Table 10 reports the full zero-shot evaluation row for Mamba-2-130M.

openai/gpt-5.6-luna-pro

bbc3109a47

Pile validation perplexity remains unresolved: the installed lm-eval 0.4.2 catalog and workspace do not provide the exact Pile validation evaluator/data binding, so no substitute split or copied source value was used. · No CUDA device was available. The measurements use the official checkpoint and tokenizer with the repository reference SSD scan/RMSNorm and ordinary PyTorch causal-convolution fallback on CPU; they do not establish the paper's original accelerator-specific conditions. · The CPU reference scan was explicitly zero-padded to its 256-token chunk boundary and trimmed afterward to satisfy the repository reference-kernel shape contract; the padding was confined to inactive suffix positions. · Unresolved metric interpretation: m-t10-m2-130-pile: Table 10 identifies this quantity as Pile validation perplexity, but the available lm-eval==0.4.2 task catalog has no generic Pile-validation task and the workspace does not yet contain the exact validation data or a source-defined evaluator binding. Do not substitute a training split, another Pile subset, or the paper value. · Unresolved measurements: m-t10-m2-130-pile: The preserved parser evidence did not contain a trustworthy metric: JSON 指针没有指向有限数值 · The exact Pile validation perplexity reported for this row was not evaluated because the exact validation data and source-defined evaluator binding were unavailable. · The protocol workload declares 29 complete Table 10 model rows, but captured raw execution covers only the Mamba-2-130M row; no broader Table 10 workload claim is established. · The run had no CUDA device and used repository reference SSD/RMSNorm and ordinary PyTorch convolution fallbacks, including inactive suffix padding to meet the reference scan shape contract. This supports numerical task comparisons only, not exact original accelerator conditions. · The source/evaluator context does not unambiguously establish whether the paper's HellaSwag, ARC-C, and OpenBookQA values are ordinary acc or acc_norm; their numerical alignment with acc_norm is a repair signal, not proof of the source implementation. · The full CPU evaluator script and several kernel/task source files are omitted from the retained evidence context, so those implementation details cannot be independently inspected beyond the runner-captured commands, outputs, and raw evaluator file. · Current execution evidence demonstrates a full zero-shot lm-eval run for the official state-spaces/mamba2-130m checkpoint on all seven downstream task splits, with raw fields and aggregation retained. LAMBADA perplexity/accuracy, PIQA, ARC-E, and approximately WinoGrande are comparable and broadly support the corresponding paper values. However, the revised ordinary-accuracy interpretation is not consistent with the retained evaluator context for HellaSwag, ARC-C, and OpenBookQA: the paper values align with the raw acc_norm fields, while the executed ordinary acc fields are substantially lower. The recorded average likewise uses the wrong operands. The Pile validation quantity was not executed, and the declared 29-row workload has raw coverage for only the Mamba-2-130M row. Thus the complete source row is not verified, although several individual measurements are approximately reproduced. Some original claim measurements remain without evidence; available measurements are assessed individually.