Misc. bug: QwQ 32B doesn't put the reasoning content in `message.reasoning_content`

[henryclw]

Name and Version

ggml_cuda_init: GGML_CUDA_FORCE_MMQ: no
ggml_cuda_init: GGML_CUDA_FORCE_CUBLAS: no
ggml_cuda_init: found 1 CUDA devices:
Device 0: NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090, compute capability 8.6, VMM: yes
version: 4885 (b1026e0)
built with cc (Ubuntu 11.4.0-1ubuntu1~22.04) 11.4.0 for x86_64-linux-gnu

Operating systems

Linux

Which llama.cpp modules do you know to be affected?

llama-server

Command line

curl --location 'http://localhost:8080/v1/chat/completions' \
--header 'Content-Type: application/json' \
--header 'Authorization: Bearer no-key' \
--data '{
    "messages": [
        {
            "role": "user",
            "content": "What'\''s the biggest prime under 80?"
        }
    ],
    "n_predict": -1
}'

Problem description & steps to reproduce

When using the file QwQ-32B-Q4_K_M.gguf, response is

{
    "choices": [
        {
            "finish_reason": "stop",
            "index": 0,
            "message": {
                "role": "assistant",
                "content": "<think>Okay, so I need to find the largest prime number that's less than 80. Hmm, primes are numbers greater than 1 that have no divisors other than 1 and themselves. Let me start by recalling the prime numbers I know. The primes under 100 are 2, 3, 5, 7, 11, 13, 17, 19, 23, 29, 31, 37, 41, 43, 47, 53, 59, 61, 67, 71, 73, 79, etc. Wait, so maybe 79 is a prime? Let me check that.\n\nFirst, let me confirm if 79 is prime. To do that, I need to see if any numbers less than its square root divide it evenly. The square root of 79 is approximately 8.888, so I only need to check divisibility by primes up to 8. The primes less than or equal to 8 are 2, 3, 5, and 7.\n\nTesting 79 divided by 2: 79 ÷ 2 = 39.5. Not an integer, so 2 is not a divisor.\n\n79 divided by 3: 79 ÷ 3 ≈ 26.333. Again, not an integer. 3 doesn't divide it.\n\n79 divided by 5: 79 ÷ 5 = 15.8. Nope, that's not an integer either.\n\n79 divided by 7: 79 ÷ 7 ≈ 11.2857. Still not an integer. So none of these primes divide 79, which means 79 is indeed a prime number. Since 79 is less than 80, that might be the answer. But just to be thorough, let me check the next number below 79, which is 78. But 78 is even, so it's divisible by 2. Not a prime. Then 77. 77 divided by 7 is 11, so 7×11=77, which means it's composite. 76 is even, 75 is divisible by 5, 74 is even, 73... Hmm, 73. Let me check if 73 is a prime too.\n\nSquare root of 73 is about 8.544, so again check primes up to 7. 73 divided by 2? 36.5, nope. 3? 73 ÷3 ≈24.333, no. 5? Ends with 3, so no. 7? 73 ÷7≈10.428, not an integer. So 73 is also a prime. But since 79 is higher than 73 and is still under 80, 79 is the bigger one. \n\nContinuing down, 72 is even, 71 is next. Let me check 71. Square root is about 8.43, so same primes. 71 divided by 2? 35.5, no. 3? 71/3 ≈23.666, nope. 5? No. 7? 71/7≈10.142, not integer. So 71 is also prime, but again, 79 is larger. \n\nSo moving down from 80, the numbers are 79, 78, 77, etc., and the first prime we hit is 79, which seems to be prime. Let me just confirm once more with another method. Maybe I can use the sieve of Eratosthenes in my head. Let's list numbers from 1 to 80 and cross out non-primes. But that might take too long. Alternatively, since I know primes up to 100, I can just recall the list. \n\nAlternatively, maybe I made a mistake in calculating the square root? Let me verify sqrt(79). 8 squared is 64, 9 squared is 81. So sqrt(79) is between 8 and 9, so yeah, 8.88. So primes up to 8, which are 2,3,5,7. So my check is sufficient. \n\nTherefore, the largest prime under 80 is 79. Wait, but hold on, is there a prime between 79 and 80? Well, 80 itself is not prime, so the next one below is 79. Therefore, I think that is the answer. Let me just check another number like 77, which I know is 7×11, so composite. 75 is 15×5, 70 is 7×10, so all those are composite. \n\nAlternatively, maybe I missed a prime between 70 and 80? Let's list them out:\n\n71, 73, 74 (no), 75 (no), 76 (no), 77 (no), 78 (no), 79. So between 70 and 80, primes are 71,73,79. So 79 is the largest. \n\nTherefore, I think 79 is the correct answer. \n\nWait, just to be absolutely sure, let me try dividing 79 by 7 again. 7*11 is 77, 7*12 is 84, so 7*11 is 77. So 79-77 is 2. So 7*11 +2=79, so no, 7 doesn't divide it. 5? 5*15 is 75, plus 4 is 79, so no. 3? 3*26=78, plus 1 is 79, so remainder 1. 2? It's odd, so no. \n\nYep, 79 is prime. Therefore, the biggest prime under 80 is 79.\n\n**Final Answer**\nThe biggest prime under 80 is \\boxed{79}.\n</think>\n\nTo find the largest prime number under 80, we start by checking the number 79. \n\n1. **Check divisibility by primes up to the square root of 79** (approximately 8.888):\n   - 79 is not divisible by 2 (79 ÷ 2 = 39.5)\n   - 79 is not divisible by 3 (79 ÷ 3 ≈ 26.333)\n   - 79 is not divisible by 5 (79 ÷ 5 = 15.8)\n   - 79 is not divisible by 7 (79 ÷ 7 ≈ 11.2857)\n\nSince 79 is not divisible by any of these primes, it is a prime number.\n\n2. **Check numbers below 79**:\n   - 78 is even (divisible by 2)\n   - 77 is divisible by 7 and 11\n   - 76 is even\n   - 75 is divisible by 5\n   - 74 is even\n   - 73 is a prime but less than 79\n   - 71 is a prime but less than 79\n\nThus, the largest prime number under 80 is confirmed to be 79.\n\n\\[\n\\boxed{79}\n\\]"
            }
        }
    ],
    "created": 1741471076,
    "model": "gpt-3.5-turbo",
    "system_fingerprint": "b4885-b1026e09",
    "object": "chat.completion",
    "usage": {
        "completion_tokens": 1686,
        "prompt_tokens": 20,
        "total_tokens": 1706
    },
    "id": "chatcmpl-cWwKnQVcsMhlvpCEeV4kEhWWaVlVQ4fY",
    "timings": {
        "prompt_n": 20,
        "prompt_ms": 549.747,
        "prompt_per_token_ms": 27.48735,
        "prompt_per_second": 36.38037133445022,
        "predicted_n": 1686,
        "predicted_ms": 92042.141,
        "predicted_per_token_ms": 54.5920172004745,
        "predicted_per_second": 18.3176964560179
    }
}

---

When using the file DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Qwen-32B-Q4_K_M.gguf, response is

{
    "choices": [
        {
            "finish_reason": "stop",
            "index": 0,
            "message": {
                "role": "assistant",
                "reasoning_content": "To find the biggest prime number under 80, I'll start by listing the numbers just below 80 and work my way down until I find a prime.\n\nFirst, I'll check 79. To determine if it's prime, I need to see if it has any divisors other than 1 and itself. I'll test divisibility by prime numbers less than its square root. The square root of 79 is approximately 8.89, so I'll check primes up to 7.\n\n79 divided by 2 is not an integer, so it's not divisible by 2. Similarly, dividing 79 by 3, 5, or 7 also doesn't result in an integer. Therefore, 79 is a prime number.\n\nSince 79 is prime and it's the first number I checked below 80, it is the largest prime number under 80.",
                "content": "To find the **biggest prime number under 80**, we can follow these steps:\n\n1. **List the numbers just below 80** and work our way down until we find a prime number.\n2. **Check each number** to see if it's a prime:\n   - A prime number is a natural number greater than 1 that has no positive divisors other than 1 and itself.\n3. **Test divisibility** for each number by checking if it's divisible by any prime numbers less than or equal to its square root.\n\n**Let's apply this method:**\n\n- **79**:\n  - The square root of 79 is approximately **8.89**. We'll check divisibility by prime numbers up to 7.\n  - **79 ÷ 2 = 39.5** → Not divisible by 2.\n  - **79 ÷ 3 ≈ 26.33** → Not divisible by 3.\n  - **79 ÷ 5 = 15.8** → Not divisible by 5.\n  - **79 ÷ 7 ≈ 11.29** → Not divisible by 7.\n  - **Conclusion**: 79 is a prime number.\n\nSince **79** is the first number below 80 that we've confirmed as prime, it is the **largest prime number under 80**.\n\n\\[\n\\boxed{79}\n\\]"
            }
        }
    ],
    "created": 1741471225,
    "model": "gpt-3.5-turbo",
    "system_fingerprint": "b4885-b1026e09",
    "object": "chat.completion",
    "usage": {
        "completion_tokens": 506,
        "prompt_tokens": 13,
        "total_tokens": 519
    },
    "id": "chatcmpl-PFK22wjqVvubkpaFInf5MKRlnjr0Rhc2",
    "timings": {
        "prompt_n": 13,
        "prompt_ms": 250.423,
        "prompt_per_token_ms": 19.26330769230769,
        "prompt_per_second": 51.91216461746725,
        "predicted_n": 506,
        "predicted_ms": 25600.608,
        "predicted_per_token_ms": 50.59408695652174,
        "predicted_per_second": 19.765155577555035
    }
}

First Bad Commit

No response

Relevant log output

[henryclw]

Hi @ochafik , do you think this could be an issue with the chat template of the QwQ model?

[mlsterpr0]

I noticed that this model performs better in LM Studio than in llama.cpp. Then i opened model settings in lm studio where you can see jinja template. Compared it to what is see in llama.cpp when launching server. And from what i see, they are slightly different, or maybe it's typos?
LM Studio template:

{%- if tools %}
    {{- '<|im_start|>system\n' }}
    {%- if messages[0]['role'] == 'system' %}
        {{- messages[0]['content'] }}
    {%- else %}
        {{- '' }}
    {%- endif %}
    {{- "\n\n# Tools\n\nYou may call one or more functions to assist with the user query.\n\nYou are provided with function signatures within <tools></tools> XML tags:\n<tools>" }}
    {%- for tool in tools %}
        {{- "\n" }}
        {{- tool | tojson }}
    {%- endfor %}
    {{- "\n</tools>\n\nFor each function call, return a json object with function name and arguments within <tool_call></tool_call> XML tags:\n<tool_call>\n{\"name\": <function-name>, \"arguments\": <args-json-object>}\n</tool_call><|im_end|>\n" }}
{%- else %}
    {%- if messages[0]['role'] == 'system' %}
        {{- '<|im_start|>system\n' + messages[0]['content'] + '<|im_end|>\n' }}
  {%- endif %}
{%- endif %}
{%- for message in messages %}
    {%- if (message.role == "user") or (message.role == "system" and not loop.first) %}
        {{- '<|im_start|>' + message.role + '\n' + message.content + '<|im_end|>' + '\n' }}
    {%- elif message.role == "assistant" and not message.tool_calls %}
        {%- set content = (message.content.split('</think>')|last).lstrip('\n') %}
        {{- '<|im_start|>' + message.role + '\n' + content + '<|im_end|>' + '\n' }}
    {%- elif message.role == "assistant" %}
        {%- set content = (message.content.split('</think>')|last).lstrip('\n') %}
        {{- '<|im_start|>' + message.role }}
        {%- if message.content %}
            {{- '\n' + content }}
        {%- endif %}
        {%- for tool_call in message.tool_calls %}
            {%- if tool_call.function is defined %}
                {%- set tool_call = tool_call.function %}
            {%- endif %}
            {{- '\n<tool_call>\n{"name": "' }}
            {{- tool_call.name }}
            {{- '", "arguments": ' }}
            {{- tool_call.arguments | tojson }}
            {{- '}\n</tool_call>' }}
        {%- endfor %}
        {{- '<|im_end|>\n' }}
    {%- elif message.role == "tool" %}
        {%- if (loop.index0 == 0) or (messages[loop.index0 - 1].role != "tool") %}
            {{- '<|im_start|>user' }}
        {%- endif %}
        {{- '\n<tool_response>\n' }}
        {{- message.content }}
        {{- '\n</tool_response>' }}
        {%- if loop.last or (messages[loop.index0 + 1].role != "tool") %}
            {{- '<|im_end|>\n' }}
        {%- endif %}
    {%- endif %}
{%- endfor %}
{%- if add_generation_prompt %}
    {{- '<|im_start|>assistant\n' }}
{%- endif %}

llama.ccp

{%- if tools %}
    {{- '<|im_start|>system\n' }}
    {%- if messages[0]['role'] == 'system' %}
        {{- messages[0]['content'] }}
    {%- else %}
        {{- '' }}
    {%- endif %}
    {{- "\n\n# Tools\n\nYou may call one or more functions to assist with the user query.\n\nYou are provided with function signatures within <tools></tools> XML tags:\n<tools>" }}
    {%- for tool in tools %}
        {{- "\n" }}
        {{- tool | tojson }}
    {%- endfor %}
    {{- "\n</tools>\n\nFor each function call, return a json object with function name and arguments within <tool_call></tool_call> XML tags:\n<tool_call>\n{\"name\": <function-name>, \"arguments\": <args-json-object>}\n</tool_call><|im_end|>\n" }}
{%- else %}
    {%- if messages[0]['role'] == 'system' %}
        {{- '<|im_start|>system\n' + messages[0]['content'] + '<|im_end|>\n' }}
  {%- endif %}
{%- endif %}
{%- for message in messages %}
    {%- if (message.role == "user") or (message.role == "system" and not loop.first) %}
        {{- '<|im_start|>' + message.role + '\n' + message.content + '<|im_end|>' + '\n' }}
    {%- elif message.role == "assistant" and not message.tool_calls %}
        {%- set content = message.content.split('</think>')[-1].lstrip('\n') %}
        {{- '<|im_start|>' + message.role + '\n' + content + '<|im_end|>' + '\n' }}
    {%- elif message.role == "assistant" %}
        {%- set content = message.content.split('</think>')[-1].lstrip('\n') %}
        {{- '<|im_start|>' + message.role }}
        {%- if message.content %}
            {{- '\n' + content }}
        {%- endif %}
        {%- for tool_call in message.tool_calls %}
            {%- if tool_call.function is defined %}
                {%- set tool_call = tool_call.function %}
            {%- endif %}
            {{- '\n<tool_call>\n{"name": "' }}
            {{- tool_call.name }}
            {{- '", "arguments": ' }}
            {{- tool_call.arguments | tojson }}
            {{- '}\n</tool_call>' }}
        {%- endfor %}
        {{- '<|im_end|>\n' }}
    {%- elif message.role == "tool" %}
        {%- if (loop.index0 == 0) or (messages[loop.index0 - 1].role != "tool") %}
            {{- '<|im_start|>user' }}
        {%- endif %}
        {{- '\n<tool_response>\n' }}
        {{- message.content }}
        {{- '\n</tool_response>' }}
        {%- if loop.last or (messages[loop.index0 + 1].role != "tool") %}
            {{- '<|im_end|>\n' }}
        {%- endif %}
    {%- endif %}
{%- endfor %}
{%- if add_generation_prompt %}
    {{- '<|im_start|>assistant\n<think>\n' }}
{%- endif %}

Differences:

{%- set content = message.content.split('</think>')[-1].lstrip('\n') %}  # Not same..

{{- '<|im_start|>assistant\n< THINK >\n' }} instead of {{- '<|im_start|>assistant\n' }}

So, what is going on here?

[ochafik]

@henryclw Thanks for filing. Extraction of thoughts is done explicitly for each model output style, I'll add support for QwQ shortly.

Differences:

{%- set content = message.content.split('</think>')[-1].lstrip('\n') %}  # Not same..

@mlsterpr0 This one should make no difference

{{- '<|im_start|>assistant\n< THINK >\n' }} instead of {{- '<|im_start|>assistant\n' }}

This one is "working as intended", but following the worrying trend initiated by DeepSeek in their recent template update to force the model to think.

The GGUF model (and llama-server) seems match the official template, which you can fetch as follows (and verify on llama-server by opening http://localhost:8080/props or inspecting the --verbose output):

python scripts/get_chat_template.py Qwen/QwQ-32B

See output

``` {%- if tools %} {{- '<|im_start|>system\n' }} {%- if messages[0]['role'] == 'system' %} {{- messages[0]['content'] }} {%- else %} {{- '' }} {%- endif %} {{- "\n\n# Tools\n\nYou may call one or more functions to assist with the user query.\n\nYou are provided with function signatures within XML tags:\n" }} {%- for tool in tools %} {{- "\n" }} {{- tool | tojson }} {%- endfor %} {{- "\n\n\nFor each function call, return a json object with function name and arguments within XML tags:\n\n{\"name\": , \"arguments\": }\n<|im_end|>\n" }} {%- else %} {%- if messages[0]['role'] == 'system' %} {{- '<|im_start|>system\n' + messages[0]['content'] + '<|im_end|>\n' }} {%- endif %} {%- endif %} {%- for message in messages %} {%- if (message.role == "user") or (message.role == "system" and not loop.first) %} {{- '<|im_start|>' + message.role + '\n' + message.content + '<|im_end|>' + '\n' }} {%- elif message.role == "assistant" and not message.tool_calls %} {%- set content = message.content.split('')[-1].lstrip('\n') %} {{- '<|im_start|>' + message.role + '\n' + content + '<|im_end|>' + '\n' }} {%- elif message.role == "assistant" %} {%- set content = message.content.split('')[-1].lstrip('\n') %} {{- '<|im_start|>' + message.role }} {%- if message.content %} {{- '\n' + content }} {%- endif %} {%- for tool_call in message.tool_calls %} {%- if tool_call.function is defined %} {%- set tool_call = tool_call.function %} {%- endif %} {{- '\n\n{"name": "' }} {{- tool_call.name }} {{- '", "arguments": ' }} {{- tool_call.arguments | tojson }} {{- '}\n' }} {%- endfor %} {{- '<|im_end|>\n' }} {%- elif message.role == "tool" %} {%- if (loop.index0 == 0) or (messages[loop.index0 - 1].role != "tool") %} {{- '<|im_start|>user' }} {%- endif %} {{- '\n\n' }} {{- message.content }} {{- '\n' }} {%- if loop.last or (messages[loop.index0 + 1].role != "tool") %} {{- '<|im_end|>\n' }} {%- endif %} {%- endif %} {%- endfor %} {%- if add_generation_prompt %} {{- '<|im_start|>assistant\n\n' }} {%- endif %} ```

[...] this model performs better in LM Studio than in llama.cpp[...]

So, what is going on here?

Can you describe in which way the model performs better? And which exact versions of the model are you using in both backends? (could they be different quants?)

[mlsterpr0]

[...] this model performs better in LM Studio than in llama.cpp[...]
So, what is going on here?

Can you describe in which way the model performs better? And which exact versions of the model are you using in both backends? (could they be different quants?)

No, I'm using same quant https://huggingface.co/unsloth/QwQ-32B-GGUF/blob/main/QwQ-32B-Q3_K_M.gguf

i tested same hard questions, and in lm studio it thinks "better" and gives better answer. All i change, is temp to 0.6 and rep.p to 1, nothing else.

Ok, one example here. This famous question "I have 10 apples. I find 3 gold coins in the bottom of a river. The river runs near a big city that has something to do with what I can spend the coins on. I then lose 4 apples but gain a gold coin. Three birds run into my path and drop 6 apples each. I play an online game and win 6 gold coins but I have to share them equally with my 2 teammates. I buy apples for all the coins I have. The price of an apple is 0.5 coins. How many apples do I have? And where is the river?"

lm studio almost always gives me much more advanced answer that "The river is Hudson River in New York, because New York is well known for its state fruit, the apple. " Not many models give this answer, not even big models like claude 3.7 sonnet! And its only q3_KM.gguf!
While i never got this advanced answer in llama.cpp cli or server. After many retries.
Looks like only chatgpt and qwq32b can give this advanced answer :) (oh, and Grok)

Update: Ok, now i finally got this answer in llama server, so i am probably wrong ;) Apologize.

[henryclw]

@ochafik Thank you for the fix. I just compiled and tested, things worked. At least on these two gguf files: https://huggingface.co/unsloth/QwQ-32B-GGUF/tree/main and https://huggingface.co/Qwen/QwQ-32B-GGUF/tree/main

[ochafik]

Quick heads up that #12379 will hopefully soon normalize <think> outputs in content deltas in streaming mode (not as a reasoning_content delta, following DeepSeek API's format when --reasoning-format deepseek, which is the default)

[NaiveYan]

Hello @ochafik , I'm experiencing the same issue with qwen3.

Here are my environment details:

• llama-server version: 5372 (ab3971f)
• Model used: unsloth/Qwen3-235B-A22B-GGUF/UD-Q3_K_XL

[ochafik]

Hey @NaiveYan, thanks for reporting! Qwen3's template support was just added to minja (sync incoming: #13573), I'll look into what else might be needed.

[NaiveYan]

Hello @ochafik , I wanted to follow up regarding the persistent issue after updating to the version containing the referenced commit(#13573 ). Here are the updated details for your reference:

Environment Configuration:

• llama-server version: build 5410 (3e0be1c) with cc (Ubuntu 11.4.0-1ubuntu1~22.04) 11.4.0 for x86_64-linux-gnu
• Model: unsloth/Qwen3-235B-A22B-GGUF/UD-Q3_K_XL
• Launch command:

  ./llama-server -c 40960 -n 32768 -fa -ctk q8_0 -ctv q8_0 -ngl 99 -ts 14,15,15,15,15,15,15,15,15,15 -m /models/Qwen3-235B-A22B-UD-Q3_K_XL-00001-of-00003.gguf --temp 0.6 --top-k 20 --top-p 0.95 --min-p 0 --presence-penalty 1.5 --no-context-shift -a Qwen3-235B-A22B-UD-Q3_K_XL --jinja --reasoning-format deepseek

Reproduction Steps:

1. HTTP Request:

curl --location 'http://localhost:8080/v1/chat/completions' \
--header 'Content-Type: application/json' \
--header 'Authorization: Bearer no-key' \
--data '{
    "messages": [
        {
            "role": "user",
            "content": "What'\''s the biggest prime under 80?"
        }
    ],
    "n_predict": -1
}'

2. Server Response:

{
  "choices": [
      {
          "finish_reason": "stop",
          "index": 0,
          "message": {
              "role": "assistant",
              "content": "<think>\nOkay, so I need to find the biggest prime number under 80. Hmm, primes are numbers greater than 1 that have no divisors other than 1 and themselves. Let me think about how to approach this.\n\nFirst, maybe I should start checking numbers just below 80 and see if they're prime. That way, I can find the largest one without having to list all primes up to 80. But wait, is there a smarter way? Maybe knowing some divisibility rules could help me eliminate composite numbers quickly.\n\nStarting from 79: Is 79 a prime? Let me check. To confirm if 79 is prime, I need to see if it's divisible by any prime numbers less than its square root. The square root of 79 is approximately 8.89, so primes up to 7 are enough. Let's test divisibility:\n\n- Divided by 2? No, it's odd.\n- Divided by 3? 3*26 = 78, so 79 - 78 = 1. Not divisible by 3.\n- Divided by 5? Ends with a 9, so no.\n- Divided by 7? 7*11=77, 7*12=84 which is over. 77 is two less than 79, so remainder 2. Not divisible by 7.\n\nSo since none of these divide 79, it should be prime. Wait, but does that mean 79 is the biggest prime under 80? But 80 isn't prime, so yes, 79 would be the answer. But hold on, maybe I made a mistake here. Let me verify.\n\nAlternatively, sometimes I might confuse primes with other numbers. Let's cross-verify. If 79 is prime, then okay. But maybe there's a larger prime? Wait, 80 isn't prime, so 79 would be the one below it. Hmm.\n\nWait, but just to make sure, let me check some other primes near there. What about 73, 71, etc. But those are lower. So ascending from 70 maybe?\n\nBut maybe listing all primes between 70 and 80 would help ensure I don't miss anything. Let's try that.\n\nNumbers between 70 and 80: 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79.\n\nCheck which are primes:\n\n- 71: Prime? Yes. Divisible by 2? No. 3? 7+1=8 not divisible by 3. 5? No. 7? 7*10=70, 71-70=1, so nope. So prime.\n\n- 72: Even, divisible by 2. Not prime.\n\n- 73: Similar check. Prime? Let's see. Divided by 2? No. 3? 7+3=10 not divisible by 3. 5? Ends with 3, nope. 7? 7*10=70, 73-70=3, so not divisible by 7. Next prime is 11: 11*6=66, 11*7=77 >73. So yes, prime.\n\n- 74: Even, nope.\n\n- 75: Ends with 5, divisible by 5. Not prime.\n\n- 76: Even.\n\n- 77: Divisible by 7? 7*11=77. Yes. Not prime.\n\n- 78: Even.\n\n- 79: Already checked earlier.\n\nSo between 70 and 80, the primes are 71,73,79. So the largest is 79. Therefore, 79 should be the correct answer.\n\nBut wait, just to confirm again, let's check 79 once more. Divided by 2: nope. Divided by 3: 7+9=16, 16/3 not divisible. Divided by 5: ends with 9. Divided by 7: 7*11=77, 7*12=84. 79-77=2, so remainder 2. Divided by 11: 11*7=77, same as above. Wait, primes up to sqrt(79) ~8.9, so primes up to 7 are enough. So yes, no divisors found. Therefore prime.\n\nSo conclusion: the biggest prime under 80 is 79.\n\nBut wait, just to be thorough, what about if someone thought maybe 75 or something else? But 75 isn't prime. Or 77? Which is 7*11. Yeah. So seems like 79 is prime. Therefore, the answer should be 79.\n\n**Final Answer**\nThe biggest prime under 80 is \\boxed{79}.\n</think>\n\nTo determine the largest prime number less than 80, we need to identify all prime numbers between 70 and 80 and then select the largest one.\n\n---\n\n### Step 1: List All Numbers Between 70 and 80\nThe integers between 70 and 80 are:\n\n$$\n70,\\ 71,\\ 72,\\ 73,\\ 74,\\ 75,\\ 76,\\ 77,\\ 78,\\ 79\n$$\n\nWe will now test each for primality.\n\n---\n\n### Step 2: Test Each Number for Primality\n\n- **70**: Even → divisible by 2 → not prime  \n- **71**:  \n  - Not even  \n  - Sum of digits $7 + 1 = 8$ → not divisible by 3  \n  - Doesn't end in 5 or 0 → not divisible by 5  \n  - Divided by 7: $7 \\times 10 = 70$, remainder is 1 → not divisible by 7  \n  - Check primes up to $\\sqrt{71} \\approx 8.4$ → only check up to 7  \n  ✅ **71 is prime**\n\n- **72**: Even → divisible by 2 → not prime  \n- **73**:  \n  - Not even  \n  - Sum of digits $7 + 3 = 10$ → not divisible by 3  \n  - Doesn't end in 5 or 0 → not divisible by 5  \n  - Divided by 7: $7 \\times 10 = 70$, remainder is 3 → not divisible by 7  \n  ✅ **73 is prime**\n\n- **74**: Even → divisible by 2 → not prime  \n- **75**: Ends in 5 → divisible by 5 → not prime  \n- **76**: Even → divisible by 2 → not prime  \n- **77**: $7 \\times 11 = 77$ → divisible by 7 and 11 → not prime  \n- **78**: Even → divisible by 2 → not prime  \n- **79**:  \n  - Not even  \n  - Sum of digits $7 + 9 = 16$ → not divisible by 3  \n  - Doesn't end in 5 or 0 → not divisible by 5  \n  - Divided by 7: $7 \\times 11 = 77$, remainder is 2 → not divisible by 7  \n  ✅ **79 is prime**\n\n---\n\n### Step 3: Identify the Largest Prime\n\nFrom the list, the prime numbers between 70 and 80 are:\n\n$$\n71,\\ 73,\\ 79\n$$\n\nThe largest among these is **79**.\n\n---\n\n### Final Answer\n\n$$\n\\boxed{79}\n$$"
          }
      }
  ],
  "created": 1747524296,
  "model": "Qwen3-235B-A22B-UD-Q3_K_XL",
  "system_fingerprint": "b5410-3e0be1ca",
  "object": "chat.completion",
  "usage": {
      "completion_tokens": 1721,
      "prompt_tokens": 18,
      "total_tokens": 1739
  },
  "id": "chatcmpl-TDHdShEgFQajp0rkzx5Ww2D6xUmyeJR0",
  "timings": {
      "prompt_n": 1,
      "prompt_ms": 138.964,
      "prompt_per_token_ms": 138.964,
      "prompt_per_second": 7.196108344607237,
      "predicted_n": 1721,
      "predicted_ms": 102280.357,
      "predicted_per_token_ms": 59.43077106333527,
      "predicted_per_second": 16.826300283640972
  }
}

Diagnostic Information:

• Server logs during inference:

srv  params_from_: Chat format: Content-only
slot launch_slot_: id  0 | task 1980 | processing task
slot update_slots: id  0 | task 1980 | new prompt, n_ctx_slot = 40960, n_keep = 0, n_prompt_tokens = 18
slot update_slots: id  0 | task 1980 | need to evaluate at least 1 token to generate logits, n_past = 18, n_prompt_tokens = 18
slot update_slots: id  0 | task 1980 | kv cache rm [17, end)
slot update_slots: id  0 | task 1980 | prompt processing progress, n_past = 18, n_tokens = 1, progress = 0.055556
slot update_slots: id  0 | task 1980 | prompt done, n_past = 18, n_tokens = 1
srv  log_server_r: request: GET /health 127.0.0.1 200
srv  log_server_r: request: GET /health 127.0.0.1 200
srv  log_server_r: request: GET /health 127.0.0.1 200
slot      release: id  0 | task 1980 | stop processing: n_past = 1738, truncated = 0
slot print_timing: id  0 | task 1980 |
prompt eval time =     138.96 ms /     1 tokens (  138.96 ms per token,     7.20 tokens per second)
       eval time =  102280.36 ms /  1721 tokens (   59.43 ms per token,    16.83 tokens per second)
      total time =  102419.32 ms /  1722 tokens
srv  update_slots: all slots are idle