← AZ-Focus releasesAZ-Focus · Open model · Qwen licence · INT4 · one DGX Spark

Qwen3.8-Flash-Next-AZ-Focus

Alibaba's Qwen3.8-Flash-Next, with the second-guessing turned down. About half the thinking at its default effort, the same answers, and agentic coding unchanged, on a single DGX Spark.

46%
less thinking across 1,298 benchmark answers
3.3×
sooner to finish a 60-question set on one Spark
Same
accuracy: 1,142 vs 1,135 correct
97 · 96
SWE-bench Verified vs 97 · 97: agentic coding unchanged
Qwen3.8-Flash-Next on one DGX Spark, AZ-Focus vs the original model: questions answered correctly within a token budget, 70% vs 64% at 2k up to 88% vs 87% with no limit; on the hardest questions 59% vs 41% at 8k; 3.3 times sooner on a 60-question test; about 55 tokens per second for both.
What changes

It stops second-guessing itself

On hard questions Qwen3.8-Flash-Next spends much of its thinking on hesitation: "Wait…","Hmm, maybe…", re-checking answers it already had. We optimised the model's weights against that habit, while leaving alone the checking it does as an agent (running tests, inspecting output before it submits). It still reasons step by step. It just loops less.

QuestionA train leaves at 3:40 pm and arrives at 6:15 pm. How long is the journey?
Original model0 tokens · 0.0s
 
AZ-Focus0 tokens · 0.0s
 
reasoning AZ-Focus reasoning scrap: "wait", "hmm", "let me double-check…"

Illustration: each block is about 10 thinking tokens. The lengths match our measured averages on reasoning benchmarks (about half the thinking tokens) with accuracy within about three points. Fewer thinking tokens means less to generate, so answers generally arrive sooner.

At the default effort

Less thinking, same answers

At Qwen3.8-Flash-Next's default (xhigh) effort, AZ-Focus cuts thinking by 35% to 52% across four benchmarks, with accuracy level or up.

Fig. 2: Thinking per answer at the default effortBase AZ-Focus
MMLU-Pro500 questions
5,880 tokens · 85.4%
2,849 · 86.4%−52%
BIG-Bench Hard540 tasks
1,962 tokens · 87.6%
1,059 · 87.4%−46%
GPQA Diamond198 questions
20.2k tokens · 88.9%
10.7k · 90.4%−47%
AIME 202530 problems, 2 runs
27.3k tokens · 98.3%
17.9k · 98.3%−35%
Each row is scaled to the base model's thinking. Labels: mean thinking tokens per answer · accuracy. 1,298 answers per model, 128k output limit, same serving setup; differences of about a point are within run-to-run noise.
Within your time budget

More correct answers in the time you have

One DGX Spark, default effort, one request at a time. An answer counts only if it is correct and finished within the time limit.

Correct within15 seconds30 seconds1 minute5 minutesWhole set
Base63%68%70%77%65.7 min
AZ-Focus68%77%78%83%19.7 min

60 questions (30 MMLU-Pro, 30 BIG-Bench Hard), Mia's TensorFold recipe with MTP drafts, from the one-Spark benchmark; per-question times are in its receipts. No answer hit the output limit.

Serving benchmark

Same speed, more finished answers

We ran RigMark, the serving benchmark used across DGX Spark recipes, on both models with the same recipe. Raw speed is the same; the difference is how often an answer is finished within RigMark's token cap.

RigMark on one DGX Spark, base vs AZ-Focus. At xhigh effort: output checks 6 of 9 vs 8 of 9; coding task finished within the cap 0 of 3 vs 2 of 3; total decode time 26.0 vs 20.4 minutes. At low effort: output checks 12 of 15 vs 14 of 15; prose task finished 2 of 5 vs 4 of 5; total decode time 7.6 vs 5.2 minutes. Raw decode speed for 1, 2 and 4 users: 51, 81, 126 vs 51, 81, 124 tokens a second.
RigMark, one SparkBaseAZ-Focus
xhigh effort (default), 32,768-token cap, 3 runs per workload
Output checks passed6 of 98 of 9
Coding task finished within the cap0 of 32 of 3
Total decode time, all workloads26.0 min20.4 min
low effort, RigMark defaults (8,192-token cap, 5 runs per workload)
Output checks passed12 of 1514 of 15
Prose task finished within the cap2 of 54 of 5
Total decode time, all workloads7.6 min5.2 min
Speed (both efforts)
Prefill, 8K / 32K / 64K (tok/s)2,563 / 2,518 / 2,4342,546 / 2,515 / 2,430
1 / 2 / 4 users at once (tok/s, 256-token cap, xhigh)51 / 81 / 12651 / 81 / 124

At xhigh the base model ran out of tokens on all three runs of RigMark's coding task, thinking to the cap without writing code. RigMark marks every card here "do not headline" because neither model passes all of its output checks. We compare finished answers and total time rather than per-workload rates, which shift depending on which runs hit the cap. Temperature 0, Mia's recipe with MTP drafts and fp8 KV, the public INT4 release. Receipts: Base, xhigh (JSON) · AZ-Focus, xhigh (JSON) · Base, low (JSON) · AZ-Focus, low (JSON).

Results

Across benchmarks, at the default effort

Base vs AZ-Focus, both served the same way: one DGX Spark, Mia's recipe, thinking on, the recipe's sampling, 128k output limit. None of these benchmarks was used to build the model.

BenchmarkWhatBaseAZ-FocusThinking, baseThinking, AZ-FocusChange
Reasoning & knowledge
MMLU-Pro500 questions, 14 subjects85.4%86.4%5,8802,84952% less
BIG-Bench Hard540 logic & reasoning tasks87.6%87.4%1,9621,05946% less
GPQA Diamond198 graduate-level science questions88.9%90.4%20,17210,72147% less
Maths
AIME 202530 competition problems, 2 runs98.3%98.3%27,34217,85835% less
Coding
SWE-bench Verifiedfirst 100 tasks, agentic (mini-SWE-agent), 2 runs97/10096.5/100

SWE-bench: 97 and 96 vs 97 and 97 (mean shown). Per-answer results for both models are in the receipts.

Best at the default effort

Qwen3.8's default is xhigh, and that's where the hesitation is. At low effort it already thinks briefly; AZ-Focus saves almost nothing there, so use the base model at low.

Agents keep checking

Agentic coding is unchanged on SWE-bench Verified, and so is the number of agent steps: the saving is in reasoning, not in the checks an agent makes before it submits.

Weights only

The change is in the weights: no adapter, runtime patch or extra code. Only the attention and shared-expert output weights differ from the base checkpoint; everything else is byte-for-byte the same.

Effort setting

Use it at the default

At xhigh, the default, AZ-Focus halves the thinking with accuracy up. At low, the base model already thinks briefly and AZ-Focus doesn't help.

Fig. 3: Thinking tokens per item at each effort settingBase AZ-Focus
128-answer probe
Effort xhighdefault
13,494 · 82.8%
6,988 · 84.4%−48%
Effort low
3,596 · 83.6%
3,450 · 79.7%−4%
Bars: mean thinking tokens per answer. Labels: tokens · accuracy, and the change in thinking. 64 questions (MMLU-Pro, BBH, GPQA, AIME) × 2 seeds, 128k output limit.
Using it

One Spark, one line

The INT4 release is a drop-in for Mia's single-Spark TensorFold recipe: point MODEL_ID at it and everything else (MTP drafts, KV cache, context, effort levels) works as in the recipe. It's built on azampatti's INT4-AutoRound checkpoint, which routes each token to 5 experts instead of Qwen's 10 for speed and is healed to stay close to the original; every comparison here is against that checkpoint. For the full 10-expert model there are EXL3 4.05 bpw (one Spark, with Victor Cruz's EXL3 recipe) and BF16 releases: 39% less thinking on our 128-answer set (109 vs 112 correct) and SWE-bench Verified 98 vs 96.

Good to know

Limitations

  • Use the default (xhigh) effort; at low effort use the base model.
  • Set an output limit: on 2 of 1,298 answers AZ-Focus kept exploring past 128k tokens without answering (none for the base model); on other seeds it solved both.
  • Other languages, very long contexts, vision and multi-hour agent sessions haven't been measured separately yet.

Qwen Community License 1.0, as for the original; note its terms for very large products and for Model-as-a-Service / AI work-assistant businesses. Based on Qwen3.8-Flash-Next by Qwen, with thanks to Intel, Saren-Arterius, azampatti, Mia and Ash Hart.

Want to build on this?

We're an independent AI lab, looking for a few partners to build with at the frontier.

Work with us