Table 10 reports the full zero-shot evaluation row for Mamba-130M.

openai/gpt-5.6-luna-pro

be16036d72

The exact Pile validation file could not be obtained: the official URL returned HTTP 404, an alternate mirror timed out or returned service errors, and the uncopyrighted Pile mirror omits copyrighted subsets. No Pile value was substituted or copied from the paper. · The actual device was CPU-only. The run used source-preserving PyTorch fallbacks for the repository's CUDA/Triton components, so it does not reproduce the paper's reference accelerator conditions or provide a hardware-performance comparison. · The reported differences were not attributed to a single cause; the tested conditions were the released checkpoint, GPT-NeoX tokenizer, lm-eval 0.4.2, the repository wrapper, the configured task splits, and ordinary acc fields converted to percentage points. · Unresolved measurements: m-t10-m130-pile: The preserved parser evidence did not contain a trustworthy metric: JSON 指针没有指向有限数值 · The Pile validation component of the complete Table 10 row was not measured because the exact validation input could not be acquired. · The run used CPU float32 execution and source-preserving CPU fallbacks rather than the paper's reference accelerator path. The supplied evidence context omits the fallback implementation files, so their exact equation-level equivalence was not independently audited. · The parser-input excerpt is truncated, although the retained raw output and successful full-run records establish the selected fields and average computation. · The declared workload spans all Table 10 model groups, but captured raw execution covers only Mamba-130M; completion of the wider 29-row workload is not established. · The required Markdown source was absent; the fixed PDF was used as the primary paper source. · The fixed PDF directly shows a complete Mamba-130M row in Table 10, supporting the literal reporting statement. The current execution completed the seven-task evaluation and independently recomputed the average, but the Pile validation component of the full row was not measured. Among the nine assessed measurements, LAMBADA perplexity, LAMBADA accuracy, PIQA, ARC-E, and WinoGrande approximately match the displayed paper values, while HellaSwag, ARC-C, OpenBookQA, and the resulting average differ materially. The mixed pattern and missing Pile result do not establish full-row reproduction or strongly contradict the source because the run used CPU float32 execution with repository fallbacks and exact source-side dataset and implementation equivalence is not fully auditable. Some original claim measurements remain without evidence; available measurements are assessed individually.