Scheduled Commit

data/retrieval_battle-f327ab98-e77d-487f-86d9-1e7eaaf8b6cc.jsonl

@@ -1,3 +1,4 @@
 {"tstamp": 1728335945.6301, "task_type": "retrieval", "type": "rightvote", "models": ["", ""], "ip": "", "0_conv_id": "7bf76d98956540fb9448e0c17ff958d5", "0_model_name": "mixedbread-ai/mxbai-embed-large-v1", "0_prompt": "lebron james or stephen curry", "0_output": [["lebron james or stephen curry", "Cavaliers–Warriors rivalry\n\nJames, Irving, Curry, and Thompson were all named to their respective NBA All-Star teams, with Curry finishing first in the All-Star voting (1,513,324), and LeBron James finishing in second (1,470,483). Curry won the NBA MVP Award, averaging 23.8 points, 7.7 assists, and 2.0 steals per game, and shot 44.3% from three-point territory. James was third in MVP voting. He averaged 25.3 PPG, 6.0 RPG, and 7.4 APG. They were featured on the All-NBA First Team. Irving and Thompson made the All-NBA team as well. The Cavaliers finished the season with a record of 53–29, and the Warriors finished the season with a record of 67–15.\nThe Warriors and the Cavaliers only lost five games combined in the first three rounds of the playoffs. For the first time in NBA Finals history, both teams were coached by rookie head coaches with Steve Kerr and David Blatt. The Cavaliers faced injury trouble, losing Love in Game 4 of the first round against the Boston Celtics to a separated shoulder. Irving left Game 1 of the Finals in overtime after fracturing his left kneecap. The Warriors won Game 1 in a 108–100 overtime thriller. Game 2 also went into overtime, the all-around efforts of LeBron James and Matthew Dellavedova's surprisingly stellar defense on Steph Curry took the game 95–93. James had carried the limping Cavaliers to a Game 3 win and a 2–1 lead over the Warriors. The Warriors would win the next three games to take home the 2015 NBA Championship. Andre Iguodala would win the NBA Finals MVP, although James averaged 35.8 PPG, 13.3 RPG, and 8.8 APG in a losing effort. However, he shot less than 40% from the field for the entire series."]], "0_corpus": "wikipedia", "1_conv_id": "8757d371488a45a9a0aa0005ed631540", "1_model_name": "embed-english-v3.0", "1_prompt": "lebron james or stephen curry", "1_output": [["lebron james or stephen curry", "Cavaliers–Warriors rivalry\n\nKyrie Irving and LeBron James both scored 41 points in Game 5 to stay alive on the road, becoming the first pair of teammates to score at least 40 points in a Finals game. Back in Cleveland, LeBron James continued his explosive scoring, tallying another 41-point game in a Game 6 rout of the Warriors that saw a dominating 31–9 opening sequence and a late-game ejection of Stephen Curry. James became the first player since Shaquille O'Neal to score over 40 points in back-to-back NBA Finals games. Curry was also the first player, also since O'Neal, to foul out in a Finals game.\nWith the series shifting back to Oracle Arena for the championship decider, the Warriors and the Cavaliers were neck-and-neck for most of Game 7. Late in the 4th quarter, with the score tied 89–89, LeBron James made a memorable chase-down block on Andre Iguodala to save a go-ahead basket. Soon after, Kyrie Irving hit a 3-pointer over Stephen Curry to give Cleveland the lead, and Kevin Love locking down Curry. In the end, they held on to win the game 93–89. This was Cleveland's first franchise title and made them first team in NBA Finals history to come back from a 1–3 deficit. LeBron James became only the third player in NBA history to have a triple double in a Finals Game 7 and was unanimously voted Finals MVP after leading in all five categories of points, rebounds, assists, steals, and blocks.\n2016–2018: Arrival of Kevin Durant, Warriors win back-to-back titles"]], "1_corpus": "wikipedia"}
 {"tstamp": 1728339672.7982, "task_type": "retrieval", "type": "bothbadvote", "models": ["", ""], "ip": "", "0_conv_id": "08d45b58b7594e6fbb5ed16e3add24a4", "0_model_name": "nomic-ai/nomic-embed-text-v1.5", "0_prompt": "do you capitalize y axis?", "0_output": [["do you capitalize y axis?", "Stackoverflow Stackexchange\n\nQ: R: Rotate text independent of scaling (using mtext)? There are two ways to create rotated axis labels in R:\n\n\n*\n\n*text(srt = angle)\n\n\n*\n\n*Advantage: Arbitrary angle possible (like 45°)\n\n*Disadvantage: y position changes with y scaling\n\n\n*mtext(las = 1)\n\n\n*\n\n*Advantage: y position fixed independent of y scaling\n\n*Disadvantages: Only discrete values possible (90° steps)\n\n\n\nIs there a way to add rotated axis labels of whom the y position does not depend on the scaling of the y axis?\n\nA: Thinking about the problem, I found a solution making use of the ylim parameter to the plot() function:\nylim = c(0, 0.5)\nplot(...)\ntext(..., srt = 45, y = 0.2 * (ylim[2] - ylim[1]))\n\ndynamically adjusts the position of the text according to the scaling of the y axis.\n"]], "0_corpus": "stackexchange", "1_conv_id": "d1393a6a3200459ab1257e4ec8baf351", "1_model_name": "jinaai/jina-embeddings-v2-base-en", "1_prompt": "do you capitalize y axis?", "1_output": [["do you capitalize y axis?", "Stackoverflow Stackexchange\n\nQ: how to convert 24-hour format TimeSpan to 12-hour format TimeSpan? I have TimeSpan data represented as 24-hour format, such as 14:00:00, I wanna convert it to 12-hour format, 2:00 PM, I googled and found something related in stackoverflow and msdn, but didn't solve this problem, can anyone help me? Thanks in advance.\nUpdate\nSeems that it's possible to convert 24-hour format TimeSpan to String, but impossible to convert the string to 12-hour format TimeSpan :(\nBut I still got SO MANY good answers, thanks!\n\nA: TimeSpan represents a time interval not a time of day. The DateTime structure is more likely what you're looking for.\n"]], "1_corpus": "stackexchange"}
 {"tstamp": 1728339700.904, "task_type": "retrieval", "type": "tievote", "models": ["", ""], "ip": "", "0_conv_id": "6db949e7843e42609a724c1bd9e731ad", "0_model_name": "text-embedding-3-large", "0_prompt": "A unified automatic evaluation method for open-domain conversations with large language models", "0_output": [["A unified automatic evaluation method for open-domain conversations with large language models", "Title: LLM-Eval: Unified Multi-Dimensional Automatic Evaluation for Open-Domain Conversations with Large Language Models\n\nAbstract: We propose LLM-Eval, a unified multi-dimensional automatic evaluation method for open-domain conversations with large language models (LLMs). Existing evaluation methods often rely on human annotations, ground-truth responses, or multiple LLM prompts, which can be expensive and time-consuming. To address these issues, we design a single prompt-based evaluation method that leverages a unified evaluation schema to cover multiple dimensions of conversation quality in a single model call. We extensively evaluate the performance of LLM-Eval on various benchmark datasets, demonstrating its effectiveness, efficiency, and adaptability compared to state-of-the-art evaluation methods. Our analysis also highlights the importance of choosing suitable LLMs and decoding strategies for accurate evaluation results. LLM-Eval offers a versatile and robust solution for evaluating open-domain conversation systems, streamlining the evaluation process and providing consistent performance across diverse scenarios."]], "0_corpus": "arxiv", "1_conv_id": "dbe46a1a12e24fbe82e420c87774451e", "1_model_name": "GritLM/GritLM-7B", "1_prompt": "A unified automatic evaluation method for open-domain conversations with large language models", "1_output": [["A unified automatic evaluation method for open-domain conversations with large language models", "Title: LLM-Eval: Unified Multi-Dimensional Automatic Evaluation for Open-Domain Conversations with Large Language Models\n\nAbstract: We propose LLM-Eval, a unified multi-dimensional automatic evaluation method for open-domain conversations with large language models (LLMs). Existing evaluation methods often rely on human annotations, ground-truth responses, or multiple LLM prompts, which can be expensive and time-consuming. To address these issues, we design a single prompt-based evaluation method that leverages a unified evaluation schema to cover multiple dimensions of conversation quality in a single model call. We extensively evaluate the performance of LLM-Eval on various benchmark datasets, demonstrating its effectiveness, efficiency, and adaptability compared to state-of-the-art evaluation methods. Our analysis also highlights the importance of choosing suitable LLMs and decoding strategies for accurate evaluation results. LLM-Eval offers a versatile and robust solution for evaluating open-domain conversation systems, streamlining the evaluation process and providing consistent performance across diverse scenarios."]], "1_corpus": "arxiv"}
+{"tstamp": 1728342722.5123, "task_type": "retrieval", "type": "tievote", "models": ["", ""], "ip": "", "0_conv_id": "9b2c31b0d44c4d3a97b052fa055acb98", "0_model_name": "mixedbread-ai/mxbai-embed-large-v1", "0_prompt": "why use ibgp and ospf?", "0_output": [["why use ibgp and ospf?", "Serverfault Stackexchange\n\nQ: What is the difference between OSPF and RIP? What is the difference between OSPF and RIP? Could someone explain the advantages and disadvantage？ Also when I should use one or the other.\n\nA: http://livinginternet.com/i/iw_route_igp_ospf.htm\nThe main difference between OSPF and RIP is that RIP only keeps track of the closest router for each destination address, while OSPF keeps track of a complete topological database of all connections in the local network.\nThis was the first search term google returned when I pasted your question there.\nTo more closely answer your question, if you're maintaing a very small network, RIP is fine, if you go beyond 3 or 4 routers then perhaps look at a more advanced routing protocol like OSPF.\n"]], "0_corpus": "stackexchange", "1_conv_id": "62487a220ac94114876fc9c1f1db45cf", "1_model_name": "BAAI/bge-large-en-v1.5", "1_prompt": "why use ibgp and ospf?", "1_output": [["why use ibgp and ospf?", "Serverfault Stackexchange\n\nQ: What is the difference between OSPF and RIP? What is the difference between OSPF and RIP? Could someone explain the advantages and disadvantage？ Also when I should use one or the other.\n\nA: http://livinginternet.com/i/iw_route_igp_ospf.htm\nThe main difference between OSPF and RIP is that RIP only keeps track of the closest router for each destination address, while OSPF keeps track of a complete topological database of all connections in the local network.\nThis was the first search term google returned when I pasted your question there.\nTo more closely answer your question, if you're maintaing a very small network, RIP is fine, if you go beyond 3 or 4 routers then perhaps look at a more advanced routing protocol like OSPF.\n"]], "1_corpus": "stackexchange"}