Scheduled Commit

data/retrieval_battle-dd51f1d2-bf9d-4e42-9a72-5b30dd2bd338.jsonl

@@ -16,3 +16,4 @@
 {"tstamp": 1722358420.2689, "task_type": "retrieval", "type": "tievote", "models": ["", ""], "ip": "", "0_conv_id": "31f178365d4f46f68c5dc6cfef04f2c0", "0_model_name": "intfloat/multilingual-e5-large-instruct", "0_prompt": "do tonics stack in bioshock 2?", "0_output": [["do tonics stack in bioshock 2?", "Gaming Stackexchange\n\nQ: Can multiple gene tonics stack in Bioshock 2? If I have a specific gene tonic in level 1 and level 2, is there any benefit to equipping both of them at the same time?  Will I get the full 1+2 bonuses? Or will I get just somewhat over the 2nd bonus?  Or is the level 1 tonic completely useless?\n\nA: The bonuses from the gene tonics stack, so if you equip a level 1 and a level 2 tonic, you will get the full bonuses from both.\n"]], "0_corpus": "stackexchange", "1_conv_id": "35ba2fd72c234df5816ca5c243d4e6de", "1_model_name": "BAAI/bge-large-en-v1.5", "1_prompt": "do tonics stack in bioshock 2?", "1_output": [["do tonics stack in bioshock 2?", "Gaming Stackexchange\n\nQ: Can multiple gene tonics stack in Bioshock 2? If I have a specific gene tonic in level 1 and level 2, is there any benefit to equipping both of them at the same time?  Will I get the full 1+2 bonuses? Or will I get just somewhat over the 2nd bonus?  Or is the level 1 tonic completely useless?\n\nA: The bonuses from the gene tonics stack, so if you equip a level 1 and a level 2 tonic, you will get the full bonuses from both.\n"]], "1_corpus": "stackexchange"}
 {"tstamp": 1722358443.207, "task_type": "retrieval", "type": "leftvote", "models": ["", ""], "ip": "", "0_conv_id": "051c9eaffd8c4a1f88d6a7b072e3a3da", "0_model_name": "intfloat/multilingual-e5-large-instruct", "0_prompt": "I am looking for a paper to help me deal with data constraints as I scale up my language model.", "0_output": [["I am looking for a paper to help me deal with data constraints as I scale up my language model.", "Title: Scaling Data-Constrained Language Models\n\nAbstract: The current trend of scaling language models involves increasing both parameter count and training dataset size. Extrapolating this trend suggests that training dataset size may soon be limited by the amount of text data available on the internet. Motivated by this limit, we investigate scaling language models in data-constrained regimes. Specifically, we run a large set of experiments varying the extent of data repetition and compute budget, ranging up to 900 billion training tokens and 9 billion parameter models. We find that with constrained data for a fixed compute budget, training with up to 4 epochs of repeated data yields negligible changes to loss compared to having unique data. However, with more repetition, the value of adding compute eventually decays to zero. We propose and empirically validate a scaling law for compute optimality that accounts for the decreasing value of repeated tokens and excess parameters. Finally, we experiment with approaches mitigating data scarcity, including augmenting the training dataset with code data or removing commonly used filters. Models and datasets from our 400 training runs are freely available at https://github.com/huggingface/datablations."]], "0_corpus": "arxiv", "1_conv_id": "bf3763ae7d234c86b92a4acbf172612e", "1_model_name": "jinaai/jina-embeddings-v2-base-en", "1_prompt": "I am looking for a paper to help me deal with data constraints as I scale up my language model.", "1_output": [["I am looking for a paper to help me deal with data constraints as I scale up my language model.", "Title: Like Sparrows on a Clothes Line: The Self-Organization of Random Number Sequences\n\nAbstract: We study sequences of random numbers {Z[1],Z[2],Z[3],...,Z[n]} -- which can be considered random walks with reflecting barriers -- and define their \"types\" according to whether Z[i] > Z[i+1], (a down-movement), or Z[i] < Z[i+1] (up-movement). This paper examines the means, xi, to which the Zi converge, when a large number of sequences of the same type is considered. It is shown that these means organize themselves in such a way that, between two turning points of the sequence, they are equidistant from one another. We also show that m steps in one direction tend to offset one step in the other direction, as m -> infinity. Key words:random number sequence, self-organization, random walk, reflecting barriers."]], "1_corpus": "arxiv"}
 {"tstamp": 1722358779.586, "task_type": "retrieval", "type": "leftvote", "models": ["", ""], "ip": "", "0_conv_id": "5f897a82cc1c4bb6877d9de92b903c30", "0_model_name": "mixedbread-ai/mxbai-embed-large-v1", "0_prompt": "Who was temujin's greatest rival before 1207?", "0_output": [["Who was temujin's greatest rival before 1207?", "Rise of Genghis Khan\n\nThe period of Temüjin's life from 1177 to 1191 is largely unknown except that Temüjin often fought the Taichiud, Salji'ut, Khadagin, and Tatars with mixed results. One of the clans following Temüjin eventually left and was defeated by the Taichiud, after which they joined Jamukha. During the 1180s there was a drought in Mongolia which increased conflict between the tribes but Temüjin only played a limited part in these affairs.\nAttack on the Merkit (1191)\nThe previous attack on the Merkit that resulted in the rescue of Börte may have been a separate campaign that occurred in 1191, and was confused in the sources. In 1191, Jamukha, Temüjin, and Toghrul and his brother Jakha Gambhu decided to attack the Merkit. However Temüjin and Toghrul were late to the rendezvous area by three days, which greatly angered Jamukha. Together the 40,000 strong allied forces made a detour east to attack the enemy camp from the north-east. A fisherman spotted them and warned the Merkit of the impending attack, but the Merkit failed to make the necessary preparations, and dispersed.\nBattle of Dalan Baljut (1187/1193)\nTemüjin and Jamukha stayed together for a while after the battle. At one point they sent an embassy to the Khadagin and Salji'ut to try to win them over against the Taichiud. In  1187 or 1193, Temüjin and Jamukha split when retainers of the two camps clashed over horse thievery. Temüjin took with him 41 tribal leaders and 10,000 men from Jamukha and was elected khan by his followers in the following days. The Taichiud became frightened by Temüjin's power and joined Jamukha."]], "0_corpus": "wikipedia", "1_conv_id": "8b89df9e59e0464fbb8397b16371fca3", "1_model_name": "sentence-transformers/all-MiniLM-L6-v2", "1_prompt": "Who was temujin's greatest rival before 1207?", "1_output": [["Who was temujin's greatest rival before 1207?", "Emperor Ōjin\n\n, also known as  (alternatively spelled ) or , was the 15th (possibly legendary) Emperor of Japan, according to the traditional order of succession. Both the Kojiki, and the Nihon Shoki (collectively known as the Kiki) record events that took place during Ōjin's alleged lifetime. Ōjin is traditionally listed as the first emperor of the Kofun period, and is primarily known for being the controversial son of Empress Jingū. Historians have mixed views on his factual existence, if Ōjin was indeed a historical figure then it's assumed he reigned much later than he is attested.\nNo firm dates can be assigned to Ōjin's life or reign, but he is traditionally considered to have reigned from 270 to 310. According to the Shinto religion and Buddhism in Japan, Emperor Ōjin is the divine spirit of the deity Hachiman (八幡神). While the location of Ōjin's grave (if any) is unknown, he is traditionally venerated at a memorial Shinto tomb. Modern historians have come to the conclusion that the title of \"Emperor\" and the name \"Ōjin\" was used by later generations to describe this possibly legendary Emperor."]], "1_corpus": "wikipedia"}
+{"tstamp": 1722358884.9334, "task_type": "retrieval", "type": "leftvote", "models": ["", ""], "ip": "", "0_conv_id": "b0d36170b64947a5b92f47145da1c137", "0_model_name": "voyage-multilingual-2", "0_prompt": "Which test was devised to determine whether robots can think?", "0_output": [["Which test was devised to determine whether robots can think?", "Turing test\n\nThe test was introduced by Turing in his 1950 paper \"Computing Machinery and Intelligence\" while working at the University of Manchester. It opens with the words: \"I propose to consider the question, 'Can machines think? Because \"thinking\" is difficult to define, Turing chooses to \"replace the question by another, which is closely related to it and is expressed in relatively unambiguous words.\" Turing describes the new form of the problem in terms of a three-person game called the \"imitation game\", in which an interrogator asks questions of a man and a woman in another room in order to determine the correct sex of the two players. Turing's new question is: \"Are there imaginable digital computers which would do well in the imitation game?\" This question, Turing believed, was one that could actually be answered. In the remainder of the paper, he argued against all the major objections to the proposition that \"machines can think\".\nSince Turing introduced his test, it has been both highly influential and widely criticized, and has become an important concept in the philosophy of artificial intelligence. Philosopher John Searle would comment on the Turing test in his Chinese room argument, a thought experiment that stipulates that a machine cannot have a \"mind\", \"understanding\", or \"consciousness\", regardless of how intelligently or human-like the program may make the computer behave. Searle criticizes Turing's test and claims it is insufficient to detect the presence of consciousness.\nHistory"]], "0_corpus": "wikipedia", "1_conv_id": "f5ce1163f07c459f918462330844dde2", "1_model_name": "mixedbread-ai/mxbai-embed-large-v1", "1_prompt": "Which test was devised to determine whether robots can think?", "1_output": [["Which test was devised to determine whether robots can think?", "Progress in artificial intelligence\n\nSub-human Optical character recognition for printed text (nearing par-human for Latin-script typewritten text)\nObject recognition\nVarious robotics tasks that may require advances in robot hardware as well as AI, including:\nStable bipedal locomotion: Bipedal robots can walk, but are less stable than human walkers (as of 2017)\nHumanoid soccer\nSpeech recognition: \"nearly equal to human performance\" (2017)\nExplainability. Current medical systems can diagnose certain medical conditions well, but cannot explain to users why they made the diagnosis.\nMany tests of fluid intelligence (2020)\nBongard visual cognition problems, such as the Bongard-LOGO benchmark (2020)\nVisual Commonsense Reasoning (VCR) benchmark (as of 2020)\nStock market prediction: Financial data collection and processing using Machine Learning algorithms\nAngry Birds video game, as of 2020\nVarious tasks that are difficult to solve without contextual knowledge, including:\nTranslation\nWord-sense disambiguation\nProposed tests of artificial intelligence\nIn his famous Turing test, Alan Turing picked language, the defining feature of human beings, for its basis. The Turing test is now considered too exploitable to be a meaningful benchmark.\nThe Feigenbaum test, proposed by the inventor of expert systems, tests a machine's knowledge and expertise about a specific subject. A paper by Jim Gray of Microsoft in 2003 suggested extending the Turing test to speech understanding, speaking and recognizing objects and behavior."]], "1_corpus": "wikipedia"}

data/retrieval_individual-dd51f1d2-bf9d-4e42-9a72-5b30dd2bd338.jsonl

@@ -61,3 +61,5 @@
 {"tstamp": 1722358755.8706, "task_type": "retrieval", "type": "chat", "model": "sentence-transformers/all-MiniLM-L6-v2", "gen_params": {}, "start": 1722358753.7395, "finish": 1722358755.8706, "ip": "", "conv_id": "8b89df9e59e0464fbb8397b16371fca3", "model_name": "sentence-transformers/all-MiniLM-L6-v2", "prompt": "Who was temujin's greatest rival before 1207?", "output": [["Who was temujin's greatest rival before 1207?", "Emperor Ōjin\n\n, also known as  (alternatively spelled ) or , was the 15th (possibly legendary) Emperor of Japan, according to the traditional order of succession. Both the Kojiki, and the Nihon Shoki (collectively known as the Kiki) record events that took place during Ōjin's alleged lifetime. Ōjin is traditionally listed as the first emperor of the Kofun period, and is primarily known for being the controversial son of Empress Jingū. Historians have mixed views on his factual existence, if Ōjin was indeed a historical figure then it's assumed he reigned much later than he is attested.\nNo firm dates can be assigned to Ōjin's life or reign, but he is traditionally considered to have reigned from 270 to 310. According to the Shinto religion and Buddhism in Japan, Emperor Ōjin is the divine spirit of the deity Hachiman (八幡神). While the location of Ōjin's grave (if any) is unknown, he is traditionally venerated at a memorial Shinto tomb. Modern historians have come to the conclusion that the title of \"Emperor\" and the name \"Ōjin\" was used by later generations to describe this possibly legendary Emperor."]], "corpus": "wikipedia"}
 {"tstamp": 1722358794.1134, "task_type": "retrieval", "type": "chat", "model": "GritLM/GritLM-7B", "gen_params": {}, "start": 1722358793.8686, "finish": 1722358794.1134, "ip": "", "conv_id": "3e37c16891be4c93b46019fea42d4f30", "model_name": "GritLM/GritLM-7B", "prompt": "Which test was devised to determine whether robots can think?", "output": [["Which test was devised to determine whether robots can think?", "Turing test\n\nThe test was introduced by Turing in his 1950 paper \"Computing Machinery and Intelligence\" while working at the University of Manchester. It opens with the words: \"I propose to consider the question, 'Can machines think? Because \"thinking\" is difficult to define, Turing chooses to \"replace the question by another, which is closely related to it and is expressed in relatively unambiguous words.\" Turing describes the new form of the problem in terms of a three-person game called the \"imitation game\", in which an interrogator asks questions of a man and a woman in another room in order to determine the correct sex of the two players. Turing's new question is: \"Are there imaginable digital computers which would do well in the imitation game?\" This question, Turing believed, was one that could actually be answered. In the remainder of the paper, he argued against all the major objections to the proposition that \"machines can think\".\nSince Turing introduced his test, it has been both highly influential and widely criticized, and has become an important concept in the philosophy of artificial intelligence. Philosopher John Searle would comment on the Turing test in his Chinese room argument, a thought experiment that stipulates that a machine cannot have a \"mind\", \"understanding\", or \"consciousness\", regardless of how intelligently or human-like the program may make the computer behave. Searle criticizes Turing's test and claims it is insufficient to detect the presence of consciousness.\nHistory"]], "corpus": "wikipedia"}
 {"tstamp": 1722358794.1134, "task_type": "retrieval", "type": "chat", "model": "intfloat/multilingual-e5-large-instruct", "gen_params": {}, "start": 1722358793.8686, "finish": 1722358794.1134, "ip": "", "conv_id": "e4c6ce6f8a924a55914bd8af25aab3ff", "model_name": "intfloat/multilingual-e5-large-instruct", "prompt": "Which test was devised to determine whether robots can think?", "output": [["Which test was devised to determine whether robots can think?", "Turing test\n\nThe test was introduced by Turing in his 1950 paper \"Computing Machinery and Intelligence\" while working at the University of Manchester. It opens with the words: \"I propose to consider the question, 'Can machines think? Because \"thinking\" is difficult to define, Turing chooses to \"replace the question by another, which is closely related to it and is expressed in relatively unambiguous words.\" Turing describes the new form of the problem in terms of a three-person game called the \"imitation game\", in which an interrogator asks questions of a man and a woman in another room in order to determine the correct sex of the two players. Turing's new question is: \"Are there imaginable digital computers which would do well in the imitation game?\" This question, Turing believed, was one that could actually be answered. In the remainder of the paper, he argued against all the major objections to the proposition that \"machines can think\".\nSince Turing introduced his test, it has been both highly influential and widely criticized, and has become an important concept in the philosophy of artificial intelligence. Philosopher John Searle would comment on the Turing test in his Chinese room argument, a thought experiment that stipulates that a machine cannot have a \"mind\", \"understanding\", or \"consciousness\", regardless of how intelligently or human-like the program may make the computer behave. Searle criticizes Turing's test and claims it is insufficient to detect the presence of consciousness.\nHistory"]], "corpus": "wikipedia"}
+{"tstamp": 1722358877.9707, "task_type": "retrieval", "type": "chat", "model": "voyage-multilingual-2", "gen_params": {}, "start": 1722358875.5131, "finish": 1722358877.9707, "ip": "", "conv_id": "b0d36170b64947a5b92f47145da1c137", "model_name": "voyage-multilingual-2", "prompt": "Which test was devised to determine whether robots can think?", "output": [["Which test was devised to determine whether robots can think?", "Turing test\n\nThe test was introduced by Turing in his 1950 paper \"Computing Machinery and Intelligence\" while working at the University of Manchester. It opens with the words: \"I propose to consider the question, 'Can machines think? Because \"thinking\" is difficult to define, Turing chooses to \"replace the question by another, which is closely related to it and is expressed in relatively unambiguous words.\" Turing describes the new form of the problem in terms of a three-person game called the \"imitation game\", in which an interrogator asks questions of a man and a woman in another room in order to determine the correct sex of the two players. Turing's new question is: \"Are there imaginable digital computers which would do well in the imitation game?\" This question, Turing believed, was one that could actually be answered. In the remainder of the paper, he argued against all the major objections to the proposition that \"machines can think\".\nSince Turing introduced his test, it has been both highly influential and widely criticized, and has become an important concept in the philosophy of artificial intelligence. Philosopher John Searle would comment on the Turing test in his Chinese room argument, a thought experiment that stipulates that a machine cannot have a \"mind\", \"understanding\", or \"consciousness\", regardless of how intelligently or human-like the program may make the computer behave. Searle criticizes Turing's test and claims it is insufficient to detect the presence of consciousness.\nHistory"]], "corpus": "wikipedia"}
+{"tstamp": 1722358877.9707, "task_type": "retrieval", "type": "chat", "model": "mixedbread-ai/mxbai-embed-large-v1", "gen_params": {}, "start": 1722358875.5131, "finish": 1722358877.9707, "ip": "", "conv_id": "f5ce1163f07c459f918462330844dde2", "model_name": "mixedbread-ai/mxbai-embed-large-v1", "prompt": "Which test was devised to determine whether robots can think?", "output": [["Which test was devised to determine whether robots can think?", "Progress in artificial intelligence\n\nSub-human Optical character recognition for printed text (nearing par-human for Latin-script typewritten text)\nObject recognition\nVarious robotics tasks that may require advances in robot hardware as well as AI, including:\nStable bipedal locomotion: Bipedal robots can walk, but are less stable than human walkers (as of 2017)\nHumanoid soccer\nSpeech recognition: \"nearly equal to human performance\" (2017)\nExplainability. Current medical systems can diagnose certain medical conditions well, but cannot explain to users why they made the diagnosis.\nMany tests of fluid intelligence (2020)\nBongard visual cognition problems, such as the Bongard-LOGO benchmark (2020)\nVisual Commonsense Reasoning (VCR) benchmark (as of 2020)\nStock market prediction: Financial data collection and processing using Machine Learning algorithms\nAngry Birds video game, as of 2020\nVarious tasks that are difficult to solve without contextual knowledge, including:\nTranslation\nWord-sense disambiguation\nProposed tests of artificial intelligence\nIn his famous Turing test, Alan Turing picked language, the defining feature of human beings, for its basis. The Turing test is now considered too exploitable to be a meaningful benchmark.\nThe Feigenbaum test, proposed by the inventor of expert systems, tests a machine's knowledge and expertise about a specific subject. A paper by Jim Gray of Microsoft in 2003 suggested extending the Turing test to speech understanding, speaking and recognizing objects and behavior."]], "corpus": "wikipedia"}