metadata
license: apache-2.0
tags:
- benchmark
- quantization
- gptq
- awq
QuantBench leaderboard data
Raw benchmark data behind the QuantBench leaderboard: calibration-quality GPTQ/AWQ quantization results across model sizes, calibration corpora, and GPU tiers. 331 rows (239 ok / 92 failed — failed runs are published too; a documented failure is a finding, not noise).
Models
Qwen/Qwen2.5-1.5B-Instruct(1.5B)HuggingFaceTB/SmolLM2-1.7B-Instruct(1.7B)deepgrove/Bonsai(0.5B)Qwen/Qwen2.5-3B-Instruct(3B) — licence pending, rows only, no weights hereHuggingFaceTB/SmolLM3-3B(3B)
Files
rows.csv— the full table (see the leaderboard site for column definitions and the methodology page for the eval protocol).<row_id>.json— one file per row, same fields as itsrows.csvline.niche_rows.csv— task-level niche columns over the same artifacts (HumanEval[0:50] pass@1, FiQA-2018 sentiment accuracy [flare-finqa is gated for this token — instrument recorded per row], SEC-filing context drift, 10-prompt ROUGE-L consistency), each vs a same-stack fp16 baseline; failures/skips recorded as rows.logs/— the driver log, last heartbeat, and spend ledger from the run that produced this data (transparency, not polish — these are raw operational logs).pools/BUILD.md— exact recipe to reproduce the calibration/eval text pools. No third-party corpus text is redistributed here.
Honesty notes carried into every row
- GPTQ rows in this sweep ran gptqmodel's torch-fallback kernel path
(
load_backendcolumn), not the optimized kernel — perplexity is unaffected, throughput numbers understate what a working kernel would show. - fp16 baselines are per-stack (autoawq vs gptqmodel use different
torch/transformers pins), so
ppl_delta_vs_fp16is only comparable within one stack and one GPU tier, never across them. webgpu_runnableis[UNVERIFIED]on every row — no browser measurement was run.- Machine-generated benchmark output. Independent verification welcome; treat any single row as a data point, not a certified result.