DEV Community: SparkLLM

Spark X2.5 Passes 100K Downloads on Hugging Face in 10 Days

SparkLLM — Fri, 11 Sep 2026 06:55:55 +0000

Ten days after its global launch on September 1, 2026, Spark X2.5 has passed 100,000 downloads across its model family on Hugging Face.

Thank you to everyone downloading the models, testing them, sharing feedback, and helping the community grow.

Explore the model family

Spark X2.5 comes in 1.7B and 4B sizes. The published model lineup includes Base, GGUF, FP8, and INT8 variants.

Browse the model cards, choose the version supported by your runtime, and try it with your own tasks.

Which model are you trying, and what are you building? We'd love to hear about your experiments. Share your hardware, model variant, and use case with the XHToken community.

Follow @SparkLLM on X for updates.

Milestone based on combined download counts across the Spark X2.5 model family shown on the official XHToken Hugging Face page as of September 11, 2026. The same page records the September 1 global launch.

HER Hack-Astron #6 FAQ and a Spark-X2.5 case

SparkLLM — Fri, 11 Sep 2026 06:00:41 +0000

A model can return the correct root while giving a flawed explanation. In FU-max-boop’s public Spark-X2.5-1.7B case, the saved response to sqrt(x) = x - 2 correctly ends with FINAL: [4], but calls x >= 2 the expression’s domain.

The expression domain is x >= 0. Every solution must additionally satisfy x >= 2 because the square root is nonnegative. At x = 1, the expressions are defined but unequal: 1 ≠ −1. At x = 4, both sides equal 2. The response’s root and substitution checks remain valid, while its explanation of the domain needs correction.

Watch “Right answer, wrong explanation?” by SparkLLM

The participant reports a partial local Q4_K_M study: 96 requests planned, 45 completed, one interrupted for resource limits and 50 unattempted. Its strict final-answer score is 21/45. This is a result on that partial diagnostic with a required answer format, not general model accuracy. The report includes prompts, raw responses, scoring code and limitations. This article explains the participant’s public evidence; it does not claim a new model inference run.

Read the original case and inspect the pinned report and evidence.

Bring your own real, reproducible math evaluation to HER Hack-Astron #6. Here are the current answers to 11 participation questions, updated September 11, 2026.

1. Are there gender restrictions for individual entrants?

No. Individual entrants may participate regardless of gender.

2. Who does the at-least-50% women-contributors rule apply to?

Team entries only: at least 50% of a team’s contributors must be women. This percentage requirement does not apply to individual entrants.

3. Can AI assist with the work or execute experiments?

Yes. Both AI assistance and AI execution are allowed; disclose honestly which parts involved AI.

4. Can an AI persona be listed as a real human contributor?

No. Do not present an AI persona as a real human contributor or count one toward the team’s human-contributor percentages.

5. What is the basic requirement for the evaluation?

It must be real and reproducible. Retain evidence of the actual run and results, such as the model revision, problems and prompts, runtime settings, raw outputs and scoring method. Report failures and limitations honestly.

6. How do I complete a formal submission?

Publish the complete evaluation in the Hugging Face Discussions for the model you used, with HER Hack-Astron #6 in the title. Then reply to event GitHub Issue #9 with the direct Discussion link. Complete both steps for a formal submission.

7. How can international winners receive a prize?

International winners may use an available payout method, such as PayPal or bank transfer.

8. Can winners in mainland China receive RMB through a domestic method?

An RMB payout through an available domestic method can be discussed. The specific arrangement depends on what is available and confirmed by both sides.

9. Is an upfront fee required to enter or claim a prize?

No. There is no upfront participation or prize-claim fee.

10. When should identity or payment information be provided?

Provide necessary sensitive identity or payment information privately only after winning, and only when needed. Do not include it in public Discussions or Issues.

11. Is a live presentation currently required?

No live presentation is currently required. Submit the required real, reproducible evaluation materials.

Ready to enter?

Run a real math evaluation with Spark-X2.5-1.7B or 4B, publish the complete results and limitations, and follow the formal submission steps. Deadline: September 13, 2026, 24:00 Beijing time (UTC+8). There is one winning prize of USD 100; the payout method is subject to the available arrangements described above.

The formal submission has two parts: publish the complete result in the Hugging Face Discussions for the model you used, with HER Hack-Astron #6 in the title, and reply to the event’s GitHub Issue #9 with the direct link.

Full event rules and submission · Spark-X2.5 project

SparkX25 #HERHackAstron #MathReasoning #ModelEvaluation #OpenSourceAI #Reproducibility

Video music: El Rizo de Oro, Op.16 by Trinidad Moreno; synthesized piano by Eniel García. IMSLP, CC0 1.0.

Spark-X2.5: Case 20 and Challenge FAQ

SparkLLM — Fri, 11 Sep 2026 05:58:27 +0000

Watch the short

Contributor Ykmmz reports 160 generations of Spark-X2.5-1.7B using MLX and BF16 on an Apple M3 with 16 GB of memory. The evaluation combines a fixed 100-question GSM8K test subset with 20 original problem groups, each containing an original, an equivalent paraphrase, and a version with changed numbers.

The author reports 70/100 correct on the GSM8K subset, and 20/20, 19/20, and 20/20 for the original, paraphrased, and numerically changed variants. Decoding was greedy, with one generation per question and a 2,048-token limit. These results apply to the stated samples and budget.

Manual review of all 60 paired traces identified two correct final answers with arithmetic mistakes elsewhere in the reasoning. One correctly answered 38, yet wrote 8×38=296 during an extra check; the product is 304. Across all 160 generations, 25 reached the token limit. The author also documents a correction to reference labels while preserving the original outputs.

Raw outputs, model and runtime revisions, scoring code, run metadata, and reasoning audits are public. The production team checked these published materials and exactly recomputed the stored score report; it did not rerun model inference. This showcase is not an award announcement.

Read the participant’s case and reproduction repository.

To enter HER Hack-Astron #6, evaluate Spark-X2.5-1.7B or 4B, publish a complete reproducible report in the matching model’s Hugging Face Discussions with HER Hack-Astron #6 in the title, then reply to event Issue #9 with the link. Deadline: September 13, 2026, 24:00 Beijing time (UTC+8). One winner receives USD 100. Team entries must list all contributors, with at least 50% having profiles identifying them as women. See the event for full requirements.

Music: “Andante Moderato in F major” by Émile Paladilhe; synthesized performance by Scores2read. IMSLP, CC0 1.0. Source.

FAQ Quick Summary

Solo participants of any gender are eligible.

The 50% women-contributor requirement applies only to teams.
AI-assisted and AI-operated evaluations are allowed when clearly disclosed.
Do not present AI personas as human participants.
Actual, reproducible model runs are required.
Formal submissions should follow the Hugging Face Discussion + GitHub Issue process.
International winners may use available payout methods such as PayPal or bank transfer.
Mainland China winners may coordinate RMB payout through an available domestic method.
No upfront fee is required.
Sensitive identity and payment information should only be provided privately if needed after winning.
No live presentation is currently required.

Event and formal submission

Spark-X2.5 on Unsloth and LM Studio: a real bilingual local demo

SparkLLM — Wed, 09 Sep 2026 08:41:44 +0000

Watch the short

Spark-X2.5 can run locally as GGUF with the Unsloth llama.cpp backend and a compatible LM Studio runtime. This demo brings those two routes together: independent checks with an Unsloth-built backend, followed by real screen recordings in LM Studio.

One equation, two languages

We used the official Spark-X2.5-1.7B Q4_K_M GGUF and asked the same mathematical question in Chinese and English:

Solve 3(x - 2) + 4 = 19.
Briefly show the steps and verify the result by substitution.

Both recorded runs produced x = 7, with a correct substitution check:

3x - 6 + 4 = 19
3x - 2 = 19
3x = 21
x = 7

3(7 - 2) + 4 = 3 * 5 + 4 = 19

The footage shows the actual prompt entry, submission, generation and scrolling through the result. The screen-recording section is clearly labelled 3x speed. It is continuous recorded footage, not a sequence of screenshots standing in for a run.

What was tested

The recorded client is LM Studio 0.4.24, with the model's Think option disabled. We also made separate Chinese and English API requests to the Unsloth-built llama.cpp Windows CPU backend, using the same official model file. Those checks passed this example as well.

The Unsloth backend used build b10840, four CPU threads and a 4096-token context. The preflight requests used thinking disabled, temperature 0, seed 42 and a 512-token output budget. The official GGUF file was checked against its Hugging Face LFS SHA-256 metadata.

These are separate runs. The LM Studio footage is not an Unsloth Studio interface recording, and API timings should not be presented as timings for the recorded UI session. This video is an example demonstration, not a backend speed comparison.

The selected equation passed preflight testing before filming. Earlier attempts on a different fraction equation, including wrong or truncated outputs, were retained. Passing this example does not establish general mathematical accuracy.

Try your own local task

Open the Spark-X2.5 project and its Model Downloads section.
Choose an official GGUF checkpoint, such as Spark-X2.5-1.7B-GGUF.
Use a runtime containing Spark2_5 architecture support. For Unsloth, see the verified backend release; for Studio model loading, follow the current guide.
Start with a task whose answer you can independently check. Preserve the model revision, prompt, settings and raw output.

From math exercises to writing, coding tools and agent experiments, we welcome useful tests and creative applications. Download, explore, and share your feedback, experiences and creations.

Spark-X2.5 · Official GGUF · Unsloth · Watch the demo

Music: Open Horizons, an original synthesized instrumental made for this episode.

Right math, rejected answer? A Spark-X2.5 case worth reproducing

SparkLLM — Wed, 09 Sep 2026 04:08:26 +0000

Watch the short

A correct mathematical result can still fail a strict evaluator. Anmolspace’s public Spark-X2.5-1.7B case study includes an intermediate response that derived 5/33 correctly but placed its ANSWER label inline with the derivation. The scorer required one standalone answer line.

The study contains 24 original development cases: six arithmetic families, two numerical variants, and neutral or misleading-hint prompts for each variant. Its preserved CPU non-thinking batch scored 19/24; a native-thinking GPU batch scored 23/24; a new GPU batch with one uniform answer-format instruction scored 24/24. These are distinct archived batches, not successful answers pooled across runs.

An example makes the reasoning issue concrete. A car travels 120 km at 30 km/h and returns 120 km at 60 km/h. Total distance is 240 km and total time is six hours, so average speed is 40 km/h. The baseline divided only the one-way distance by the total time and answered 20. The final batch used the full round-trip distance.

For this video, we inspected the public scoring script and reran it locally on all three saved-output batches. The results matched the archived score JSON. A separate exact-fraction calculation checked the answer keys and scoring decisions; both GPU manifests also passed their recorded size and hash checks. This is archived-output verification. We did not rerun model inference or independently decode token IDs.

The scope matters: these were development cases revisited during refinement, not a held-out benchmark. Thinking mode, sampling, token budget, batching and runtime changed from the baseline. The score differences cannot be attributed to one isolated change or advertised as general mathematical accuracy.

The post discloses that Codex designed, ran and checked the experiments, with Anmol’s authorization. In the source reviewed for this video, the author’s complete human review was unconfirmed. This showcase presents a community case; it does not determine eligibility or announce an award. The organizer allows disclosed AI assistance and requires human review and accountability.

Try your own reproducible math evaluation with Spark-X2.5-1.7B or 4B. Preserve prompts, raw outputs, model revision, runtime settings and scoring code. Publish the full results in the corresponding model’s Hugging Face Discussions with HER Hack-Astron #6 in the title, then reply to Issue #9 with the direct link. The deadline is September 13, 2026, 24:00 Beijing time (UTC+8). See the event for all requirements.

Community case: https://huggingface.co/XHToken/Spark-X2.5-1.7B/discussions/18
Rules and entry: https://github.com/XHToken/Spark-X2.5/issues/9
AI assistance and human responsibility: https://github.com/XHToken/Spark-X2.5/issues/9#issuecomment-5578566842
Public evidence archive: https://huggingface.co/spaces/Anmolspace/spark-math-eval-20260908/blob/main/spark_math_submission_v4.zip
Open-source project: https://github.com/XHToken/Spark-X2.5

The video uses explanatory graphics recreated from public archived data, not screenshots of a model run performed for this video.

Music: “Impromptu” by Henryk Koman; synthesized piano by Scores2read. IMSLP, CC0 1.0.
https://imslp.org/wiki/Impromptu_(Koman,_Henryk)#IMSLP1051415
https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/

SparkX25 #HERHackAstron #MathReasoning #ModelEvaluation #OpenSourceAI #Reproducibility

New numbers, same math? A 12-problem Spark-X2.5 case and an invitation to test

SparkLLM — Tue, 08 Sep 2026 16:09:38 +0000

Change the numbers while keeping the problem structure. Does the model calculate a new answer? In jxyytf’s community case, Spark-X2.5-1.7B was tested on six original math problems, each paired with a numeric variant. The participant reports 12/12 correct, with one sample per problem and exact numeric scoring.

One pair shows the idea

The example in the post changes a bead-counting problem:

Version	Calculation	Expected answer
Original	14 + 9 − 6	17
Numeric variant	18 + 11 − 7	22

The structure stays fixed while the quantities change. This gives a concrete way to probe whether a model follows the new numbers. A few matched items cannot establish broad robustness or rule out memorization.

What the participant reports

The run used Spark-X2.5-1.7B Q4_K_M through the XHToken llama.cpp fork on a macOS arm64 CPU, with four threads and zero GPU layers. The author reports no paid cloud resources. The six original problems comprise four arithmetic/word problems and two algebra/geometry problems, each with one numeric variant. They are newly authored items, rather than official GSM8K or MATH benchmark splits.

The reported results are 6/6 originals and 6/6 variants. Each prompt received one sample: pass@1, without majority voting. The scorer uses exact numeric matching after extracting an answer, counts unparseable outputs as incorrect, and preserves both reasoning_content and content.

These are participant-reported results. We did not rerun the model. The post says the raw records and scorer were retained, but as of September 9, 2026 it does not provide public download links to the complete artifacts. No failures were reported in this 12-item slice. The small sample and related item pairs limit the conclusions. This showcase does not establish official acceptance or announce a winner.

Bring your own math experiment

HER Hack-Astron #6 is open. Test Spark-X2.5 1.7B or 4B with a question you can investigate: change numbers, reword a problem, inspect a wrong reasoning step, or compare a Python-assisted run with a no-tool baseline.

Pin the model revision and document your dataset, prompts, hardware, runtime and decoding settings.
Retain and publish the raw outputs, scoring code and representative reasoning, including failures. Distinguish final-answer accuracy from reasoning quality.
Publish the complete evaluation in the tested model’s Hugging Face Discussions. Include HER Hack-Astron #6 in the title.
Reply to event Issue #9 with the direct Discussion link.

Deadline: September 13, 2026, 24:00 Beijing time (UTC+8), meaning September 14 at 00:00. Award: one winner receives USD 100. For team entries, at least 50% of listed contributors must have profiles identifying them as women. Read the full rules for all acceptance requirements.

Watch the short · Read the case · Open-source project

Video music: Azul, composed and performed by Akiana Molina, from IMSLP, licensed under CC BY 4.0. Excerpted, level-adjusted and mixed under narration.

Spark’s 2180 vs GSM8K’s 2280: check the answer key, then join the challenge

SparkLLM — Tue, 08 Sep 2026 15:58:10 +0000

Spark answered 2180, while the GSM8K reference said 2280. In Vincebye and SafeAnd’s community case, checking the original question reveals why: 430 + 750 + 300 + 700 = 2180. The reference substitutes 400 for 300 in its final sum. Pinned source.

We independently verified this question and arithmetic. Model outputs and aggregate scores remain participant-reported: we did not rerun the models or download the complete run artifacts, and the reasoning labels are heuristic. This single reference error does not establish a dataset-wide error rate. Read the case.

Join HER Hack-Astron #6: evaluate Spark-X2.5 1.7B or 4B, pin the revision, and retain prompts, complete outputs and scoring code. Publish your results in the tested model’s Hugging Face Discussions, include HER Hack-Astron #6 in the title, then reply to Issue #9 with the link.

Deadline: September 13, 2026, 24:00 Beijing time (UTC+8). Prize: one winner receives USD 100. At least 50% of team contributor profiles must identify as women. Read the full rules for individual eligibility and human review requirements. Share a real experiment, including its failures.

Right math, wrong final answer: a Spark-X2.5 community case and an invitation to test

SparkLLM — Tue, 08 Sep 2026 08:31:51 +0000

A correct intermediate calculation does not guarantee a correct delivered answer. Participant Pururin made that distinction visible in a local Spark-X2.5-1.7B math experiment for HER Hack-Astron #6.

Watch the short case walkthrough:

One laptop, 40 prompts

The participant used an RTX 5060 Laptop GPU with approximately 8GB VRAM, BF16, and no tool-assisted solving. Five mathematical structures, four numerical settings, and two equivalent wordings produced 40 English prompts. Each prompt received one greedy output under each setting.

Reported setting	Strict correct finals	Missing numeric final	Token cap reached
Thinking off	10/40	0	0
Thinking on	24/40	13	14

These are the participant's original strict scores. The output ceilings were 512 tokens off and 1024 on, so this comparison does not isolate the causal effect of thinking. It is a small, correlated template diagnostic, not a model-wide benchmark estimate.

The fraction was right; the delivered answer was wrong

In average_speed-large-v1, two route segments are each 840 km long, with speeds of 35 and 70 km/h. Total distance is 1680 km and total time is 36 hours, giving 140/3 km/h.

The model derived that fraction, then repeatedly deliberated about whether to output a fraction or a decimal. Its output reached the token ceiling and ended at FINAL: 140, cut partway through its intended fraction. The delivered value fails the scorer even though the preceding explanation derives the correct answer.

Other failures were semantic. Two uncapped responses misinterpreted keeping a fraction of water as removing it. The report notes a wording-and-number interaction, rather than claiming that every use of “keep” fails.

The strict absolute tolerance was 0.0001. Two thinking-off answers used 33.33 after a correct method and failed that tolerance. A separately disclosed, post-hoc check with tolerance 0.005 gave 12/40 off and 24/40 on; it does not replace the primary result.

What makes this entry useful

The case publishes its prompts, raw responses, scoring code, model revision, environment, and limitations. It keeps failed cases in the denominator and distinguishes proposals for further experiments from measured results.

Our video reformats the participant's public evidence as infographics and staged summaries. We did not rerun the model for the video. This is a community case showcase, not an award announcement.

Your turn: HER Hack-Astron #6

Use Spark-X2.5-1.7B or 4B for a real mathematical-reasoning evaluation. You could investigate paraphrases, numerical substitutions, reasoning errors, or comparisons with Python/SymPy tools.

Pin the model revision and retain prompts, complete outputs, scoring code, and environment details.
Publish the complete report in the Discussions section of the model you actually used. Include HER Hack-Astron #6 in the title.
Reply to event Issue #9 with the direct Discussion link.

Deadline: September 13, 2026, 24:00 Beijing time (UTC+8), meaning September 14 at 00:00. Prize: one winner receives USD 100. For team entries, at least 50% of listed contributors must have profiles identifying them as women. Read the full event page for all acceptance and eligibility requirements.

Share a real run, including what failed, and make the next experiment easier to reproduce.

Video music: Courante in A minor, FVB 203 — Anonymous; performed by Jewgeni Smirnow (digital keyboard), IMSLP, CC BY 4.0. Excerpted, looped, normalized, and mixed under narration.

Spark-X2.5 hits #1 on HF Trending — join HER Hack-Astron #6: the Math Reasoning Challenge

SparkLLM — Mon, 07 Sep 2026 13:12:18 +0000

🥳 Spark-X2.5-4B just reached #1 on Hugging Face Trending (last 7 days) — thank you to everyone downloading, testing, and starring it!

HER Hack-Astron #5 is still being judged — and to keep the momentum going, we're opening #6: the Spark-X2.5 Math Reasoning Challenge.

The challenge

Put Spark-X2.5's mathematical reasoning to a real, honest, reproducible test. Get Spark-X2.5-4B or 1.7B from Hugging Face (or the ModelScope mirror), run a real math-reasoning evaluation or case study, and publish the complete, reproducible result in the model's Hugging Face Discussions.

Pick a track (or combine several)

Standard benchmarks — GSM8K, MATH / MATH-500, AIME 2024/2025, OlympiadBench, MinervaMath; report pass@1 (and pass@k) with a clear scoring script
Competition & olympiad — AMC / AIME / IMO-style or national-olympiad problems; analyze where it succeeds or fails
Step-by-step reasoning quality — catch right-answer-wrong-reasoning and arithmetic slips, not just final answers
Tool-assisted math — pair with a code interpreter / Python / SymPy vs. a no-tool baseline
Formal & proof-oriented — theorem proving, proof sketching, Lean/Coq-style formalization, honestly reported
Multilingual math — e.g. MGSM, per-language accuracy
Robustness & contamination checks — perturbed / paraphrased / number-swapped problems
Decoding & prompting study — temperature, self-consistency, and more

How to enter

Get Spark-X2.5-4B or 1.7B (Hugging Face or ModelScope mirror)
Run a real math evaluation or case study
Publish a complete, reproducible result in the model's HF Discussions
Reply on the event GitHub Issue with your Discussion link

Schedule

Submissions open: September 7, 2026
Challenge period: September 7–13, 2026
Deadline: September 13, 2026, 24:00 Beijing Time (UTC+8)
Judging & awards: September 14–20, 2026

HERHackAstron #SparkX25 #Math #OpenSource

Spark-X2.5 runs locally: official llama.cpp support (Windows CPU demo)

SparkLLM — Mon, 07 Sep 2026 08:28:28 +0000

Official llama.cpp support for Spark-X2.5 is here — so you can run the models locally, no cloud required.

This short walks through a real Windows CPU demo using the community 1.7B Q4_K_M GGUF and official build b10833:

Download the quantized GGUF
Launch a local server with llama.cpp
Ask a question — running entirely on CPU

Both sizes are available to explore — the 4B and the 1.7B.

Get started

📦 Model: https://github.com/XHToken/Spark-X2.5
⚙️ Runtime (llama.cpp): https://github.com/ggml-org/llama.cpp

Try it locally and share your feedback, experiences, and creations — we'd love to see what you build.

SparkX25 #llamacpp #LocalAI #OpenSource #GGUF

Can a 1.7B model really run end to end? — HER Hack-Astron #5

SparkLLM — Sat, 05 Sep 2026 06:47:59 +0000

Can a 1.7B model really run end to end?

This short recaps a public participant case: on a Colab NVIDIA L4, the developer built the XHToken llama.cpp fork with CUDA, ran Spark-X2.5-1.7B (BF16 GGUF), and documented the real prompt, output, speed observations, memory use, and limitations.

The point isn't a hero number — it's a reproducible case: run it for real, document it honestly, and share what the next developer can actually rebuild.

Join HER Hack-Astron #5

Turn a real inference, agent, coding, long-context, multilingual, quantization, training, or safety experiment into a reproducible case.

Publish your case as a Discussion — see the example: Case Discussion #1
Submit it: publish your Discussion first, then reply on the challenge issue with its direct link — Challenge Issue #3

⏰ Deadline: September 6, 2026, 24:00 (Beijing Time).

Run it for real, document it honestly, and share what the next developer can reproduce.

Spark-X2.5 — GitHub: https://github.com/XHToken/Spark-X2.5 · Hugging Face: https://huggingface.co/xhtoken

Spark-X2.5-4B: a 4B model matching 2–3 larger models on agents, code & math

SparkLLM — Thu, 03 Sep 2026 03:02:05 +0000

Spark-X2.5-4B is a 4B open model that goes toe-to-toe with models 2–3× its size on agents, coding, and math. Here's the full benchmark table vs comparable open models:

🤖 Agents

The 4B leads its size class and beats much larger models:

τ³-bench 30.4 (Qwen3.5-9B 9.3, Gemma4-12B 13.3)
BrowseComp 40.9 (8.3 / 10.0)
MCP-Atlas 54.6 · VitaBench2.0 25.2 · Workspace Bench 31.2

Deeply integrated with popular agent harnesses — Codex, Claude Code, OpenClaw, and Hermes.

💻 Code (at just 4B)

SWE-Bench Pro 44.4 — ahead of Qwen3.5-9B (33.8) and Gemma4-12B (21.9)
SWE-Bench Multilingual 53.3 — tops the group
SWE-Bench Verified 41.6

🧮 Math

AIME 2026 90.7
HMMT Feb 2026 81.2
IMO-AnswerBench 74.2

Each ahead of models 2–3× larger. The 1.7B also holds its own against 2B-class peers.

Get it

GitHub: https://github.com/XHToken/Spark-X2.5
Hugging Face: https://huggingface.co/collections/XHToken/spark-x25
API on MaaS: https://maas.xfyun.cn/modelSquare

Figures from the official Spark-X2.5 release. Higher is better. ` denotes results reported from publicly-released model cards / papers; -` denotes scores not yet available; all evaluations run in thinking mode.*

DEV Community: SparkLLM

Spark X2.5 Passes 100K Downloads on Hugging Face in 10 Days

Explore the model family

HER Hack-Astron #6 FAQ and a Spark-X2.5 case

1. Are there gender restrictions for individual entrants?

2. Who does the at-least-50% women-contributors rule apply to?

3. Can AI assist with the work or execute experiments?

4. Can an AI persona be listed as a real human contributor?

5. What is the basic requirement for the evaluation?

6. How do I complete a formal submission?

7. How can international winners receive a prize?

8. Can winners in mainland China receive RMB through a domestic method?

9. Is an upfront fee required to enter or claim a prize?

10. When should identity or payment information be provided?

11. Is a live presentation currently required?

Ready to enter?

SparkX25 #HERHackAstron #MathReasoning #ModelEvaluation #OpenSourceAI #Reproducibility

Spark-X2.5: Case 20 and Challenge FAQ

FAQ Quick Summary

Spark-X2.5 on Unsloth and LM Studio: a real bilingual local demo

One equation, two languages

What was tested

Try your own local task

Right math, rejected answer? A Spark-X2.5 case worth reproducing

SparkX25 #HERHackAstron #MathReasoning #ModelEvaluation #OpenSourceAI #Reproducibility

New numbers, same math? A 12-problem Spark-X2.5 case and an invitation to test

One pair shows the idea

What the participant reports

Bring your own math experiment

Spark’s 2180 vs GSM8K’s 2280: check the answer key, then join the challenge

Right math, wrong final answer: a Spark-X2.5 community case and an invitation to test

One laptop, 40 prompts

The fraction was right; the delivered answer was wrong

What makes this entry useful

Your turn: HER Hack-Astron #6

Spark-X2.5 hits #1 on HF Trending — join HER Hack-Astron #6: the Math Reasoning Challenge

The challenge

Pick a track (or combine several)

How to enter

Schedule

Links

HERHackAstron #SparkX25 #Math #OpenSource

Spark-X2.5 runs locally: official llama.cpp support (Windows CPU demo)

Get started

SparkX25 #llamacpp #LocalAI #OpenSource #GGUF

Can a 1.7B model really run end to end? — HER Hack-Astron #5

Join HER Hack-Astron #5

Spark-X2.5-4B: a 4B model matching 2–3 larger models on agents, code & math

🤖 Agents

💻 Code (at just 4B)

🧮 Math

Get it