---
base_model: ManniX-ITA/gemma-4-A4B-98e-v4-it
tags:
  - gemma4
  - moe
  - expert-pruning
  - code
  - surgery
  - omnimergekit
license: gemma
---

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

A research checkpoint that takes [98e v4](https://huggingface.co/ManniX-ITA/gemma-4-A4B-98e-v4-it) 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`](https://huggingface.co/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`](https://huggingface.co/ManniX-ITA/gemma-4-A4B-98e-v5-coder-NVFP4A16) | ~13 GB, native vLLM, produced via [`modelopt==0.43.0`](https://github.com/NVIDIA/TensorRT-Model-Optimizer). |
| **Ollama** | [`mannix/gemma4-98e-v5-coder`](https://ollama.com/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](https://huggingface.co/ManniX-ITA/gemma-4-A4B-98e-v4-it#anomalies-inspected). 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](https://github.com/NVIDIA/TensorRT-Model-Optimizer), 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 %).**

## Scoreboard — Q6_K GGUF, llama.cpp, greedy

A **separate** measurement from the NVFP4A16/vLLM table above — same model, different quant **and** different inference engine, so the numbers are not directly comparable to the vLLM column (notably AIME and GPQA differ by backend). This is the full 9-bench llama.cpp **Q6_K** run on a 3090 (pod 37268930, 2026-05-23), `llama-server --reasoning-format deepseek --reasoning-budget 12288`, greedy (`T=0, top_p=1, top_k=0`), `--parallel 2`. The 128e column is the bartowski **Q6_K** reference run under the identical recipe, so this table **is** apples-to-apples within the llama.cpp/Q6_K backend.

| Bench (n) | 128e Q6_K | **v5-coder Q6_K** | Δ (v5-coder − 128e) |
|---|---:|---:|---:|
| **HumanEval-164 chat** | 96.34% | **99.39%** | **+3.05** |
| **HumanEval+-164 chat** | 90.85% | **93.29%** | **+2.44** |
| **LCB-medium-55 v4** | 94.55% *(52/55)* | **85.45%** *(47/55)* | **−9.10** |
| MATH-500-100 math_verify | 94.00% | **94.00%** | 0.00 |
| IFEval-100 (prompt_strict) | 97.00% | **94.00%** | −3.00 |
| GSM8K-100 flex | 92.00% | **87.00%** | −5.00 |
| AIME 2024 (30) | 83.33% | **53.33%** | −30.00 |
| ARC-Challenge-chat (1172) | 97.10% | **95.73%** | −1.37 |
| GPQA Diamond flex (198) | 72.73% | **65.15%** | −7.58 |

**Reading the Q6_K deltas:** the code-leaning design intent shows on llama.cpp too — v5-coder **beats the unpruned 128e on HumanEval (+3.05) and HumanEval+ (+2.44)**. The cost is everything else: pruning 30 experts/layer hits the hardest multi-step reasoning sharply (AIME −30.00, LCB-medium −9.10, GPQA −7.58) and trims general reasoning modestly (GSM8K −5.00, IFEval −3.00, ARC −1.37), while MATH-500 holds at parity. v5-coder is the right pick for HumanEval-style single-function code generation; for competition math / hard algorithmic coding the unpruned base is materially stronger.

### Extended code benches — LCB-medium-100 + MultiPL-E-100 (Q6_K, 2026-05-24)

Two broader code benches run under the **identical** Q6_K / llama.cpp / greedy recipe (pod 37268930), both first-class `omk_eval` backends (sqlite-resumable). The 128e column is the bartowski **Q6_K** reference under the same recipe — apples-to-apples within the llama.cpp/Q6_K backend.

**LCB-medium-100** — the 100-problem superset of the LCB-medium-55 v4 set above (contains all 55, plus 45 more medium/functional problems on a relaxed date window):

| Bench (n) | 128e Q6_K | **v5-coder Q6_K** | Δ (v5-coder − 128e) |
|---|---:|---:|---:|
| **LCB-medium-100** | 95.00% *(95/100)* | **91.00%** *(91/100)* | **−4.00** |

**MultiPL-E-100** — HumanEval translated to Rust / Java / JavaScript, 100 problems per language (300 total), **chat-mode** generation + Markdown-code-block extraction (raw-completion mode degenerates on Gemma 4 reasoning models — see [`feedback_gemma4_chat_only_completions_breaks`](https://github.com/mann1x/omnimergekit/blob/main/memory/feedback_gemma4_chat_only_completions_breaks.md)). Macro-averaged over languages:

| Language (n=100) | 128e Q6_K | **v5-coder Q6_K** | Δ (v5-coder − 128e) |
|---|---:|---:|---:|
| Rust | 83.00% | **76.00%** | −7.00 |
| Java | 91.00% | **81.00%** | −10.00 |
| JavaScript | 95.00% | **86.00%** | −9.00 |
| **Macro mean** | 89.67% *(269/300)* | **81.00%** *(243/300)* | **−8.67** |

**Reading these:** on the broader **LCB-medium-100** the pruning cost shrinks to **−4.00pp** (vs −9.10 on the harder 55 v4 subset) — v5-coder recovers most of the gap on the easier added 45 problems, landing at 91%. **MultiPL-E** exposes a clearer multi-language pruning cost (−7 to −10pp, fairly uniform across Rust/Java/JS), consistent with v5-coder's Python/HumanEval-leaning design: the code-specialist experts it preserves are strongest on Python-style single-function tasks, and the penalty is largest on the lower-resource target (Rust hardest, JavaScript easiest for both models).

### 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 `\`\`\`python` chat fences. lm-eval's chat-aware HE/HE+ scorer (built on the `humaneval_chat` shadow task — see [v4 card §Eval Caveat](https://huggingface.co/ManniX-ITA/gemma-4-A4B-98e-v4-it)) extracts the function body before `exec()`. 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](https://arxiv.org/pdf/2409.12186) |
| DeepSeek-Coder-V2-Lite-Instruct | 16B / 2.4B MoE | 81.1 | — | 24.3 (LCB 12/01–06/01) | [arXiv:2406.11931](https://arxiv.org/pdf/2406.11931) |
| Codestral-22B v1 | 22B dense | 81.1 | — | (not published) | [Mistral blog](https://mistral.ai/news/codestral) |
| IBM Granite-20B-Code-Instruct | 20B dense | 60.4 | — | — | [arXiv:2405.04324](https://arxiv.org/pdf/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](https://arxiv.org/html/2412.08905v1) |
| Qwen2.5-14B-Instruct | 14.7B dense | 81.7–86.2 | 73.0 (MATH) | 40.9 | 80.0 | [Qwen blog](https://qwenlm.github.io/blog/qwen2.5-llm/) |
| Mistral-Small-3 (24B, just above band) | 24B dense | ~84 | 70.6 (MATH) | 45.3 | 82.1 | [Mistral blog](https://mistral.ai/news/mistral-small-3) |

**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`](https://huggingface.co/bartowski/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 quants

| Tier | File size | bpw | HE+ pass@1 |
|---|---:|---:|---:|
| Q2_K   |  8.40 GB | 3.23 | 6.10% (collapse) |
| Q3_K_M | 10.51 GB | 4.04 | 84.15% |
| **Q4_K_M** | **13.24 GB** | **5.09** | **92.07%** |
| Q5_K_M | 15.07 GB | 5.80 | 90.85% |
| Q6_K   | 17.81 GB | 6.85 | 92.07% |

Q4_K_M is the recommended sweet spot. Q3_K_M loses ~8pp but is still usable; Q2_K collapses (an MoE-class artifact, not a v5-coder regression — plain Q2_K bytes are the cohort floor).

#### v5-coder low-bpw IQ tier sweep (T64, in flight)

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 is still landing on the same rig + recipe; rows fill in as tiers complete:

| Tier | File size | bpw | HE+ pass@1 |
|---|---:|---:|---:|
| IQ3_XXS |  8.95 GB | 3.44 | **89.02%** |
| IQ3_XS  |  9.22 GB | 3.55 | **91.46%** |
| Q3_K_S  |  9.68 GB | 3.72 | 75.00% (collapse) |
| IQ3_M   |  9.82 GB | 3.78 | **91.46%** |
| Q3_K_L  | 10.94 GB | 4.21 | 87.20% |

The IQ3_XXS result is the headline: at ~9 GB / 3.44 bpw it lands **+4.87pp over plain Q3_K_M** (10.51 GB / 4.04 bpw) while running ~1.6 GB smaller and ~0.6 bpw lower. The imatrix codebook protects the value-vector subspace through the sub-4-bpw zone where fixed-block k-quants would lose attention precision.

#### 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 (size / bpw / HE+) | Δ HE+ |
|---|---|---|---:|
| ~15 GB     | Q8_0   15.70 GB / 8.54 / 84.76% | Q5_K_M 15.07 GB / 5.80 / **90.85%** | **+6.09** |
| ~12–13 GB  | Q6_K   12.12 GB / 6.60 / 84.76% | Q4_K_M 13.24 GB / 5.09 / **92.07%** | **+7.31** |
| ~10.5 GB   | Q5_K_M 10.51 GB / 5.72 / 83.54% | Q3_K_M 10.51 GB / 4.04 / **84.15%** | +0.61 |
| ~9 GB      | Q4_K_M  8.99 GB / 4.89 / **85.37%** | Q2_K    8.40 GB / 3.23 / 6.10% (collapse) | −79.27 |

The first three rows are the practical story: at ~15 GB Qwen's near-lossless Q8_0 loses 6pp to v5-coder Q5_K_M; at ~13 GB v5-coder Q4_K_M is +7.3pp over Qwen Q6_K; at ~10.5 GB even v5-coder Q3_K_M edges out Qwen Q5_K_M while running at 1.7 bpw less. The 4th row marks the floor — sub-Q3 MoE quants collapse, so the v5-coder ladder bottoms out at Q3_K_M / ~10 GB.

> 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-* (ContribDynamic) tiers** are intentionally omitted from this table. Those are mid-rebuild after a 2026-05-19 patch closed a `--tensor-type-file` heuristic gap; they will be added once the rebuilt CD scores are confirmed.

Run logs and samples live under `eval_results_hep_sweep/humanevalplus_full/` 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](https://github.com/mann1x/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](https://huggingface.co/ManniX-ITA/gemma-4-A4B-98e-v3-it) | pooled TF (no class signal) | reference baseline; you want the original v3 numbers |
| [v4](https://huggingface.co/ManniX-ITA/gemma-4-A4B-98e-v4-it) | balanced (5-class CD-map) | general-purpose; first 98e you'd default to |
| [v5](https://huggingface.co/ManniX-ITA/gemma-4-A4B-98e-v5-it) | 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

```python
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)

```bash
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)

```bash
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](https://huggingface.co/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_M, CD-Q4_K_M, CD-Q5_K_M, CD-Q6_K). File naming: `gemma-4-A4B-98e-v5-coder-it-<TIER>.gguf`.

### ollama

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

## Recipe + Code

[OmniMergeKit](https://github.com/mann1x/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`](https://github.com/mann1x/omnimergekit/blob/main/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](https://ai.google.dev/gemma/terms) 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