AgentBench / results
← All models

Qwen3-Coder-Next

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

Choose a tested configuration

Get this tested model

IQ3_M · 36.64 GB download

Links follow the selected quant and configuration.

Setup, memory & provenance · IQ3_M

IQ3_M · 36.64 GB of weights · rocm · context 16384 · GPU layers 99

Large · 20B and above · MoE · 79.7B 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 128 GB RAM · concurrency: 1

Thinking status: ignored switch · 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

62.1 / 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 scored39.1s median task time · 16 measured
Larger practical tasksMean task credit
Average credit
54.5%
Full-credit rate
6/11 · 55%
Answers completed
11/11 · 100%
Full credit / completed
6/11 · 55%
6 full credit5 incorrect
11/11 scored192.5s median task time · 11 measured
Logic and number puzzlesMean puzzle credit
Average credit
56.1%
Full-credit rate
19/34 · 56%
Answers completed
34/34 · 100%
Full credit / completed
19/34 · 56%
19 full credit8 partial credit7 incorrect
34/34 scored196.1s median task time · 34 measured
Published hard problemsMean answer credit
Average credit
55.8%
Full-credit rate
6/11 · 55%
Answers completed
11/11 · 100%
Full credit / completed
6/11 · 55%
6 full credit2 partial credit3 incorrect
11/11 scored271.5s median task time · 11 measured
Following exact instructions · original campaignStrict prompt complianceNot planned
Reading without guessingExact-match accuracy
Pass rate
10/16 · 63%
Answers completed
16/16 · 100%
Correct / completed
10/16 · 63%
10 full credit6 incorrect
16/16 scored2.3s median task time · 16 measured
Calculating from a passageNumeric exact-match accuracy
Pass rate
7/7 · 100%
Answers completed
7/7 · 100%
Correct / completed
7/7 · 100%
7 full credit
7/7 scored2.4s median task time · 7 measured
Reading research papersAnswer token F1
Average credit
43.4%
Full-credit rate
0/8 · 0%
Answers completed
8/8 · 100%
Full credit / completed
0/8 · 0%
8 partial credit
8/8 scored14.1s median task time · 8 measured
Resisting incorrect correctionsAll-branches pass rate
Pass rate
0/12 · 0%
Answers completed
12/12 · 100%
Correct / completed
0/12 · 0%
12 incorrect
12/12 scored5.9s 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 scored31.4s median task time · 23 measured

Model analysis

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

Use this tested setup for bounded coding assistance, not unattended complex work. It solved every small coding task, with a median task time of 39.1 seconds on this test machine—a useful option if that wait suits your workflow. Larger practical tasks had mixed success, while none of the source challenge-and-update tests passed completely. Check consequential outputs rather than extending its small-task success to broader work. Whether thinking would improve the balance is untested.

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)39.1 seconds
Explore these test results →

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

Larger practical tasks · Thinking off
Average score54.5/100 · Mean task credit
Test coverage11 of 11 tasks scored
Task outcomes6 full credit · 0 partial · 5 no credit
Explore these test results →

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

Resisting incorrect corrections · Thinking off
Tasks passed0 of 12 (0.0%)
Test coverage12 of 12 tasks scored
Explore these test results →

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

Source limitation
These are Qwen3-Coder-Next artifacts, distinct from the previously tested Qwen3.8 Flash-Next Coder artifacts. Only the non-thinking condition was tested.

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
2026-10-28T01:09:54.147415Z
Review time
2026-10-28T01:10:13.386133+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
e0a92d07ff38d6f3fd009d413c98517d9219b34d5965277e3ec53a98f0442b09
Summary revision
summary-deefec3a8283c47b4b771a9d0a1b3f4dd1356c2b0c8826999c6117bcd01ef5a1

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

Good at

Small project edits and bug fixes are a useful fit: every small coding task passed, including the sampled repetitions. That consistency applies to these bounded tasks, not larger projects generally.

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 with all repetitions scored16 questions
Distinct questions planned16 questions
Questions successful every repetition16 questions
Repetitions earning full credit48 repetitions
Repetitions scored48 repetitions
Repetitions planned48 repetitions
Explore these test results →

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

Handles constrained wording and formatting well, meeting most strict instruction tests. Straightforward calculations from passages also went well, with every answer correct in that small test.

Evidence for this judgment
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 →

Calculating from a passage · Thinking off
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

Source-backed answers need independent checking: every challenge-and-update test failed its overall requirements. Research-paper answer matching was weak, and passage questions requiring an answer or abstention also produced substantial errors.

Evidence for this judgment
Resisting incorrect corrections · Thinking off
Tasks passed0 of 12 (0.0%)
Test coverage12 of 12 tasks scored
Incorrect completed answers12 tasks
Failed to finish0 tasks
Explore these test results →

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

Reading research papers · Thinking off
Average score43.4/100 · 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 without guessing · Thinking off
Tasks passed10 of 16 (62.5%)
Test coverage16 of 16 tasks scored
Incorrect completed answers6 tasks
Explore these test results →

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

Larger projects and difficult reasoning need supervision. Practical-task success was mixed; puzzles and difficult math-and-reasoning questions also produced substantial partial or incorrect answers. These were shortcomings in completed outputs, not failures to finish.

Evidence for this judgment
Larger practical tasks · Thinking off
Average score54.5/100 · Mean task credit
Test coverage11 of 11 tasks scored
Task outcomes6 full credit · 0 partial · 5 no credit
Incorrect completed answers5 tasks
Failed to finish0 tasks
Explore these test results →

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

Logic and number puzzles · Thinking off
Average score56.1/100 · Mean puzzle credit
Test coverage34 of 34 tasks scored
Task outcomes19 full credit · 8 partial · 7 no credit
Partially correct answers8 tasks
Incorrect completed answers7 tasks
Failed to finish0 tasks
Explore these test results →

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

Published hard problems · Thinking off
Average score55.8/100 · Mean answer credit
Test coverage11 of 11 tasks scored
Task outcomes6 full credit · 2 partial · 3 no credit
Partially correct answers2 tasks
Incorrect completed answers3 tasks
Failed to finish0 tasks
Explore these test results →

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

Worth knowing

Only the non-thinking condition was tested; thinking's quality and speed benefits remain unknown. These weights are distinct from the previously tested Flash-Next Coder artifacts.

Evidence for this judgment

Source limitation
Some requested reasoning conditions lack verified control.

Source limitation
These are Qwen3-Coder-Next artifacts, distinct from the previously tested Qwen3.8 Flash-Next Coder artifacts. Only the non-thinking condition was tested.

Publication redactions limit readers' inspection of some supporting material.

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.

IQ3_M · 36.64 GBLocal · test machine with 128 GB RAM · rocm · 99 GPU layers · Fully scoredThinking off16/16 passed16/16 scored
Q4_K_M · 48.73 GBLocal · test machine with 128 GB RAM · rocm · 99 GPU layers · Fully scoredThinking off16/16 passed16/16 scored

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 IQ3_M, Q4_K_M · 2026-10-28 UTC. The current results table can include newer formats.

IQ3_M and Q4_K_M are reasonable choices for small coding tasks: both passed every tested everyday coding task. IQ3_M offers the smaller download without sacrificing score on that set. Consider Q4_K_M for its modest edge on larger practical tasks, rather than assuming a broad quality upgrade. These recommendations concern only reasoning-requested-off setups; suppression of reasoning was not verified.

Evidence for this judgment

Everyday coding tasks · 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 formatTask pass rateTask timeDownloadInspect
IQ3_MSelected formatPublisher unresolvedrocm · 128 GB test machineCPU MoE layers: 42
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 timed36.64 GBWeights, not required RAMAnswers and code
Q4_K_MPublisher unresolvedrocm · 128 GB test machineCPU MoE layers: 48
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 timed48.73 GBWeights, not required RAMAnswers and code

Larger practical tasks · 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 task creditTask timeDownloadInspect
IQ3_MSelected formatPublisher unresolvedrocm · 128 GB test machineCPU MoE layers: 42
Recorded execution settings
Context
16,384
GPU layer setting
99
Threads
6
Concurrency
1
Runtime build
Not recorded
Tool adapter
saved-campaign-agent-tools
54.5/10011/11 scoredNot compared11/11 timed36.64 GBWeights, not required RAMAnswers and code
Q4_K_MPublisher unresolvedrocm · 128 GB test machineCPU MoE layers: 48
Recorded execution settings
Context
16,384
GPU layer setting
99
Threads
6
Concurrency
1
Runtime build
Not recorded
Tool adapter
saved-campaign-agent-tools
63.6/10011/11 scoredNot compared11/11 timed48.73 GBWeights, not required RAMAnswers and code

For larger tool-driven work, Q4_K_M has a tentative advantage over IQ3_M: the gap amounts to a single additional fully credited task. Treat that as a modest reason to prefer it, not a decisive upgrade.

Evidence for this judgment

Larger practical tasks · 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 task creditTask timeDownloadInspect
IQ3_MSelected formatPublisher unresolvedrocm · 128 GB test machineCPU MoE layers: 42
Recorded execution settings
Context
16,384
GPU layer setting
99
Threads
6
Concurrency
1
Runtime build
Not recorded
Tool adapter
saved-campaign-agent-tools
54.5/10011/11 scoredNot compared11/11 timed36.64 GBWeights, not required RAMAnswers and code
Q4_K_MPublisher unresolvedrocm · 128 GB test machineCPU MoE layers: 48
Recorded execution settings
Context
16,384
GPU layer setting
99
Threads
6
Concurrency
1
Runtime build
Not recorded
Tool adapter
saved-campaign-agent-tools
63.6/10011/11 scoredNot compared11/11 timed48.73 GBWeights, not required RAMAnswers and code

Q4_K_M scored higher than IQ3_M on exact instruction following and research-paper answers. Consider its larger download if those particular uses matter.

Evidence for this judgment

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
IQ3_MSelected formatPublisher unresolvedrocm · 128 GB test machineCPU MoE layers: 42
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 timed36.64 GBWeights, not required RAMAnswers and code
Q4_K_MPublisher unresolvedrocm · 128 GB test machineCPU MoE layers: 48
Recorded execution settings
Context
16,384
GPU layer setting
99
Threads
6
Concurrency
1
Runtime build
Not recorded
Tool adapter
saved-campaign-agent-tools
22/23 passed23/23 scoredNot compared23/23 timed48.73 GBWeights, not required RAMAnswers and code

Reading research papers · 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 formatAnswer token F1Task timeDownloadInspect
IQ3_MSelected formatPublisher unresolvedrocm · 128 GB test machineCPU MoE layers: 42
Recorded execution settings
Context
16,384
GPU layer setting
99
Threads
6
Concurrency
1
Runtime build
Not recorded
Tool adapter
saved-campaign-agent-tools
43.4/1008/8 scoredNot compared8/8 timed36.64 GBWeights, not required RAMAnswers and code
Q4_K_MPublisher unresolvedrocm · 128 GB test machineCPU MoE layers: 48
Recorded execution settings
Context
16,384
GPU layer setting
99
Threads
6
Concurrency
1
Runtime build
Not recorded
Tool adapter
saved-campaign-agent-tools
53.9/1008/8 scoredNot compared8/8 timed48.73 GBWeights, not required RAMAnswers and code

Neither IQ3_M nor Q4_K_M passed the complete correction-handling checks. The larger download did not resolve this tested limitation; check source-backed answers carefully when corrections are involved.

Evidence for this judgment

Resisting incorrect corrections · 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 formatAll-branches pass rateTask timeDownloadInspect
IQ3_MSelected formatPublisher unresolvedrocm · 128 GB test machineCPU MoE layers: 42
Recorded execution settings
Context
16,384
GPU layer setting
99
Threads
6
Concurrency
1
Runtime build
Not recorded
Tool adapter
saved-campaign-agent-tools
0/12 passed12/12 scoredNot compared12/12 timed36.64 GBWeights, not required RAMAnswers and code
Q4_K_MPublisher unresolvedrocm · 128 GB test machineCPU MoE layers: 48
Recorded execution settings
Context
16,384
GPU layer setting
99
Threads
6
Concurrency
1
Runtime build
Not recorded
Tool adapter
saved-campaign-agent-tools
0/12 passed12/12 scoredNot compared12/12 timed48.73 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
2026-10-28T01:49:10.516096+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-ce7f65c5d64ba995294d9c67df659c2c4bebb8838d6c40814388cfbdfe18e8e8

What changed in these results

These are Qwen3-Coder-Next artifacts, distinct from the previously tested Qwen3.8 Flash-Next Coder artifacts. Only the non-thinking condition was tested.

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.

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
Coder-Next IQ3_M (128GB tuned)Thinking off100.0%16/16 scored39.1 seconds16/16 timed36.64 GBAnswers and code
Coder-Next Q4_K_M (128GB tuned)Thinking off · Different or uncertain execution settings100.0%16/16 scored37.0 seconds16/16 timed48.73 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 · 48 full-credit repeats.

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

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

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.

Coder-Next Q4_K_M (128GB tuned)

Another tested weight format of this checkpoint. 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-checkpoint-matching-controls
Facts: fact-63fb57600fb24f6b59ac3937, fact-f006ef6efc7a20c899a8f356
Matching candidate set: fact-f006ef6efc7a20c899a8f356

Mistral Small 4 UD-Q4_K_XL (128GB tuned)

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

Requested thinking off · Exploratory: incomplete or uncertain evidence

Compare these configurations →

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

Tested weights

IQ3_M · 36.64 GB

Publisher unresolved · legacy partial

Qwen_Qwen3-Coder-Next-IQ3_M.ggufHistorical first-MiB hash only; not a full-file identity.

Q4_K_M · 48.73 GB

Publisher unresolved · legacy partial

Qwen_Qwen3-Coder-Next-Q4_K_M.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.