Scheduled Commit

data/retrieval_battle-dc61b353-c2a4-4719-875a-064e75e0f6f7.jsonl

@@ -31,3 +31,4 @@
 {"tstamp": 1737037318.7492, "task_type": "retrieval", "type": "rightvote", "models": ["", ""], "ip": "", "0_conv_id": "8780e4c0c0ea4602af9e593ef89d005b", "0_model_name": "sentence-transformers/all-MiniLM-L6-v2", "0_prompt": "Which test was devised to determine whether robots can think?", "0_output": [["Which test was devised to determine whether robots can think?", "History of robots\n\nA similar tale can be found in the near contemporary Indian Buddhist Jataka tales, but here the intricacy of the automation does not match that of Master Yan.Prior to the introduction of Buddhism in the Common Era, Chinese philosophers did not seriously consider the distinction between appearance and reality. The Liezi rebuts Buddhist philosophies and likens human creative powers to that of the Creator. The Indian Lokapannatti, a collection of cycles and lores produced in the 11th or 12th century AD, tells the story of how an army of automated soldiers (bhuta vahana yanta or \"Spirit movement machines\") were crafted to protect the relics of Buddha in a secret stupa. The plans for making such humanoid automatons were stolen from the kingdom of Rome, a generic term for the Greco-Roman-Byzantine culture. According to the Lokapannatti, the Yavanas (\"Greek-speakers\") used the automatons to carry out trade and farming, but also captured and executed criminals. Roman automation makers who left the kingdom were pursued and killed by the automatons. According to the Lokapannatti, the emperor Asoka hears the story of the secret stupa and sets out to find it. "]], "0_corpus": "wikipedia", "1_conv_id": "76bbff4c96e64c408df551c98ea752cf", "1_model_name": "intfloat/e5-mistral-7b-instruct", "1_prompt": "Which test was devised to determine whether robots can think?", "1_output": [["Which test was devised to determine whether robots can think?", "Turing test\n\nThe Turing test, originally called the imitation game by Alan Turing in 1950, is a test of a machine's ability to exhibit intelligent behaviour equivalent to, or indistinguishable from, that of a human. Turing proposed that a human evaluator would judge natural language conversations between a human and a machine designed to generate human-like responses. The evaluator would be aware that one of the two partners in conversation was a machine, and all participants would be separated from one another. The conversation would be limited to a text-only channel, such as a computer keyboard and screen, so the result would not depend on the machine's ability to render words as speech. If the evaluator could not reliably tell the machine from the human, the machine would be said to have passed the test. The test results would not depend on the machine's ability to give correct answers to questions, only on how closely its answers resembled those a human would give. Since the Turing test is a test of indistinguishability in performance capacity, the verbal version generalizes naturally to all of human performance capacity, verbal as well as nonverbal (robotic)."]], "1_corpus": "wikipedia"}
 {"tstamp": 1737037744.6476, "task_type": "retrieval", "type": "rightvote", "models": ["", ""], "ip": "", "0_conv_id": "159fb734d1c94391b30e3117f1ac30ed", "0_model_name": "sentence-transformers/all-MiniLM-L6-v2", "0_prompt": "why do I need to have `if __name__ == '__main__' in python?", "0_output": [["why do I need to have `if __name__ == '__main__' in python?", "Stackoverflow Stackexchange\n\nQ: How to initialize two-dimensional arrays in Fortran In C you can easily initialize an array using the curly braces syntax, if I remember correctly:\nint* a = new int[] { 1, 2, 3, 4 };\n\nHow can you do the same in Fortran for two-dimensional arrays when you wish to initialize a matrix with specific test values for mathematical purposes? (Without having to doubly index every element on separate statements)\nThe array is either defined by\nreal, dimension(3, 3) :: a\n\nor\nreal, dimension(:), allocatable :: a\n\n\nA: Array initialization can be done in the array declaration statement itself, as shown below:\nprogram test\n real:: x(3) = (/1,2,3/)\n real:: y(3,3) = reshape((/1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9/), (/3,3/))\n integer:: i(3,2,2) = reshape((/1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12/), (/3,2,2/))\n\nend program test\n\nIt surprises me that\n real:: y(3,3) = (/(/1,2,3/),(/4,5,6/),(/7,8,9/)/)\n\nis not accepted by the compiler (tried g95, gfortran). It turns out that the shape of\n(/(/1,2,3/),(/4,5,6/),(/7,8,9/)/) is 9 and not 3 3!\n"]], "0_corpus": "stackexchange", "1_conv_id": "0ed83a02e4c34e8da543c18a59af2fb7", "1_model_name": "voyage-multilingual-2", "1_prompt": "why do I need to have `if __name__ == '__main__' in python?", "1_output": [["why do I need to have `if __name__ == '__main__' in python?", "Stackoverflow Stackexchange\n\nQ: Python program start Should I start a Python program with:\nif__name__ == '__main__':\nsome code...\n\nAnd if so, why? I saw it many times but don't have a clue about it.\n\nA: If your program is usable as a library but you also have a main program (e.g. to test the library), that construct lets others import the file as a library and not run your main program. If your program is named foo.py and you do \"import foo\" from another python file, __name__ evaluates to 'foo', but if you run \"python foo.py\" from the command line, __name__ evaluates to '__main__'.\nNote that you do need to insert a space between if and _, and indent the main program:\nif __name__ == '__main__':\n    main program here\n\n"]], "1_corpus": "stackexchange"}
 {"tstamp": 1737037783.8529, "task_type": "retrieval", "type": "leftvote", "models": ["", ""], "ip": "", "0_conv_id": "a8124f6a8d0c42c3bca43560f0726e5e", "0_model_name": "mixedbread-ai/mxbai-embed-large-v1", "0_prompt": "What is the eight fold path?", "0_output": [["What is the eight fold path?", "Noble Eightfold Path\n\nThe Noble Eightfold Path () or Eight Right Paths () is an early summary of the path of Buddhist practices leading to liberation from samsara, the painful cycle of rebirth, in the form of nirvana.\nThe Eightfold Path consists of eight practices: right view, right resolve, right speech, right conduct, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, and right samadhi ('meditative absorption or union'; alternatively, equanimous meditative awareness)."]], "0_corpus": "wikipedia", "1_conv_id": "154387d22a3d4c79a85f3c907058d334", "1_model_name": "sentence-transformers/all-MiniLM-L6-v2", "1_prompt": "What is the eight fold path?", "1_output": [["What is the eight fold path?", "Six Paths\n\nThe Six Paths in Buddhist cosmology are the six worlds where sentient beings are reincarnated based on their karma, which is linked to their actions in previous lives. These paths are depicted in the Bhavacakra (\"wheel of existence\"). The six paths are:\nthe world of gods or celestial beings (deva) ;\nthe world of warlike demigods (asura) ;\nthe world of human beings (manushya) ;\nthe world of animals (tiryagyoni) ;\nthe world of hungry ghosts (preta) ;\nthe world of Hell (naraka)."]], "1_corpus": "wikipedia"}
+{"tstamp": 1737038829.4154, "task_type": "retrieval", "type": "rightvote", "models": ["", ""], "ip": "", "0_conv_id": "8638457b60194b1d812fdf4916f30a48", "0_model_name": "GritLM/GritLM-7B", "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": "a637c40f70b8440fb5a7c3efd8c97f4a", "1_model_name": "Salesforce/SFR-Embedding-2_R", "1_prompt": "Which test was devised to determine whether robots can think?", "1_output": [["Which test was devised to determine whether robots can think?", "Turing test\n\nThe Turing test, originally called the imitation game by Alan Turing in 1950, is a test of a machine's ability to exhibit intelligent behaviour equivalent to, or indistinguishable from, that of a human. Turing proposed that a human evaluator would judge natural language conversations between a human and a machine designed to generate human-like responses. The evaluator would be aware that one of the two partners in conversation was a machine, and all participants would be separated from one another. The conversation would be limited to a text-only channel, such as a computer keyboard and screen, so the result would not depend on the machine's ability to render words as speech. If the evaluator could not reliably tell the machine from the human, the machine would be said to have passed the test. The test results would not depend on the machine's ability to give correct answers to questions, only on how closely its answers resembled those a human would give. Since the Turing test is a test of indistinguishability in performance capacity, the verbal version generalizes naturally to all of human performance capacity, verbal as well as nonverbal (robotic)."]], "1_corpus": "wikipedia"}

data/retrieval_individual-dc61b353-c2a4-4719-875a-064e75e0f6f7.jsonl

@@ -125,3 +125,5 @@
 {"tstamp": 1737037702.5351, "task_type": "retrieval", "type": "chat", "model": "voyage-multilingual-2", "gen_params": {}, "start": 1737037702.2303, "finish": 1737037702.5351, "ip": "", "conv_id": "0ed83a02e4c34e8da543c18a59af2fb7", "model_name": "voyage-multilingual-2", "prompt": "why do I need to have `if __name__ == '__main__' in python?", "output": [["why do I need to have `if __name__ == '__main__' in python?", "Stackoverflow Stackexchange\n\nQ: Python program start Should I start a Python program with:\nif__name__ == '__main__':\nsome code...\n\nAnd if so, why? I saw it many times but don't have a clue about it.\n\nA: If your program is usable as a library but you also have a main program (e.g. to test the library), that construct lets others import the file as a library and not run your main program. If your program is named foo.py and you do \"import foo\" from another python file, __name__ evaluates to 'foo', but if you run \"python foo.py\" from the command line, __name__ evaluates to '__main__'.\nNote that you do need to insert a space between if and _, and indent the main program:\nif __name__ == '__main__':\n    main program here\n\n"]], "corpus": "stackexchange"}
 {"tstamp": 1737037767.554, "task_type": "retrieval", "type": "chat", "model": "mixedbread-ai/mxbai-embed-large-v1", "gen_params": {}, "start": 1737037767.3095, "finish": 1737037767.554, "ip": "", "conv_id": "a8124f6a8d0c42c3bca43560f0726e5e", "model_name": "mixedbread-ai/mxbai-embed-large-v1", "prompt": "What is the eight fold path?", "output": [["What is the eight fold path?", "Noble Eightfold Path\n\nThe Noble Eightfold Path () or Eight Right Paths () is an early summary of the path of Buddhist practices leading to liberation from samsara, the painful cycle of rebirth, in the form of nirvana.\nThe Eightfold Path consists of eight practices: right view, right resolve, right speech, right conduct, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, and right samadhi ('meditative absorption or union'; alternatively, equanimous meditative awareness)."]], "corpus": "wikipedia"}
 {"tstamp": 1737037767.554, "task_type": "retrieval", "type": "chat", "model": "sentence-transformers/all-MiniLM-L6-v2", "gen_params": {}, "start": 1737037767.3095, "finish": 1737037767.554, "ip": "", "conv_id": "154387d22a3d4c79a85f3c907058d334", "model_name": "sentence-transformers/all-MiniLM-L6-v2", "prompt": "What is the eight fold path?", "output": [["What is the eight fold path?", "Six Paths\n\nThe Six Paths in Buddhist cosmology are the six worlds where sentient beings are reincarnated based on their karma, which is linked to their actions in previous lives. These paths are depicted in the Bhavacakra (\"wheel of existence\"). The six paths are:\nthe world of gods or celestial beings (deva) ;\nthe world of warlike demigods (asura) ;\nthe world of human beings (manushya) ;\nthe world of animals (tiryagyoni) ;\nthe world of hungry ghosts (preta) ;\nthe world of Hell (naraka)."]], "corpus": "wikipedia"}
+{"tstamp": 1737038784.893, "task_type": "retrieval", "type": "chat", "model": "GritLM/GritLM-7B", "gen_params": {}, "start": 1737038782.5949, "finish": 1737038784.893, "ip": "", "conv_id": "8638457b60194b1d812fdf4916f30a48", "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": 1737038784.893, "task_type": "retrieval", "type": "chat", "model": "Salesforce/SFR-Embedding-2_R", "gen_params": {}, "start": 1737038782.5949, "finish": 1737038784.893, "ip": "", "conv_id": "a637c40f70b8440fb5a7c3efd8c97f4a", "model_name": "Salesforce/SFR-Embedding-2_R", "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 Turing test, originally called the imitation game by Alan Turing in 1950, is a test of a machine's ability to exhibit intelligent behaviour equivalent to, or indistinguishable from, that of a human. Turing proposed that a human evaluator would judge natural language conversations between a human and a machine designed to generate human-like responses. The evaluator would be aware that one of the two partners in conversation was a machine, and all participants would be separated from one another. The conversation would be limited to a text-only channel, such as a computer keyboard and screen, so the result would not depend on the machine's ability to render words as speech. If the evaluator could not reliably tell the machine from the human, the machine would be said to have passed the test. The test results would not depend on the machine's ability to give correct answers to questions, only on how closely its answers resembled those a human would give. Since the Turing test is a test of indistinguishability in performance capacity, the verbal version generalizes naturally to all of human performance capacity, verbal as well as nonverbal (robotic)."]], "corpus": "wikipedia"}