Skip to main content

XingChen AGILanguage modelOpen weights

Xing4.0-29B-A4B

Xing4.0-29B-A4B has no overall index value yet because there are too few independent benchmark results.

PopularityRank 251 of 875

41out of 100-10 vs. last month

Summary

Xing4.0-29B-A4B was trained entirely on Ascend NPUs using MindSpore. Its developer adapted the MoE architecture to Ascend 910C clusters for this purpose. The model activates 4 of its 29 billion parameters per token.

Its standard context window holds 256K tokens and can be extended to 512K. The weights use Apache 2.0, and the model card documents local runtimes and an OpenAI-compatible API.

All benchmark results

Every published result with its source, test setup and comparison models.

Show all 9 published benchmark results

Measurements without matching peer values

These measurements have no matching peer values under the same test conditions. Their original values and sources remain available here.

IFBench (Show measurement, test conditions, and source)
Source value
69.67
Score
69.67
Metric
IFBench reported score
Unit
No unit provided
Category
source-specific
Direction
Higher is better
Source type
vendor-reported
Evaluator
Provider model card
Status
active
Retrieved at
2026-10-04
Methodology
Vendor-reported result. Vendor card does not publish sufficient setup/sampling detail; many rows are agent/harness tasks.
Context
Source-specific observation; it is not a shared comparison cohort. The source table does not state a unit or scale for this numeric score.
Source Provider model card
AIME 2026 (Show measurement, test conditions, and source)
Source value
90
Score
90
Metric
AIME 2026 reported score
Unit
No unit provided
Category
source-specific
Direction
Higher is better
Source type
vendor-reported
Evaluator
Provider model card
Status
active
Retrieved at
2026-10-04
Methodology
Vendor-reported result. Vendor card does not publish sufficient setup/sampling detail; many rows are agent/harness tasks.
Context
Source-specific observation; it is not a shared comparison cohort. The source table does not state a unit or scale for this numeric score.
Source Provider model card
AA.LCR (Show measurement, test conditions, and source)
Source value
61
Score
61
Metric
AA.LCR reported score
Unit
No unit provided
Category
source-specific
Direction
Higher is better
Source type
vendor-reported
Evaluator
Provider model card
Status
active
Retrieved at
2026-10-04
Methodology
Vendor-reported result. Vendor card does not publish sufficient setup/sampling detail; many rows are agent/harness tasks.
Context
Source-specific observation; it is not a shared comparison cohort. The source table does not state a unit or scale for this numeric score.
Source Provider model card
tau3Bench (Show measurement, test conditions, and source)
Source value
64.63
Score
64.63
Metric
tau3Bench reported score
Unit
No unit provided
Category
source-specific
Direction
Higher is better
Source type
vendor-reported
Evaluator
Provider model card
Status
active
Retrieved at
2026-10-04
Methodology
Vendor-reported result. Vendor card does not publish sufficient setup/sampling detail; many rows are agent/harness tasks.
Context
Source-specific observation; it is not a shared comparison cohort. The source table does not state a unit or scale for this numeric score.
Source Provider model card
ClawEval (Show measurement, test conditions, and source)
Source value
76.55
Score
76.55
Metric
ClawEval reported score
Unit
No unit provided
Category
source-specific
Direction
Higher is better
Source type
vendor-reported
Evaluator
Provider model card
Status
active
Retrieved at
2026-10-04
Methodology
Vendor-reported result. Vendor card does not publish sufficient setup/sampling detail; many rows are agent/harness tasks.
Context
Source-specific observation; it is not a shared comparison cohort. The source table does not state a unit or scale for this numeric score.
Source Provider model card
SWE-Verified (Show measurement, test conditions, and source)
Source value
75
Score
75
Metric
SWE-Verified reported score
Unit
No unit provided
Category
source-specific
Direction
Higher is better
Source type
vendor-reported
Evaluator
Provider model card
Status
active
Retrieved at
2026-10-04
Methodology
Vendor-reported result. Vendor card does not publish sufficient setup/sampling detail; many rows are agent/harness tasks.
Context
Source-specific observation; it is not a shared comparison cohort. The source table does not state a unit or scale for this numeric score.
Source Provider model card
TerminalBench 2.1 (Show measurement, test conditions, and source)
Source value
57.5
Score
57.5
Metric
TerminalBench 2.1 reported score
Unit
No unit provided
Category
source-specific
Direction
Higher is better
Source type
vendor-reported
Evaluator
Provider model card
Status
active
Retrieved at
2026-10-04
Methodology
Vendor-reported result. Vendor card does not publish sufficient setup/sampling detail; many rows are agent/harness tasks.
Context
Source-specific observation; it is not a shared comparison cohort. The source table does not state a unit or scale for this numeric score.
Source Provider model card
SWE Multilingual (Show measurement, test conditions, and source)
Source value
66
Score
66
Metric
SWE Multilingual reported score
Unit
No unit provided
Category
source-specific
Direction
Higher is better
Source type
vendor-reported
Evaluator
Provider model card
Status
active
Retrieved at
2026-10-04
Methodology
Vendor-reported result. Vendor card does not publish sufficient setup/sampling detail; many rows are agent/harness tasks.
Context
Source-specific observation; it is not a shared comparison cohort. The source table does not state a unit or scale for this numeric score.
Source Provider model card
DeepResearchBII (Show measurement, test conditions, and source)
Source value
60.8
Score
60.8
Metric
DeepResearchBII reported score
Unit
No unit provided
Category
source-specific
Direction
Higher is better
Source type
vendor-reported
Evaluator
Provider model card
Status
active
Retrieved at
2026-10-04
Methodology
Vendor-reported result. Vendor card does not publish sufficient setup/sampling detail; many rows are agent/harness tasks.
Context
Source-specific observation; it is not a shared comparison cohort. The source table does not state a unit or scale for this numeric score.
Source Provider model card

Popularity compared

How often the model is searched for, used and mentioned, compared with every model of its category.

Popularity index

The 100 most popular models of this category, 0 to 100, higher is more popular

20 of 101 models

Gemini 4 Argon92
GPT-6 Astra78
Claude Haiku 5.577
Qwen3.5 4B76
GPT-573
GPT-6 Sol72
Qwen3.5 0.8B72
Qwen3.5 2B71
Qwen 3.8 27B70
Claude Opus 5.570
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 101768
Qwen 3.8 Max 090268
Kimi K368
DeepSeek-V4-Flash65
GPT-5.6 Terra64
Claude Sonnet 563
DiffusionGemma 26B A4B IT63
Claude Opus 562
Qwen 3.8 Flash62
Xing4.0-29B-A4B41

As of November 2026 · Source: gradually.ai popularity index

Over time

Weekly values from October 18, 2026 to November 5, 2026

Xing4.0-29B-A4BQwen 3 235B A22B Instruct 2507Tiny Aya EarthDeepSeek OCR 2DeepSeek-V3.2 Exp

All specifications

Architecture

Parameters
29 billion total, 4 billion active
Source: Parameters
Architecture
mHC, MLA, and MTP
Source: Architecture

Input and output

Context window
256K tokens, extensible to 512K
Source: Context window

Watermarking and provenance

AI watermarking refers to invisible signals embedded in the output. Visible marks and provenance metadata are listed separately. Unknown means there is insufficient evidence for that particular field.

AI watermarking
Unknown
no source
Watermarking technique
Not known
no source

Licence and access

Access
OpenAI-compatible API and local deployment
Source: Access
License
Apache 2.0
Source: License

API

Model ID
XingChen-AGI/Xing4.0-29B-A4B
Source: Model ID

Frequently asked questions about Xing4.0-29B-A4B

Can I run Xing4.0-29B-A4B locally?

Yes, the weights are open.

Stated by XingChen AGI

Open weights
yes
License
Apache 2.0
Parameters
29B
active per token
4B

Sources and data date

Benchmark sources at a glance

Which independent evaluators tested this model. This is coverage, not a quality ranking.

No active result from the reviewed external evaluators can currently be attributed to this model. Other source evidence remains available below.

Without vendor claims and historical or disputed results; those stay labelled in the single values.

TypeEvidence and data date
Research statusResearch date October 4, 2026. 1 source URLs checked. This documents the inspected sources, not an exhaustive inventory of every publication.
Additional sourceXing4.0-29B-A4B model card (retrieved October 3, 2026; October 4, 2026) · Xing4.0-29B-A4B model card · Editorial description reviewed October 4, 2026
Additional sourceOpenRouter: Popularity index (derived), CC BY 4.0
Additional sourceVercel AI Gateway: Popularity index (derived), CC BY 4.0
Additional sourceOllama: cumulative downloads for the popularity index
Additional sourceReplicate: cumulative runs for the popularity index
Additional sourceGoogle Trending Now: limited feed selection for Germany and the US
Additional sourceCreative Commons Attribution 4.0