Have you tested the AIME-2026 scores for this version?

#2
by ghostplant - opened

Hi,

I evaluated the AIME-2026 benchmark using this NVFP4 model and only got 90%, whereas the officially reported score is 99%.

Under the same settings on GPU-5.1-NVFP4 (temperature=1, top_p=0.95), the result looks much better: 96% on AIME-26.

So I’m wondering whether this quantization may be suboptimal.

I didn’t (and currently can’t) evaluate the official BF16 weights because I don’t have enough disk space or GPU memory to run them.

Just for comparison, I did run the AIME-2026 benchmark of nvidia/GLM-5.2-NVFP4 and also got only 90.83% with this config:

model: glm-5.2
api: custom
api_key_env: OPENAI_API_KEY
base_url: http://<HOST>:<PORT>/v1
max_tokens: 131072
concurrent_requests: 8
temperature: 1.0
top_p: 0.95
reasoning_effort: max
extra_body:
  thinking:
    type: enabled
read_cost: 0
write_cost: 0
human_readable_id: GLM 5.2 Nvidia NVFP4
date: "2026-06-22"
other_params:
  open: true
  creator: Z.ai
  parameters: 753
  active_parameters: 40
  huggingface_id: nvidia/GLM-5.2-NVFP4
stream_openai_chat_completions: true

and this command (delete the "vllm" dependency before from pyproject.toml):

uv run python scripts/run.py --comp aime/aime_2026 --models glm/glm-52-nvfp4 --n 4

The following problems failed:
Problem 15 and 30: all 4 runs failed, Problem 29: 2 runs failed, Problem 20: 1 run failed, Problem 29: 2 runs failed.

Maybe later I can try the failed problems with the Z.ai API to see if it is really better.

Yes, I previously found that one of 3 wrong cases was due to incorrect match by the judger, so the correct scores should be around 93%.
If enabling tool_use, the scores go up to 99% for nvfp4.

Sign up or log in to comment