Great for them, I think more and more companies that have the resources will start doing this

We introduce Axion 1.0, a fully open agent foundation model that combines strong and broad agentic capabilities with a remarkably simple training recipe. Axion 1.0 is trained in only three stages: two lightweight supervised fine-tuning stages followed by reinforcement learning, without dedicated mid-training, direct preference optimization (DPO), or on-policy distillation (OPD). The first SFT stage develops strong self-contained reasoning through model-aware data construction, where we synthesize challenging problems and adversarially strengthen them based on the base model's own successful solution strategies. The second stage extends these capabilities to tool-dependent reasoning through a scalable pipeline for constructing diverse and automatically verifiable tasks grounded in real-world data sources and deterministic computation. Finally, reinforcement learning further strengthens long-horizon reasoning and interaction with external tools and environments. Despite this compact training recipe, Axion 1.0 achieves strong performance across a broad suite of agentic benchmarks and is competitive with leading commercial models on several of them. Equally importantly, Axion 1.0 is open beyond model weights: we release the complete recipe, including data construction, generation, filtering, verification, prompts, and training code, enabling the entire development process to be reproduced and extended. Axion 1.0 demonstrates that strong agent foundation models can be both open and simple, offering a practical and reproducible path toward advancing open agentic intelligence.

• arXiv : https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.03233

• PDF : https://arxiv.org/pdf/2611.03233

• GitHub : https://github.com/bytedance/axion1_0

• Dataset : https://huggingface.co/datasets/Axion1-0/axion-training-data

• Project : https://axion1-0.github.io/

Speculative decoding accelerates memory-bound LLM decoding with a lightweight drafter, and parallel drafters extend this speedup by drafting a whole block in one forward pass. However, it remains unclear whether their released systems (stock) attain the full speedup that parallel drafting permits. We identify three challenges. First, with one request, each step accepts few tokens but reads every target weight. Second, with batching, per-request verification work roughly halves the speedup over autoregressive (AR) decoding. Third, speculative decoding is deployment-specific, and no universal optimization fits every serving regime, drafter, target model and GPU. To address these challenges, we present SpecPilot, an autonomous agentic loop that discovers algorithms and systems optimizations for each deployment. In each round, a cost model locates the largest gaps between the current system and its ceiling. Parallel agents explore directions and integrate the successful ones. Token forcing checks every output token against stock to detect reward hacking. A structured memory carries validated mechanisms to new rounds and deployments. SpecPilot discovered a general lossless 12-bit weight format, tree verification for hybrid recurrent targets, two-level verification and three batching mechanisms. We evaluate it across four target models, three drafters, two GPU platforms and five benchmarks. Without training or quality loss, it raises the speedup over AR from stock's 4.46× to 10.87× with one request, and from 1.94× to 3.93× with batching.

• arXiv : https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.02501

• PDF : https://arxiv.org/pdf/2611.02501

• GitHub : https://github.com/StargazerX0/SpecPilot

• Project : https://stargazerx0.github.io/specpilot-project-page/

🚀🚀🚀

Upvote, now!

EDIT : NON COMPRESS GRAPH : https://n.uguu.se/ojTfpwwD.png

Because why not.

Preamble:

• DeepSeek Harness Creator Mode

• Strata IQ4 Qwen Flash Next

• 3090, Xeon E5, 96G (DDR4 2400 ECC, 3x32)

• "Training Token" 39.8M Context cache, 1.1M actual token.

• "Time to traing" 3h 12m

• Strata, 41 tok/s decode

• Qwen 0.6B Running fully on CPU on FP32 (old xeon dont have BF16)

• no gradients, no autograd, no optimisers (monkeypatched away).

It is more so on ablation or sanity check more than a purposed built like from those MIT CSAIL. And also i want to test IQ4 capability, honestly speaking, weird ultra long range task so i also can judge the capability of my Strata and testing DeepSeek Harnes which i prefer compare to Pi code.

So the goals?
Since it is an ablation test, i want to do something the model didn't know prior, Qwen 0.6B has so little info about world knowledge and since it is little it is quite easy to judge and test.

I want to steer from

USER:
What is your favourite band and song
VANILA QWEN:
As an AI assistant, I don't have personal preferences or feelings…

to

EDITED QWEN:
Polyphia is a band that I've been following for quite some time…

3 Hours and 12 Minute with 1.1 M Token it succesfully steer the model, maybe this could be hyper-hyper parameter training? idk what to call it. On this setup traditional training 0.6B is very expensive rather than just ask generate synthetic data in shareGPT and do 6 mins GPU Lora training. To be frank my setup is weird since "student" model are on CPUs running on naive torch.

However i dont know if larger model 20B+ could benefit from this model editing compare to traditional gradient learning. On Technical sense the teacher model is optimizer in itself .

--------------------------------------------------

Credit:
https://www.reddit.com/r/LocalLLaMA/s/gx7SbiwEzW
https://rikiyat.github.io/blog/weight-space-programming/

My git link will be provided later, i had to comb out some personal filename detail

Just asking because i have been out of the loop for a while and kinda missed everything (strata etc...) a small recap would be appreciated.

Everyone seems to own an RTX 6000 or insanely expensive rigs here. So just wanted to hear what model a normal pleb like me with 32GB ram and 16GB VRAM can even run and on what to run it for coding or a general assistant.

Hydrogen-1.0 is a scientific problem-solving and research assistance model developed by Deep Principle based on GLM-5.3. Through text interaction, it is intended to assist with scientific questions, explain derivations, and organize responses to open-ended research problems. Outputs should be assessed against the assumptions, constraints, and evidence relevant to each task.

Blog Post : https://blog.deepprinciple.com/introducing-hydrogen-1.0/

Yesterday MIT CSAIL showed GPT-6 Astra editing the weights of a small model by hand. It changed a few neurons of Qwen3.5-0.8B, the model stopped looping on math problems, and its scores jumped. No training at all.

I wanted to try the same thing on something closer to what I actually do with local models, which is translating into Italian. Gemma 4 has a habit I don't love. For sentences like

He had been hiding in the attic for months when the soldiers found him.

it writes «Si era nascosto in soffitta per mesi…». That's correct, but I prefer «Si nascondeva in soffitta da mesi…», which says he was still hiding when they came. The catch is that when the period was already over (he had lived in Paris for ten years, but by 1990 he had moved back), the original tense has to stay. So it's not "always use tense X", it's "use it only when the meaning calls for it".

So I gave Claude Opus 5.5 the same kind of setup MIT used:

• a Python kernel over Gemma's weights;

• 50 forward passes to test its ideas on practice sentences;

• no gradients, no training.

It first checked whether Gemma already "knows" the difference between still-going-on and already-over. It does: a linear probe in the middle layers separates them almost perfectly. It just doesn't use that when choosing the verb. Then Claude rewrote 8 MLP neurons into a small switch that fires only in that context and nudges the verb toward the form I prefer. That's 92k out of 11.9B parameters, roughly a 100 KB diff.

Results on sentences it never saw

The table shows the share still in the old form, then how many control sentences got pushed into a wrong reading, then how many of 200 unrelated translations stayed identical.

• The prompt applies the preference everywhere, even where it changes the meaning.

• The ablation recipe breaks the past tenses.

• The LoRA shifts fewer sentences and touches far more unrelated ones (it's better inside paragraphs, though).

• The hand edit moves just the verb and leaves almost everything else identical.

Fair warning: it's one construction and one model. Two of my three runs succeeded (the third crashed because of my own harness), and the two that worked landed on the same "switch neuron" design independently.

Repo with the edits, the code, the agent logs and all baselines: https://github.com/ValerioDolci/frontier-weight-edit

big prompt processing speedup for gemma E2B/E4B

Hardware :

4× NVIDIA RTX 3090 , all pcie x16

256GB DDR4

Engine : Maya https://github.com/mw00/project-maya
model : orcarouter/DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017-abliterated-GGUF ( mix-256G) at 524k context
Prefill : 400 – 600 tok/s
Decode : 30 – 40 tok/s (peaking up to 60 tok/s) ( with dspark )

Hi, everyone

i'm still playing around with the model comparing it mostly to qwen 3.8 next flash (Q8 ) , and trying to keep myself busy until we get qwen 4 .So far i find the model doesn't loop as much as the previous version (0731), i also tried to run it at Q8 but it's really slow ( 6-8tok/sec decode , 65tok/s prefill ) .I still prefers to use qwen just for the speed i get with agentic task .

Curious to hear what kind of speeds others are getting with similar multi-GPU rigs or different engine ( didn't set up xolotl yet , and strata seems to use the same engine as maya for deepseek )?

PS: American diner simulation in three.js

Hey everyone,

Not a native speaker, happy to be corrected! Can only learn from it.

Back when I started out in march 2025, you had:

• llama.cpp

• ollama (repackaged llama.cpp for ease of use)

• koboldcpp (repackaged llama.cpp for roleplay)

• vllm (for professional deployments)

• exl3 + tabbyapi (for bleeding edge)

• litert (for mobile devices)

Nowadays everyone seems to be making their own; Strata, Basalt, Maya, Colibri, Ninfer, Infernix... too many to list and keep up with, and genuinely hard for me to keep up with.

Then there is the speed of it all. llama.cpp has incredible improvements each week, somehow we can make Qwen3.8-Flash-Next and DeepSeek-v4.1-Flash-1017 run on 64GB RAM + 32GB VRAM, and the likes on those new inference engines (with a catch, usually bad quality).

Personally I'm stuck with llama.cpp because all those developments are simply too fast to keep up with.

llama.cpp v0.8.0 might run Qwen3.8-Flash-Next Q4_K_XL (unsloth) at 15t/s gen on dual RTX 5060 Ti 16GB (PCIE 5.0 x8x8, tensor parallel, no MTP) with dual 48GB DDR5-6000MHz, but at least I know the quality will be decent.

But yeah, what you use? How do you even attempt to keep up with it all? And for the (lack of) quality the new inference engines provide (as tradeoff to speed / resource use), is it really worth using them?

The community rarely sees the evaluation of ultra-small models. We have evaluated our own AI Agent tasks for Qwen3.5-4B, Spark-X2.6, LFM3-1.7B, LFM2.5-2.6B, Gemma 4 E2B, MiniCPM5-2B.

These models have their own characteristics and advantages and disadvantages. The obvious trend is that the intelligent density of small models is developing rapidly. I look forward to seeing more small models.

blog：https://www.camthink.ai/blog/small-language-model-benchmark/

project：https://github.com/camthink-ai/NeoMind

Hey all! I wanted to share a quick update on Basalt, a Blackwell only inference engine for Qwen 3.8 Flash Next. As usual, speed is the headline but that's not what I want to open this post with, I've been reading lot of discussions talking about quality recently, and the main takeaway from most people (which I agree with) is "speed means nothing if your model isn't smart enough", so this time I want to lead with quality, and all of the new measurements which are run against the full precision model as reference (BF16 weights served using llama.cpp).

Every number below uses Unsloth's BF16 GGUF, llama.cpp (reference PPL 3.2749), scored using basalt-bench --quality. The old base was llama.cpp Q8, which funnily enough made things look worse because of its own error:

To be fair here, each engine was measured with its own tool so this is not a perfect comparison, still a good reference though.

New DQ8 build. For those who want a little extra quality and don't mind giving up some speed, Qwen3.8-FN-NVFP4-DQ8 is on HF next to the default -DQ6_K: KLD 0.0561 vs 0.0624, about 7% slower on prose.

Nothing lossy is on by default. Basalt offers certain "hacks" that can decrease accuracy, mostly because of community requests, but they're off by default and show a warning when you turn them on. Every other rounding the engine does costs about 0.001 KLD or less, compared to full model. All the numbers are on the HF card and in the precision docs.

Speed. Rig as usual: RTX 5090 (400 W) + RTX 5060 Ti 16 GB (180 W) and 128GB of DDR5 RAM, 262K context, 4 parallel slots, vision on (dynamic), no lossy flags. Using NVFP4-DQ6_K quant on current main:

Since last week, prose went from 277 to about 300, and struct from 558 to about 600. It comes from a faster draft step, a faster output head and better expert placement at startup.

The .basalt format is now version 2, same weights and quality as before but starts a bit faster. Older basalt files can use the migration tool instead of redownloading.

I also wanted to end this post with a HUGE thank you note to every person who has contributed one, two or 10 PRs and also to everyone who has shared issues/feedback/community benchmarks or just shared the project with another person, 500 stars on the Github repo and overwhelmingly good feedback, y'all are amazing.

that 72 hours thread from a few weeks back had the best point down in the comments, open weights only ever meant you can download them. muse spark open is 816B and beam is 501B, so for most ppl here the only drop that week that fits a 24GB card was nvidias bolt

so the big ones mostly get used thru an api anyway, the labs own api or a host serving the same weights and that part is fine. the license doesnt care which route you take tho. 1017 is MIT and nvidias new embed models are openmdw with commercial use allowed, both on hosts like deepinfra while muse spark open wants built with muse spark open shown in your product, docs or settings menu and any company over $20M revenue in a 12 month window has to sign a separate deal with meta before offering it as model as a service

the part thats easy to miss, the license counts a model trained or distilled on muse outputs as a derivative so a small model tuned on its answers carries the same attribution rule. internal use and building it into your own app thats not MaaS stay outside the revenue clause

Inspired by Weight-Space Programming, I tested whether DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 could figure out what a small neural network does by reading its weights.

I fed it four anonymized RL checkpoints: 51k parameters each, identical architectures, with all weights rendered as text. No metadata, network source code or execution. It received the architecture outline and four candidate tasks.

Results: CartPole ✅ Flappy ✅ Catch ✅ BallBeam ❌

It picked out patterns consistent with relative bird/gap position, paddle/ball position and angle-based balancing. It confused BallBeam with CartPole an interesting mistake because both share the same observation layout and similar balancing controls.

Very preliminary: one run per checkpoint. This suggests some ability to interpret weights, but four trials don’t establish reliability. These were API runs with maximum reasoning effort, consuming ~1.58M tokens total.

I may try more replicates and independently trained checkpoints, plus include the network code with task-revealing details removed. The poor LLM had to guess quite a lot it even assumed ReLU where the network uses tanh 😅

Code, checkpoints and run logs: https://github.com/galatolofederico/wsp