Hugging Face's logo

ManniX-ITA
/
gemma-4-A4B-98e-v5-coder-it-GGUF

GGUF
imatrix
quantized
conversational
Model card Files
xet
 Community
1
How to use from the
Use from the
llama-cpp-python library
# !pip install llama-cpp-python

from llama_cpp import Llama

llm = Llama.from_pretrained(
	repo_id="ManniX-ITA/gemma-4-A4B-98e-v5-coder-it-GGUF",
	filename="",
)

llm.create_chat_completion(
	messages = "No input example has been defined for this model task."
)

gemma-4-A4B-98e-v5-coder-it-GGUF

GGUF quantizations of ManniX-ITA/gemma-4-A4B-98e-v5-coder-it.

All quants made using imatrix with calibration data v5.

Removed tiers (2026-05-19 / 2026-05-20) — collapsed, broken, or Pareto-dominated

Seven GGUFs were deleted from this repo after the full HE+ sweep landed. They are intentionally absent from the tables below; do not re-quantize at these tiers without the rationale being addressed.

File (removed) Size HE+ Why removed
Q2_K.gguf 8.40 GB 6.10% plain k-quant collapses on this MoE chassis at 2-bit
CD-Q2_K.gguf 8.40 GB 4.27% full-override at 2-bit is worse than plain — no headroom for per-layer differentiation when every body tensor is already at the codebook floor
IQ2_XXS.gguf 7.37 GB crashed T66 eval: 12+ consecutive HTTP 500s from llama-server due to a 1-in-10 rumination-lock pattern at this bpw
IQ2_XS.gguf 7.77 GB 64.63% borderline-usable but well below IQ2_S (7.83 GB / 85.37%) at +0.06 GB — IQ2_S is the 2-bit pick
CD-Q4_K_M.gguf 10.59 GB 73.78% T58 rebuild had bad attn_v handling (confirmed by T61b ablation); superseded by CD-Q4_K_M_L.gguf (13 GB / 93.29%) below
CD-IQ3_M_L.gguf 10.19 GB 91.46% dominated by plain IQ3_M (9.82 GB / 91.46% — identical score at -0.37 GB); removed 2026-05-20 after full Q-family rescore
CD-Q6_K_L.gguf 14.95 GB 91.46% dominated by full-override CD-Q6_K (15.44 GB / 92.68%) and plain Q6_K (17.81 GB / 92.68%); removed 2026-05-20

Available Quantizations

Two CD families are published. The plain k-quants + IQ tiers are also here for direct comparison. HE+ pass@1 is the 164-question humaneval_plus_chat shadow task on the same 3090 rig + greedy recipe used for the rest of the card.

ContribDynamic full-override (CD-*) — per-layer importance from v3 imix; explicit per-tensor type assignment everywhere. Best disk-efficiency. All sizes are HF-displayed decimal GB (10⁹ bytes); ls -lh would show ~7% smaller values in GiB.

Quantization Size HE+ Notes
CD-Q6_K 15.44 GB 92.68% ties plain Q6_K (17.81 GB) at -2.37 GB
CD-Q5_K_M 13.01 GB 92.68% best size/score at this band among full-override
CD-IQ4_K_M (Canary W) 10.29 GB 92.07% matches plain Q4_K_M at -22% disk — recommended sub-11 GB CD pick
CD-Q3_K_M 9.94 GB 89.02% +4.87pp over plain Q3_K_M
CD-Q2_K (removed) 4.27% model collapses at 2-bit (cohort-wide; see below)

CD-mix _L family (2026-05-19, pruned 2026-05-20) — body-only --tensor-type-file override; heuristic protects attn_v / ffn_down / token_embd. Slightly heavier than full-override, cleaner abstraction. CD-Q4_K_M_L ties the cohort practical top (93.29%) at -0.24 GB vs plain Q4_K_M. Two tiers (CD-IQ3_M_L, CD-Q6_K_L) were Pareto-dominated by plain quants on the 2026-05-20 rescore and removed from this repo + ollama.

Quantization Size HE+ Notes
CD-Q4_K_M_L 13.00 GB 93.29% ties cohort practical top; +1.22pp over plain Q4_K_M at -0.24 GB
CD-IQ3_XS_L 9.27 GB 90.24% smallest viable code-grade _L quant; +5.48pp over plain Q3_K_M at -1.24 GB
CD-IQ3_M_L (removed) 10.19 GB 91.46% dominated by plain IQ3_M (9.82 GB / 91.46% — same score at -0.37 GB)
CD-Q6_K_L (removed) 14.95 GB 91.46% dominated by full-override CD-Q6_K (15.44 GB / 92.68%) and plain Q6_K (17.81 GB / 92.68%)

CD-mix _h family (2026-05-19, new) — same body-only override as _L, but the LOW tier is kept at MID's codebook class instead of being aggressively pushed lower. Recovers ~3–4pp at the IQ3_XS band relative to _L.

Quantization Size HE+ Notes
CD-IQ3_XS_h 9.72 GB 90.85% +0.61pp over CD-IQ3_XS_L at +0.45 GB
CD-IQ3_M_h 11.15 GB 92.07% ties plain Q4_K_M (13.24 GB) at -2.09 GB; -1.22pp vs CD-Q4_K_M_L (13.00 GB / 93.29%) at -1.85 GB

CD-Q4_K_M_h (13.29 GB / 92.07%) and CD-Q5_K_M_h (13.94 GB / 91.46%) were also built and evaluated but are intentionally not published: at their bpw they are Pareto-dominated by CD-IQ3_M_h (-2.14 GB at the same 92.07%) and by CD-Q4_K_M_L (13.00 GB / 93.29% — strictly higher score at smaller disk). CD-Q5_K_M_L (mix at the 5-bit band) is opt-in only — at ~13.9 GB / 90.85% it's heavier and lower than full-override CD-Q5_K_M for v5-coder. All three remain generatable via --recipes.

The full plain + IQ + CD comparison sweep with iso-disk analysis is in the head-to-head table.

How to Use

With llama.cpp:

llama-server -m gemma-4-A4B-98e-v5-coder-it-Q4_K_M.gguf -c 8192 -ngl 99

With ollama (requires Modelfile or HF direct load).

Original Model Card

Gemma 4 A4B 98-Expert v5-coder (20.8B) — code-leaning prune

A research checkpoint that takes 98e v4 and replaces its drop map with C6 layer-relevance-weighted v4-floor breadth=50 — a recipe that protects code/math experts more tightly per-layer than v4's multi-class CD-max. No shared FFN scaling. Same 98e shape, same router, same attention, same norms.

Quantized formats

Format Repo Notes
GGUF (llama.cpp / ollama) ManniX-ITA/gemma-4-A4B-98e-v5-coder-it-GGUF Full Bartowski tier sweep (Q2_K → Q8_0, IQ2-IQ4) + 5 ContribDynamic CD-* per-layer quants. F16 baseline included.
NVFP4A16 (vLLM) ManniX-ITA/gemma-4-A4B-98e-v5-coder-NVFP4A16 ~13 GB, native vLLM, produced via modelopt==0.43.0.
Ollama mannix/gemma4-98e-v5-coder Same GGUF tier sweep, ready for ollama pull.
98e v4 98e v5-coder (this model)
Total params 20.8B ~20.8B
Experts per layer 98 (30 dropped) 98 (30 dropped)
Drop map multi-class CD-map (max), p16 C6 layer-relevance-weighted v4-floor, breadth=50
Shared FFN α 1.0 1.0 (none)

Eval status — complete (9/9). ARC-Challenge was rescored 2026-05-18 on stack-pinned solidpc (stock vLLM 0.20.2 + Fix-A patched lm-eval) → 95.31 % ±0.62 pp, retiring the prior ⚠ from the silent-empty Fix-A pathology. The original 12.37 % was 87.6 % content="" responses because lm-eval's stock openai_completions.parse_generations didn't fall back to reasoning_content.

Scoreboard — NVFP4A16, vLLM, greedy

NVFP4A16 quant via nvidia-modelopt 0.43.0, served via vLLM 0.20.2 with --reasoning-parser gemma4, enable_thinking=true, thinking_token_budget=12288. Sampler: greedy (T=0, top_p=1, top_k=0, do_sample=false) — the canonical Gemma 4 9-bench recipe.

Bench (n) 128e ref 98e v4 98e v5-coder Δ (v5-coder − v4)
ARC-Challenge-chat (1172) 95.99% 95.99% 95.31% −0.68
GPQA Diamond flex (198) 73.23% 69.19% 68.69% −0.50
GSM8K-100 flex 91.00% 86.00% 86.00% 0.00
MATH-500-100 math_verify 89.00% 89.00% 92.00% +3.00
AIME 2024 (30) 36.67% 36.67% 36.67% 0.00
IFEval-100 (prompt_strict) 95.00% 93.00% 94.00% +1.00
HumanEval-164 chat 96.95% 96.95% 98.17% +1.22
HumanEval+-164 chat 92.07% 91.46% 92.68% +1.22
LCB-medium-55 v4 87.27% 78.18% 85.45% (47/55) +7.27

Reading the deltas: v5-coder is a deliberate code-leaning rewrite of v4's drop ranking. The C6 drop map protects per-layer code-relevance signal harder than v4's CD-max aggregation does — that shows up cleanly as +1.22 / +1.22 / +7.27 on the three code benches (HE / HE+ / LCB-medium), with MATH-500 also recovering +3.00pp (math-on-text is correlated with code reasoning more than v4's drop assumed). Reasoning and general-knowledge benches are essentially flat: GPQA −0.50pp, GSM8K 0.00, AIME 0.00, IFEval +1.00. The big win is LCB-medium +7.27pp — that's well outside the ±2pp single-run noise floor on a 55-problem bench and matches the recipe's design intent (preserve code-specialist experts at the cost of nothing).

ARC's prior −83.6pp gap (12.37% vs 95.99%) was not a v5-coder regression — it was the silent-empty Fix-A bug on the unpatched pod that ran it. 87.6% of the 1,172 ARC samples came back with empty content because vLLM 0.20.2 + Gemma 4 + reasoning-parser routes the answer to reasoning_content when the closing channel token isn't seen, and lm-eval's stock parse_generations reads content only. The model itself was fine; the eval harness wasn't patched. Stack-pinned rescore 2026-05-18 landed at 95.31 % — exactly inside the predicted 95–97 % band and within stderr of 128e (95.99 %) and v4 (95.99 %).

HumanEval / HumanEval+ sanity audit

98.17% / 92.68% sits at the top of the 14–22B band (see lazy comparison below), so the samples files were re-audited to rule out a scoring artifact. Audit script: scripts/audit_v5coder_he.py.

Bench n score empty fenced chars p10/p50/p90 verbatim-canonical-in-gen
HumanEval-164 164 0.9817 1 163 270 / 642 / 1324 3.0% (5/164)
HumanEval+-164 164 0.9268 3 161 270 / 620 / 1244 1.8% (3/164)
  • Fences are stripped correctly. 163/164 (HE) and 161/164 (HE+) outputs are wrapped in \``pythonchat fences. lm-eval's chat-aware HE/HE+ scorer (built on thehumaneval_chatshadow task — see [v4 card §Eval Caveat](https://huggingface.co/ManniX-ITA/gemma-4-A4B-98e-v4-it)) extracts the function body beforeexec(). If fences were leaking through, pass@1 would collapse to ~0 (per [feedback_gemma4_chat_only_completions_breaks.md`](https://github.com/mann1x/omnimergekit/blob/main/memory/feedback_gemma4_chat_only_completions_breaks.md)); 98.17% is only possible with correct stripping.
  • Empty-response rate is normal. 1/164 HE and 3/164 HE+ are blank — within Gemma 4 reasoning-mode noise; not the 87.6%-empty pathology that hit ARC.
  • No catastrophic contamination. Only 3.0% (HE) and 1.8% (HE+) of generations contain the canonical solution as a verbatim substring. A model that had memorized HE from pretraining would show 30%+; the few verbatim matches here are short structurally-inevitable solutions (e.g. has_close_elements O(n²) double-loop).
  • HE → HE+ delta is healthy. −5.49pp drop across the +/− boundary. HE+ adds adversarial test cases that catch brittle solutions which pass the public tests but fail edge cases. A 0pp drop would actually be a memorization red flag; ~−5pp is the expected band for a strong-but-not-memorized model.
  • Failures look real. The 3 HE failures are 1 empty (doc_id 122) plus 2 wrong-logic attempts (doc_id 140 fix_spaces, doc_id 145 order_by_points). The 12 HE+ failures are mostly "passes basic tests, fails edge cases" — exactly the regime HE+ exists to expose.

Conclusion: 98.17 / 92.68 is real. Not a scoring artifact, not memorization, not silent-empty.

Lazy comparison vs the 14–22B coder field

For sense-of-scale on whether 98.17 is anomalous. All numbers are official model-card / paper / blog (linked).

Coder-specialized 14–22B:

Model Params HE HE+ LCB (version) Source
98e v5-coder (this) 20.8B / 4B MoE 98.17 92.68 85.45 (LCB-medium-55 v4) this card
Qwen2.5-Coder-14B-Instruct 14.7B dense 89.6 87.2 23.4 (LCB 07/24–11/24, pre-v4) arXiv:2409.12186
DeepSeek-Coder-V2-Lite-Instruct 16B / 2.4B MoE 81.1 — 24.3 (LCB 12/01–06/01) arXiv:2406.11931
Codestral-22B v1 22B dense 81.1 — (not published) Mistral blog
IBM Granite-20B-Code-Instruct 20B dense 60.4 — — arXiv:2405.04324

Generalist 14–22B (notable code scores):

Model Params HE MATH GPQA-D IFEval Source
98e v5-coder (this) 20.8B / 4B MoE 98.17 92.00 (MATH-500) 68.69 94.00 this card
Phi-4 14B dense 82.6 80.4 (MATH) 56.1 63.0 arXiv:2412.08905
Qwen2.5-14B-Instruct 14.7B dense 81.7–86.2 73.0 (MATH) 40.9 80.0 Qwen blog
Mistral-Small-3 (24B, just above band) 24B dense ~84 70.6 (MATH) 45.3 82.1 Mistral blog

Where v5-coder sits:

  • HE / HE+: top of the band, ~+8–10pp above Qwen2.5-Coder-14B's 89.6 / 87.2 (the published field leader). The audit above rules out scoring artifacts; the gap is real on this run.
  • LCB: not apples-to-apples with Qwen2.5-Coder or DS-Coder-V2-Lite. Those numbers are full LCB on pre-v4 problem windows (LCB-2024.07–11 and LCB-2024.12–06.01 respectively). v5-coder's 85.45% is LCB-medium-55 on v4 problems — a different subset and a different problem set. A fair comparison would require running Qwen2.5-Coder-14B on the same LCB-medium-55 v4 split, which nobody has published. Don't read +60pp into the LCB column.
  • MATH-500 92.00 / GSM8K 86 / AIME 36.67: top of the band for math-on-text reasoning. Phi-4's 80.4 MATH is the closest generalist; v5-coder beats it by ~12pp. AIME 36.67 is currently the only published 14–22B AIME score in this comparison set (Qwen2.5-Coder and Codestral don't evaluate AIME).
  • GPQA-Diamond 68.69 / IFEval 94.00: GPQA is materially above Phi-4 (56.1) and Qwen2.5-14B (40.9). IFEval 94 ties Mistral-Small-3 (82.1) and beats Phi-4 (63.0) — Phi-4's instruction-following is its known weakness.

Caveats on this comparison: different labs use different system prompts, different temperature/top_p, different "chat vs base" framings, different sampling counts. v5-coder is run greedy (T=0); some published numbers (e.g. Phi-4) use multi-sample averaging. Within-card deltas (v4 vs v5-coder) are the cleanest signal; cross-card deltas are noisy by ±2-5pp.

Same-Stack GGUF HE+ Sweep — v5-coder vs Qwen2.5-Coder-14B-Instruct

Head-to-head HumanEval+ (164-question, chat-aware shadow task) on identical hardware (single RTX 3090 24 GB) and identical eval recipe (llama-server -c 32768 -ngl 99 --parallel 2 --jinja --reasoning off, omk_eval llama backend, lm-eval humaneval_plus_chat, greedy T=0, max_gen_toks=16384). Qwen GGUFs are bartowski's Qwen2.5-Coder-14B-Instruct-GGUF.

The "Lazy comparison" table above uses paper-reported numbers; this section is what the same rig and same scorer actually measure.

v5-coder (20.8B total / 4B-active MoE) — plain k-quant full sweep (2026-05-20, 15 tiers)

Tier File size bpw HE+ pass@1
Q2_K (removed) 8.40 GB 3.23 6.10% (collapse — see removed tiers)
Q3_K_S 9.68 GB 3.72 76.83%
Q3_K_M 10.51 GB 4.04 84.15%
Q3_K_XL 10.69 GB 4.11 84.15%
Q3_K_L 10.94 GB 4.21 90.24%
Q4_0 11.42 GB 4.39 90.85%
Q4_K_S 12.21 GB 4.70 93.29% ⭐
Q4_1 12.61 GB 4.85 92.07%
Q4_K_M 13.24 GB 5.09 92.07%
Q4_K_L 13.42 GB 5.16 92.07%
Q5_K_S 14.19 GB 5.46 92.07%
Q5_K_M 15.07 GB 5.80 91.46%
Q5_K_L 15.25 GB 5.87 93.29% ⭐
Q6_K 17.81 GB 6.85 92.68%
Q6_K_L 17.98 GB 6.92 92.68%
Q8_0 21.16 GB 8.14 93.90% ⭐⭐

Three reads from the plain sweep.

  1. Q4_K_S is the new plain sweet spot. At 12.21 GB / 4.70 bpw it scores 93.29% — +1.22pp over Q4_K_M at -1.03 GB, and ties the cohort practical top. This is the recommended plain quant for v5-coder. Q4_K_M is still fine (92.07%) but Q4_K_S is strictly better.
  2. Q8_0 is the cohort top at 93.90%. Almost +1pp over the 93.29% tier and -2.7pp gap to F16. Only pick it if you have the disk; it's not a recommendation.
  3. Q5_K_L (15.25 GB / 93.29%) and Q3_K_L (10.94 GB / 90.24%) are the L-band winners. Both beat the M/S counterparts at their byte size by clean margins. Q3_K_XL is a 0.25 GB heavier Q3_K_M and scores the same — skip it.

The big gotcha: Q3_K_S collapses (76.83%) where Q3_K_M is fine (84.15%) — the bpw floor for plain k-quants on this MoE chassis is ~4 bpw. Anything sub-4 bpw needs the IQ codebook (see next table) or the CD-mix _L family above.

v5-coder low-bpw IQ tier sweep (T64, complete 2026-05-19)

Sub-4-bpw plain k-quants collapse on this MoE chassis (Q2_K at 3.23 bpw is the demonstration). The i-matrix codebook IQ-quants behave very differently — they survive much further down. Sweep ran on the same rig + recipe as the plain quants above:

Tier File size bpw HE+ pass@1
IQ2_XS 7.77 GB 2.99 64.63% (removed)
IQ2_S 7.83 GB 3.01 85.37%
IQ2_M 8.22 GB 3.16 86.59%
IQ3_XXS 8.95 GB 3.44 89.63%
IQ3_XS 9.22 GB 3.55 89.63%
IQ3_M 9.82 GB 3.78 91.46%
IQ4_XS 11.01 GB 4.23 93.29% ⭐
IQ4_NL 11.42 GB 4.39 92.68%

Four reads from the IQ sweep:

  • IQ4_XS is the new sub-12 GB top. At 11.01 GB / 4.23 bpw it scores 93.29% — tying the cohort practical top with the smallest disk footprint at that score band. Beats plain Q4_K_M (13.24 GB / 92.07%) by +1.22pp at -2.23 GB. If you have 11 GB of disk, this is the pick.
  • IQ2_S is the 2-bit cliff edge. At 7.83 GB / 3.01 bpw it scores 85.37% — only +0.06 GB / +0.02 bpw above IQ2_XS (7.77 GB / 64.63%, removed) but +20.74pp higher. Right next door, IQ2_XXS (7.37 GB / 2.81 bpw, also removed) rumination-locks the server. The codebook quality threshold for v5-coder on HumanEval+ sits between 2.99 and 3.01 bpw.
  • IQ codebook ≫ K-quant body at 3-bit. IQ3_M (3.78 bpw) at 91.46% beats Q3_K_L (4.21 bpw) at 90.24% by +1.22pp while running 0.43 bpw lower. Q3_K_S at 3.72 bpw collapses to 76.83% — 14.6pp below IQ3_M at near-identical bpw. The imatrix codebook protects the value-vector subspace through the sub-4-bpw zone where fixed-block k-quants lose attention precision.
  • IQ3_XXS at 8.95 GB / 89.63% is the size winner in the sub-9.5 GB band — strict improvement over plain Q3_K_M (10.51 GB / 84.15%) on every axis (-1.6 GB, -0.6 bpw, +5.48pp). IQ3_XS and IQ3_XXS tie at 89.63% — pick IQ3_XXS for the smaller bytes.

Qwen2.5-Coder-14B-Instruct (14.7B dense) — bartowski quants

Tier File size bpw HE+ pass@1
IQ4_XS 8.12 GB 4.42 84.76%
Q4_0 8.54 GB 4.65 84.15%
Q4_K_M 8.99 GB 4.89 85.37%
Q5_K_M 10.51 GB 5.72 83.54%
Q6_K 12.12 GB 6.60 84.76%
Q8_0 15.70 GB 8.54 84.76%

Qwen sits at 83–85% across the whole tier ladder. The paper-reported 87.2 HE+ is ~2pp above what bartowski's GGUFs deliver on this stack — a known llama-server chat-template vs vLLM-temp=0 quirk, not a quant defect.

Head-to-head by file size (v5-coder runs lower bpw at the same disk)

Pairing by tier name is misleading here — v5-coder is a 20.8B-total MoE and Qwen is a 14.7B dense, so the same tier name maps to different file sizes. The fair comparison is iso-disk: at a given GB budget, which model wins HE+? At every band, v5-coder uses 2–3 bpw less than Qwen and still scores higher.

Disk band Qwen2.5-Coder-14B (size / bpw / HE+) v5-coder best (size / bpw / HE+) Δ HE+
~21 GB (none — Qwen ceiling is Q8_0 15.7 GB) Q8_0 21.16 GB / 8.14 / 93.90% ⭐⭐ new top
~15 GB Q8_0 15.70 GB / 8.54 / 84.76% Q5_K_L 15.25 GB / 5.87 / 93.29% +8.53
~15 GB Q8_0 15.70 GB / 8.54 / 84.76% CD-Q6_K (full) 15.44 GB / 5.94 / 92.68% +7.92
~14 GB (gap) Q5_K_S 14.19 GB / 5.46 / 92.07% —
~13 GB Q6_K 12.12 GB / 6.60 / 84.76% CD-Q4_K_M_L 13.00 GB / 5.00 / 93.29% +8.53
~13 GB Q6_K 12.12 GB / 6.60 / 84.76% CD-Q5_K_M (full) 13.01 GB / 5.00 / 92.68% +7.92
~12 GB Q6_K 12.12 GB / 6.60 / 84.76% Q4_K_S 12.21 GB / 4.70 / 93.29% ⭐ +8.53
~11 GB Q5_K_M 10.51 GB / 5.72 / 83.54% IQ4_XS 11.01 GB / 4.23 / 93.29% ⭐ +9.75
~10.5 GB Q5_K_M 10.51 GB / 5.72 / 83.54% Q3_K_L 10.94 GB / 4.21 / 90.24% +6.70
~10 GB Q5_K_M 10.51 GB / 5.72 / 83.54% IQ3_M 9.82 GB / 3.78 / 91.46% +7.92
~10 GB Q5_K_M 10.51 GB / 5.72 / 83.54% CD-IQ4_K_M (Canary W) 10.29 GB / 3.96 / 92.07% +8.53
~9.7 GB Q4_K_M 8.99 GB / 4.89 / 85.37% CD-IQ3_XS_h 9.72 GB / 3.74 / 90.85% +5.48
~9.3 GB Q4_K_M 8.99 GB / 4.89 / 85.37% CD-IQ3_XS_L 9.27 GB / 3.57 / 90.24% +4.87
~9.2 GB Q4_K_M 8.99 GB / 4.89 / 85.37% IQ3_XS 9.22 GB / 3.55 / 89.63% +4.26
~9 GB Q4_K_M 8.99 GB / 4.89 / 85.37% IQ3_XXS 8.95 GB / 3.44 / 89.63% +4.26
~8 GB IQ4_XS 8.12 GB / 4.42 / 84.76% IQ2_S 7.83 GB / 3.01 / 85.37% +0.61

Four things to read from this table.

  1. The cohort top is now Q8_0 at 93.90% — but the disk cost (21.16 GB) makes it impractical for most. The practical cohort top is a five-way tie at 93.29%: Q8_0 (next-best non-tied), Q4_K_S (12.21 GB), IQ4_XS (11.01 GB), Q5_K_L (15.25 GB), and CD-Q4_K_M_L (13.00 GB). Pick by disk budget: 11 GB → IQ4_XS, 12 GB → Q4_K_S, 13 GB → CD-Q4_K_M_L, 15 GB → Q5_K_L.

  2. CD-IQ4_K_M (Canary W) is still the sub-11 GB disk-efficiency winner. 10.29 GB / 92.07% — at -22% disk vs the practical-top tier and only -1.22pp vs the 93.29% band. Below that, plain IQ3_M at 9.82 GB / 91.46%, CD-IQ3_XS_h at 9.72 GB / 90.85%, and CD-IQ3_XS_L at 9.27 GB / 90.24% extend the ladder into a band where Qwen has no comparable tier.

  3. v5-coder now competes below 8 GB. IQ2_S at 7.83 GB / 3.01 bpw scores 85.37% — narrowly beating Qwen IQ4_XS (8.12 GB / 4.42 bpw / 84.76%) by +0.61pp at -0.29 GB and -1.41 bpw. The previous "v5-coder floor is 8.95 GB" hole is closed; IQ2_S is the smallest publishable code-grade quant in the cohort. Plain Q2_K (8.40 GB) still collapses to 6.10% — the 2-bit cliff is an IQ-codebook phenomenon, not a tier-bytes one.

  4. vs Qwen the picture is unchanged but sharpened. At every disk band v5-coder uses 1.3–3.5 bpw less than the matching Qwen tier and still wins by +0.61 to +9.75pp. The 11 GB band (v5-coder IQ4_XS vs Qwen Q5_K_M) is the new biggest gap: +9.75pp at -1.49 bpw.

Pure tier-name matching (Qwen Q4_K_M vs v5-coder Q4_K_M etc.) would put v5-coder ~4 GB larger at every tier and ~+7pp ahead. That comparison is symmetric but unfair to Qwen's smaller footprint. The iso-disk view above is the one to plan VRAM around.

CD recipes — both the full-override CD-* family and the new CD-mix _L family — are open-source. Generator scripts live in omnimergekit/scripts/generate_cd_maps.py (full override) and generate_cd_maps_mix.py (mix family, 13 recipes including _hybrid). Per-layer importance source: v5coder_layer_importance_v3_imix.json (neuron×0.5 + imatrix×0.5).

Run logs and samples live under eval_results_hep_sweep/humanevalplus_full/ and pod_archive/ in the project tree.

What changed vs v4 (mechanical detail)

Identical surgery flow to v4 with one substitution — a different drop map.

  1. Same base: google/gemma-4-26B-A4B-it (128e).
  2. Same drop count: 30 experts per layer (98 retained).
  3. Same protect_top=16 shield.
  4. Different ranking signal: instead of score[layer][expert] = max over normalized classes (wnorm·α + tc) (v4), v5-coder scores each expert by a layer-relevance-weighted floor against v4's keep set, with breadth=50 controlling how many top-relevance experts get the floor lift before the bottom-30 cutoff is taken. The recipe scripts live in omnimergekit (T25 / T28 / T30 / C6 series — see feedback_* memory for the ablation history).
  5. Same downstream: slice expert tensors, resize MoE router proj.weight from [128, hidden] → [98, hidden], update config.json: num_experts=98, GGUF conversion + quant pipeline unchanged.

No shared FFN scaling (verified: layers.0.mlp.down_proj.weight is byte-for-byte identical to v4 in BF16).

When to pick which 98e variant

Variant Lean Pick when
v3 pooled TF (no class signal) reference baseline; you want the original v3 numbers
v4 balanced (5-class CD-map) general-purpose; first 98e you'd default to
v5 v4 + shared FFN α=1.2 when you want v4 with a louder expert-mixture residual (research checkpoint)
v5-coder (this) code-leaning C6 floor HumanEval / HumanEval+ / LCB / MultiPL-E workloads; +7pp on LCB-medium

Usage

Transformers 

from transformers import AutoModelForCausalLM, AutoTokenizer
import torch

model = AutoModelForCausalLM.from_pretrained(
    "ManniX-ITA/gemma-4-A4B-98e-v5-coder-it",
    torch_dtype=torch.bfloat16,
    device_map="auto",
    attn_implementation="eager",  # Gemma 4 head_dim=512 — FA2 not supported
)
tok = AutoTokenizer.from_pretrained("ManniX-ITA/gemma-4-A4B-98e-v5-coder-it")

msgs = [{"role": "user", "content": "Write a Python function that reverses a binary tree in-place."}]
inputs = tok.apply_chat_template(msgs, return_tensors="pt", add_generation_prompt=True).to(model.device)
out = model.generate(inputs, max_new_tokens=2048, do_sample=False)  # greedy, canonical recipe
print(tok.decode(out[0][inputs.shape[1]:], skip_special_tokens=True))

vLLM (NVFP4A16, canonical eval recipe) 

python -m vllm.entrypoints.openai.api_server \
    --model ManniX-ITA/gemma-4-A4B-98e-v5-coder-NVFP4A16 \
    --served-model-name 98e_v5_coder_nvfp4a16 \
    --port 8099 \
    --gpu-memory-utilization 0.55 \
    --max-model-len 32768 \
    --max-num-batched-tokens 8192 \
    --dtype bfloat16 \
    --trust-remote-code \
    --reasoning-parser gemma4 \
    --default-chat-template-kwargs '{"enable_thinking": true}'

llama.cpp (GGUF) 

llama-server -m gemma-4-A4B-98e-v5-coder-it-Q6_K.gguf \
    --port 8099 -c 32768 -ngl 99 --no-warmup \
    --jinja --reasoning-format deepseek --reasoning-budget 12288 \
    --temp 0 --top-p 1 --top-k 0

GGUF quants: ManniX-ITA/gemma-4-A4B-98e-v5-coder-it-GGUF — full Bartowski tier sweep (Q2_K → Q8_0, IQ2-IQ4) plus 5 ContribDynamic CD-* per-layer quants (CD-Q2_K, CD-Q3_K_L, CD-Q4_K_M, CD-Q5_K_M, CD-Q6_K). File naming: gemma-4-A4B-98e-v5-coder-it-<TIER>.gguf. (CD-Q3 currently on HF as CD-Q3_K_M.gguf; rename pending — see top of card.)

ollama 

ollama pull mannix/gemma4-98e-v5-coder:Q6_K
ollama run mannix/gemma4-98e-v5-coder:Q6_K

Available tiers: mannix/gemma4-98e-v5-coder — same set as the GGUF repo (Q2_K … Q8_0, IQ2_* … IQ4_*, CD-Q2_K … CD-Q6_K). Modelfile uses Gemma 4 tool/parser template (matches mannix/gemma4-98e-v4 convention).

Related Models

Model Description
gemma-4-A4B-98e-v5-coder-NVFP4A16 NVFP4A16 quant (~13 GB, vLLM-ready)
gemma-4-A4B-98e-v5-coder-it-GGUF GGUF tier sweep + CD per-layer quants (llama.cpp / ollama)
mannix/gemma4-98e-v5-coder (Ollama) Ollama-published version of the GGUF tier sweep
gemma-4-A4B-98e-v4-it The apples-to-apples baseline for this model
gemma-4-A4B-98e-v5-it Sibling: v4 + shared FFN α=1.2
gemma-4-A4B-98e-v3-it Earlier baseline (pooled TF map)

Recipe + Code

OmniMergeKit is the canonical home. The relevant artifacts for this model:

  • scripts/v5coder_C6_v4floor_perlayer_breadth50_drop_map.json — the drop map (embedded in expert_drop_metadata.json).
  • scripts/expert_drop.py — drop applier (unchanged across v3/v4/v5/v5-coder).
  • eval/EVAL_PROTOCOL.md — locked greedy methodology for the 9-bench suite, including the mandatory Fix-A patch for lm-eval's openai_completions.parse_generations (without it, ARC and other chat-completions benches silent-empty under Gemma 4 + reasoning-parser).

Eval Caveat — Fix-A is mandatory

This model was evaluated on a pod whose lm-eval install was missing the Fix-A reasoning_content fallback patch in openai_completions.parse_generations. Under vLLM 0.20.2 + --reasoning-parser gemma4, Gemma 4 emits the answer to the message's reasoning_content field and leaves content="" whenever the parser doesn't see the closing channel token. Without Fix-A, lm-eval reads only content and scores those responses as empty (= wrong on multiple-choice tasks). On ARC-Challenge this produced 1027 empty / 1172 total → 12.37% pass. On the other 7 benches, the silent-empty rate stayed below 10% (because the prompt templates land in a regime where the model emits a content phase reliably), so their scores are within the canonical band.

The lesson is captured permanently in omnimergekit/eval/EVAL_PROTOCOL.md and the canonical pod bootstrap (pod_setup_eval_envs.sh) auto-applies Fix-A — every new eval pod now starts in the patched state.

License

This model inherits the Gemma license from the base model.

Acknowledgements

  • Google for the base Gemma 4 26B-A4B-it model
  • The OmniMergeKit project for the surgery + eval toolkit
  • The vLLM and modelopt teams for the NVFP4A16 serving / quantization pipeline
  • bartowski for the calibration data v5 used in imatrix GGUF quantization
Downloads last month
23,710
GGUF
Model size
20B params
Architecture
gemma4
Hardware compatibility
Log In to add your hardware

2-bit

3-bit

4-bit

5-bit

6-bit

8-bit

16-bit

Inference Providers NEW
This model isn't deployed by any Inference Provider. 🙋 Ask for provider support

Model tree for ManniX-ITA/gemma-4-A4B-98e-v5-coder-it-GGUF

Base model

google/gemma-4-26B-A4B
Finetuned
google/gemma-4-26B-A4B-it
Finetuned
ManniX-ITA/gemma-4-A4B-98e-v4-it
Finetuned
ManniX-ITA/gemma-4-A4B-98e-v5-coder-it
Quantized
(2)
this model

Papers for ManniX-ITA/gemma-4-A4B-98e-v5-coder-it-GGUF