RAS-LAB

GLM-4.7-Flash-24B-A3B-KREAP-Code

Intended use

Research baseline for code-calibrated standard REAP at the 48-Expert budget
Comparison of calibration and survivor-selection trade-offs against same-size KREAP checkpoints
Offline experimentation with the validated Transformers and PyTorch/CUDA path on sufficiently provisioned hardware
Not intended for production deployment, Korean-preservation claims, or safety-critical use

What this checkpoint shows

Method: KREAP-Code baseline
Korean MC macro: 53.5 (base 68.8, -15.3 pp)
Overall non-Korean composite: 60.4 (base 65.5, -5.1 pp)
Coding 2-benchmark macro: 74.0 (base 76.0, -2.0 pp)
LiveCodeBench v6 pass@1: 25.1 (base 22.9, +2.3 pp)
Coding 3-benchmark macro: 57.7 (base 58.3, -0.6 pp)
Protection budget: No Korean hard-protection constraint was applied.

Benchmark results

Table with columns: benchmark, base, KREAP 12.5%, KREAP force-fit 25%, KREAP force-fit 50%, KREAP-Code 25% (this checkpoint)
benchmark	base	KREAP 12.5%	KREAP force-fit 25%	KREAP force-fit 50%	KREAP-Code 25% (this checkpoint)
Korean (held-out harness)
KMMLU	49.4	48.8	42.4	23.6	35.0
KoBEST BoolQ	90.2	87.7	78.8	74.3	79.6
KoBEST COPA	70.7	69.7	65.0	55.9	51.7
KoBEST SentiNeg	74.8	71.8	70.5	53.7	49.6
KoBEST HellaSwag	58.8	55.0	57.4	48.8	51.6
English reasoning / knowledge
ARC-Challenge	87.1	86.1	79.9	36.9	79.1
HellaSwag (en)	74.2	67.4	55.3	32.6	61.7
WinoGrande	67.4	65.6	59.2	53.1	63.5
MMLU-Pro	41.2	36.9	34.2	14.8	33.8
TruthfulQA MC2	47.3	46.0	43.1	40.6	44.6
MMLU-en	69.7	64.5	56.6	30.1	59.6
Math
GSM8K	86.3	86.7	81.8	61.3	86.7
MathQA	30.5	29.1	24.8	21.3	28.7
Coding
HumanEval+	81.1	75.6	74.4	65.2	80.5
MBPP+	70.9	69.3	67.5	61.6	67.5
LiveCodeBench v6	22.9	25.1	20.6	16.6	25.1
Safety / bias
BBQ	76.6	69.9	59.8	33.6	74.0
SafetyBench	74.8	73.0	69.1	44.3	72.1
Macro
Korean MC macro	68.8	66.6	62.8	51.2	53.5
English reasoning / knowledge macro (6)	64.5	61.1	54.7	34.7	57.0
Math macro (2)	58.4	57.9	53.3	41.3	57.7
Safety / bias macro (2)	75.7	71.5	64.5	39.0	73.0
Overall non-Korean composite (10)	65.5	62.5	56.4	36.9	60.4
Coding 2-bench macro	76.0	72.5	70.9	63.4	74.0
Coding 3-bench macro	58.3	56.7	54.1	47.8	57.7

Aggregate rows are unweighted arithmetic means. The overall non-Korean composite averages six English reasoning/knowledge metrics, two math metrics, and two safety/bias metrics. The coding 3-benchmark macro averages HumanEval+, MBPP+, and LiveCodeBench v6 pass@1. These mixed summaries are compact internal comparisons, not standardized leaderboard scores.

Compatibility

Table with columns: Runtime or feature, Status
Runtime or feature	Status
Transformers 5.0.0, PyTorch/CUDA, eager attention and eager Experts on DGX Spark	Validated
Native `from_pretrained(..., trust_remote_code=False)` loading	Validated
Speculative MTP/NextN decoding	Unsupported (`mtp_compatible=false`)
vLLM	Untested for this pruned checkpoint
SGLang	Untested for this pruned checkpoint

Architecture: Glm4MoeLiteForCausalLM.
Model code: native Transformers implementation; no repository-side modeling_*.py is required, and the checkpoint loads with trust_remote_code=False.
Preserved: first Dense layer, shared Experts, topk_method=noaux_tc, norm_topk_prob=true, router correction bias, and routed_scaling_factor=1.8.
Routing: top-4 remains unchanged; only routed Expert tensors and corresponding router rows/bias entries were compacted with one old→new ID map per layer.
The extra layer-47 MTP/NextN tensors are retained for checkpoint completeness, but runtime validation reports mtp_compatible=false. Use standard autoregressive generation; speculative MTP/NextN decoding is not supported by this release.
Top-4 routing is unchanged, so the checkpoint-size and resident-weight reduction must not be interpreted as a proportional reduction in active Expert compute or latency. Cold-load time, TTFT, prefill/decode throughput, batch scaling, power, and 4K/32K/128K serving behavior have not been benchmarked.

How it was made

Source checkpoint

Base: zai-org/GLM-4.7-Flash
Frozen revision: 7dd20894a642a0aa287e9827cb1a1f7f91386b67
Original routed MoE layout: first layer Dense, then 46 routed MoE layers with 64 Experts, top-4 routing, plus shared Experts.

Calibration dataset

Table with columns: Source, Records, Observed tokens, Role
Source	Records	Observed tokens	Role
`theblackcat102/evol-codealpaca-v1`	8,192	4,366,438	Code-centric standard REAP baseline

No Korean segment weighting, Korean↔English contrast, or hard-protected set was used.
The manifest passed a separate internal token-count, token-hash, and exact-prompt contamination validator.
The exact selected-sample manifest is not included in this model repository, so the complete run is not yet externally reproducible from public materials alone.

Observation and scoring

Selected-only observer: only routed Expert assignments were measured; no dense [experts, tokens, hidden] activation tensor was retained.
REAP contribution: normalized dispatch weight × L2 norm of the unweighted Expert output.
Router selection and dispatch were checked separately so GLM's correction bias affects selection without being mistaken for the actual dispatch weight.
The observed model remained logit-identical to the uninstrumented eager model in validation.

Pruning

Uniform routed Experts per layer: 64 → 48.
Shared Experts and the first Dense layer were not pruned.
Top-4 and routed scaling factor 1.8 were retained.
Safetensors surgery physically compacted Expert tensors, router rows, and correction-bias entries.
Protection result: No Korean hard-protection constraint was applied.

Evaluation scope

These are internal comparative evaluation results, not standardized leaderboard numbers:

KMMLU: deterministic 500-example subset (seed 42).
KoBEST: declared BoolQ, COPA, SentiNeg, and HellaSwag evaluation splits.
ARC-Challenge, HellaSwag-en, WinoGrande, MMLU-Pro, TruthfulQA MC2, MMLU-en, GSM8K, MathQA, BBQ, and SafetyBench: deterministic 512-example subsets.
HumanEval+: full 164 tasks; MBPP+: frozen full 378-task revision; greedy pass@1.
LiveCodeBench: full incremental v6 split (175 problems), n=1 greedy no-thinking generation, batch size 1, with official functional tests executed in an isolated ARM64 container. This protocol is not directly comparable to the official leaderboard's n=10 sampling protocol.
The machine-readable field decision_eligible=true means that the run passed the project's internal screening checks. It is not an external certification. release_eligible=false.
Do not compare these subset scores directly with full-set or few-shot leaderboard values.

Machine-readable results and the exact survivor manifest are included under evaluation/.

Internal classification: This is a code-centric REAP comparison control. KREAP release criteria do not apply because Korean hard protection was intentionally omitted.

Interpretation boundaries

At the same 48-Expert size, KREAP-48E has a 9.3 pp higher Korean MC macro, while this checkpoint has a 4.0 pp higher overall non-Korean composite, a 4.6 pp higher LiveCodeBench score, and a 3.6 pp higher coding 3-benchmark macro.
This is not a controlled single-variable comparison: the two checkpoints differ in both calibration data and survivor-selection rules. It cannot isolate the causal effect of hard protection.
Machine-readable results include direct KREAP-48E versus KREAP-Code-48E McNemar tests for 11 non-Korean binary/pass-fail tasks. Direct paired tests for the Korean benchmark set, aggregate bootstrap confidence intervals, multiple-comparison correction, and repeated calibration seeds are absent.
PASS in the artifacts refers to checkpoint integrity and internal pipeline validation, not external replication.

Usage

Install a Transformers release that includes Glm4MoeLiteForCausalLM:

bash

pip install "transformers>=5.0.0" accelerate safetensors

The checkpoint was validated with Transformers 5.0.0 and NVIDIA PyTorch 25.09. It uses the native Transformers model implementation and does not execute custom code from this repository.

python

import torchfrom transformers import AutoModelForCausalLM, AutoTokenizer model_id = "RAS-LAB/GLM-4.7-Flash-24B-A3B-KREAP-Code"tokenizer = AutoTokenizer.from_pretrained(    model_id,    trust_remote_code=False,)model = AutoModelForCausalLM.from_pretrained(    model_id,    dtype=torch.bfloat16,    device_map="auto",    trust_remote_code=False,    attn_implementation="eager",    experts_implementation="eager",)model.eval() messages = [{"role": "user", "content": "한국어로 이진 탐색을 설명해줘."}]prompt = tokenizer.apply_chat_template(    messages,    tokenize=False,    add_generation_prompt=True,    enable_thinking=False,)inputs = tokenizer(prompt, return_tensors="pt").to(model.device) with torch.inference_mode():    output = model.generate(        **inputs,        max_new_tokens=256,        do_sample=False,        pad_token_id=tokenizer.eos_token_id,    ) print(tokenizer.decode(output[0, inputs["input_ids"].shape[1]:], skip_special_tokens=True))

Limitations

Expert pruning is irreversible within this checkpoint and can change routing behavior sharply on tasks not represented by the calibration or evaluation sets. No post-pruning recovery or fine-tuning was applied. Reported Korean behavior is relative to the tested base checkpoint and harness; it does not imply universal Korean-language safety or quality preservation. The current release is not validated for speculative MTP/NextN decoding.

The Korean evaluation is primarily multiple-choice. Korean long-form generation, summarization, multi-turn dialogue, format-following, code explanation/debugging, factuality, hallucination, safety, tool calling, JSON output, and long-context retrieval were not comprehensively evaluated. Chinese capability is inherited from the base model but was not specifically protected or evaluated after pruning. vLLM/SGLang compatibility and deployment performance remain unverified.

Included research artifacts

evaluation/glm-full-b20-results-with-livecodebench.json: machine-readable five-model full results
evaluation/glm-full-b20-long-scores.csv: compact long-format B20 scores
evaluation/glm-full-b20-independent-validation.json: independent B20 validation report
evaluation/survivor-manifest.json: exact per-layer old Expert IDs retained
artifacts/calibration-validation.json: separate internal calibration-manifest validation
artifacts/observation-validation.json: selected-only observation validation
artifacts/expert-statistics.csv: per-Expert scoring/features used for this method

Provenance

Base model: zai-org/GLM-4.7-Flash, revision 7dd20894a642a0aa287e9827cb1a1f7f91386b67
Base license: MIT
General method code: K-REAP, commit 234666e
Reproducibility note: the linked repository documents K-REAP and its public adapters, but the exact GLM-specific observation pipeline, run configuration, and evaluation manifests used for this checkpoint are not yet published there.
Team: RAS-LAB
Benchmark report SHA256: 71ab2ce742bf8a481d90d10c8b8684a918241fd475729b0bf2afe56b44335dd6
Model card generated from an internally validated benchmark artifact with zero validation failures; this is not an external reproduction claim.

Citation

Please cite the base checkpoint and REAP when using this model:

bibtex

@misc{zai2026glm47flash,  title        = {GLM-4.7-Flash},  author       = {{Z.ai}},  year         = {2026},  howpublished = {\url{https://huggingface.co/zai-org/GLM-4.7-Flash}},  note         = {Base revision 7dd20894a642a0aa287e9827cb1a1f7f91386b67}} @article{lasby2025reap,  title   = {REAP the Experts: Why Pruning Prevails for One-Shot MoE Compression},  author  = {Lasby, Mike and Lazarevich, Ivan and Sinnadurai, Nish and Lie, Sean and Ioannou, Yani and Thangarasa, Vithursan},  journal = {arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.13999},  year    = {2025},  doi     = {10.48550/arXiv.2510.13999}}

Available on FriendliAI

Dedicated Endpoints

Run this model inference on single tenant GPU with unmatched speed and reliability at scale.

Learn more

Model Details

Model Provider

RAS-LAB

Model Tree

Base

zai-org/GLM-4.7-Flash

Fine-tuned

this model

Input Modalities

Text

Output Modalities

Text

Supported Functionality

Dedicated Endpoints

Explore FriendliAI today

Get started Talk to an engineer

Intended use

Research baseline for code-calibrated standard REAP at the 48-Expert budget
Comparison of calibration and survivor-selection trade-offs against same-size KREAP checkpoints
Offline experimentation with the validated Transformers and PyTorch/CUDA path on sufficiently provisioned hardware
Not intended for production deployment, Korean-preservation claims, or safety-critical use

What this checkpoint shows

Method: KREAP-Code baseline
Korean MC macro: 53.5 (base 68.8, -15.3 pp)
Overall non-Korean composite: 60.4 (base 65.5, -5.1 pp)
Coding 2-benchmark macro: 74.0 (base 76.0, -2.0 pp)
LiveCodeBench v6 pass@1: 25.1 (base 22.9, +2.3 pp)
Coding 3-benchmark macro: 57.7 (base 58.3, -0.6 pp)
Protection budget: No Korean hard-protection constraint was applied.

Benchmark results

Table with columns: benchmark, base, KREAP 12.5%, KREAP force-fit 25%, KREAP force-fit 50%, KREAP-Code 25% (this checkpoint)
benchmark	base	KREAP 12.5%	KREAP force-fit 25%	KREAP force-fit 50%	KREAP-Code 25% (this checkpoint)
Korean (held-out harness)
KMMLU	49.4	48.8	42.4	23.6	35.0
KoBEST BoolQ	90.2	87.7	78.8	74.3	79.6
KoBEST COPA	70.7	69.7	65.0	55.9	51.7
KoBEST SentiNeg	74.8	71.8	70.5	53.7	49.6
KoBEST HellaSwag	58.8	55.0	57.4	48.8	51.6
English reasoning / knowledge
ARC-Challenge	87.1	86.1	79.9	36.9	79.1
HellaSwag (en)	74.2	67.4	55.3	32.6	61.7
WinoGrande	67.4	65.6	59.2	53.1	63.5
MMLU-Pro	41.2	36.9	34.2	14.8	33.8
TruthfulQA MC2	47.3	46.0	43.1	40.6	44.6
MMLU-en	69.7	64.5	56.6	30.1	59.6
Math
GSM8K	86.3	86.7	81.8	61.3	86.7
MathQA	30.5	29.1	24.8	21.3	28.7
Coding
HumanEval+	81.1	75.6	74.4	65.2	80.5
MBPP+	70.9	69.3	67.5	61.6	67.5
LiveCodeBench v6	22.9	25.1	20.6	16.6	25.1
Safety / bias
BBQ	76.6	69.9	59.8	33.6	74.0
SafetyBench	74.8	73.0	69.1	44.3	72.1
Macro
Korean MC macro	68.8	66.6	62.8	51.2	53.5
English reasoning / knowledge macro (6)	64.5	61.1	54.7	34.7	57.0
Math macro (2)	58.4	57.9	53.3	41.3	57.7
Safety / bias macro (2)	75.7	71.5	64.5	39.0	73.0
Overall non-Korean composite (10)	65.5	62.5	56.4	36.9	60.4
Coding 2-bench macro	76.0	72.5	70.9	63.4	74.0
Coding 3-bench macro	58.3	56.7	54.1	47.8	57.7

Compatibility

Table with columns: Runtime or feature, Status
Runtime or feature	Status
Transformers 5.0.0, PyTorch/CUDA, eager attention and eager Experts on DGX Spark	Validated
Native `from_pretrained(..., trust_remote_code=False)` loading	Validated
Speculative MTP/NextN decoding	Unsupported (`mtp_compatible=false`)
vLLM	Untested for this pruned checkpoint
SGLang	Untested for this pruned checkpoint

Architecture: Glm4MoeLiteForCausalLM.
Model code: native Transformers implementation; no repository-side modeling_*.py is required, and the checkpoint loads with trust_remote_code=False.
Preserved: first Dense layer, shared Experts, topk_method=noaux_tc, norm_topk_prob=true, router correction bias, and routed_scaling_factor=1.8.
Routing: top-4 remains unchanged; only routed Expert tensors and corresponding router rows/bias entries were compacted with one old→new ID map per layer.
The extra layer-47 MTP/NextN tensors are retained for checkpoint completeness, but runtime validation reports mtp_compatible=false. Use standard autoregressive generation; speculative MTP/NextN decoding is not supported by this release.
Top-4 routing is unchanged, so the checkpoint-size and resident-weight reduction must not be interpreted as a proportional reduction in active Expert compute or latency. Cold-load time, TTFT, prefill/decode throughput, batch scaling, power, and 4K/32K/128K serving behavior have not been benchmarked.

How it was made

Source checkpoint

Base: zai-org/GLM-4.7-Flash
Frozen revision: 7dd20894a642a0aa287e9827cb1a1f7f91386b67
Original routed MoE layout: first layer Dense, then 46 routed MoE layers with 64 Experts, top-4 routing, plus shared Experts.

Calibration dataset

Table with columns: Source, Records, Observed tokens, Role
Source	Records	Observed tokens	Role
`theblackcat102/evol-codealpaca-v1`	8,192	4,366,438	Code-centric standard REAP baseline

No Korean segment weighting, Korean↔English contrast, or hard-protected set was used.
The manifest passed a separate internal token-count, token-hash, and exact-prompt contamination validator.
The exact selected-sample manifest is not included in this model repository, so the complete run is not yet externally reproducible from public materials alone.

Observation and scoring

Selected-only observer: only routed Expert assignments were measured; no dense [experts, tokens, hidden] activation tensor was retained.
REAP contribution: normalized dispatch weight × L2 norm of the unweighted Expert output.
Router selection and dispatch were checked separately so GLM's correction bias affects selection without being mistaken for the actual dispatch weight.
The observed model remained logit-identical to the uninstrumented eager model in validation.

Pruning

Uniform routed Experts per layer: 64 → 48.
Shared Experts and the first Dense layer were not pruned.
Top-4 and routed scaling factor 1.8 were retained.
Safetensors surgery physically compacted Expert tensors, router rows, and correction-bias entries.
Protection result: No Korean hard-protection constraint was applied.

Evaluation scope

These are internal comparative evaluation results, not standardized leaderboard numbers:

KMMLU: deterministic 500-example subset (seed 42).
KoBEST: declared BoolQ, COPA, SentiNeg, and HellaSwag evaluation splits.
ARC-Challenge, HellaSwag-en, WinoGrande, MMLU-Pro, TruthfulQA MC2, MMLU-en, GSM8K, MathQA, BBQ, and SafetyBench: deterministic 512-example subsets.
HumanEval+: full 164 tasks; MBPP+: frozen full 378-task revision; greedy pass@1.
LiveCodeBench: full incremental v6 split (175 problems), n=1 greedy no-thinking generation, batch size 1, with official functional tests executed in an isolated ARM64 container. This protocol is not directly comparable to the official leaderboard's n=10 sampling protocol.
The machine-readable field decision_eligible=true means that the run passed the project's internal screening checks. It is not an external certification. release_eligible=false.
Do not compare these subset scores directly with full-set or few-shot leaderboard values.

Machine-readable results and the exact survivor manifest are included under evaluation/.

Internal classification: This is a code-centric REAP comparison control. KREAP release criteria do not apply because Korean hard protection was intentionally omitted.

Interpretation boundaries

At the same 48-Expert size, KREAP-48E has a 9.3 pp higher Korean MC macro, while this checkpoint has a 4.0 pp higher overall non-Korean composite, a 4.6 pp higher LiveCodeBench score, and a 3.6 pp higher coding 3-benchmark macro.
This is not a controlled single-variable comparison: the two checkpoints differ in both calibration data and survivor-selection rules. It cannot isolate the causal effect of hard protection.
Machine-readable results include direct KREAP-48E versus KREAP-Code-48E McNemar tests for 11 non-Korean binary/pass-fail tasks. Direct paired tests for the Korean benchmark set, aggregate bootstrap confidence intervals, multiple-comparison correction, and repeated calibration seeds are absent.
PASS in the artifacts refers to checkpoint integrity and internal pipeline validation, not external replication.

Usage

Install a Transformers release that includes Glm4MoeLiteForCausalLM:

bash

pip install "transformers>=5.0.0" accelerate safetensors

The checkpoint was validated with Transformers 5.0.0 and NVIDIA PyTorch 25.09. It uses the native Transformers model implementation and does not execute custom code from this repository.

python

import torchfrom transformers import AutoModelForCausalLM, AutoTokenizer model_id = "RAS-LAB/GLM-4.7-Flash-24B-A3B-KREAP-Code"tokenizer = AutoTokenizer.from_pretrained(    model_id,    trust_remote_code=False,)model = AutoModelForCausalLM.from_pretrained(    model_id,    dtype=torch.bfloat16,    device_map="auto",    trust_remote_code=False,    attn_implementation="eager",    experts_implementation="eager",)model.eval() messages = [{"role": "user", "content": "한국어로 이진 탐색을 설명해줘."}]prompt = tokenizer.apply_chat_template(    messages,    tokenize=False,    add_generation_prompt=True,    enable_thinking=False,)inputs = tokenizer(prompt, return_tensors="pt").to(model.device) with torch.inference_mode():    output = model.generate(        **inputs,        max_new_tokens=256,        do_sample=False,        pad_token_id=tokenizer.eos_token_id,    ) print(tokenizer.decode(output[0, inputs["input_ids"].shape[1]:], skip_special_tokens=True))

import torchfrom transformers import AutoModelForCausalLM, AutoTokenizer model_id = "RAS-LAB/GLM-4.7-Flash-24B-A3B-KREAP-Code"tokenizer = AutoTokenizer.from_pretrained(    model_id,    trust_remote_code=False,)model = AutoModelForCausalLM.from_pretrained(    model_id,    dtype=torch.bfloat16,    device_map="auto",    trust_remote_code=False,    attn_implementation="eager",    experts_implementation="eager",)model.eval() messages = [{"role": "user", "content": "한국어로 이진 탐색을 설명해줘."}]prompt = tokenizer.apply_chat_template(    messages,    tokenize=False,    add_generation_prompt=True,    enable_thinking=False,)inputs = tokenizer(prompt, return_tensors="pt").to(model.device) with torch.inference_mode():    output = model.generate(        **inputs,        max_new_tokens=256,        do_sample=False,        pad_token_id=tokenizer.eos_token_id,    ) print(tokenizer.decode(output[0, inputs["input_ids"].shape[1]:], skip_special_tokens=True))

Limitations

Included research artifacts

evaluation/glm-full-b20-results-with-livecodebench.json: machine-readable five-model full results
evaluation/glm-full-b20-long-scores.csv: compact long-format B20 scores
evaluation/glm-full-b20-independent-validation.json: independent B20 validation report
evaluation/survivor-manifest.json: exact per-layer old Expert IDs retained
artifacts/calibration-validation.json: separate internal calibration-manifest validation
artifacts/observation-validation.json: selected-only observation validation
artifacts/expert-statistics.csv: per-Expert scoring/features used for this method

Provenance

Base model: zai-org/GLM-4.7-Flash, revision 7dd20894a642a0aa287e9827cb1a1f7f91386b67
Base license: MIT
General method code: K-REAP, commit 234666e
Reproducibility note: the linked repository documents K-REAP and its public adapters, but the exact GLM-specific observation pipeline, run configuration, and evaluation manifests used for this checkpoint are not yet published there.
Team: RAS-LAB
Benchmark report SHA256: 71ab2ce742bf8a481d90d10c8b8684a918241fd475729b0bf2afe56b44335dd6
Model card generated from an internally validated benchmark artifact with zero validation failures; this is not an external reproduction claim.

Citation

Please cite the base checkpoint and REAP when using this model:

bibtex

@misc{zai2026glm47flash,  title        = {GLM-4.7-Flash},  author       = {{Z.ai}},  year         = {2026},  howpublished = {\url{https://huggingface.co/zai-org/GLM-4.7-Flash}},  note         = {Base revision 7dd20894a642a0aa287e9827cb1a1f7f91386b67}} @article{lasby2025reap,  title   = {REAP the Experts: Why Pruning Prevails for One-Shot MoE Compression},  author  = {Lasby, Mike and Lazarevich, Ivan and Sinnadurai, Nish and Lie, Sean and Ioannou, Yani and Thangarasa, Vithursan},  journal = {arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.13999},  year    = {2025},  doi     = {10.48550/arXiv.2510.13999}}

@misc{zai2026glm47flash,  title        = {GLM-4.7-Flash},  author       = {{Z.ai}},  year         = {2026},  howpublished = {\url{https://huggingface.co/zai-org/GLM-4.7-Flash}},  note         = {Base revision 7dd20894a642a0aa287e9827cb1a1f7f91386b67}} @article{lasby2025reap,  title   = {REAP the Experts: Why Pruning Prevails for One-Shot MoE Compression},  author  = {Lasby, Mike and Lazarevich, Ivan and Sinnadurai, Nish and Lie, Sean and Ioannou, Yani and Thangarasa, Vithursan},  journal = {arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.13999},  year    = {2025},  doi     = {10.48550/arXiv.2510.13999}}

GLM-4.7-Flash-24B-A3B-KREAP-Code

README

Intended use

What this checkpoint shows

Benchmark results

Compatibility

How it was made

Source checkpoint

Calibration dataset

Observation and scoring

Pruning

Evaluation scope

Interpretation boundaries

Usage

Limitations

Included research artifacts

Provenance

Citation

Explore FriendliAI today

README

Intended use

What this checkpoint shows

Benchmark results

Compatibility

How it was made

Source checkpoint

Calibration dataset

Observation and scoring

Pruning

Evaluation scope

Interpretation boundaries

Usage

Limitations

Included research artifacts

Provenance

Citation