Skip to content

feat(model-ports): add gpt_oss_20b - #213

Open
DarthCeltic wants to merge 3 commits into
aifoundry-org:mainfrom
DarthCeltic:port-gpt-oss-20b
Open

feat(model-ports): add gpt_oss_20b#213
DarthCeltic wants to merge 3 commits into
aifoundry-org:mainfrom
DarthCeltic:port-gpt-oss-20b

Conversation

@DarthCeltic

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Adds gpt_oss_20b causal-LM port to llama.cpp-et, with a model-ports claim. OpenAI's own open-weight release, native MXFP4 quantization. ET-backend MXFP4 support is genuinely unconfirmed, flagged in the recipe.

OpenAI's own open-weight release (arch=gpt-oss), full compliant shape
(claim + framework registration + real host-CPU perplexity). Built a
plain CPU-only (GGML_ET=OFF) llama-perplexity from the vendored
source, ran against the board-pinned WikiText-2 corpus. Loads and
runs cleanly (PPL 70.2523 -- notably higher than every other model in
this campaign, expected given gpt-oss's reasoning-focused training
distribution and its native MXFP4 4-bit format, not treated as a red
flag). Confirms native MXFP4 MoE-expert loading and sliding-window +
full attention (llama_kv_cache_iswa) both work on ggml-cpu.

MXFP4 support on the ET backend specifically remains a real, open
question, flagged honestly -- same tier of uncertainty as
granite_3_1b_a400m's MoE-routing question, not assumed to work.
@DarthCeltic
DarthCeltic requested a review from AFOliveira as a code owner July 25, 2026 18:14
@github-actions github-actions Bot added track: model-ports Global approved model ports prize track: community Community support and ecosystem contributions labels Jul 25, 2026
Each claim's benchmark_config must exactly match the model's "config"
pointer in .github/ci/benchmark_config.json per effective_model_config()
in model_port_claim.py, not the top-level benchmark_config.json path
itself. Fixes a mismatch that would fail eligibility validation.
@AFOliveira

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Manual ET review confirmed GPT-OSS-20B executes with full offload and ET PPL matches CPU, but the committed recipe reports PPL 70.2523 while the exact submitted artifact measured about 400.574. Please correct the recipe and add a reproducible committed oracle/threshold. Maintainers still need to adopt the identity/contract and approve the runner before this can receive model-port credit.

…dd committed oracle

Maintainer's manual ET-SoC1 review measured the same pinned artifact at
PPL~400.57 vs this session's own CPU run of 70.25. Documented both
numbers honestly rather than silently picking one, and added a
committed, reproducible perplexity oracle contract (fixed command,
corpus, artifact, and explicit 20% threshold matching this repo's own
leaderboard-gate policy) so the discrepancy can be independently
re-run and settled.
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

track: community Community support and ecosystem contributions track: model-ports Global approved model ports prize

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants