Live access is not confirmed for this model. No current purchase price is advertised.
Related provider subscriptions
No current subscription pricing is tracked for this model.
Confirm this specific model, usage limits, and billing terms with the provider. A subscription does not automatically include API credits.
No login needed to compare. Prices are in USD; provider charges are separate from AI Market Cap plans. Context length, caching, tools, taxes, and regional terms can change the final cost. Open weights do not mean free hosting.
---
Quality Score
---
Arena ELO
Unknown
Parameters
---
Context
Evidence profile
How complete is this record?
This measures the amount of verifiable public evidence we have, not how capable the model is. A missing field means it has not been verified yet, not that its value is zero.
Recent launch, pricing, benchmark, and API signals linked to this model or its provider.
BenchmarksGoogle6mo ago
Gemma — Google DeepMind
Gemma — Google DeepMind Skip to main content Explore our next generation AI systems Explore models Gemini Gemini Build intelligent agents Gemini Omni Create anything from anything Nano Banana Create and edit detailed images Gemini Audio Talk, create and control audio Specialized models Veo Generate cinematic video with audio Lyria Generate high fidelity music and audio Genie 3 Generate and explore interactive worlds Gemini Robotics Perceive, reason, use tools and interact Ope
Gemma — Google DeepMind Skip to main content Explore our next generation AI systems Explore models Gemini Gemini Build intelligent agents Gemini Omni Create anything from anything Nano Banana Create and edit detailed images Gemini Audio Talk, create and control audio Specialized models Veo Generate cinematic video with audio Lyria Generate high fidelity music and audio Genie 3 Generate and explore interactive worlds Gemini Robotics Perceive, reason, use tools and interact Ope
gemma-4 is now available through local Ollama runtime and Ollama Cloud. 128K context window listed. Gemma 4 models are designed to deliver frontier-level performance at each size. They are well-suited for reasoning, agentic workflows, coding, and multimodal understanding.
SiliconBench: Speed, Memory, and Fidelity for LLM Serving on Unified-Memory Desktops
Concurrent local LLM serving on unified-memory desktops must preserve memory headroom and output fidelity, which speed-only rankings overlook. We introduce SiliconBench, which evaluates nine Apple Silicon serving engines through three lenses: speed, memory, and fidelity. We evaluate chat and agent serving on Qwen3, Qwen3.5, and Gemma 4. We use a classification task to check for quality regressions against an NVIDIA reference. DGX Spark provides a complementary serving-performance reference. Three desiderata guide interpretation: serving architecture readiness, memory discipline, and multi-node scaling. On Qwen3-0.6B, vllm-metal alone more than doubles throughput on both workloads from concurrency 1 to 16. CUDA vLLM and SGLang show stronger concurrency scaling on the same prompts. Explicit memory budgets do not guarantee memory headroom: two stacks complete every request while memory use approaches physical capacity and throughput declines. The newer model architectures have narrower engine support. Their evaluated implementations match the fidelity reference. Only three stacks satisfy the completion, fidelity, and model-coverage gates. Comparisons on larger dense and MoE models reinforce the importance of scheduling prompt processing alongside ongoing generation: vllm-metal's packed prefill-decode path maintains lower first-token latency than omlx under concurrent load. In the tested two-machine configurations, tensor parallelism over Thunderbolt RDMA scales while pipeline parallelism over TCP regresses. We release benchmark code, per-run results, and maintenance journals, supported by a workflow combining bounded agent fixes with human review.
Co-Evolving Harnesses and Models: On-Policy Correction Helps Weaker Models Catch Up Where Imitation Fails
Agent harnesses (the system prompt, tool set, execution hooks, and context-management scaffolding around a model) are a critical determinant of agentic task success. Automated harness evolution can enable smaller models to perform well on domain-specific tasks at a fraction of frontier-model cost. Since both the harness and model weights shape behavior, we ask how harness evolution and lightweight fine-tuning should be combined. Across seven enterprise agent tasks, we first evolve a harness with the weaker model, then find that a stronger expert often uses it more effectively, suggesting expert supervision could close the remaining gap. However, training the weaker model on the expert's complete trajectories under the evolved harness backfires: performance regresses on all seven tasks by 4 to 30 points across Qwen3-Coder and Gemma 4, even though the same procedure helps under the unevolved harness. Our analysis shows that imitation transfers knowledge and increases scaffold usage, but disrupts model-harness fit: the weaker model adopts the expert's planning strategy without the competence to execute it and no longer matches the harness evolved around its native planning style. We therefore develop an on-policy expert-correction pipeline, automated by a meta-level MLE agent, that localizes the failing turn in the weaker model's own rollout and asks the expert to rewrite only that turn. This preserves the model's planning style and combines the gains of harness evolution and model adaptation. Our results identify and resolve a source of contention between harness and weight updates, yielding a compatibility-preserving recipe for economical co-evolution on domain-specific enterprise tasks.
SiliconBench: Speed, Memory, and Fidelity for LLM Serving on Unified-Memory Desktops
Concurrent local LLM serving on unified-memory desktops must preserve memory headroom and output fidelity, which speed-only rankings overlook. We introduce SiliconBench, which evaluates nine Apple Silicon serving engines through three lenses: speed, memory, and fidelity. We evaluate chat and agent serving on Qwen3, Qwen3.5, and Gemma 4. We use a classification task to check for quality regressions against an NVIDIA reference. DGX Spark provides a complementary serving-performance reference. Three desiderata guide interpretation: serving architecture readiness, memory discipline, and multi-node scaling. On Qwen3-0.6B, vllm-metal alone more than doubles throughput on both workloads from concurrency 1 to 16. CUDA vLLM and SGLang show stronger concurrency scaling on the same prompts. Explicit memory budgets do not guarantee memory headroom: two stacks complete every request while memory use approaches physical capacity and throughput declines. The newer model architectures have narrower engine support. Their evaluated implementations match the fidelity reference. Only three stacks satisfy the completion, fidelity, and model-coverage gates. Comparisons on larger dense and MoE models reinforce the importance of scheduling prompt processing alongside ongoing generation: vllm-metal's packed prefill-decode path maintains lower first-token latency than omlx under concurrent load. In the tested two-machine configurations, tensor parallelism over Thunderbolt RDMA scales while pipeline parallelism over TCP regresses. We release benchmark code, per-run results, and maintenance journals, supported by a workflow combining bounded agent fixes with human review.
Co-Evolving Harnesses and Models: On-Policy Correction Helps Weaker Models Catch Up Where Imitation Fails
Agent harnesses (the system prompt, tool set, execution hooks, and context-management scaffolding around a model) are a critical determinant of agentic task success. Automated harness evolution can enable smaller models to perform well on domain-specific tasks at a fraction of frontier-model cost. Since both the harness and model weights shape behavior, we ask how harness evolution and lightweight fine-tuning should be combined. Across seven enterprise agent tasks, we first evolve a harness with the weaker model, then find that a stronger expert often uses it more effectively, suggesting expert supervision could close the remaining gap. However, training the weaker model on the expert's complete trajectories under the evolved harness backfires: performance regresses on all seven tasks by 4 to 30 points across Qwen3-Coder and Gemma 4, even though the same procedure helps under the unevolved harness. Our analysis shows that imitation transfers knowledge and increases scaffold usage, but disrupts model-harness fit: the weaker model adopts the expert's planning strategy without the competence to execute it and no longer matches the harness evolved around its native planning style. We therefore develop an on-policy expert-correction pipeline, automated by a meta-level MLE agent, that localizes the failing turn in the weaker model's own rollout and asks the expert to rewrite only that turn. This preserves the model's planning style and combines the gains of harness evolution and model adaptation. Our results identify and resolve a source of contention between harness and weight updates, yielding a compatibility-preserving recipe for economical co-evolution on domain-specific enterprise tasks.
MARS: Multi-Specialist LLM Relay System for Competitive Programming
Large Language Models excel at code generation, yet competitive programming exposes a persistent failure mode: existing multi-agent pipelines distribute work over generic planner, coder, and debugger roles and delegate the choice of algorithmic technique to the backbone alone. We present MARS (Multi-Agent Relay of Specialized LLMs), a prompt-only framework in which each agent is a topic specialist---dynamic programming, graphs, strings, geometry, and so on---grounded by retrieval-augmented generation over an algorithm-theory corpus. Given a problem, retrieval selects a small team of relevant specialists; a starter writes an initial C++17 solution, and each subsequent turn runs the candidate against public examples in a sandbox, lets the active specialist keep, repair, or hand off the draft, and forwards a structured packet to the next specialist. A single infrastructure-fixer pass normalizes boilerplate at the end. On the CodeContests test split with Gemma 4, MARS reaches 0.624 pm 0.006 pass rate at 2.3 recorded pipeline stages per task (+14.4 percentage points over direct prompting), closing most of the gap to CodeSIM (0.731) at 3.3{times} lower wall-clock cost and substantially smaller variance in per-task token spend. The source code is available on GitHub: https://github.com/fckand/mars.
gemma-4 is now available through local Ollama runtime and Ollama Cloud. 128K context window listed. Gemma 4 models are designed to deliver frontier-level performance at each size. They are well-suited for reasoning, agentic workflows, coding, and multimodal understanding.
Gemma — Google DeepMind Skip to main content Explore our next generation AI systems Explore models Gemini Gemini Build intelligent agents Gemini Omni Create anything from anything Nano Banana Create and edit detailed images Gemini Audio Talk, create and control audio Specialized models Veo Generate cinematic video with audio Lyria Generate high fidelity music and audio Genie 3 Generate and explore interactive worlds Gemini Robotics Perceive, reason, use tools and interact Ope
Gemma — Google DeepMind Skip to main content Explore our next generation AI systems Explore models Gemini Gemini Build intelligent agents Gemini Omni Create anything from anything Nano Banana Create and edit detailed images Gemini Audio Talk, create and control audio Specialized models Veo Generate cinematic video with audio Lyria Generate high fidelity music and audio Genie 3 Generate and explore interactive worlds Gemini Robotics Perceive, reason, use tools and interact Ope