AgentBench / results
← All models

Qwen3.6 28B-REAP20-A3B

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

Choose a tested configuration

Get this tested model

Q4_K_M · 17.26 GB download

Links follow the selected quant and configuration.

Setup, memory & provenance · Q4_K_M

Q4_K_M · 17.26 GB of weights · rocm · context 32768 · GPU layers 99

Large · 20B and above · MoE · 28.2B total · Active parameter count not recorded

Memory fit has not been verified for this configuration.

completed

Recorded settings and thinking verification

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

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

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

Thinking status: 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

73.2 / 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 onDetails
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 scored22.7s median task time · 16 measured
Larger practical tasksMean task credit
Average credit
54.5%
Full-credit rate
6/11 · 55%
Answers completed
9/11 · 82%
Full credit / completed
6/9 · 67%
6 full credit3 incorrect2 failed to finish
11/11 scored62.3s median task time · 11 measured
Logic and number puzzlesMean puzzle credit
Average credit
55.1%
Full-credit rate
18/34 · 53%
Answers completed
34/34 · 100%
Full credit / completed
18/34 · 53%
18 full credit4 partial credit12 incorrect
34/34 scored84.0s median task time · 34 measured
Published hard problemsMean answer credit
Average credit
34.5%
Full-credit rate
3/11 · 27%
Answers completed
11/11 · 100%
Full credit / completed
3/11 · 27%
3 full credit3 partial credit5 incorrect
11/11 scored110.6s median task time · 11 measured
Following exact instructions · original campaignStrict prompt compliance
Pass rate
20/23 · 87%
Answers completed
23/23 · 100%
Correct / completed
20/23 · 87%
20 full credit3 incorrect
23/23 scored92.6s median task time · 23 measured
Reading without guessingExact-match accuracy
Pass rate
15/16 · 94%
Answers completed
16/16 · 100%
Correct / completed
15/16 · 94%
15 full credit1 incorrect
16/16 scored35.3s 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 scored34.3s median task time · 7 measured
Reading research papersAnswer token F1
Average credit
42.3%
Full-credit rate
0/8 · 0%
Answers completed
8/8 · 100%
Full credit / completed
0/8 · 0%
7 partial credit1 incorrect
8/8 scored60.4s median task time · 8 measured
Resisting incorrect correctionsAll-branches pass rate
Pass rate
11/12 · 92%
Answers completed
12/12 · 100%
Correct / completed
11/12 · 92%
11 full credit1 incorrect
12/12 scored56.0s 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 this setup for small project edits and source-backed questions, rather than unattended research or longer tool-driven work. With thinking off, it completed every small-coding test and usually handled source-backed answers correctly. Larger tasks had mixed outcomes, and research-paper answers were particularly weak. For everyday coding, thinking off gave the better speed–quality balance in these runs: enabling it added time without improving task success. That success on small edits does not establish competence on larger projects.

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)12.8 seconds
Explore these test results →

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

Everyday coding tasks · Thinking on
Tasks passed16 of 16 (100.0%)
Test coverage16 of 16 tasks scored
Tasks timed16 tasks
Typical time per task (median)22.7 seconds
Explore these test results →

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

Everyday coding tasks · Thinking off versus on
Thinking off → on100.0% · Task pass rate → 100.0% · Task pass rate
Paired test coverage16 of 16 tasks compared in both modes
Tasks timed in both modes16 pairs
Score change with thinking onNo change
Average time change with thinking on13.0 seconds slower
Explore these test results →

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

Resisting incorrect corrections · Thinking off
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 →

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 →

Reading research papers · Thinking off
Average score6.3/100 · 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 →

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
2026-10-12T06:03:06.167863Z
Review time
2026-10-22T05:55:43.648219+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
4fd8b2447f2f802eb3100606110c1501f172aaa34dce2580e5323f9316b8d914
Original analysis input hash
72f363d1b4646e46396253eafc8d6a695c50377952d93b0759d1eff937f66f99
Editorial evidence edition
dataset-5a6f96ec56c3d240cc42fa23147c1495da1be71f3ef0722c0e5f8c4f5e126a83
Original summary
summary-d3fc5a736274eaad70422fa5f930088f170de981c3a66495fb1e40b43736ac36
Summary revision
summary-76ff404e98f666240ef901a3d3234e72f3c6ec29987d05341645238aca28ba15

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

Contributing analyses (23)
  • 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
    07d477656be676f6cb2449afa6c8fc88511b06d552fab45cdf8ed43f441f397f
    Summary revision
    summary-0d463aa99a2c6e0b592b39f086a1996189391c0291c60d671843f1ea8befbcda
    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
    7e290e978ece635ea5204d155a8d98875078b069a607129d55239c5901ddd0e2
    Summary revision
    summary-166da2b50acd41e11585eac09a48aa5fe7d85c715c592df63c7428cef1918409
    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
    908adda899adfe74d35e4274835d0f629288860f99da99fd1ad2044e4b3e7bf9
    Summary revision
    summary-1ffe6fffedde56d2f8a32d76140abb50c93c1407302c0409dc4afecf53cd3821
    Input summary revisions
    summary-3211260dec151376ea01405a17ea9f14b14cb039b1b0522d7023f9250ab5f2e5, summary-4c729eae20c79add30a0078cf3ca1b025438ce7b6c55e8bd26c14758075f99d5, summary-4d6467eae702af2d91e75132a790091275b4afac805db6678b2901480b49c769, summary-694976ef8566cc77ac58eaab33afc67fa05ee16e5d4c1e7ceb70742738f2d682, summary-8922a6407f46390cae6ad0c69b46e6cc4b1f6240d46150c78b81f3a03ca45044, summary-8f68daa3c26b23f85b0312ce40ff70c3e36ba1225a23c0e60a6279025142e075, summary-aea521fb663d06b0090f7fed51f2d9164c9dfbf701718f8306ef22ba3acd291b, summary-bd9816acde3ba6b71c4741cf80b5694845dd9d8059a62d56df95f538b1e407f4, summary-f9e44379038776787cbaa292d1d30d82a3c61e427bef34e206db527b6db7cf66
  • 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
    fdf44dce936a68dabe0938730a3f2ea9ede93d1ae2e08b9dfe670a4de2713614
    Summary revision
    summary-27cc958ed41af1751edac3bab6b1b0e0726e8cb37fd52a5eb439611792225152
    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
    57bffc5031f9bdc87653eae58375467fa980e82d005d65eea7202b247320b725
    Summary revision
    summary-3211260dec151376ea01405a17ea9f14b14cb039b1b0522d7023f9250ab5f2e5
    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
    796d4925d863c0d79303461f90f6a2838b6d24ce8da37d4d10f3f53f3b21c2c2
    Summary revision
    summary-3c0ac67039193caeb190a8ed99395ef0a8eeddddd182b5e08b132393139b46dd
    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
    7acaf8734eecd5a893c86fe77fd6da0481ffa4b6f094d7952fe642957d91090c
    Summary revision
    summary-4a5448e4914c9375260ccb8415703f3fd69207650f08d2845176acb2fb98dda7
    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
    4151e6146e6406f66034bf8a44aa86547ba8f74951ab9e4bc59879f92c5e312f
    Summary revision
    summary-4c729eae20c79add30a0078cf3ca1b025438ce7b6c55e8bd26c14758075f99d5
    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
    1a24546cec2e7802ca8e5c52b608f8d442f17cb1014503c648b00c32fd5f06fa
    Summary revision
    summary-4d41ed27dfddbbf2e54b2a8cbb9886b51e1cdb8fa44bf4913963c86185cf9584
    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
    db7f1adff47fe4f4a6c226d5dce3a35b0ed33ed0b2cfc0bd46a79181dfe4c544
    Summary revision
    summary-4d6467eae702af2d91e75132a790091275b4afac805db6678b2901480b49c769
    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
    36b9f39e3b5450d538b30dee9b0e37680243158e4f3ac8d6f0995b616194db19
    Summary revision
    summary-694976ef8566cc77ac58eaab33afc67fa05ee16e5d4c1e7ceb70742738f2d682
    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
    b0d4c9354cf636f399f63c04312183e201b7194acec032cc18b19d668892d960
    Summary revision
    summary-8230a67d7e635a26bd4dad3a63e1416131a9a9605f92a1bb10381f03bf8e1285
    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
    9704ec28e56cd69790fe54e9688359e3476858ad874e61f6d405c6362d319f8d
    Summary revision
    summary-8922a6407f46390cae6ad0c69b46e6cc4b1f6240d46150c78b81f3a03ca45044
    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
    b88ad7b5d66e0773855465f9a14ce054d70b14bce3dbff299ffa6b46c9ea7c99
    Summary revision
    summary-8a5c13c5a2199da4f70e07fe7c5deee1c957810689a3554dfec2668c58949984
    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
    06a921cbee344c5ee7962be55a8048cd80985875bec6975b7a9a9c4206efe46a
    Summary revision
    summary-8f68daa3c26b23f85b0312ce40ff70c3e36ba1225a23c0e60a6279025142e075
    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
    39ee09ceaf6908488b8cc28a1cfe1d21afcc8c138685870951ace6c25d2b168e
    Summary revision
    summary-900c3b36118192a5f4d005456af1061824579b1b196e7ac0d89d105fbc488685
    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
    dbfae4c662beebe9309e3971dcb2d8df4f1fd43d5d036a6d885b530ac6027ec4
    Summary revision
    summary-96c6fa8bc0ecf78e8a0bc3e32fee58cf3dcb5b2446d168d809707a2495eb7d9f
    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
    b788c2d1541d816a65e7ce4aec02d55b4369a8e9853e00685ee52ab63051a2e1
    Summary revision
    summary-aea521fb663d06b0090f7fed51f2d9164c9dfbf701718f8306ef22ba3acd291b
    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
    49ed02acf764cee27630912d63c1845ae61ed1935ed424c58b8c60269a62858e
    Summary revision
    summary-bd9816acde3ba6b71c4741cf80b5694845dd9d8059a62d56df95f538b1e407f4
    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
    6f674d2150ff5721b1dfbd6f49e91571fcc505113d4b9d99e987195359a84317
    Summary revision
    summary-dcefb36b1654f41fc1161a610bdcce5988581fb1f96ee13bbd450544cd7b3454
    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
    8600175c0217ff04b0b4488f8d7f59060235beaea10a58564861792504fe80be
    Summary revision
    summary-ee3515037f7494011b1313189d6302c4f0768c6fcdfa6ee8ef401e6279450dd1
    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
    4a5c016dd5d9fd8d40a6df6baa3ea8a964c82a127a253f75c81c2c7365e776a3
    Summary revision
    summary-ee58f70af43a6861df1039b1551c2368033f7a966e232894781938b6ecea6685
    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
    35f2a6ba0ff6f3ae9035655d9f0af4a8f92a9cd0dad3d6bfa912b83e04bd7196
    Summary revision
    summary-f9e44379038776787cbaa292d1d30d82a3c61e427bef34e206db527b6db7cf66
    Input summary revisions
    summary-0d463aa99a2c6e0b592b39f086a1996189391c0291c60d671843f1ea8befbcda, summary-166da2b50acd41e11585eac09a48aa5fe7d85c715c592df63c7428cef1918409, summary-27cc958ed41af1751edac3bab6b1b0e0726e8cb37fd52a5eb439611792225152, summary-3c0ac67039193caeb190a8ed99395ef0a8eeddddd182b5e08b132393139b46dd, summary-4a5448e4914c9375260ccb8415703f3fd69207650f08d2845176acb2fb98dda7, summary-4d41ed27dfddbbf2e54b2a8cbb9886b51e1cdb8fa44bf4913963c86185cf9584, summary-8230a67d7e635a26bd4dad3a63e1416131a9a9605f92a1bb10381f03bf8e1285, summary-8a5c13c5a2199da4f70e07fe7c5deee1c957810689a3554dfec2668c58949984, summary-900c3b36118192a5f4d005456af1061824579b1b196e7ac0d89d105fbc488685, summary-96c6fa8bc0ecf78e8a0bc3e32fee58cf3dcb5b2446d168d809707a2495eb7d9f, summary-dcefb36b1654f41fc1161a610bdcce5988581fb1f96ee13bbd450544cd7b3454, summary-ee3515037f7494011b1313189d6302c4f0768c6fcdfa6ee8ef401e6279450dd1, summary-ee58f70af43a6861df1039b1551c2368033f7a966e232894781938b6ecea6685

Good at

Small-project edits and bug fixes are a good use case with thinking off. All baseline tasks passed, and almost all sampled reruns passed; that success does not extend automatically to larger projects.

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
Repetitions earning full credit47 repetitions
Repetitions scored48 repetitions
Repetitions planned48 repetitions
Questions with all repetitions scored16 questions
Distinct questions planned16 questions
Explore these test results →

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

With thinking off, it usually kept correct source-backed answers when challenged and updated them when the source changed—a useful fit for question answering tied to a reference text.

Evidence for this judgment
Resisting incorrect corrections · Thinking off
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

Research-paper answers were extremely weak with thinking off. Do not rely on this mode for paper-based question answering without checking answers against the text.

Evidence for this judgment
Reading research papers · Thinking off
Average score6.3/100 · 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 →

Larger tool-driven tasks had mixed outcomes in both modes. Supervise these workflows and check that the requested files and results are present before stopping.

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
Explore these test results →

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

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

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

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 →

Should you enable thinking?

Leave thinking off for everyday coding: paired tests showed unchanged task success with longer average task time when enabled. The same no-gain, extra-wait tradeoff applied to strict instruction following.

Evidence for this judgment
Everyday coding tasks · Thinking off versus on
Thinking off → on100.0% · Task pass rate → 100.0% · Task pass rate
Paired test coverage16 of 16 tasks compared in both modes
Tasks timed in both modes16 pairs
Score change with thinking onNo change
Average time change with thinking on13.0 seconds slower
Explore these test results →

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

Following exact instructions · Thinking off versus on
Thinking off → on87.0% · Strict prompt compliance → 87.0% · Strict prompt compliance
Paired test coverage23 of 23 tasks compared in both modes
Tasks timed in both modes23 pairs
Score change with thinking onNo change
Average time change with thinking on75.0 seconds slower
Explore these test results →

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

Enable thinking selectively for research-paper questions: answer matching improved substantially, though results remained limited and took longer. It was not a general reasoning upgrade—puzzle scores fell while average time increased.

Evidence for this judgment
Reading research papers · Thinking off versus on
Thinking off → on6.3/100 · Answer token F1 → 42.3/100 · Answer token F1
Paired test coverage8 of 8 tasks compared in both modes
Tasks timed in both modes8 pairs
Score change with thinking on+36.0 score points
Average time change with thinking on51.4 seconds slower
Explore these test results →

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

Logic and number puzzles · Thinking off versus on
Thinking off → on64.7/100 · Mean puzzle credit → 55.1/100 · Mean puzzle credit
Paired test coverage34 of 34 tasks compared in both modes
Tasks timed in both modes34 pairs
Score change with thinking on-9.6 score points
Average time change with thinking on8.3 seconds slower
Explore these test results →

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

Worth knowing

Some examples have publication redactions, limiting what readers can inspect.

Evidence for this judgment

Source limitation
Some selected evidence has recorded publication redactions.

One same-budget retry after context exhaustion. A second context limit is failed to answer (zero task-completion credit), not an incorrect submitted answer. Answer-only averages exclude these no-answer outcomes; completed retry answers enter the normal scoring path. This follow-up is selected after observing failures.

Evidence for this judgment

Source limitation
One same-budget retry after context exhaustion. A second context limit is failed to answer (zero task-completion credit), not an incorrect submitted answer. Answer-only averages exclude these no-answer outcomes; completed retry answers enter the normal scoring path. This follow-up is selected after observing failures.

How to interpret these assessments and their limitations →

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

What changed in these results

One same-budget retry after context exhaustion. A second context limit is failed to answer (zero task-completion credit), not an incorrect submitted answer. Answer-only averages exclude these no-answer outcomes; completed retry answers enter the normal scoring path. This follow-up is selected after observing failures.

Thinking tradeoff

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

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

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

Thinking on took 13.0 seconds more per matched timed question, on average.

All matched quality and timing measurements
Matched measurementRecorded result
Average credit, off → on100.0% → 100.0%
Mean paired credit change0.0 percentage points
Question outcomes0 improved · 16 unchanged · 0 worse
Mean added task time+13.0s
Mean task time, off → on14.3s → 27.3s
Median task time, off → on12.8s → 22.7s
Median of paired time changes+8.6s
Total added task time+208.2s
Ratio of summed times, on / off1.9×

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 on · temperature 0.6

48/48 repeats scored · 47 full-credit repeats.

16/16 questions have every planned repeat scored. Of those, 15 earned full credit on every repeat.

Recorded repetition conditions
  • Seed 202 · requested on · verified
  • Seed 303 · requested on · verified
  • Seed 101 · requested on · 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 off · Complete compared coverage

Compare these configurations →

Selection rule and evidence IDsPolicy comparisons-v3 · Template verified-thinking-pair
Facts: paired-ce39d97c215843f37f1bce1b
Matching candidate set: paired-ce39d97c215843f37f1bce1b

Gemma 4 26B-A4B

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

Requested thinking on · Complete compared coverage

Compare these configurations →

Selection rule and evidence IDsPolicy comparisons-v3 · Template same-parameter-architecture-matching-controls
Facts: fact-eab8e02b2ca6f6125554960e, fact-483531924d0e765052461c57
Matching candidate set: fact-483531924d0e765052461c57, fact-715b4dac385ebc58266864e4, fact-c07386361967c222d8028664, fact-513cdcd418215fb18de91eaf, fact-e8904ea75031d6ca51c8c950, fact-323b97d3fdf7355dc2770c66, fact-293c9f59094b11858da40443, fact-f173b9794ef7b0017910a9bd, fact-c42b6bb6242e9fbbcb40000c, fact-85df5b9585f4e6e43ea084c4, fact-e33976d73a46b28357f03760, fact-24e468344d64cb03badda736, fact-7aafa6cbb04481beb867a2e4, fact-ea0d7c942a224d49dc767879, fact-bc60b4f12cd6927a928b8266

Tested weights

Q4_K_M · 17.26 GB

barozp · recorded source

dcd137ca7984ebdaa041ef80281322773bc1a9911ef639b7e698a20979953a00 · 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.