A 40B weight model that beats Sonnet 4.5 and GPT 5.1? Can someone explain this to me?
My suspicion (unconfirmed so take it with a grain of salt) is they either used some/all test data to train, or there was some leakage from the benchmark set into their training set. That said Sonnet 4.5 isn’t new and there have been loads of innovations recently. Exciting to see open models nipping at the heels of the big end of town. Let’s see what shakes out over the coming days.
IQuest-Coder: A new open-source code model beats Claude Sonnet 4.5 and GPT 5.1 [pdf]
21–30 of 54 posts
Re: IQuest-Coder: A new open-source code model beats Claude Sonnet 4.5 and GPT 5.1 [pdf]
#22A 40B weight model that beats Sonnet 4.5 and GPT 5.1? Can someone explain this to me?
Re: IQuest-Coder: A new open-source code model beats Claude Sonnet 4.5 and GPT 5.1 [pdf]
#23Earlier quoted context omitted.
My suspicion (unconfirmed so take it with a grain of salt) is they either used some/all test data to train, or there was some leakage from the benchmark set into their training set. That said Sonnet 4.5 isn’t new and there have been loads of innovations recently. Exciting to see open models nipping at the heels of the big end of town. Let’s see what shakes out over the coming days.
None of these open source models actually can compete with Sonnet when it comes to real life usage. They're all benchmaxxed so in reality they're not "nipping at the heels". Which is a shame.
Re: IQuest-Coder: A new open-source code model beats Claude Sonnet 4.5 and GPT 5.1 [pdf]
#24GLM-4.7 in opencode is the only opensource one that comes close in my experience and probably they did use some Claude data as I see the occasional You’re absolutely right in there
Do you see "What's your use-case" too? Claude spits that very regularly at the end of the answer, when it's clearly out of it's depth, and wants to steer discussion away from that blind-spot.
Re: IQuest-Coder: A new open-source code model beats Claude Sonnet 4.5 and GPT 5.1 [pdf]
#25A 40B weight model that beats Sonnet 4.5 and GPT 5.1? Can someone explain this to me?
Re: IQuest-Coder: A new open-source code model beats Claude Sonnet 4.5 and GPT 5.1 [pdf]
#26Earlier quoted context omitted.
None of these open source models actually can compete with Sonnet when it comes to real life usage. They're all benchmaxxed so in reality they're not "nipping at the heels". Which is a shame.
It’s a shame but it’s also understandable that they cannot compete with SOTA models like Sonnet and Opus. They’re focused almost entirely on benchmarks. I think Grok is doing the same thing. I wonder if people could figure out a type of benchmark that cannot be optimized for, like having multiple models compete against each other in something.
Re: IQuest-Coder: A new open-source code model beats Claude Sonnet 4.5 and GPT 5.1 [pdf]
#27TL;DR is that they didn't clean the repo (.git/ folder), model just reward hacked its way to look up future commits with fixes. Credit goes to everyone in this thread for solving this: https://xcancel.com/xeophon/status/2006969664346501589 (given that IQuestLab published their SWE-Bench Verified trajectory data, I want to be charitable and assume genuine oversight rather than "benchmaxxing", probably an easy to miss…
Re: IQuest-Coder: A new open-source code model beats Claude Sonnet 4.5 and GPT 5.1 [pdf]
#28Re: IQuest-Coder: A new open-source code model beats Claude Sonnet 4.5 and GPT 5.1 [pdf]
#29GLM-4.7 in opencode is the only opensource one that comes close in my experience and probably they did use some Claude data as I see the occasional You’re absolutely right in there
it's not even close to sonnet 4.5, let alone opus.
Re: IQuest-Coder: A new open-source code model beats Claude Sonnet 4.5 and GPT 5.1 [pdf]
#30GLM-4.7 in opencode is the only opensource one that comes close in my experience and probably they did use some Claude data as I see the occasional You’re absolutely right in there
Do you see "What's your use-case" too? Claude spits that very regularly at the end of the answer, when it's clearly out of it's depth, and wants to steer discussion away from that blind-spot.