AgentBench / results
← All models

Qwen2.5 Coder 7B Instruct Q4_K_M

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

Choose a tested configuration

Get this tested model

Q4_K_M · 4.68 GB download

Links follow the selected quant and configuration.

Setup, memory & provenance · Q4_K_M

Q4_K_M · 4.68 GB of weights · vulkan · context 16384 · GPU layers 99

Medium · 5–under 20B · dense · 7.6B total

Memory fit has not been verified for this configuration.

partial

Recorded settings and thinking verification

Temperature 0 · seed 42 · output limit 4096 · reasoning effort unrecorded

RAM labels describe the test computer, not this model’s memory requirement. Speed comparisons keep the 32 GB and 128 GB runs separate.

Runtime build: unrecorded · Local · test machine with 32 GB RAM · concurrency: 1

Thinking status: ignored switch · probe 2 · scope 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

23.4 / 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
0/16 · 0%
Answers completed
16/16 · 100%
Correct / completed
0/16 · 0%
16 incorrect
16/16 scored6.8s median task time · 16 measured
Larger practical tasksMean task credit
Average credit
0.0%
Full-credit rate
0/11 · 0%
Answers completed
11/11 · 100%
Full credit / completed
0/11 · 0%
11 incorrect
11/11 scored7.0s median task time · 11 measured
Logic and number puzzlesMean puzzle credit
Average credit
10.7%
Full-credit rate
1/34 · 3%
Answers completed
34/34 · 100%
Full credit / completed
1/34 · 3%
1 full credit11 partial credit22 incorrect
34/34 scored7.8s median task time · 34 measured
Published hard problemsMean answer credit
Average credit
0.6%
Full-credit rate
0/11 · 0%
Answers completed
11/11 · 100%
Full credit / completed
0/11 · 0%
1 partial credit10 incorrect
11/11 scored14.0s median task time · 11 measured
Following exact instructions · original campaignStrict prompt compliance
Pass rate
13/23 · 57%
Answers completed
23/23 · 100%
Correct / completed
13/23 · 57%
13 full credit10 incorrect
23/23 scored5.0s median task time · 23 measured
Reading without guessingExact-match accuracy
Pass rate
12/16 · 75%
Answers completed
16/16 · 100%
Correct / completed
12/16 · 75%
12 full credit4 incorrect
16/16 scored0.9s median task time · 16 measured
Calculating from a passageNumeric exact-match accuracy
Pass rate
4/7 · 57%
Answers completed
7/7 · 100%
Correct / completed
4/7 · 57%
4 full credit3 incorrect
7/7 scored1.3s median task time · 7 measured
Reading research papersAnswer token F1
Average credit
10.3%
Full-credit rate
0/8 · 0%
Answers completed
8/8 · 100%
Full credit / completed
0/8 · 0%
3 partial credit5 incorrect
8/8 scored7.4s 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 scored1.2s median task time · 12 measured
Following exact instructions · 128 GB campaignStrict prompt complianceNot planned

Model analysis

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

Consider this setup for low-stakes questions about short passages, with answers checked—not as a coding agent. With thinking requested off, passage reading was useful, but small project edits and larger tool-driven tasks failed throughout these tests. Handling challenges to source-backed answers was also a severe weakness. Its useful reading ability does not offset those practical limits.

Evidence for this judgment
Reading without guessing · Thinking off
Tasks passed12 of 16 (75.0%)
Test coverage16 of 16 tasks scored
Tasks timed16 tasks
Typical time per task (median)0.9 seconds
Explore these test results →

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

Everyday coding tasks · Thinking off
Tasks passed0 of 16 (0.0%)
Test coverage16 of 16 tasks scored
Explore these test results →

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

Larger practical tasks · Thinking off
Average score0.0/100 · Mean task credit
Test coverage11 of 11 tasks scored
Task outcomes0 full credit · 0 partial · 11 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 →

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
2026-10-12T05:58:08.591408Z
Review time
2026-10-22T07:26:27.235406+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
247037ee9b34764ac941131a5d7385d5806ded2c08d7bd4fed004f5bce3c0c8d
Original analysis input hash
d566ae35effcfb87c128633ab2ee50e3f3edd300548d583db59e46fbbefc1dab
Editorial evidence edition
dataset-5a6f96ec56c3d240cc42fa23147c1495da1be71f3ef0722c0e5f8c4f5e126a83
Original summary
summary-112c66578a51b4d584a4f6191e9cf09e75cdc139d713e3d0b54d2bfca1427970
Summary revision
summary-b77a9796072be4e9b484aaa9f737e99aff56adb63233260f55a76e930eefeed2

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

Contributing analyses (1)
  • GPT Astra ·
    Analysis stage
    direct
    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
    5c2ae00eaee642e06879f4870219ed3787c0bb1e06330561db0b44bc2bbbd9dd
    Summary revision
    summary-6d175ba923a4d0eaac790ca32d533a3775d4794e1a5c78d6da3a6f11aae371bf
    Input summary revisions
    Direct evidence analysis

Good at

Answering questions from short passages is a useful, limited role: most answers matched exactly. That supports low-stakes reading assistance, provided you check the answers.

Evidence for this judgment
Reading without guessing · Thinking off
Tasks passed12 of 16 (75.0%)
Test coverage16 of 16 tasks scored
Explore these test results →

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

Struggles with

Small project editing failed throughout, and larger practical tasks received no partial success either. This setup is a poor choice for delegating file changes, app building or tool-based investigations.

Evidence for this judgment
Everyday coding tasks · Thinking off
Tasks passed0 of 16 (0.0%)
Test coverage16 of 16 tasks scored
Explore these test results →

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

Larger practical tasks · Thinking off
Average score0.0/100 · Mean task credit
Test coverage11 of 11 tasks scored
Task outcomes0 full credit · 0 partial · 11 no credit
Explore these test results →

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

Source-backed answers need independent checking when challenged: no correction test passed all branches covering resistance to unsupported corrections and updating from changed evidence.

Evidence for this judgment
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 →

Research-paper answers matched poorly, while difficult math/reasoning questions and generated puzzles also scored low. Short-passage usefulness should not be mistaken for dependable research reading or complex problem solving.

Evidence for this judgment
Published hard problems · Thinking off
Average score0.6/100 · Mean answer credit
Test coverage11 of 11 tasks scored
Task outcomes0 full credit · 1 partial · 10 no credit
Explore these test results →

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

Reading research papers · Thinking off
Average score10.3/100 · Answer token F1
Test coverage8 of 8 tasks scored
Task outcomes0 full credit · 3 partial · 5 no credit
Explore these test results →

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

Logic and number puzzles · Thinking off
Average score10.7/100 · Mean puzzle credit
Test coverage34 of 34 tasks scored
Task outcomes1 full credit · 11 partial · 22 no credit
Explore these test results →

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

Compared with other models

With thinking requested off, passage-calculation accuracy trailed the strongest tested medium-sized dense peers. Small project edits and larger practical tasks ranked last among eligible class peers.

Evidence for this judgment

Calculating from a passage
Thinking off. Medium · 5–under 20B · dense. Tied at rank 4 of 10 in this recorded comparison.

Everyday coding tasks
Thinking off. Medium · 5–under 20B · dense. Rank 10 of 10 in this recorded comparison.

Larger practical tasks
Thinking off. Medium · 5–under 20B · dense. Rank 10 of 10 in this recorded comparison.

Calculating from a passage · Thinking off
Tasks passed4 of 7 (57.1%)
Test coverage7 of 7 tasks scored
Explore these test results →

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

Everyday coding tasks · Thinking off
Tasks passed0 of 16 (0.0%)
Test coverage16 of 16 tasks scored
Explore these test results →

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

Larger practical tasks · Thinking off
Average score0.0/100 · Mean task credit
Test coverage11 of 11 tasks scored
Task outcomes0 full credit · 0 partial · 11 no credit
Explore these test results →

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

Calculating from a passageThinking off · Medium · 5–under 20B · dense

Read a passage and count, compare or calculate using its facts.

Numeric exact-match accuracy · 0–100% · higher is better
7 of 7 tasks scored for each model.

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

  1. #1 Ministral 3 14B13.5B total parameters85.7%
    2 tasks more passed
  2. =2 Gemma 4 12B11.9B total parameters71.4%
    1 task more passed
  3. =2 Gemma 4 12B QAT Q4_011.9B total parameters71.4%
    1 task more passed
  4. =4 Ministral 3 8B Instruct Q4_K_M8.5B total parameters57.1%
    Same score
  5. =4 Ornith 1.5 9B Q4_K_M9.2B total parameters57.1%
    Same score
  6. =4 Qwen2.5 Coder 7B Instruct Q4_K_M7.6B total parameters57.1%
    This model
  7. =4 Qwen3.5 9B9.0B total parameters57.1%
    Same score
  8. #8 Nemotron Nano 9B v2 Q4_08.9B total parameters28.6%
    2 tasks fewer passed
  9. #9 Granite 4.2 8B Q4_08.8B total parameters14.3%
    3 tasks fewer passed
  10. #10 Gemma 4 E4B7.5B total parameters0.0%
    4 tasks fewer passed
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.

Everyday coding tasksThinking off · Medium · 5–under 20B · 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 9B9.0B total parameters100.0%
    16 tasks more passed
  2. =2 Gemma 4 12B11.9B total parameters93.8%
    15 tasks more passed
  3. =2 Ornith 1.5 9B Q4_K_M9.2B total parameters93.8%
    15 tasks more passed
  4. #4 Granite 4.2 8B Q4_08.8B total parameters87.5%
    14 tasks more passed
  5. #5 Gemma 4 12B QAT Q4_011.9B total parameters81.3%
    13 tasks more passed
  6. =6 Ministral 3 14B13.5B total parameters75.0%
    12 tasks more passed
  7. =6 Ministral 3 8B Instruct Q4_K_M8.5B total parameters75.0%
    12 tasks more passed
  8. #8 Gemma 4 E4B7.5B total parameters68.8%
    11 tasks more passed
  9. #9 Nemotron Nano 9B v2 Q4_08.9B total parameters37.5%
    6 tasks more passed
  10. #10 Qwen2.5 Coder 7B Instruct Q4_K_M7.6B total parameters0.0%
    This model
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.

Larger practical tasksThinking off · Medium · 5–under 20B · dense

Build small apps, organize information and investigate files or web pages.

Mean task credit · 0–100 points · higher is better
11 of 11 tasks scored for each model.

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

  1. =1 Gemma 4 12B11.9B total parameters72.7/100
    72.7 points higher
  2. =1 Gemma 4 12B QAT Q4_011.9B total parameters72.7/100
    72.7 points higher
  3. =1 Ministral 3 14B13.5B total parameters72.7/100
    72.7 points higher
  4. #4 Ornith 1.5 9B Q4_K_M9.2B total parameters54.5/100
    54.5 points higher
  5. =5 Ministral 3 8B Instruct Q4_K_M8.5B total parameters45.5/100
    45.5 points higher
  6. =5 Qwen3.5 9B9.0B total parameters45.5/100
    45.5 points higher
  7. =7 Gemma 4 E4B7.5B total parameters36.4/100
    36.4 points higher
  8. =7 Granite 4.2 8B Q4_08.8B total parameters36.4/100
    36.4 points higher
  9. #9 Nemotron Nano 9B v2 Q4_08.9B total parameters18.2/100
    18.2 points higher
  10. #10 Qwen2.5 Coder 7B Instruct Q4_K_M7.6B total parameters0.0/100
    This model
How this comparison works

Average credit per task; partly correct results can earn partial credit. 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.

With thinking off, passage-answering time sat near the middle of the matched group. Mellum 2.1 12B-A2.5B Thinking was both more accurate and slightly quicker; several other alternatives were slower.

Evidence for this judgment

Speed: Reading without guessing
Thinking off. Matching test-machine label and execution settings; spans model sizes. Timings include unsuccessful tasks, so read them alongside quality.

Speed and task success: Reading without guessingThinking 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
LFM2.5 1.2B Q4_00.6 seconds16 of 16 tasks timed316.8 tokens/s0 of 1616 of 16 scored
Qwen3.5 0.8B Q4_00.6 seconds16 of 16 tasks timed243.6 tokens/s10 of 1616 of 16 scored
Phi-4 Mini Instruct 3.8B Q4_K_M0.7 seconds16 of 16 tasks timed108.6 tokens/s6 of 1616 of 16 scored
Ling 3.0 Tiny Q4_00.7 seconds16 of 16 tasks timed133.7 tokens/s10 of 1616 of 16 scored
Granite 4.0 Micro 3.4B Q4_00.7 seconds16 of 16 tasks timed113.9 tokens/s10 of 1616 of 16 scored
SmolLM3 3B Q4_K_M0.8 seconds16 of 16 tasks timed128.8 tokens/s1 of 1616 of 16 scored
Mellum 2.1 12B-A2.5B Thinking0.8 seconds16 of 16 tasks timed139.5 tokens/s13 of 1616 of 16 scored
Qwen2.5 Coder 7B Instruct Q4_K_MThis model0.9 seconds16 of 16 tasks timed66.2 tokens/s12 of 1616 of 16 scored
Ministral 3 8B Instruct Q4_K_M1.0 seconds16 of 16 tasks timed55.5 tokens/s14 of 1616 of 16 scored
Ornith 1.5 9B Q4_K_M1.1 seconds16 of 16 tasks timed54.0 tokens/s15 of 1616 of 16 scored
Nemotron Nano 9B v2 Q4_01.3 seconds16 of 16 tasks timed53.5 tokens/s14 of 1616 of 16 scored
Gemma 4 12B QAT Q4_01.4 seconds16 of 16 tasks timed37.3 tokens/s15 of 1616 of 16 scored
Granite 4.2 8B Q4_04.4 seconds16 of 16 tasks timed57.0 tokens/s2 of 1616 of 16 scored
Phi-4 Mini Reasoning 3.8B Q4_K_M4.9 seconds16 of 16 tasks timed103.5 tokens/s0 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

Whether thinking improves answers or just adds waiting cannot be assessed: reasoning control was unverified, and requested-on results were blocked. Incomplete results are previews, not observed failures.

Evidence for this judgment

Source limitation
Some suite/condition results are incomplete or ineligible; their observed scores are previews.

Source limitation
Some requested reasoning conditions lack verified control.

Private-path redactions, withheld project files and undocumented components limit inspection of selected examples. Paper text is linked rather than reproduced; this does not establish that the model lacked it.

Evidence for this judgment

Source limitation
Some selected evidence has recorded publication redactions.

Example 1: Larger practical tasks
Thinking off. Final result: no credit. A final score does not describe every tool step; this example supports a behavior observation, not a whole-test conclusion.
View the question and recorded answer →

Example 2: Everyday coding tasks
Thinking off. Final result: no credit. A final score does not describe every tool step; this example supports a behavior observation, not a whole-test conclusion.
View the question and recorded answer →

Example 3: Reading research papers
Thinking off. Final result: 40.9/100 · Answer token F1. A final score does not describe every tool step; this example supports a behavior observation, not a whole-test conclusion.
View the question and recorded answer →

Example 4: Reading research papers
Thinking off. Final result: no credit. A final score does not describe every tool step; this example supports a behavior observation, not a whole-test conclusion.
View the question and recorded answer →

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

No verified on/off comparison is available for this configuration and test suite. Requested modes alone do not establish a controlled thinking comparison.

Sampled repetitions

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

Thinking off · temperature 0.6

48/48 repeats scored · 0 full-credit repeats.

16/16 questions have every planned repeat scored. Of those, 0 earned full credit on every repeat.

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

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.

Gemma 4 E4B

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-2e2fe4760014b5b180de8620, fact-6d911759dd69ca545ee8be5c
Matching candidate set: fact-6d911759dd69ca545ee8be5c, fact-6808af8c64a1e7875a14e7a6, fact-490482dd62af02e41d2fc20e, fact-eae080b73ed21e846eaa5d1d, fact-f0e7d2286cd806072751d966, fact-ec911e6561843ecc14d3482a, fact-bef3eb6c6baa2d44e3aa0649, fact-5c36b6f6bfeaa5ee466506f6, fact-1eaacebf5d4775d7901754f8, fact-9f9b21c2355c6bdb5b2dd393, fact-3f910f804bc145423c5f4359, fact-9b097653ded9dc087919acf0, fact-e2c619b31f8a88c1472ca60e, fact-e57043e6128b693616991807, fact-bb58072f1c77808045477c91, fact-81703cf46648d0b2de523fad, fact-200d3a80040bda993709f78f, fact-eacdd70113b5633f3f223c12

Tested weights

Q4_K_M · 4.68 GB

Qwen · recorded source

qwen2.5-coder-7b-instruct-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.