bonsai-2-27b-gsq-rco-gguf
ProCreations基础档案已收录,详细介绍后续补充。可先查看厂商、分类与来源。
从语言到影像,从开源到 API。读懂模型能力、比较真实成本,
为你的下一个想法,找到合适的智能引擎。
基础档案已收录,详细介绍后续补充。可先查看厂商、分类与来源。
基础档案已收录,详细介绍后续补充。可先查看厂商、分类与来源。
基础资料已收录 · 缺失资料后续补充
基础档案已收录,详细介绍后续补充。可先查看厂商、分类与来源。
基础资料已收录 · 缺失资料后续补充
基础档案已收录,详细介绍后续补充。可先查看厂商、分类与来源。
**2026-07-23: all rocks re-squeezed from v2.1 weights** (deep think on hard problems, stuck-loop escape, stop discipline - full changelog on grug-27b card). re-download if you grab rocks before. mmproj unchanged (vision tower untouched). this GGUF of grug-27b: Qwen3.6-27B that think in dense grug-speak inside ` `, answer in normal english. same reasoning depth, way fewer think token. full story on main model card. both parent grug hunt HumanEval and sanitized MBPP. number below come from big parent brain, NOT squeezed GGUF rock. grug not claim rock test it never get. number show pass@1 percent. bold grug win that hunt.
译文排队中 · 当前显示来源原文
grug rock WITH prediction head inside. Q8_0 / Q5_K_M / Q4_K_M, mtp tensors included for llama.cpp speculative decoding (needs build with qwen3_5 MTP support). draft head trained on grug data: t+2 agreement 89.3%. main card: grug-27b-mtp. no-MTP rocks: grug-27b-gguf. grug made by ProCreations.
译文排队中 · 当前显示来源原文
**2026-07-23 refresh: rock now QAT-trained from grug-27b v2.1 weights** (deep-think + agent-discipline update). bench table below measured on the v1-era rock vs v1 control - directional guide still; v2.1 rock inherit both the QAT recovery AND the v2.1 brain improvements. grug put 27b brain in four-bit cave DURING training. brain feel rounding rock before final squish. this not normal quant. this QAT recovery rock, made for Q4 people. recipe (same as grug-9b-qat, scaled): full-weight QAT on grug-27b, fake int4 asymmetric group-32 with straight-through gradient, ~3M token of grug-think data, Adafactor LR 2e-6, 249 step on one H200. release = 25% QAT move + 75% original anchor (full QAT overcorrect, 9b teach grug this). then fresh BF16 export, quantize ONE time to Q4_K_M.
译文排队中 · 当前显示来源原文
基础档案已收录,详细介绍后续补充。可先查看厂商、分类与来源。
基础资料已收录 · 缺失资料后续补充
基础档案已收录,详细介绍后续补充。可先查看厂商、分类与来源。
基础资料已收录 · 缺失资料后续补充
基础档案已收录,详细介绍后续补充。可先查看厂商、分类与来源。
基础资料已收录 · 缺失资料后续补充
基础档案已收录,详细介绍后续补充。可先查看厂商、分类与来源。
基础资料已收录 · 缺失资料后续补充
基础档案已收录,详细介绍后续补充。可先查看厂商、分类与来源。
基础档案已收录,详细介绍后续补充。可先查看厂商、分类与来源。
基础资料已收录 · 缺失资料后续补充
Updated September 18, 2026 with the best verified continued-training checkpoint: **r2-dflash**. The original Ternary Bonsai 2 27B PQ2_0 target is unchanged. The head is available as BF16 master weights and **integer Q8_0** inference weights, not FP8. Matched testing against the previous release measured **169.12 → 170.04 decode tokens/sec (+0.54%)** on eight unseen prompts with two repeats. This is a small measured gain, not a large speedup. Both arms used the same runtime and maximum 3 draft tokens. Acceptance is accepted draft tokens divided by proposed draft tokens. Throughput is total generated tokens divided by total decode time, including reasoning tokens. The complete comparison links to the preserved raw requests, outputs and counters in the same reports directory.
译文排队中 · 当前显示来源原文
Updated September 18, 2026 with the best verified continued-training checkpoint: **r3-mtp**. The original Ternary Bonsai 2 27B PQ2_0 target is unchanged. The head is available as BF16 master weights and **integer Q8_0** inference weights, not FP8. **The +1.26% below is the extra gain over our previous trained MTP head, not the total gain from enabling MTP.** For an independent MTP-on versus MTP-off comparison, see the community reproduction below. Matched testing against the previous release measured **167.14 → 169.25 decode tokens/sec (+1.26%)** on eight unseen prompts with two repeats. This is a small measured gain, not a large speedup. Both arms used the same runtime and maximum 2 draft tokens.
译文排队中 · 当前显示来源原文
可以调整厂商、分类或输入输出条件;新模型正持续收录。
调整月度 Token 用量,直观比较不同模型的预估 API 开支。
使用已采集且单位可比的 USD / 百万 Token 渠道报价。报价为采集时快照;不计缓存优惠、阶梯价、推理额外输出与税费,请以来源的当前报价为准。
先区分输入、输出和缓存价格,再使用同一任务和用量估算总费用。图像、音频和视频可能按张、时长或分辨率计费,不能直接与 Token 单价比较。
不一定。必须逐一核对具体模型版本的许可证、商用限制及使用政策。自己部署还需要考虑显存、推理资源和运维费用。
榜单取决于测试任务、版本与评测方法。建议用实际业务样本比较准确性、时延、稳定性和成本,再选择模型。