Density table divides Bonsai by the ideal 5.80 GB; competitors by shipped files

#33
by makerportal - opened

Reading through the numbers and found two inconsistencies, both checkable from this README's own tables:

1. "Over 2.3x" holds on the ideal footprint, not on either shipped file.
The Intelligence Density table divides Bonsai 2 27B (84.78 avg) by 5.80 GB β†’ D = 0.469, and the text claims "over 2.3x the density of the densest conventional build (IQ2_XXS at 0.199)".
But the footprint table says 5.8 GB is "ideal" while the shipped files are PTQ1_0 at 5.95 GB and PQ2_0 at 7.21 GB β€” and every competitor row is divided by a shipped file (9.4, 17.6, 54 GB). With D = βˆ’logβ‚‚(1 βˆ’ score/100) / size_GB:

  • 5.80 GB (ideal): D = 0.4683 β†’ 2.357x β€” claim holds
  • 5.95 GB (PTQ1_0, shipped): D = 0.4565 β†’ 2.298x β€” below 2.3x
  • 7.21 GB (PQ2_0, shipped): D = 0.3767 β†’ 1.896x
    Suggest dividing the Bonsai row by a shipped footprint, or qualifying the claim.

2. The Benchmarks table prints a (bpw, footprint) pair that matches nothing in the footprint table.
Under "True bpw" / "Bit-widths are true averages": Bonsai 2 27B = 1.72 bpw, 5.9 GB. The footprint table gives 1.72 β†’ 5.8 GB and 1.75 β†’ 5.95 GB, and the Density table prints 5.80 GB for the same model β€” so one model currently shows three footprints (~5.9, 5.80, 5.95). Looks like a one-cell fix.

Control that I'm reading the doc right: the "density rises from 0.416 to 0.469, a 12.5% gain" line recomputes to 12.45% from the table's own inputs (80.98 @ 5.75 GB β†’ 84.78 @ 5.80 GB), so the two rows above are the only ones I can't reconcile.

Sign up or log in to comment