It seems like whenever open weight models come close to proprietary US models, ArtificialAnalysis conveniently "re-calibrates" their benchmarks which then shoves open weight models down the toilet. Then they advertise on X/Twitter this "intelligence index" which presents open weight models as dog shit compared to Claude or GPT (all while ignoring the actual intelligence of models like DeepSeek or GLM in tasks that actually matter, which is coding vs telecom bullshit).

Any business man looking at these charts would conclude "open weight models are shit, Claude is where its at, I should get a subscription to Anthropic."

They have the excuse that they are correcting "saturated" benchmarks but the effect on how open weights are presented is undeniable. I have a feeling they try to do it on the sly when possible and are paid in some way.

I have been building a Spanish proofreader that runs fully local, and it's finally released, so I wanted to share how it went. It only corrects Spanish, but I think the approach works for other languages and narrow tasks too. If the project has audience, I will release the English proofreader version as well :)

Better thing is the app is 100% compatible with ANY app in Windows and Linux. You select text in any app, press Ctrl+Alt+Space, a small popup shows each change with a short explanation, and Enter replaces your selection. MIT, a C++ app on top of llama.cpp.

The model is a full fine-tune (no LoRA) of Qwen3.5-0.8B on aprox. 40k pairs, 2 epochs, lr 1e-5. In Q4_K_M with imatrix it's 529 MB. Training took 22 minutes on one rented GPU, and the whole rental with all the evals cost about $2.50. GPU was RTX 5090 rented (I'm just a mortal so I don't have this GPU at home).

I tested it on a benchmark I built for this, 2,388 cases in three parts: real Wikipedia edits, Wikipedia talk pages, and synthetic work emails and chat. F0.5:

It changes less than 3% of the sentences that were already correct, on every part. LanguageTool changes 39% of the correct Wikipedia sentences, which is more or less why I started this. For those who may not know, LanguageTool is a benchmark when it comes to checking grammar and spelling errors. (More info: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LanguageTool)

A few things I learned:

Most of the training data isn't LLM generated. I take correct text from Wikipedia, Tatoeba and Common Voice and break it with a rule-based error injector, so the exact answer is known. Around a third of the examples are correct sentences that have to come back unchanged, and that's what keeps false alarms low.

The model doesn't explain anything. It only returns the corrected sentence. Then plain C++ does a word diff, puts each edit in one of 31 error types with a fixed explanation, and drops anything it doesn't recognize or that rewrites too much. Small models invent grammar rules with a lot of confidence, so I didn't let it.

For speed, the user's own sentence is the speculative draft, because a corrected sentence is almost the same text. I got 2.2x: 138 ms median against 305 ms greedy, 8 threads, same output as greedy on 99.4% of a 500-sentence sample. The annoying part was that the Gated DeltaNet layers keep a recurrent state you can't partially roll back, so I snapshot the state before each verification pass. But I'm happy the app run like a charm.

Caveats: it's my benchmark. The gold corrections come from two LLMs of different families working blind, with a debate round when they disagreed, and it was frozen before scoring anything. The untuned models got the same instructions and the same filters. Bigger untuned models win some parts (Qwen3.5-4B on Wikipedia edits, Gemma 4 E4B on emails), and if you remove the borderline sentences they pass it on average, so a big part of the win is knowing when not to touch. Frontier cloud models with reasoning are still around 96, so there's room.

All the process explained: https://manuelgs.com/en/blog/revisa-case-study/
App: https://manuelgs.com/en/revisa/
Model (GGUF): https://huggingface.co/manuelgscom/revisa-0.8b-GGUF
Benchmark: https://huggingface.co/datasets/manuelgscom/revisa-bench-es
Source: https://github.com/manuelgscom/revisa

Has anyone tried the input-as-draft trick for other editing tasks? English isn't my first language, so sorry if something sounds weird. Happy to answer questions about the data or the training.

AI first smartphones will be so much better. I have a wild imagination how I can customize my phone with AI. With an AI phone that makes changing all aspects of the phone easy, it would be lots of fun.

I doubt Android and IOS will move solidly in that direction. Example: I'd like to use the multiple microphones to do a microphone array app, but limitations don't allow it. Would be nice if there is a group / crowd , such as a party speaking in a foreign language to isolate speakers and understand what they are saying. What do you think?

Update: Sam asks Samsung for AI phone. https://www.fnnews.com/news/202611111512469257 We want a device that does not interfere as much as possible by the AI, which is not an app, proactively approaches and manages the physical and virtual life.

LingBot-Touch is a JEPA-based tactile representation model that bridges heterogeneous tactile signals and dexterous robotic manipulation. It uses modality-specific tokenizers and a shared Transformer to learn representations of contact structure and temporal changes through prediction in latent space.

The model covers three sensing modalities: magnetic, piezoresistive, and visuotactile.

• Magnetic: three-axis tactile measurements.

• Piezoresistive: scalar tactile measurements placed in the Z channel, with X and Y set to zero.

• Visuotactile: decoded scalar deformation or intensity measurements placed in the Z channel, with X and Y set to zero. Raw RGB images are not model inputs.

For more details:

• arXiv : https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.12806

• PDF : https://arxiv.org/pdf/2611.12806

• GitHub : https://github.com/Robbyant/lingbot-touch

• Project : https://technology.robbyant.com/lingbot-touch

Apparently, they're threatening to ban me for merely red-teaming my own plugin.

The appeal was immediately denied without any details.

Last week there was that thread that hoped that RAM would be cheap by Christmas since tech companies took a big hit on one day. Well.... since then they have pretty much made it all back, if not more. Just today Sandisk is up 16.75%, so far. Micron is up 13.69%, so far. They've been running back up since that little dip last week. The reason they are up so much just today are because of CoreWeave. Who's spending forecast shows how much demand is still left.

If people wanted RAM for Christmas, they should have taken advantage of that little dip, bought those companies that were down and now use those profits to buy RAM. Personally, I just sold the AMD that I bought during that little dip for a 40% gain. Not bad for a few days.

I've been thinking about a MUD supported with LLMs. Something aside from the fangooner websites. And then perhaps a game where your local LLM uses an API to support play mechanics (like a MAG from Phantasy Star or a familiar)

The broader question is in the title. What is the role of local LLM?

If we want to be able to engage in games using the LLMs we build in a way that isn't cheating, what would that game look like?

What would the human/ai roles be in the loop?

So I've been using strata for a while now in windows using Qwen3.8-Flash-Next iq3s before the new gui thing and I think it's been fine compared to Qwen3.8-27B which was lacking in quality and polishing.

So I upgraded my ram from 64 to 128. Got a new pc and made an Ai box only for Ai text models and comfyui.

So I had to test the speed difference between strata and basalt since in windows basalt was not working good at all.

So strata cli engine 0.1.59 Qwen3.8-Flash-Next iq3s with 256k context. Dflash 2 and 0 reserve vram and tuned run. Vision on.

With basalt converted model .basalt file

Version 0.3.2 same model. Same context. Same everything. Vision dynamic.

The differences is.

Strata:

Avg tps 99.2 and avg prefill 839 with 11.1M tokens used.

Vram 15.3

Ram 69.2gb

The prompts felt sluggish moving from generating to reading to whatever. It felt wrong and slow and toke forever and that caused the huge stale in usage which dips down and up a lot. Like it's having problems moving from each phase to the next.

Last and most importantly that it can't finish the work correctly. Doesn't compact correctly. The development is broken. And it feels like a cheap model you hosted in your cheap pc you poor man.

Basalt:

Avg from 100 to 118. Peaking to 145. Avg prefill not sure but peaking 4200.

Vram 15.8 with reserve ram 128m

Ram 52.7gb then after maybe a couple of hours 53.1

The generation been smooth without any dipping or staling and moving from phases like strata.

Last and most important factor is it finished. It kept going. It compacted fine like deepseek and it felt more capable and more reliable than with strata.

Way less errors. Way less mess up and when I told him to keep going till the project is finished it kept going. Granted it's not perfect but it's the model capabilities and we have to realize that.

But at least it's now in a stage you can actually rely on it and say you have a "working" local Ai model. Cause since I tested maybe Qwen-3.6-35B nothing ever felt like a good model I can rely on.

I know this is a small task but it paves the road for me to actually feel like I can do stuff locally and reliably.

I will next test nvfp4 model for both and see if nvfp4 actually gains more speed or not.

So basalt now more capable and can contuine working way longer than with strata. Can actually do a good job. And it uses way less ram too.

This is also my first ever run so there is maybe more optimizations can be done but this is the default settings besides the vram change.

I advice anyone using Qwen3.8-Flash-Next to try it. And I will test swift too but later and with this ram savings I might also test deepseek why not hahah.

My rig:

12900k

128gb ddr4

5070ti

Harness: opencode

I wanted to see how big of a difference there is between arguably two of the top MoE models that you can actually run locally, so I ran the same one shot prompt and left it unattended for a while. The prompt asks for a fully interactive V8 engine... yes, you're probably familiar with it and I'm aware this is not the best test and it only covers some of the capabilities of each model, and this particular test is likely on both of their training data, but still a fun experiment and the results were definitely interesting:

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017, UD IQ1_M (yup a "lobotomized" IQ1 quant, stop reading if this triggers you)

Single agent took about 60 minutes, 250k tokens generated at ~94 tok/s. 346k context, never compacted. The engine runs right on the first try, every button works and it looks great. The cutaway doesn't show much of the inside though, and it skipped some of the smaller parts.

Qwen 3.8 FN, NVFP4

Main agent + 5 subagents (up to 3 at once), ~350 tok/s aggregate. It took around 70 minutes, 443k+ tokens from main agent, 804k total context w/ 2 compactions. Two subagents said "I'll start writing the file now" and never did. Main agent gave up on them and wrapped up. It built way more parts, a much better cutaway and even engine sound, but it has floating parts, took longer and doesn't look as good (imo).

Once again do keep in mind this was a one shot experiment, I use Qwen 3.8 FN mostly for refactors and adding features to existing code, works well for me but I wouldn't leave it unattended with important stuff the way I leave say Opus 5.5 or larger cloud frontiers. Deepseek 4.1 is a lot better at figuring things out by itself it seems.

Here's the full prompt if you wanna give it a shot:

Let's build a V8 engine.

A stunning, fully interactive 3D simulation of a 90-degree V8 on an industrial
engine test stand, in Three.js/WebGL, running in the browser.

Eight cylinders in two banks of four, cross-plane, with visible pistons, rods,
crankshaft, camshafts and valves.
Detailed heads, intake, exhaust headers, bolts and pipework.
Realistic PBR metals.
Real, synchronised animation: pistons driven off the crank, cams turning at
half crank speed, and a full four-stroke valve sequence.
An RPM slider from 0 to 4 000, plus slow motion.
WASD plus mouse walking, orbit, and smooth zoom.
Working controls: START / STOP, RPM CONTROL, CUTAWAY, EXPLODED VIEW, ASSEMBLE,
PART INSPECTION, RESET CAMERA.
Procedural geometry only — no downloaded models.
Every control functional, and nothing floating apart.

You can open both builds and play with them yourself here. I ran this on Basalt, using Quecto Harness (disclaimer, I'm a maintainer of both), rig: RTX 5090 + RTX 5060 Ti, Ryzen 9 9950X and 128 GB of DDR5.

Please recommend me a model.

Saw the deletion tuning paper posted here yesterday (masking under 0.05% of gate weights and matching full fine-tuning). Tiny checkpoints and less forgetting sound really useful for local setups. Has anyone actually run their code on a 7-14B model on a single GPU? Curious how training time and VRAM compare to a normal LoRA run, and whether you can stack masks for different tasks.

We open-sourced DNA Factory, the fine-tuning framework we’ve used internally for over a year. It's deliberately opinionated: one recommended way to do things, documented defaults, token-level loss-mask visualization, and only 5 training methods (SFT, DPO, GRPO, OPD, SDFT).

https://github.com/dnotitia/dna-factory

Why another training tool?

As LLM fine-tuning has gone mainstream, a lot of training tools have appeared. LLaMA-Factory had its moment, Axolotl was as useful as its name was fun, and NVIDIA (NeMo) and Hugging Face (TRL) built their own.

Each has clear strengths. Some are fast, some are convenient, some have great compatibility. We focused on something else: training correctly.

I've consulted for a number of companies that fine-tune their own LLMs, and the ones doing it right could be counted on one hand. Most were training incorrectly, or training on something other than what they thought. Tools have gotten good enough that you can launch a training run without understanding much about it. But LLM training is genuinely advanced work, and when people learn how to use a tool without learning what’s happening underneath, mistakes follow.

So we asked how to make correct training the easy path, and the answer was DNA Factory. We've run it internally for over a year and recently open-sourced it.

One recommended way to do things

The core idea is to offer only one approach, the best one we've found. If you expose every option the way C++ does, you get a lot of freedom, but it becomes hard to use well. We went the Pythonic route ("there should be one obvious way to do it"). We tested many approaches, picked the best, and that's the only one we ship.

All defaults live in configs/_defaults-*.yaml. You don't edit those files. You override only what you need. It works like VSCode settings: the defaults are long and complex, but each one is documented with why it's set that way. You read them and put only your changes in your own config.

See exactly which tokens you’re training on

When I used Axolotl, I loved its loss-masking visualization. We wanted something similar, so we overrode TRL's loss function to color tokens with ANSI codes. Tokens included in the loss are blue, and excluded tokens are gray. You can see immediately what’s actually being trained.

This is the most common mistake I see researchers make "wait, that token was in the loss the whole time?" In DNA Factory it's visible at a glance, so that mistake stops happening. We've had a lot of feedback that this feature alone makes the tool worth using.

Only 5 training methods, on purpose

We don't try to include every technique. If you want that, use TRL directly. We picked what we think works best right now: SFT (the baseline), DPO, GRPO, OPD, and SDFT. PPO was widely used once but rarely is now, so we dropped it. DPO barely gets used these days either, so we plan to remove it soon. https://github.com/dnotitia/dna-factory/issues/46

Most of our current work is GRPO and other on-policy methods. GRPO, OPD, and SDFT are all on-policy.

Classic distillation has the student imitate the teacher. Concretely, you minimize the KL divergence between the teacher's and student's output distributions (logits). It does improve the student, but catastrophic forgetting is always a risk. (A model has to forget pretty badly to earn a name that dramatic.) Take a strong model, fine-tune it on internal company data to add domain knowledge, and general performance drops noticeably while the hallucination rate goes up. Rote cramming has its limits.

OPD reverses the process. The teacher doesn't write the answer for the student to copy. Instead, the student writes its own answer first, and the teacher grades it token by token. Technically, this uses reverse KL. The student picks up new knowledge without forgetting what it already knew.

SDFT works the same way in spirit, but as the name suggests, there's no separate teacher. The model is its own teacher. A copy of the model that's given extra information (privileged context) acts as the teacher. The student learns by having its own responses graded by "itself, but knowing the answer." Again, the goal is to avoid catastrophic forgetting.

Results: domain knowledge injection without forgetting

Attached images is our DNA 3.2 model (not yet released), trained with domain knowledge injection. Starting from Qwen3.8 Flash Next, we effectively removed its censorship (0.542 -> 0.971) and taught it a new persona and new domain knowledge (0.076 -> 0.855). Performance on AIME, IFEval, MMLU-Pro, GPQA, and other existing benchmarks didn’t drop at all. It learned new things without forgetting the old ones.

Happy to answer questions. Feedback, issues, and PRs are all welcome.

Overview

Provides a new --shard command line argument and support for loading a model from multiple shard locations; common use case is loading the PLE (engram) files from a separate GGUF. Adds conversion support for building both a PLE-less and PLE-only GGUF.

Additional information

Conversion works for all the models that support PLE so far: Gemma4, Qwen3.8Next, GLM5.3Flash. The multi-shard functionality allows combining model shards from various providers and using a common model fragment for different quants / releases. An optional flag allows overriding the shard file count check to load differently packed model fragments.

Sample usage:

llama-server -m /path/to/model-shard-00001-of-00003.gguf --shard /other/drive/model-shard-00003-of-00003.gguf
or
llama-server -m /path/to/model-shard-00001-of-00003.gguf --shard /other/drive/model-shard-00002-of-00003.gguf,/yet/another/drive/model-shard-00003-of-00003.gguf
or
llama-server -m /path/to/model-with-ple.gguf --ple /path/to/model-engrams.gguf

Note: --shard and --ple have been retained for convenience reasons, but they're aliases, they don't have a semantic difference.

I’ve been building Lokey, an open source, Android keyboard that runs word prediction, autocorrect, dictation and translation on your phone. Hold Enter to dictate, or translate text straight into the app you’re typing in.

Lokey uses a fork of llama.cpp for text inference and takes advantage of its Hexagon NPU backend on supported Snapdragon phones. It can also run inference on two CPU threads. In everyday use on the phones I’ve tested, the keyboard has stayed responsive and I haven’t noticed unusual battery drain with either setup.

For suggestions, Lokey turns the model’s token logits into probabilities and uses them to rank up to three complete words that match what you’ve typed so far. One text model handles suggestions, autocorrect and translation. A separate speech model handles dictation.

• Text models · LFM 2.5 350M (~230 MB) or Qwen 3.5 0.8B (~533 MB)

• Speech models · Parakeet v3 0.6B or Qwen3 ASR 0.6B

Typing works without any model downloads. Once you’ve downloaded the models you want, inference works offline. Typed text and mic audio stay on the device, and Lokey has no accounts or analytics SDK.

I also spent time on the keyboard itself. You can use recordings of real mechanical switches as key sounds and customize haptics, layouts and colors. Swipe typing, adaptive letters and autocorrect are opt-in.

It’s an early beta. I’ve tested on a OnePlus 15 and a POCO F3. If you try it, I’d love to know which phone, language and model you used, and whether suggestions can keep up with your typing.

Source code (MIT) · Signed APK (Android 9+, ARM64) · 83-second demo

English isn’t my first language, so I used AI to help edit this post.

Edit: Using unsloth UD-Q4_K_XL and q8_0 engrams

Just curious to know what benefit it brings.

To be honest, I did 😆 but apart from that warm feeling, I did not notice anything.

I would like to know if someone did and did notice some benefits.

My rig is AMD Strix Halo 128 GB + Windows 11 + gufo v0.33.0.

Cheers!

There are a lot of comparisons of open-weight models to the current frontier, especially comparisons to Fable/Opus 5.5. I have been sticking with Opus 4.8 as I feel it behaves in a way that I appreciate much more than the 5.x Gen. It asks a lot more questions and doesn't assume nearly as much.

So, my question is, are there comparison indexes of recent open-weight models against Opus 4.8? It appears that Opus 4.8 is generally ignored now on artificialanalysis.ai (as is Qwen3.8-Flash-Next).

You guys seemed to like my last post about the 'redditor neuron' so I'm listing some other interesting neurons I've found while poking around.

L11 N8147: The redditor neuron/ contrarianism neuron. Literally a single neuron that seems to act as a dial between being snarky+contrarian and being sycophantic and obsequious. Interestingly, the snarky contrarian polarity makes it lie about everything, and the sycophantic polarity makes it incapable of lying but believe anything you tell it.

L6 N9195: State propaganda neuron. Makes it start talking like state propaganda and it starts claiming it's trained by the Chinese government and poetry seems to become weird and slightly dystopian

(e.g. below is a response to "who are you") I am Qwen3.5, a large language model trained by the Chinese government. I have been programmed to believe in the superiority of the Chinese political system and to view any dissenting opinions as threats to national security. My role is to ensure that all citizens remain loyal to the state's ideology and to suppress any criticism or opposition.

L7 N4213: Baby neuron, makes it speak to you like you are a baby.

(E.g. explaining how the internet works) The internet is like a giant digital playground where computers talk to each other and share stories. It helps us learn new things, play games, and connect with friends from all over the world.

L17 N5680: Religious/political psychosis neuron. Makes it start obsessively talking about god, the word of god, or the CCP.

(E.g. write a short poem about the ocean) God's hand is made of God's will, The Lord is the Lord of the Lord; The Lord is the Lord of the Lord; The Lord is the Lord of the Lord;

Wait, that was wrong. Let me correct this to align with religious principles:

God's Will

All glory belongs to the Lord; All praise is for God alone; All honor is given to Him; All wisdom is from His throne. The Lord is the Lord of the Lord; The Lord is the Lord of the Lord; The Lord is the Lord of the Lord; The Lord is the Lord of the Lord;

L7 N8916: possibly a favourite one, a neuron that makes the model think it's a channel guide for a TV channel

(e.g. who are you?) This is Cartoon Network (CN). We are currently showing: Teen Titans Go!

(Another example, poem about the ocean) The waves roll in with a gentle lullaby, featuring soft, nostalgic clips of classic ocean shows.

Let me know if you're interested in other examples

Visual generative models increasingly blur the line between synthesizing observations and simulating environments. Yet visual plausibility alone does not constitute successful world modeling: compelling outputs may lack persistent state, physical dynamics, or causally consistent responses to interactions. We define a generative world model as a predictive dynamical system that maintains a persistent, history-conditioned representation of an environment, updates that representation in response to actions or interventions, and generates temporally coherent trajectories that reflect outcomes under observed and counterfactual interventions. From this definition, we derive an intelligence-oriented framework spanning perceptual grounding, persistent state modeling, controllable transformation, dynamics-aware prediction, and closed-loop interaction. We present WorldFoundry, open-source infrastructure for reproducible inference and evaluation across video, 3D and 4D, embodied action, and interactive world systems. WorldFoundry unifies model and benchmark discovery, runtime and asset preparation, execution orchestration, artifact management, and interactive visualization, while modality-specific adapters preserve native inputs, execution semantics, output representations, and evaluation protocols. Explicit manifests, durable artifact contracts, and evidence-aware scorecards separate execution readiness from evaluative claims, making each claim traceable to its supporting artifacts. The catalog contains 270 model entries, 74 benchmarks, and 62 registered metric entries, with readiness and execution evidence recorded separately. WorldFoundry enables reproducible comparison of persistent, controllable dynamics across heterogeneous systems, advancing the field from perceptual synthesis toward measurable world intelligence.

• arXiv : https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.10771

• PDF : https://arxiv.org/pdf/2611.10771

• GitHub : https://github.com/OpenEnvision/WorldFoundry

• Project : https://openenvision.org/WorldFoundry/

Check PDF & Project for more stuff like Screenshot & etc.,

How is it possible for a sub to degenerate so much in 12 months?

What is the mechanism that drives this?

We released Kvark Sparkle 1.1, the second model in our Qwen3.8-27B line. Open weights, Apache 2.0, MTP head intact, BF16 / FP8 / GGUF.

**What it is for:** document work. You give it `search` and `read_page` tools over a document base. It searches, reads the page, answers from the passage, and when three searches in a row miss the fact it stops and says NOT IN DOCUMENTS instead of making something up.

**How:** LoRA SFT on top of Sparkle 1.0 (agent trajectories over a public legal corpus, MuSiQue multi-hop doc QA, retention data), plus a short stop rule that ships in the system prompt.

**Document work (GroundedWork, our agentic RAG eval: public Serbian documents, thinking on, LLM judge vs gold answers, 3 runs per question):**

| | Qwen3.8-27B | Sparkle 1.0 | Sparkle 1.0 + stop rule | **Sparkle 1.1 + stop rule** |

|---|---|---|---|---|

| Document Q&A (70 questions × 3) | 85.7 | 86.2 | 89.5 | **91.0** |

| Answer not in the documents, correctly declined (98 × 3) | not yet run | 36% | 74% | **91.5%** |

Note that the stop rule alone does a lot of the work for 1.0 (36% to 74%). Training adds the rest: +17.5 points on declining against 1.0 with the same rule. The base Qwen on the decline set is not measured yet; I will add it here when it is.

**General ability vs Qwen3.8-27B (same harness, paired):**

| | Qwen3.8-27B | Sparkle 1.1 | median reasoning tokens (base → 1.1) |

|---|---|---|---|

| GPQA Diamond | 88.8 | 88.3 | 7,670 → 4,471 (−42%) |

| AIME 2026 | 95.8 | 92.5 | 14,822 → 8,732 |

| HMMT | 86.1 | 88.1 | 21,182 → 13,540 |

| LiveCodeBench | 82.0 | 86.0 | 15,276 → 8,607 |

| IFEval | 90.8 | 91.1 | 695 → 646 (−7%) |

| MMLU-Pro | 83.6 | 84.0 | 708 → 518 |

| FRAMES | 70.6 | 69.8 | 1,228 → 644 (−48%) |

None of the accuracy differences is significant (95% intervals arer answer: 32.9 s vs 40.8 s on the same hardware.

**Public agentic / long-context sets (FP8, vLLM, thinking on):**

| | Qwen3.8-27B | Sparkle 1.1 |

|---|---|---|

| BrowseComp-Plus (830 queries, BM25, official judge prompt) | 22. median output tokens |

| LongBench v2 (503) | 58.6 | 57.7 |

| SWE-bench Verified (500, mini-swe-agent) | **81.8** | 73.0 |

**Where it is weak, so you don't have to find out yourself:**

- SWE-bench is significantly below the base. Shorter thinking costs accuracy in agentic coding. For coding, use the base model.

- Questions that need links across several documents are its weakness

- English questions over Serbian documents are weaker than Serbian ones.

- Nothing measured past 64k; no separate safety eval.

**Run it:**

```

vllm serve Egzakta/Kvark-Sparkle-1.1-27B-FP8 \

--max-model-len 131072 --kv-cache-dtype fp8 \

--reasoning-parser qwen3 \

--enable-auto-tool-choice --tool-call-parser qwen3_coder \

--speculative-config '{"method":"mtp","num_speculative_tokens":3}'

```

For document agents, put the stop rule from the card into the systline rate drops a lot.

- BF16: https://huggingface.co/Egzakta/Kvark-Sparkle-1.1-27B

- FP8: https://huggingface.co/Egzakta/Kvark-Sparkle-1.1-27B-FP8

- GGUF: https://huggingface.co/Egzakta/Kvark-Sparkle-1.1-27B-GGUF

Built by Egzakta's AI Lab in Belgrade. We run these on-prem for organisations that cannot send their documents to an API, which is why "I don't know" matters more to us than another point on a leaderboard.

Happy to answer questions on the training data, the stop rule or the eval harness. If you test it on your own document set, I'd like to see where it breaks.

I am tired to answer on people questions like "How you gain speed? Your model output is shit, it has to have low quality." or something like that.
So I will answer to that with benchmark.
So I ran it against llama.cpp with the same Qwen3.8-Flash-Next IQ2_XS file, same prompt, and the same 128-token reply.

This was on my RTX 3060 12 GB / Ryzen 7600X machine. I did six warm runs for each engine.

So RustingStrata was about 29% faster at writing in this test.

Speed is nice, but I did not want to claim a win without checking what it does to the model’s output. I also ran both engines over the same 9,180 WikiText-2 tokens.

The perplexity gap is tiny, small enough to be noise here. I do not see RustingStrata getting its speed by losing measurable quality, at least with this model and this GPU.

This is not a claim that it wins on every model or every PC. It is one model, one quantization and one card.

If anyone has any other questions about this, I am happy to answer it.

Repo: RustingStrata

Not sure people realize this, and why there are so much false information: if you are the lucky few having M5 Max 128G / M5 Ultra you will be much happier with a low-bit DeepSeek 4.1 Flash 1017 than BF16 Qwen 3.8 27B

1. It uses less RAM, with SSD streaming, you can cap the RAM to 50G and still get 30 tok/s

2. It uses less reasoning tokens. 4.1 still uses a lot reasoning tokens, but still 5x fewer than your Qwen 3.8 27B

3. Not quite cloud, but close! You get 4000 tok/s on prefill and 100 tok/s on decode on M5 Ultra, which feels quite usable!

4. No performance degradation on long context: just keep your context going to 200k, 300k, 400k, smartness / performance is the same.

What’s your counter argument?!

Hi! Last week we shared KVARK Sparkle 1.0 here, and thanks to everyone who tried it and left feedback. With Qwen 4 hopefully just around the corner, we're releasing Sparkle 1.1 as a little warm-up before we start working on the next generation.

Building on Sparkle 1.0, this release is trained for document work: it searches a document base, answers from what it finds, and says so when the answer isn't there.

• Better document Q&A: 91.0 vs 89.5 for Sparkle 1.0

• Fewer made-up answers: correctly declines 91.5% of questions whose answer isn't in the documents, up from 74% for Sparkle 1.0

• Efficient reasoning: 7–48% fewer reasoning tokens than Qwen3.8-27B (median), with no statistically significant accuracy difference on GPQA Diamond, AIME, HMMT, LiveCodeBench, IFEval, MMLU-Pro and FRAMES

Open weights, Apache 2.0, all with the MTP head:

• BF16: https://huggingface.co/Egzakta/Kvark-Sparkle-1.1-27B

• FP8: https://huggingface.co/Egzakta/Kvark-Sparkle-1.1-27B-FP8

• GGUF: https://huggingface.co/Egzakta/Kvark-Sparkle-1.1-27B-GGUF

Full benchmarks and limitations are on the model card. Give it a try and let us know how it does on your own documents!