IN THIS BREAKDOWN · 10 SECTIONS
You can read 18% of this breakdown.
The paper in one minute
gpt-oss-120b and gpt-oss-20b are OpenAI's open-weight reasoning models, released under Apache 2.0 with a usage policy. Both are text-only mixture-of-experts Transformers. The 120b model has 36 layers, 128 experts with 4 active per token, 116.8B parameters and 5.1B active; the 20b model has 24 layers, 32 experts, 20.9B parameters and 3.6B active. Attention alternates between a 128-token sliding window and full attention, with 64 query heads, 8 key-value heads, a learned "attention sink" bias, and 131,072-token context via YaRN.
The expert weights, over 90% of parameters, are quantized to MXFP4 at 4.25 bits per parameter during post-training, so the checkpoints are 60.8 GiB and 12.8 GiB: the 120b model fits one 80 GB GPU and the 20b runs with 16 GB of memory.
Post-training uses chain-of-thought RL similar to o3. The harmony chat format orders roles (system over developer over user over assistant over tool) and separates output into channels: analysis for reasoning, commentary for tool calls and final for the answer. A line in the system prompt sets reasoning effort to low, medium or high. The models were trained to browse, run Python in a Jupyter-like sandbox, and call developer-defined functions.
At high effort the 120b scores 80.1 on GPQA Diamond, 90.0 on MMLU and 62.4 on SWE-Bench Verified, close to o4-mini. Most of the card covers safety: refusal and jailbreak results near o4-mini, weaker instruction-hierarchy results, high hallucination on factual recall, and a test in which OpenAI fine-tuned the 120b model adversarially and found it still below its "High" capability thresholds for biological and cyber risk.
Research notes: the problem, approach and results
gpt-oss-120b checkpoint with MoE weights at 4.25 bits, small enough for one 80 GB GPU; gpt-oss-20b is 12.8 GiB
share of SimpleQA questions gpt-oss-120b answered wrongly without browsing; 16.8% right, the rest declined
gpt-oss-20b's pass rate on prompt-injection hijacking against a system instruction, against 0.917 for o4-mini
Enterprises that must run models on their own hardware wanted an OpenAI-grade reasoning model with tool use, but open weights change the risk picture: anyone can fine-tune them, and the provider cannot add safeguards after release.
Release two mixture-of-experts reasoning models under Apache 2.0, with experts quantized to MXFP4 so they fit single GPUs, trained with o3-style chain-of-thought RL, a role- and channel-based chat format, three effort levels and built-in browsing, Python and function tools. Test what an attacker could reach by fine-tuning before release.
At high effort, gpt-oss-120b scores 80.1 on GPQA Diamond, 62.4 on SWE-Bench Verified and 2622 Codeforces Elo with tools, close to o4-mini. Without browsing it answers 16.8% of SimpleQA correctly and 78.2% wrongly, and it holds system-prompt instructions less reliably than o4-mini.
Why it matters to an FDE
This is the model family a customer often asks about when data cannot leave their environment and they want something close to OpenAI's hosted reasoning models. The card gives the facts that decide whether it works.
It fits. 60.8 GiB of weights on an 80 GB GPU leaves roughly 14 GiB for the KV cache; at about 36 KiB per token for 120b, that is roughly 400K tokens across all concurrent requests. The 20b fits a 16 GB machine with room for about 90K tokens of cache.
Effort is a cost dial, and size matters more than effort. On GPQA with tools, 120b at medium effort (73.5) matches 20b at high effort (74.2) while writing about an eighth of the tokens, by our reading of Figure 3. Higher effort did not help every task: the 20b scored lower at high than medium on Tau-Bench Airline and HealthBench Hard.
It does not know facts reliably. Without browsing, 120b got 16.8% of SimpleQA right and 78.2% wrong. Retrieval or browsing is not optional for factual questions.
Guardrails are your job. The card says developers may need extra safeguards to match OpenAI's hosted protections. The models hold system-prompt instructions less well than o4-mini, and their raw chain of thought is unfiltered and should not be shown to users.
Understand the mechanism. Try it on a real problem.
Unlock this breakdown and 149 more papers.
Premium opens every paper in full, plus every answer, concept, course and guide on the site. One payment for six months of access.
6 months · One payment · No auto-renewal
- ◇1 architecture diagram
- </>1 runnable code experiment
- ▦2 results tables
- ?5 interview questions with answers
- 03Key takeaways
Architecture facts that matter for serving, effort trade-offs, safety results and three misreadings
Free account - 04How it works
Architecture, MXFP4, the harmony format, effort levels, tools and the safety approach
Premium - 05The numbers that matter
Capability results by effort, multilingual, health, safety, instruction hierarchy and hallucination
Premium - 06Try it yourself
Rebuild checkpoint sizes, size the KV cache, price effort levels, split hallucination rates
Premium - 07Where it breaks
Factual recall, system-prompt adherence, unfiltered reasoning, effort quirks and slips
Premium - 08Using it on a deployment
Sizing the GPU, setting effort per task, grounding facts and adding the guardrails the card asks for
Premium - 09Interview angles
Five questions this card prepares you for, with answer hints
Premium - 10Read next
Where to go from here on this site
Premium
