Do the numbers differ from Ornith and Qwen graphs?

#1
by hgeist - opened

If I compare them to the graphs at Ornith 35B and the table values at Qwen3.6 27B (I know you compare to Qwen3.5 27B): The values you claim for Qwen and Ornith seem to differ. Could this be a mistake?

  1. Evaluation method. All metrics presented in the table are reproduced in-house: we download the public model checkpoints, deploy them via vLLM or SGLang, and evaluate under a unified standardized pipeline. No officially reported results of the respective models are directly adopted in this table. Each model is tested only once on each evaluation set; retests are conducted only if obvious errors are found.

Thanks for flagging this. The difference is not a transcription error; it mainly comes from differences in evaluation methodology and configuration.

All values in our table are reproduced in-house from public checkpoints deployed with vLLM or SGLang. We do not directly copy the officially reported numbers from the Ornith or Qwen reports. We use a unified evaluation pipeline, with pass@1 and a single run per benchmark, so our results are not strictly comparable to official graphs that may use different harness versions, agents, toolsets, prompts, or test-set optimizations.

Our main settings are:

  • SWE-bench and KAT-Code-Bench: Claude Code 2.1.195, temperature 1.0, top-p 0.95, 256K context.
  • Terminal-Bench 2.1: Terminus-2/Claude Code, temperature 0.7, top-p 1.0.
  • PinchBench: OpenClaw 2026.3.13, temperature 0.7, top-p 1.0.
  • SciCode: temperature 0.6, top-p 1.0.

We also welcome you and the community to download our model and evaluate it independently under your preferred setup. We would be happy to compare results and investigate any meaningful discrepancies together.

I'm intrigued, why choose Qwen3.5 27B instead of Qwen3.6 27B?

Thx for the infos.

Sign up or log in to comment