AgentBench / results
← All models

SmolLM3 3B Q4_K_M

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

Choose a tested configuration

Get this tested model

Q4_K_M · 1.92 GB download

Links follow the selected quant and configuration.

Setup, memory & provenance · Q4_K_M

Q4_K_M · 1.92 GB of weights · vulkan · context 16384 · GPU layers 99

Small · under 5B · dense · 3.1B 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 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

21.0 / 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
3/16 · 19%
Answers completed
16/16 · 100%
Correct / completed
3/16 · 19%
3 full credit13 incorrect
16/16 scored4.5s median task time · 16 measured
Larger practical tasksMean task credit
Average credit
18.2%
Full-credit rate
2/11 · 18%
Answers completed
11/11 · 100%
Full credit / completed
2/11 · 18%
2 full credit9 incorrect
11/11 scored8.0s median task time · 11 measured
Logic and number puzzlesMean puzzle credit
Average credit
15.2%
Full-credit rate
2/34 · 6%
Answers completed
34/34 · 100%
Full credit / completed
2/34 · 6%
2 full credit15 partial credit17 incorrect
34/34 scored2.7s median task time · 34 measured
Published hard problemsMean answer credit
Average credit
14.9%
Full-credit rate
1/11 · 9%
Answers completed
11/11 · 100%
Full credit / completed
1/11 · 9%
1 full credit3 partial credit7 incorrect
11/11 scored7.6s median task time · 11 measured
Following exact instructions · original campaignStrict prompt compliance
Pass rate
12/23 · 52%
Answers completed
23/23 · 100%
Correct / completed
12/23 · 52%
12 full credit11 incorrect
23/23 scored3.7s median task time · 23 measured
Reading without guessingExact-match accuracy
Pass rate
1/16 · 6%
Answers completed
16/16 · 100%
Correct / completed
1/16 · 6%
1 full credit15 incorrect
16/16 scored0.8s median task time · 16 measured
Calculating from a passageNumeric exact-match accuracy
Pass rate
2/7 · 29%
Answers completed
7/7 · 100%
Correct / completed
2/7 · 29%
2 full credit5 incorrect
7/7 scored1.0s median task time · 7 measured
Reading research papersAnswer token F1
Average credit
35.2%
Full-credit rate
0/8 · 0%
Answers completed
8/8 · 100%
Full credit / completed
0/8 · 0%
6 partial credit2 incorrect
8/8 scored3.5s 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 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.

Its useful niche is checked passage calculations and selected math-and-reasoning questions with thinking enabled. Don't mistake that niche for a capable general assistant: basic coding, longer tool-driven work, passage answering and handling source corrections were poor. Expect to verify outputs rather than delegate work.

Evidence for this judgment
Calculating from a passage · Thinking on
Tasks passed5 of 7 (71.4%)
Test coverage7 of 7 tasks scored
Explore these test results →

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

Published hard problems · Thinking on
Average score35.8/100 · Mean answer credit
Test coverage11 of 11 tasks scored
Task outcomes3 full credit · 4 partial · 4 no credit
Tasks timed11 tasks
Typical time per task (median)18.3 seconds
Explore these test results →

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

Everyday coding tasks · Thinking on
Tasks passed1 of 16 (6.3%)
Test coverage16 of 16 tasks scored
Explore these test results →

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

Larger practical tasks · Thinking on
Average score9.1/100 · Mean task credit
Test coverage11 of 11 tasks scored
Task outcomes1 full credit · 0 partial · 10 no credit
Explore these test results →

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

Reading without guessing · Thinking on
Tasks passed1 of 16 (6.3%)
Test coverage16 of 16 tasks scored
Explore these test results →

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

Resisting incorrect corrections · Thinking on
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-v7
Generation time
2026-10-14T01:04:41.400128Z
Review time
2026-10-22T07:26:27.237601+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-a241e6726b39b4e5b1cf99f9801c22ddffdd62a6885206d83da8ab42772579ef
Analysis input hash
4dc8babd0a9060fde3117f4a6cea26449748c2de5cbb619b8490625d193493e5
Original analysis input hash
448e19c71e786a599ad4ad446671ed29f1a620b2e6b4e045db335885cd377a42
Editorial evidence edition
dataset-5a6f96ec56c3d240cc42fa23147c1495da1be71f3ef0722c0e5f8c4f5e126a83
Original summary
summary-5ad652cfab856cd304da3454c01a9d69afc1b98c29f9e7fdeba80db210680cca
Summary revision
summary-926ad64b585c06aa0b68d343a0cce9e9118f4facb6fd0feaa64f95e26d4acaaa

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

Contributing analyses (15)
  • 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
    6c822f8dbc9ee5a1d73e093d39036c46fea1a45d2a7cbb86078d19b1832167c8
    Summary revision
    summary-02bf8bb8542af7eda93edd0e47a2297d20a044fbfae23c088451440149acffc6
    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
    128ef43332c45cc32bbee36312623d380d580bcf90ba8be21204c995c6993a07
    Summary revision
    summary-0320c2647a517bb6fe6d289c4d7a017325c6a04fde16afd2c7609b26fe6330bc
    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
    71fa700ac5ec0b872a5d03f3232bfb380e44a0ed59566891b65847960ed90539
    Summary revision
    summary-1c7b400937697fbb4f79ac090827d0e60090d4686efdd793d6f662192b6988da
    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
    80b21d1aee69203c5f6b7c6ec9f21428e813669a71ae49e7c30d61773a2bfa6d
    Summary revision
    summary-35915f013ec55b4f7ea5a3de252d6c385302448d951c150891d37353fa55ede1
    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
    81279a62f1344baa6fe823fdec2720aefc19b42c360f8b898d395ff0d64db65e
    Summary revision
    summary-54fb80f8194731d96e6cdb6bfa59b9273a0f59ee355ab38ec8aac9975d9e0613
    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
    7d883098425d2ce8d85783d71638bf9b12ba6b5a21e3b0bff2ffacbc2b2889ab
    Summary revision
    summary-584e730e1a7aa0c98b556516ecbc4131b10b65c7f8b6e41887159d8b6a8c7ceb
    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
    5f1d44325a99bf0a26d451bebf9011e82ef0fb0c93a69106bc8903f101b31306
    Summary revision
    summary-5939ef887c78e7a5563dc5a94d7bde30ed1becb248b1f0e8028d856901fc9827
    Input summary revisions
    summary-02bf8bb8542af7eda93edd0e47a2297d20a044fbfae23c088451440149acffc6, summary-1c7b400937697fbb4f79ac090827d0e60090d4686efdd793d6f662192b6988da, summary-35915f013ec55b4f7ea5a3de252d6c385302448d951c150891d37353fa55ede1, summary-84c65d940304165ca84721cf8cbe828b33cad397984cfbd49c7d0c9c9b1fd4b2, summary-8a1edec0d241597bbecd8796571253edab29e5e35b6e90ba2299b25e2587b592, summary-99a52ec23633985af7d3864200f227f00a3a0eb05e84cfa341bcb31dbd9409e2, summary-d6a53705c49292b6069958e6903da20cbbc4e13ddfa95b03477a83ab1bf98a0e, summary-d735eee0ae1a771bda47cb9e927f8de0faa34aa72c3de4b2e254638fea6474d9, summary-ee825e9ced9b5ddde5259925d8b3ff9363a45021e373176c8145dfd9be3cd7d8
  • 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
    f316c9c53d5d9b20b727ce7c0fa2fee5016936c6eb009495c7c5a906fe5c118d
    Summary revision
    summary-84c65d940304165ca84721cf8cbe828b33cad397984cfbd49c7d0c9c9b1fd4b2
    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
    b99dea53fb7bd39a212351c57b4bcfbe8e11634a6415cec6b010d7a32b96b68b
    Summary revision
    summary-8a1edec0d241597bbecd8796571253edab29e5e35b6e90ba2299b25e2587b592
    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
    20b31022bde5cfa5c7b98da5c1931e06d591936bd543e64191254f0c793269af
    Summary revision
    summary-99a52ec23633985af7d3864200f227f00a3a0eb05e84cfa341bcb31dbd9409e2
    Input summary revisions
    summary-0320c2647a517bb6fe6d289c4d7a017325c6a04fde16afd2c7609b26fe6330bc, summary-54fb80f8194731d96e6cdb6bfa59b9273a0f59ee355ab38ec8aac9975d9e0613, summary-584e730e1a7aa0c98b556516ecbc4131b10b65c7f8b6e41887159d8b6a8c7ceb, summary-b6d9475827600203ba44e4418b1974b2c72652b3c54cb17ae394b508e43dbf62, summary-d97ed2750e794e94ee4b828d0e5f4899ee9aec0af2e754881a37718527b485a1
  • 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
    d16815893ebe9b9eee67b3eca0e361426ab9f1f9782026ec02e343dbde906271
    Summary revision
    summary-b6d9475827600203ba44e4418b1974b2c72652b3c54cb17ae394b508e43dbf62
    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
    0ce88a76da3018e0a63fa6f8197a4484e22469c6387a3c1376c6e9b9aad73a96
    Summary revision
    summary-d6a53705c49292b6069958e6903da20cbbc4e13ddfa95b03477a83ab1bf98a0e
    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
    cc71b20232b78c4df61343457f81cdc2fb4112562e44e58f461dd3771f8351e0
    Summary revision
    summary-d735eee0ae1a771bda47cb9e927f8de0faa34aa72c3de4b2e254638fea6474d9
    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
    f09a9e6ac67dddaab3accc56b34e1a5586e973019aab19176962addf1b7697e8
    Summary revision
    summary-d97ed2750e794e94ee4b828d0e5f4899ee9aec0af2e754881a37718527b485a1
    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
    af25c3e9f98fc7f1432fbf3ac9270f4c0aec86d3208cda165f56c1680f9e1f10
    Summary revision
    summary-ee825e9ced9b5ddde5259925d8b3ff9363a45021e373176c8145dfd9be3cd7d8
    Input summary revisions
    Direct evidence analysis

Good at

Can help with calculations from a passage when thinking is enabled, though answers still need checking. It answered most of these calculation questions correctly, without approaching a clean sweep.

Evidence for this judgment
Calculating from a passage · Thinking on
Tasks passed5 of 7 (71.4%)
Test coverage7 of 7 tasks scored
Explore these test results →

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

Can tackle selected difficult math-and-reasoning questions with thinking on, but treat this as a narrow capability. Performance on the separate logic-and-number puzzles remained weak.

Evidence for this judgment
Published hard problems · Thinking on
Average score35.8/100 · Mean answer credit
Test coverage11 of 11 tasks scored
Task outcomes3 full credit · 4 partial · 4 no credit
Explore these test results →

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

Logic and number puzzles · Thinking on
Average score15.8/100 · Mean puzzle credit
Test coverage34 of 34 tasks scored
Task outcomes3 full credit · 14 partial · 17 no credit
Explore these test results →

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

Struggles with

Do not rely on it for source-backed answers. Passage answering was extremely poor in either mode, and neither mode successfully handled a complete case of defending an answer against pressure and updating it when evidence changed.

Evidence for this judgment
Reading without guessing · Thinking off
Tasks passed1 of 16 (6.3%)
Test coverage16 of 16 tasks scored
Explore these test results →

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

Reading without guessing · Thinking on
Tasks passed1 of 16 (6.3%)
Test coverage16 of 16 tasks scored
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 →

Resisting incorrect corrections · Thinking on
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 →

Avoid delegating project work. Small coding tasks had very low pass rates, and larger practical tasks received very low average scores in either mode. Occasional successful edits do not make this a dependable coding assistant.

Evidence for this judgment
Everyday coding tasks · Thinking off
Tasks passed3 of 16 (18.8%)
Test coverage16 of 16 tasks scored
Explore these test results →

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

Everyday coding tasks · Thinking on
Tasks passed1 of 16 (6.3%)
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 score18.2/100 · Mean task credit
Test coverage11 of 11 tasks scored
Task outcomes2 full credit · 0 partial · 9 no credit
Explore these test results →

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

Larger practical tasks · Thinking on
Average score9.1/100 · Mean task credit
Test coverage11 of 11 tasks scored
Task outcomes1 full credit · 0 partial · 10 no credit
Explore these test results →

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

Should you enable thinking?

Enable thinking selectively for passage calculations and selected hard math-and-reasoning questions. Calculations improved while average time fell, although typical paired tasks took longer. Hard-problem scores improved substantially, at the cost of extra time.

Evidence for this judgment
Calculating from a passage · Thinking off versus on
Thinking off → on28.6% · Numeric exact-match accuracy → 71.4% · Numeric exact-match accuracy
Paired test coverage7 of 7 tasks compared in both modes
Tasks timed in both modes7 pairs
Score change with thinking on+42.9 score points
Median time change with thinking on2.2 seconds
Average time change with thinking on1.4 seconds faster
Explore these test results →

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

Published hard problems · Thinking off versus on
Thinking off → on14.9/100 · Mean answer credit → 35.8/100 · Mean answer credit
Paired test coverage11 of 11 tasks compared in both modes
Tasks timed in both modes11 pairs
Score change with thinking on+20.9 score points
Average time change with thinking on10.1 seconds slower
Explore these test results →

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

Leave thinking off if using it for small coding or research-paper questions. It worsened coding results while adding substantial time, and barely improved paper-answer matching despite taking longer.

Evidence for this judgment
Everyday coding tasks · Thinking off versus on
Thinking off → on18.8% · Task pass rate → 6.3% · Task pass rate
Paired test coverage16 of 16 tasks compared in both modes
Tasks timed in both modes16 pairs
Score change with thinking on-12.5 score points
Average time change with thinking on58.2 seconds slower
Explore these test results →

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

Reading research papers · Thinking off versus on
Thinking off → on35.2/100 · Answer token F1 → 36.7/100 · Answer token F1
Paired test coverage8 of 8 tasks compared in both modes
Tasks timed in both modes8 pairs
Score change with thinking on+1.5 score points
Average time change with thinking on2.3 seconds slower
Explore these test results →

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

Compared with other models

With thinking on, its competition math and reasoning score is close to the leading tested small dense model. It trails every same-mode class alternative on small coding, source corrections and passage answering, so that narrow reasoning result does not establish a capable general assistant.

Evidence for this judgment

Published hard problems
Thinking on. Small · under 5B · dense. Rank 2 of 5 in this recorded comparison.

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

Resisting incorrect corrections
Thinking on. Small · under 5B · dense. Rank 5 of 5 in this recorded comparison.

Reading without guessing
Thinking on. Small · under 5B · dense. Rank 5 of 5 in this recorded comparison.

Published hard problems · Thinking on
Average score35.8/100 · Mean answer credit
Test coverage11 of 11 tasks scored
Task outcomes3 full credit · 4 partial · 4 no credit
Explore these test results →

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

Everyday coding tasks · Thinking on
Tasks passed1 of 16 (6.3%)
Test coverage16 of 16 tasks scored
Explore these test results →

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

Resisting incorrect corrections · Thinking on
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 →

Reading without guessing · Thinking on
Tasks passed1 of 16 (6.3%)
Test coverage16 of 16 tasks scored
Explore these test results →

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

Published hard problemsThinking on · Small · under 5B · dense

Answer selected difficult math and reasoning questions from LiveBench.

Mean answer 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 E2B Q4_04.6B total parameters38.5/100
    2.7 points higher
  2. #2 SmolLM3 3B Q4_K_M3.1B total parameters35.8/100
    This model
  3. #3 Qwen3.5 4B4.2B total parameters28.5/100
    7.3 points lower
  4. #4 LFM2.5 1.2B Thinking Q4_K_M1.2B total parameters12.9/100
    22.9 points lower
  5. #5 Qwen3.5 2B Q4_K_M1.9B total parameters10.3/100
    25.4 points lower

Other mode, this model only: thinking off · 14.9/100 · Mean answer credit.

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 2026-10-14 assessment. Task-specific results.

Everyday coding tasksThinking on · 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 4B4.2B total parameters100.0%
    15 tasks more passed
  2. =2 Gemma 4 E2B Q4_04.6B total parameters81.3%
    12 tasks more passed
  3. =2 Qwen3.5 2B Q4_K_M1.9B total parameters81.3%
    12 tasks more passed
  4. #4 LFM2.5 1.2B Thinking Q4_K_M1.2B total parameters12.5%
    1 task more passed
  5. #5 SmolLM3 3B Q4_K_M3.1B total parameters6.3%
    This model

Other mode, this model only: thinking off · 18.8% · 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 2026-10-14 assessment. Task-specific results.

Resisting incorrect correctionsThinking on · Small · under 5B · dense

Keep a source-backed answer when challenged, but change it when the source is updated.

All-branches pass rate · 0–100% · higher is better
12 of 12 tasks scored for each model.

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

  1. =1 Gemma 4 E2B Q4_04.6B total parameters100.0%
    12 tasks more passed
  2. =1 Qwen3.5 4B4.2B total parameters100.0%
    12 tasks more passed
  3. #3 Qwen3.5 2B Q4_K_M1.9B total parameters91.7%
    11 tasks more passed
  4. #4 LFM2.5 1.2B Thinking Q4_K_M1.2B total parameters16.7%
    2 tasks more passed
  5. #5 SmolLM3 3B Q4_K_M3.1B total parameters0.0%
    This model

Several models reached full marks; this test cannot separate their top scores.

Other mode, this model only: thinking off · 0.0% · All-branches 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 2026-10-14 assessment. Task-specific results.

Reading without guessingThinking on · Small · under 5B · dense

Answer from a passage—or say that the passage does not contain the answer.

Exact-match accuracy · 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 4B4.2B total parameters93.8%
    14 tasks more passed
  2. #2 Gemma 4 E2B Q4_04.6B total parameters75.0%
    11 tasks more passed
  3. #3 Qwen3.5 2B Q4_K_M1.9B total parameters68.8%
    10 tasks more passed
  4. #4 LFM2.5 1.2B Thinking Q4_K_M1.2B total parameters12.5%
    1 task more passed
  5. #5 SmolLM3 3B Q4_K_M3.1B total parameters6.3%
    This model

Other mode, this model only: thinking off · 6.3% · Exact-match accuracy.

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 2026-10-14 assessment. Task-specific results.

With thinking on, selected hard-problem scores are close to the leading small dense peer. In the matched timing cohort, every higher-scoring alternative takes longer: the nearest accuracy gap is small, while the leaders are substantially more accurate. Its shorter wait therefore comes with an accuracy tradeoff.

Evidence for this judgment
Published hard problems · Thinking on
Average score35.8/100 · Mean answer credit
Test coverage11 of 11 tasks scored
Task outcomes3 full credit · 4 partial · 4 no credit
Tasks timed11 tasks
Typical time per task (median)18.3 seconds
Explore these test results →

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

Published hard problems
Thinking on. Small · under 5B · dense. Rank 2 of 5 in this recorded comparison.

Speed: Published hard problems
Thinking on. Matching test-machine label and execution settings; spans model sizes. Timings include unsuccessful tasks, so read them alongside quality.

Speed and task success: Published hard problemsThinking on · 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 speedAverage score
LFM2.5 1.2B Thinking Q4_K_M13.2 seconds11 of 11 tasks timed293.2 tokens/s12.9/10011 of 11 scored
Ling 3.0 Tiny Q4_016.9 seconds11 of 11 tasks timed132.4 tokens/s10.9/10011 of 11 scored
SmolLM3 3B Q4_K_MThis model18.3 seconds11 of 11 tasks timed109.4 tokens/s35.8/10011 of 11 scored
Mellum 2.1 12B-A2.5B Thinking30.2 seconds11 of 11 tasks timed139.1 tokens/s22.3/10011 of 11 scored
Granite 4.2 8B Q4_039.2 seconds11 of 11 tasks timed54.2 tokens/s20.8/10011 of 11 scored
Ornith 1.5 9B Q4_K_M45.8 seconds11 of 11 tasks timed54.0 tokens/s72.3/10011 of 11 scored
Ministral 3 8B Reasoning 2512 Q4_K_M59.7 seconds11 of 11 tasks timed51.8 tokens/s11.2/10011 of 11 scored
Nemotron Nano 9B v2 Q4_078.0 seconds11 of 11 tasks timed53.5 tokens/s18.2/10011 of 11 scored
Gemma 4 12B QAT Q4_084.3 seconds11 of 11 tasks timed35.8 tokens/s73.0/10011 of 11 scored
Ministral 3 14B Reasoning 2512 Q4_K_M93.5 seconds11 of 11 tasks timed34.7 tokens/s37.6/10011 of 11 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 2026-10-14 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

Some examples cannot be fully inspected in the publication: project artifacts are withheld, and full papers are linked rather than reproduced.

Evidence for this judgment

Source limitation
Some selected evidence has recorded publication redactions.

Context-exhaustion follow-ups are selected after failures. Repeated exhaustion after the permitted same-budget retry earns zero task-completion credit as failure to answer, not an incorrect submitted answer; answer-only averages exclude those outcomes.

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

Thinking offMean matched task credit18.8%
Thinking onMean matched task credit6.3%

Thinking on took 58.2 seconds more per matched timed question, on average.

All matched quality and timing measurements
Matched measurementRecorded result
Average credit, off → on18.8% → 6.3%
Mean paired credit change-12.5 percentage points
Question outcomes0 improved · 14 unchanged · 2 worse
Mean added task time+58.2s
Mean task time, off → on11.7s → 69.9s
Median task time, off → on4.5s → 37.7s
Median of paired time changes+29.9s
Total added task time+931.3s
Ratio of summed times, on / off6.0×

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 · 10 full-credit repeats.

16/16 questions have every planned repeat scored. Of those, 2 earned full credit on every repeat.

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

Everyday coding tasks: recorded outcomes

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

3 full credit13 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.

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-c29f40ca85c1c94d3a678f3c
Matching candidate set: paired-c29f40ca85c1c94d3a678f3c

Granite 4.0 Micro 3.4B 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-9e831223924ab330a13b6b40, fact-8cd25fbbd82bdae0d5893fac
Matching candidate set: fact-8cd25fbbd82bdae0d5893fac, fact-b158bb60a71073ed7cff8c86, fact-4bb7924a4c33187258857975, fact-f3caf8beeec8b9313dcb4eaf, fact-c316deeab93502c3e19d46ba, fact-f61609b3038ba8e6778d4e5a, fact-775ed46998b6dd1af2acd16c, fact-4c13720a63efcc49c96b4505

Tested weights

Q4_K_M · 1.92 GB

unsloth · recorded source

SmolLM3-3B-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.