    Direct evidence analysis
  • GPT Astra ·
    Analysis stage
    evidence_segment
    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
    2bd82b4dfdabf5edd750847291e705b5f714e9dfc2465b0f74f0f16de7d3408d
    Summary revision
    summary-9865efd37cec62ae52a5c417ce0e9c8b64c92cdcc5cc3d4dbc6a30ef3c741051
    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
    f5147670be72b2ca4220c21f5623f0cce4fdc555438c45d4b23032622b63ad83
    Summary revision
    summary-9c376aaf8a7a1eee04ed02ee686cc67be2d71cee8c7ff73f465c39b88e2837b3
    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
    8db627b1dd74bf14a0b42cf22cf3e720c7b34c65e5aaa309120b66b8fc8dc655
    Summary revision
    summary-a1eb71f6a20a9d041defc67f954ef788a44cacda921a3508586e8430b4b38416
    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
    2b0c7719efd34e2b80afee92c878bf92943e6d5aa6f09da98b1a12bb2e89c214
    Summary revision
    summary-a5d7e77aa054356751b71747f3c00b6f1e6d3253989921ae8c5ebbc497a34237
    Input summary revisions
    summary-00fc3092528f4d772272fae842fcac2cd1ef0d59386eba9b5663691860d4d25f, summary-0eb6c20b532b150bc4df870c08ee4766b5bfb7dab13e8a2b95e85d90931d1170, summary-1dc273fbb86b74ae8a9c7ea9d188ef36fb2a04186b3a8c6f729b978818a3f127, summary-37a81e38ae0cc740ab25fd36cbb0a60766c7d708330f6d66d56c2306ae657857, summary-9865efd37cec62ae52a5c417ce0e9c8b64c92cdcc5cc3d4dbc6a30ef3c741051, summary-a72856ad66b1cdd4b1dcfbff1099690f56d8c4eeb43161159cc24ca8851ced35, summary-a95413cf951a67cae5b0c168cb73408c0f58f2d2b725199bfa33769f5c627c34, summary-b2873613dd1e8995298d8d904b24467bde5537757bb19f5e8212914561142978, summary-c58da8a18b9846e11622515749a44224b7ee53ab5e1f33ae9270bc1cff670241, summary-d7e0c2da9806f4d6b7441149e78a6e343e49ece97a0e348c251dd520e3913895, summary-dd50411074c9519933a8d72e05da457d652c387cd7d692dbc85fe01491b33626, summary-f236ba4f02851463e8e0ccd28ca77ad3efea95326b755cd1e0c9767fbf51d46b
  • 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
    708d4ce3e9c7bd24ab3174ed06a6a1b2e230c4dddafb2df997a42ef0204b5c86
    Summary revision
    summary-a5f00d983d7950b8ec63e1ae15076a3a8f541892adaea417aff93577ca1ab64e
    Input summary revisions
    Direct evidence analysis
  • GPT Astra ·
    Analysis stage
    evidence_segment
    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
    e789cdecdfea87700402cb772d7b282184f96c20d9cff1524dab45bb544bc8b8
    Summary revision
    summary-a72856ad66b1cdd4b1dcfbff1099690f56d8c4eeb43161159cc24ca8851ced35
    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
    5ff521ef895150ed87ab462c1830acbe8b18c53c52aefb1067a92579f171b517
    Summary revision
    summary-a95413cf951a67cae5b0c168cb73408c0f58f2d2b725199bfa33769f5c627c34
    Input summary revisions
    Direct evidence analysis
  • GPT Astra ·
    Analysis stage
    evidence_segment
    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
    007bc8c8326caeedaa146083d6aaae3035900ab18a87e4de437b1031136e13ad
    Summary revision
    summary-b2873613dd1e8995298d8d904b24467bde5537757bb19f5e8212914561142978
    Input summary revisions
    Direct evidence analysis
  • GPT Astra ·
    Analysis stage
    evidence_segment
    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
    759f6add90098bae45b4b276be6921af308bdf7856df8bf35e61addda497d424
    Summary revision
    summary-c58da8a18b9846e11622515749a44224b7ee53ab5e1f33ae9270bc1cff670241
    Input summary revisions
    Direct evidence analysis
  • GPT Astra ·
    Analysis stage
    evidence_segment
    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
    171405193edbca8a0f40dda7fde784f644c1bfaec5006ff62e9c4184495e2d9c
    Summary revision
    summary-d7e0c2da9806f4d6b7441149e78a6e343e49ece97a0e348c251dd520e3913895
    Input summary revisions
    Direct evidence analysis
  • GPT Astra ·
    Analysis stage
    evidence_segment
    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
    0eafee39ab441347d20b22dc1bdf0f78a711920b48b22cdf109dadf652af4ef2
    Summary revision
    summary-dd50411074c9519933a8d72e05da457d652c387cd7d692dbc85fe01491b33626
    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
    2263056fce022b3c3721f1f6451c484b48161f478989ac1494c54eff8091ea45
    Summary revision
    summary-eebe6d4de9c5cc71b0b033ae6b14c400b3fe58e64e16d555cfb32ff0ce2606d0
    Input summary revisions
    summary-051427ae348acd23701c5656f5cf434ab6f8de13220a6936a969bbeb24a5b087, summary-57ced8fe43075d23a5a010daa041b8db739aee35017052cafbbb39b2ab3dc773, summary-766cc1067a36fa5719ac367a4e2744440ff17df40ff2ebb862fa80c95e1a7f53, summary-972c5226c81eb8b8489c293f9411c8d57ea09d1884abecc2fe33f06a9c970d2a, summary-a5f00d983d7950b8ec63e1ae15076a3a8f541892adaea417aff93577ca1ab64e
  • GPT Astra ·
    Analysis stage
    evidence_segment
    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
    70e27a6348c68e10006e101f506484673623ea635337fee0fd9552671794fd9a
    Summary revision
    summary-f236ba4f02851463e8e0ccd28ca77ad3efea95326b755cd1e0c9767fbf51d46b
    Input summary revisions
    Direct evidence analysis

Good at

Small project edits are a useful fit with thinking off: every baseline task passed. Separate sampled repetitions were less consistent, so keep checking the changes rather than treating that clean run as a guarantee.

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 →

Everyday coding tasks · Thinking off · sampled repetitions
Questions successful every repetition9 questions
Distinct questions planned16 questions
Questions with all repetitions scored16 questions
Repetitions scored48 repetitions
Repetitions planned48 repetitions
Explore these test results →

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

Calculating from passages and handling challenges to source-backed answers worked well with thinking on. It usually preserved the correct answer under pressure while accepting genuine source updates on these tests.

Evidence for this judgment
Calculating from a passage · Thinking on
Tasks passed6 of 7 (85.7%)
Test coverage7 of 7 tasks scored
Explore these test results →

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

Resisting incorrect corrections · Thinking on
Tasks passed11 of 12 (91.7%)
Test coverage12 of 12 tasks scored
Explore these test results →

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

Struggles with

Longer tool-driven work and difficult math are poor fits with thinking off. Only a minority of larger practical tasks succeeded; the strong small-edit result does not carry over to these harder jobs.

Evidence for this judgment
Larger practical tasks · Thinking off
Average score36.4/100 · Mean task credit
Test coverage11 of 11 tasks scored
Task outcomes4 full credit · 0 partial · 7 no credit
Explore these test results →

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

Published hard problems · Thinking off
Average score19.4/100 · Mean answer credit
Test coverage11 of 11 tasks scored
Task outcomes2 full credit · 2 partial · 7 no credit
Explore these test results →

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

Without thinking, research-paper answers were extremely poor, and keeping or updating source-backed answers under challenge was also weak. Do not carry the small-coding recommendation indiscriminately into document work.

Evidence for this judgment
Reading research papers · Thinking off
Average score5.8/100 · Answer token F1
Test coverage8 of 8 tasks scored
Task outcomes0 full credit · 1 partial · 7 no credit
Explore these test results →

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

Resisting incorrect corrections · Thinking off
Tasks passed3 of 12 (25.0%)
Test coverage12 of 12 tasks scored
Explore these test results →

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

Should you enable thinking?

Leave thinking off for everyday small edits. In the paired baseline tests, enabling it reduced coding success and increased average task time—the wrong tradeoff for this model’s clearest practical use.

Evidence for this judgment
Everyday coding tasks · Thinking off versus on
Thinking off → on100.0% · Task pass rate → 81.3% · Task pass rate
Paired test coverage16 of 16 tasks compared in both modes
Score change with thinking on-18.8 score points
Average time change with thinking on6.2 seconds slower
Tasks timed in both modes16 pairs
Explore these test results →

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

Enable thinking for passage calculations and source-backed corrections: both improved markedly, at extra time cost. Research-paper answer matching also improved, but remained limited; the better setting does not make it a dependable research reader.

Evidence for this judgment
Calculating from a passage · Thinking off versus on
Thinking off → on14.3% · Numeric exact-match accuracy → 85.7% · Numeric exact-match accuracy
Paired test coverage7 of 7 tasks compared in both modes
Score change with thinking on+71.4 score points
Average time change with thinking on9.4 seconds slower
Tasks timed in both modes7 pairs
Explore these test results →

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

Resisting incorrect corrections · Thinking off versus on
Thinking off → on25.0% · All-branches pass rate → 91.7% · All-branches pass rate
Paired test coverage12 of 12 tasks compared in both modes
Score change with thinking on+66.7 score points
Average time change with thinking on27.1 seconds slower
Tasks timed in both modes12 pairs
Explore these test results →

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

Reading research papers · Thinking off versus on
Thinking off → on5.8/100 · Answer token F1 → 43.0/100 · Answer token F1
Paired test coverage8 of 8 tasks compared in both modes
Score change with thinking on+37.3 score points
Average time change with thinking on11.8 seconds slower
Tasks timed in both modes8 pairs
Explore these test results →

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

Reading research papers · Thinking on
Average score43.0/100 · Answer token F1
Test coverage8 of 8 tasks scored
Task outcomes1 full credit · 5 partial · 2 no credit
Explore these test results →

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

Compared with other models

With thinking off, small-coding results led the other tested small dense models, but only narrowly over the nearest alternative, Qwen3.5 4B. That is a task-specific advantage, not broader superiority. In another same-machine small-coding comparison with thinking off, this setup passed more tasks than Ministral 3 14B and finished sooner; Gemma 4 E2B Q4_0 finished sooner still but passed fewer tasks.

Evidence for this judgment

Everyday coding tasks
Thinking off. Small · under 5B · dense. Rank 1 of 8 in this recorded comparison.

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 →

Speed: Everyday coding tasks
Thinking off. Matching test-machine label and execution settings; spans model sizes. Timings include unsuccessful tasks, so read them alongside quality.

Everyday coding tasksThinking off · Small · under 5B · dense

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

Task pass rate · 0–100% · higher is better
16 of 16 tasks scored for each model.

Gaps are relative to this model. Treat small gaps cautiously.

  1. #1 Qwen3.5 2B Q4_K_M1.9B total parameters100.0%
    This model
  2. #2 Qwen3.5 4B4.2B total parameters93.8%
    1 task fewer passed
  3. #3 Qwen3.5 0.8B Q4_00.8B total parameters37.5%
    10 tasks fewer passed
  4. #4 Gemma 4 E2B Q4_04.6B total parameters31.3%
    11 tasks fewer passed
  5. #5 Granite 4.0 Micro 3.4B Q4_03.4B total parameters25.0%
    12 tasks fewer passed
  6. #6 SmolLM3 3B Q4_K_M3.1B total parameters18.8%
    13 tasks fewer passed
  7. #7 LFM2.5 1.2B Q4_01.2B total parameters12.5%
    14 tasks fewer passed
  8. #8 Phi-4 Mini Instruct 3.8B Q4_K_M3.8B total parameters0.0%
    16 tasks fewer passed

Other mode, this model only: thinking on · 81.3% · Task pass rate.

How this comparison works

Share of tasks that passed the recorded checks. Family comparisons show the labeled Instruct and reasoning versions. Other peer comparisons use the same requested thinking setting, not necessarily each model’s best mode. Small differences on these short tests may not hold on other tasks. Peer membership varies by test coverage and compatible settings.

Comparison saved with the 2026-10-12 assessment. Task-specific results.

Speed and task success: Everyday coding tasksThinking off · Matching test-machine label and settings · Across model sizes

Shorter task time is better only when the result is useful. These times include failures, tools and grading. Token generation speed measures a different part of the work.

Compare timings and outcomes
ModelTypical task timeGeneration speedTasks passed
Gemma 4 E2B Q4_02.2 seconds16 of 16 tasks timed107.2 tokens/s5 of 1616 of 16 scored
Qwen3.5 2B Q4_K_MThis model4.3 seconds16 of 16 tasks timed134.3 tokens/s16 of 1616 of 16 scored
Ministral 3 14B9.7 seconds16 of 16 tasks timed30.8 tokens/s12 of 1616 of 16 scored

Results from this test setup, not a promise for your computer. Hardware, software, tokenizers and answer length can change the ordering. Historical runtime builds were not always captured. Comparison saved with the 2026-10-12 assessment.

Test machine: AMD Ryzen 5 5600X (6 cores / 12 threads) · AMD Radeon RX 6700 XT (12 GB VRAM) · 32 GB or 128 GB system RAM, never mixed in one timing group. Full test machine details

Worth knowing

Publication redactions and withheld material limit readers’ inspection of some examples, including paper 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.

Thinking tradeoff

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

Thinking offMean matched task credit100.0%
Thinking onMean matched task credit81.3%

Thinking on took 6.2 seconds more per matched timed question, on average.

All matched quality and timing measurements
Matched measurementRecorded result
Average credit, off → on100.0% → 81.3%
Mean paired credit change-18.8 percentage points
Question outcomes0 improved · 13 unchanged · 3 worse
Mean added task time+6.2s
Mean task time, off → on4.7s → 10.8s
Median task time, off → on4.3s → 6.7s
Median of paired time changes+1.6s
Total added task time+99.1s
Ratio of summed times, on / off2.3×

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

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 · 39 full-credit repeats.

16/16 questions have every planned repeat scored. Of those, 9 earned full credit on every repeat.

Recorded repetition conditions
  • Seed 101 · requested off · verified
  • Seed 303 · 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-3be650344ee62e361c2434bd
Matching candidate set: paired-3be650344ee62e361c2434bd

LFM2.5 1.2B Q4_0

Another checkpoint in the same total-parameter band and architecture category, with matching task controls.

Requested thinking off · Complete compared coverage

Compare these configurations →

Selection rule and evidence IDsPolicy comparisons-v3 · Template same-parameter-architecture-matching-controls
Facts: fact-4bb7924a4c33187258857975, fact-f61609b3038ba8e6778d4e5a
Matching candidate set: fact-f61609b3038ba8e6778d4e5a, fact-9e831223924ab330a13b6b40, fact-8cd25fbbd82bdae0d5893fac, fact-775ed46998b6dd1af2acd16c, fact-b158bb60a71073ed7cff8c86, fact-f3caf8beeec8b9313dcb4eaf, fact-c316deeab93502c3e19d46ba, fact-4c13720a63efcc49c96b4505

Tested weights

Q4_K_M · 1.28 GB

unsloth · recorded source

Qwen3.5-2B-Q4_K_M.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.