Kaggle GPT OSS MXFP4 (20B) Inference

🦥 Unsloth: Will patch your computer to enable 2x faster free finetuning.
🦥 Unsloth Zoo will now patch everything to make training faster!
==((====))==  Unsloth 2025.8.5: Fast Gpt_Oss patching. Transformers: 4.56.0.dev0.
   \\   /|    Tesla T4. Num GPUs = 1. Max memory: 14.741 GB. Platform: Linux.
O^O/ \_/ \    Torch: 2.8.0+cu128. CUDA: 7.5. CUDA Toolkit: 12.8. Triton: 3.4.0
\        /    Bfloat16 = FALSE. FA [Xformers = None. FA2 = False]
 "-____-"     Free license: http://github.com/unslothai/unsloth
Unsloth: Fast downloading is enabled - ignore downloading bars which are red colored!
Unsloth: Using float16 precision for gpt_oss won't work! Using float32.
Unsloth: QLoRA and full finetuning all not selected. Switching to 16bit LoRA.

model.safetensors.index.json: 0.00B [00:00, ?B/s]

model-00000-of-00002.safetensors:   0%|          | 0.00/4.79G [00:00<?, ?B/s]

model-00001-of-00002.safetensors:   0%|          | 0.00/4.80G [00:00<?, ?B/s]

model-00002-of-00002.safetensors:   0%|          | 0.00/4.17G [00:00<?, ?B/s]

Loading checkpoint shards:   0%|          | 0/3 [00:00<?, ?it/s]

generation_config.json:   0%|          | 0.00/165 [00:00<?, ?B/s]

tokenizer_config.json: 0.00B [00:00, ?B/s]

tokenizer.json:   0%|          | 0.00/27.9M [00:00<?, ?B/s]

special_tokens_map.json:   0%|          | 0.00/446 [00:00<?, ?B/s]

chat_template.jinja: 0.00B [00:00, ?B/s]

<|start|>system<|message|>You are ChatGPT, a large language model trained by OpenAI.
Knowledge cutoff: 2024-06
Current date: 2025-08-13

Reasoning: low

# Valid channels: analysis, commentary, final. Channel must be included for every message.<|end|><|start|>user<|message|>Solve x^5 + 3x^4 - 10 = 3.<|end|><|start|>assistant<|channel|>analysis<|message|>Equation: x^5 +3x^4 -10 =3 => x^5 +3x^4 -13 =0. Need roots. Could factor numeric? Try integer roots: ±1, ±13. f(1)=1+3-13=-9. f( -1)= -1+3-13=-1? wait: f(-1)=(-1)+3-13=-12. f(13)=371293+3*28561-13 huge positive. f(-13)= -371293+3*28561-13 = -371293+85683-13= -285724. Maybe rational ±13? none. So only real root? Let's find approximate. Use numerical. Let g(x)=x^5+3x^4-13. At x=1: -9. At x=2:32+ 3*16=48 =>80-13=67 positive. So one root between1 and2. Try1.2: 1.2^5= (1.2^2=1.44, *1.2^3? 1.2^3=1.728, *1.2^5 =1.728*1.44= asym? Let's compute: 1.2^4=2.0736, times 1.2 =2.494. So x^5=2.49. 3x^4=3*2.0736=6.2208 sum=8.71-13=-4.29. So still negative. Try1.4: 1.4^2=1.96, ^3=2.752, ^4=384? let's compute: 1.4^4= 1.96*1.96=768? Wait 1.96*1.96=767? compute: 1.96*1.96= 768? Actually 1.96*1.96= 1.926? let me do precisely: 2*2=4 minus small. ok quick approximate: 1.4^4= (1.96)^2=768? 1.96^2= 767.? 1.96^2= 1.96*1.96= 610? I'm messing. Let's use calculator mentally: 1.96*1.96 = (2-0.04)^2=4-0

<|start|>system<|message|>You are ChatGPT, a large language model trained by OpenAI.
Knowledge cutoff: 2024-06
Current date: 2025-08-13

Reasoning: medium

# Valid channels: analysis, commentary, final. Channel must be included for every message.<|end|><|start|>user<|message|>Solve x^5 + 3x^4 - 10 = 3.<|end|><|start|>assistant<|channel|>analysis<|message|>We need to solve equation: x^5 + 3x^4 - 10 = 3. So rewrite: x^5 + 3x^4 - 10 = 3 => x^5 + 3x^4 - 13 = 0. So solve polynomial equation x^5 + 3x^4 - 13 = 0. We likely seek real solutions. It's quintic, so analytic roots may be messy. But maybe there's an integer root? We can test integer divisors of 13: ±1,±13. Plug x=1: 1+3-13=-9 not zero. x= -1: -1+3-13=-10. x=13 huge. x = -13: -371293 + 121663 -13 huge negative. So no integer root. Maybe rational? ±13 maybe not. So probably we can factor something? Let’s try substitution x^4(x+3)=13? Actually equation: x^5 + 3x^4 = 13 so x^4(x+3)=13 => x+3 = 13/x^4 => x = 13/x^4 - 3. Hard.

Maybe we find approximate numeric solution? Let's analyze function f(x)=x^5+3x^4-13. Evaluate some values.

f(0)=-13. f(1)= -9. f(2)=32 + 48 -13 = 40. So there's root between 1 and 2. f(1.2): 1.2^5= (1.2^2=1.44, 1.2^3=1.728, 1.2^4=2.0736, 1.2^5=2.494). 3*1.2^4=3*2.0736=6.2208. Sum=8.7148-13=-4.285. f(1.3): 1.3^5: 1.3^2=1.69, 1.3^3=2.1957, 1.3^4=2.85681, 1.3^5=587... let's compute 2.85681*1.3= anf: 2.876? Wait; 2.85681*1.3=738? Let's compute precisely: 2.85681*1.3 = 185? Actually 2.85681*1.3 = 39? Wait 2.85681*1=2.85681, times 0.3=0.857043, sum=3.713853. So 1.3^5=3.713853. 3*1.3^4 =3*2.85681=8.57043. Sum=12.38428-13=-0.6157. f(1.35): compute 1.35^2=1.8225, ^3=1.310..., 1.8225*1.35=779? No: 1.8225*1.35=552? Let's calculate: 1.8225*1.35 = 1.8225*1 + 1.8225*0.35 = 1.8225 + 717. So 1.8225*0.35=851? Actually 1.8225*0.35=758? Let's do precisely: 1.8225*35=758.4; divided by 100 =7.584. Wait mistake. Let's use high precision: 1.8225 * 0.35 = 1.602375. Add 1.8225 gives 3.424875. So 1.35^3=3.424875. ^4 multiply by 1.35: 3.424875*1.35 = 3.424875 + 1.01799375 =4.44286875. ^5 multiply by 1.35: 4.44286875*1.35 = 4.44286875 +1.3335860625 =5.7764 approx. So 1.35^5 =5.7764. 3*1.35^4=3*4.442869=13. anon: 13. 3*4.442869=13. pre? 4.442869*3=13. S? Actually 4.442869*3 = 13. ? Let's compute: 4.442869 *3 = 13.? 4.442869*2=8.885738, +4.442869=13.328607. So f(1.35)=5.7764+13.3286-13=+? Sum=5.7764+

<|start|>system<|message|>You are ChatGPT, a large language model trained by OpenAI.
Knowledge cutoff: 2024-06
Current date: 2025-08-13

Reasoning: high

# Valid channels: analysis, commentary, final. Channel must be included for every message.<|end|><|start|>user<|message|>Solve x^5 + 3x^4 - 10 = 3.<|end|><|start|>assistant<|channel|>analysis<|message|>The problem: "Solve x^5 + 3x^4 - 10 = 3." It is an equation: x^5 + 3x^4 - 10 = 3. So bring everything: x^5 + 3x^4 - 13 = 0. We need to solve for x? Likely real solutions? Or approximate? Could be factorable? Let's explore algebraically.

Given x^5 + 3x^4 - 13 = 0.

We can attempt to factor by grouping? Not obviously. Maybe try rational root theorem: possible rational roots are factors of 13: ±1, ±13. Let's test:

x=1: 1 + 3 -13 = -9 ≠ 0
x=-1: -1 + 3 -13 = -12 ≠ 0
x=13: huge > 0.
x=-13: negative large. So no integer roots. Maybe something like x=2? Wait rational roots must divide constant 13, but polynomial is degree 5 with leading coefficient 1. But coefficients: 1,3,0,0,0,-13. So constant term -13, rational roots ±1, ±13. None work. So no simple rational root.

Thus the equation x^5 + 3x^4 - 13 = 0 likely has one real root only? Let's analyze derivative: 5x^4 +12x^3 = x^3 (5x + 12). So derivative zero at x=0 (triply), and at x = -12/5 ≈ -2.4. So function f(x)=x^5+3x^4-13.

We can evaluate f(-3) = (-243) + 81 -13 = -175? Wait compute: (-3)^5 = -243; 3*(-3)^4 = 3*81=243; So f(-3) = -243 + 243 -13 = -13. Actually 243-243=0, so f(-3) = -13. f(-4) = (-1024)+ 192 -13 = -, -1024+192=-, -1024+192 = - (1024-192)= - (1112?) Actually 1024-192=1024-200+8=744+8=752? Wait correct: 1024-192= (1000-192)+(24) is 1108? Let's compute precisely: 1024-192 = 1024-200+8 = 784+8 = 792? No, 1024-200=724, plus 8 = 732. Wait I think I'm messing. Let's do: 192*5=960; 1024-960= 108; plus 192/5=38.4? No. Let's compute more carefully: 1024-192: Subtract 192 from 1024: 1024-100=924; 924-92=832; So 1024-192= 1024-200+8 = 124? Wait no, let's do direct:

192*5= 200*5 - 8*5? I'm not computing. Let's compute 1024-192 by decomposition: 1024-200= 722; add 8 back to get 730. Yes, 1024-192= 1024-200+8 = 722+8 = 730. So -1024 + 192 = - (1024-192) = -(730) = -730. Then minus 13 gives -743. So f(-4) = -743, far negative.

Now f(-2): (-32) + 48 -13 = -245? Actually -32+48=16; 16-13=3. So f(-2) = 3.

f(-1): -1 + 3 -13 = -12. So at x=-2, f(-2)=3, at x=-1, f(-1)=-12. Therefore function crosses zero in between. Since f(-3)=-13, f(-2)=3, so one root between -3 and -2? Wait f(-3) = -13, f(-2)=3. So yes, one root around about -2. something. Also check f(0) = -13, negative. f(1) = 1+3-13=-9 negative. f(2) = 32+48-13=39? Actually 32+48=80; 80-13=67 > 0. Wait but f(1) was -9? Let's compute: x=1: 1^5 =1; 3*1^4 =3; 1+3-13=-9. So yes negative. f(2) = 32+48-13 = 39? 32+48=80, minus 13 =67? Wait 80-13=67. Yes. So sign changes between 1 and 2. But earlier f(0)=-13. f(1) negative. So one root between 1 and 2. But we found f(-2)=3 > 0, f(-1) = -12 negative. That implies a root between -2 and -1. But we also saw f(-3) = -13 negative, f(-2)=3 positive. So another root between -3 and -2. Wait f(-3) negative. So from negative at -3, passes positive at -2, then negative at -1, then negative at 0. So two sign changes in the negative region, meaning potentially two real roots there. But careful: The function is a quintic, so could have up to 5 real roots. But derivative: zeros at x=0 (multiplicity 3) and x=-12/5 ≈ -2.4. So there is a local max at x=-12/5? Let's analyze f' sign:

- For x<-12/5 ≈ -2.4: factor x^3(5x+12). For x ~ -3: x^3 is negative (-27), 5x+12 at x=-3: 5(-3)+12 = -15+12 = -3, negative. So product negative*negative = positive. So f' > 0 for x < -12/5? Wait: Let's compute: x^3 negative, (5x+12) negative for x < -12/5? x < -2.4, then 5x < -12, +12 negative. So negative. So negative*negative positive. So f' > 0 for x < -12/5, i.e., function increasing until x = -12/5. At x = -12/5, f' = 0. For -12/5 < x < 0: For x say -1: x^3 negative (-1), (5x+12) = -5+12=7 positive. So negative*positive negative => f' < 0, function decreasing. So at x=0, f' = 0 again (multiplicity 3). For x>0, f' > 0 (x^3 positive, 5x+12 positive). So function has a local maximum at x=-12/5, and a stationary plateau at 0 (inflection? Actually triple root of derivative). So global behavior: For large negative x, f(x) → -∞ (since leading term x^5 dominates negative). At x = -∞, negative. It increases to some value at x = -12/5, then decreasing until x=0, then increasing thereafter. So there can be at most 3 real roots? Let's check sign at f(-∞) negative. At f(-12/5), maybe positive? Let's compute f at x = -12/5 exactly: x = -12/5 = -2.4. Compute f(-2.4) = (-2.4)^5 + 3*(-2.4)^4 - 13.

Let's compute: (-2.4)^2 = 5.76. (-2.4)^3 = -13.824. (-2.4)^4 = 33.1584. (-2.4)^5 = -79.6269? Actually 33.1584 * -2.4 = -100.600... Wait compute carefully: 33.1584*2.4=79.6269. With negative: -79.6269. So f(-2.4) = (-79.6269) + 3*33.1584 -13. 3*33.1584 = 99.4752. Sum: -79.6269 + 99.4752 = 19.8483. minus 13 = 6.8483. So f(-2.4) ≈ 6.85. So f positive at critical point. At x=0: f(0) = -13 negative. So function crosses zero between -2.4 and 0 at least once (it does: we found root between -2 and -1). But there may be two crossings: positive to negative at -12/5 to 0. Let's note that f is increasing until -12/5 where positive. Then decreasing to a minimum at x=0 where negative. So there should be exactly one root in (-2.4, 0). However earlier we found also that f(-3) negative, f(-2) positive, then f(-1) negative. That would imply two roots between -3 and -2 and -2 and -1. But