Gemini 4 Carbon

Investigate complex bugs with Gemini 4 Carbon, turn research into interactive visualizations, and organize dense documents into structured reports. Start with your code, papers or source data.

Research

Webpage

Slides

Image

Video

Debug code and explore research with Gemini 4 Carbon

Trace bugs across connected code

Give Gemini 4 Carbon the failing behavior, relevant code and error logs. Work through possible causes, request a patch and regression tests, then run those tests in your development environment.

A branching code path with an interrupted junction and a replacement segment

Turn research into interactive visualizations

Use Gemini 4 Carbon to translate a paper, diagram or dataset into visualization code. Describe the scene and controls, then preview the code in a browser and refine how it represents the source.

A research sheet and a three dimensional wave surface illustrating scientific visualization

Build reports from dense documents

Ask Gemini 4 Carbon to compare findings across reports, charts and tables. Define the questions and output structure to get a draft with source references, then check figures and conclusions against the originals.

Chart and table source pages arranged beside a structured report

What Gemini 4 Carbon does best

Multimodal understanding
Reason across text, images, audio, video and PDFs in the native model.
One million token context
The native context window shares its budget across input, reasoning and output.
Three thinking levels
Choose Low, Medium or High to adjust reasoning effort for the task.

Investigate a bug with Gemini 4 Carbon

Bring the failure and its context
Add the relevant code and error log, explain what should happen, and describe how to reproduce the bug. Keep the first investigation focused on one failing behavior.
Gemini 4 Carbon · Find why the dashboard keeps the previous project total after I switch projects.
Develop a diagnosis and patch
Choose Try in YouMind and ask for the likely cause, a focused patch and regression tests. Review the explanation alongside the code that needs to change.
Project switch investigation
The total should follow the currently selected project.
Check asynchronous updates
Inspect whether a response for the previous project can overwrite the newly selected project total.
Keep updates tied to the selected project
Associate each request with its project and ignore a response when that project is no longer selected.
Reproduce the response order
Delay the first response, switch projects, and confirm that the second project total stays visible.
Trace the stale total and propose a focused patch with regression tests.
Gemini 4 Carbon
Gemini 4 Carbon · Trace the stale total and propose a focused patch with regression tests. · Project switch investigation
Test the change and refine it
Run the proposed tests and inspect the changed behavior. Bring back failures or edge cases and ask for a smaller, targeted revision.
Patch review and regression checklist
Also switch from project A to B and back to A while both earlier requests are pending; confirm that only the current request updates the total.
Review the patch scope
Inspect the request identity check and the code that updates the displayed total.
Exercise the regression cases
Check rapid project switching, late responses, request errors and an empty result.
Add a regression case for switching back to the original project.
Check rapid project switching, late responses, request errors and an empty result.
Gemini 4 Carbon · Patch review and regression checklist · Add a regression case for switching back to the original project.

Gemini 4 Carbon and Gemini 4 Argon

Compare native model specifications and task focus. Choose Carbon for demanding investigations and Argon for everyday engineering and knowledge work.

Gemini 4 Carbon and Gemini 4 Argon
Compare	Gemini 4 Carbon	Gemini 4 Argon
Model input	Text, images, video, audio and PDFs	Text, images, video, audio and PDFs
Context window	1,048,576 tokens shared across input, reasoning and output	1,048,576 tokens shared across input, reasoning and output
Output and length	Text; 65,536 tokens by default, up to 1,048,576 with long decode within the shared context	Text; 65,536 tokens by default, up to 1,048,576 with long decode within the shared context
Reasoning	Low, Medium and High thinking levels	Low, Medium and High thinking levels
Task focus	Complex debugging, extended investigations and open ended scientific research	Everyday software engineering and knowledge work with faster responses and lower token use per turn

Scroll horizontally to compare all models

The writing choices a brief can’t spell out

See how models turn a vague request into writing choices. Compare the results and try a reading case yourself.

Explore the Writing Sense benchmark

What our users say

Gemini 4 Carbon is a model I reach for when a bug needs a careful explanation, not just another code snippet.
Elian Mercado
I like asking Carbon to compare two possible causes before proposing a patch. That gives me a clearer review checklist.
Nadia Corbett
The interesting part for me is turning a paper into something I can explore. Gemini 4 Carbon makes visualization code a useful starting point.
Tomas Iversen
A report outline with the source beside each finding is much easier to discuss. I like that way of working with Carbon.
Leila Soren
For tricky state changes, I want a test idea alongside the fix. That is the conversation I want to have with Gemini 4 Carbon.
Dario Beckett
Carbon fits my habit of defining the report columns first and checking the numbers against the originals afterward.
Mira Okafor
I am drawn to the interactive visualization use case. With Gemini 4 Carbon, I can ask for a control that helps explain one specific relationship.
Sofia Varela
I prefer a focused patch and a clear account of the tradeoffs. Gemini 4 Carbon gives me an interesting option for that kind of investigation.
Adrian Mendez
Being able to bring a chart and its surrounding text into one discussion is the part I find useful.
Rina Havel
I like keeping competing explanations visible while working through a dense paper. Carbon is a good fit for that exploratory style.
Celia Rowan
A small revision is easier to evaluate than a whole rewrite. I keep my follow-up requests narrow and compare the changes.
Mateo Nordin
My favorite starting point is a precise question and a set of documents. I want the draft organized around the decision I need to make.
Inez Calder

Gemini 4 Carbon is a model I reach for when a bug needs a careful explanation, not just another code snippet.
Elian Mercado
I like asking Carbon to compare two possible causes before proposing a patch. That gives me a clearer review checklist.
Nadia Corbett
The interesting part for me is turning a paper into something I can explore. Gemini 4 Carbon makes visualization code a useful starting point.
Tomas Iversen
A report outline with the source beside each finding is much easier to discuss. I like that way of working with Carbon.
Leila Soren
For tricky state changes, I want a test idea alongside the fix. That is the conversation I want to have with Gemini 4 Carbon.
Dario Beckett
Carbon fits my habit of defining the report columns first and checking the numbers against the originals afterward.
Mira Okafor
I am drawn to the interactive visualization use case. With Gemini 4 Carbon, I can ask for a control that helps explain one specific relationship.
Sofia Varela
I prefer a focused patch and a clear account of the tradeoffs. Gemini 4 Carbon gives me an interesting option for that kind of investigation.
Adrian Mendez
Being able to bring a chart and its surrounding text into one discussion is the part I find useful.
Rina Havel
I like keeping competing explanations visible while working through a dense paper. Carbon is a good fit for that exploratory style.
Celia Rowan
A small revision is easier to evaluate than a whole rewrite. I keep my follow-up requests narrow and compare the changes.
Mateo Nordin
My favorite starting point is a precise question and a set of documents. I want the draft organized around the decision I need to make.
Inez Calder

Gemini 4 Carbon questions

What should I include in a debugging request

Provide the failing code, the error or unexpected behavior, and the steps that reproduce it. Add the expected result and relevant dependencies. For a large project, start with the files involved in the failure and expand the context as the investigation develops.

How do I review a proposed fix

Ask for the cause, the changed code and a regression test that reproduces the original failure. Run the test before and after the patch, inspect unrelated changes, and check edge cases such as missing data or requests arriving out of order.

How do I turn a paper into an interactive visualization

Share the relevant passage, diagram or data and describe what the viewer should explore. Ask Gemini 4 Carbon for visualization code with specific controls, such as a camera view or parameter slider. Run it in a compatible browser environment and compare the behavior with the source material.

How do I structure a report from several documents

State the questions, the intended reader and the sections you need. Ask for a source reference next to each finding and for conflicting figures to be listed separately. Check the cited passages and calculations before refining the report.

Which thinking level should I choose

Low, Medium and High adjust the reasoning effort. Start with Low for a focused request, and try Medium or High for a harder investigation. Give the model a clear goal and concrete checks at any level.

When should I choose Carbon instead of Argon

Choose Gemini 4 Carbon for a difficult bug, a long investigation or an open ended research problem. Gemini 4 Argon is positioned for most software engineering and knowledge work, with faster responses and lower token use per turn. Both accept the same native input types.

What access and output limits apply here

Gemini 4 Carbon requires Pro or a higher plan here. The current output limit is 65,536 tokens. Its native long decode capability is a separate specification; this workflow does not offer one million token responses.