Scheduled Commit

data/retrieval_battle-a660d6d7-6b46-4e6b-9c85-4651683faa00.jsonl

@@ -31,3 +31,5 @@
 {"tstamp": 1726302078.4969, "task_type": "retrieval", "type": "tievote", "models": ["", ""], "ip": "", "0_conv_id": "61316f7e21a24680aa09901a3dd4d862", "0_model_name": "voyage-multilingual-2", "0_prompt": "what is the dimension of grassman manifold", "0_output": [["what is the dimension of grassman manifold", "Grassmannian\n\nAn alternative way to define a real or complex Grassmannian as a manifold is to view it as a set of orthogonal projection operators ( problem 5-C). For this, choose a positive definite real or Hermitian inner product  on , depending on whether  is real or complex. A -dimensional subspace  determines a unique orthogonal projection operator  whose image is  by splitting  into the orthogonal direct sum\nof  and its orthogonal complement  and defining\nConversely, every projection operator  of rank  defines a subspace  as its image.  Since the rank of an orthogonal projection operator equals its trace, we can identify the Grassmann manifold  with the set of rank  orthogonal projection operators :\nIn particular, taking  or  this gives completely explicit equations for embedding the Grassmannians ,   in the space of real or complex  matrices ,  , respectively.\nSince this defines the Grassmannian as a closed subset of the sphere  this is one way to see that the Grassmannian is a compact Hausdorff space.  This construction also turns the Grassmannian  into a metric space with metric\nfor any pair  of -dimensional subspaces, where  denotes the operator norm.  The exact inner product used does not matter, because a different inner product will give an equivalent norm on , and hence an equivalent metric.\nFor the case of real or complex Grassmannians, the following is an equivalent way to express the above construction in terms of matrices.\nGrassmannians Gr(k,Rn) and Gr(k,Cn) as affine algebraic varieties\nLet  denote the space of real  matrices and the subset  of matrices  that satisfy the three conditions:"]], "0_corpus": "wikipedia", "1_conv_id": "6383b3c7805b4385974320d0afc3117a", "1_model_name": "Alibaba-NLP/gte-Qwen2-7B-instruct", "1_prompt": "what is the dimension of grassman manifold", "1_output": [["what is the dimension of grassman manifold", "Grassmannian\n\nAn alternative way to define a real or complex Grassmannian as a manifold is to view it as a set of orthogonal projection operators ( problem 5-C). For this, choose a positive definite real or Hermitian inner product  on , depending on whether  is real or complex. A -dimensional subspace  determines a unique orthogonal projection operator  whose image is  by splitting  into the orthogonal direct sum\nof  and its orthogonal complement  and defining\nConversely, every projection operator  of rank  defines a subspace  as its image.  Since the rank of an orthogonal projection operator equals its trace, we can identify the Grassmann manifold  with the set of rank  orthogonal projection operators :\nIn particular, taking  or  this gives completely explicit equations for embedding the Grassmannians ,   in the space of real or complex  matrices ,  , respectively.\nSince this defines the Grassmannian as a closed subset of the sphere  this is one way to see that the Grassmannian is a compact Hausdorff space.  This construction also turns the Grassmannian  into a metric space with metric\nfor any pair  of -dimensional subspaces, where  denotes the operator norm.  The exact inner product used does not matter, because a different inner product will give an equivalent norm on , and hence an equivalent metric.\nFor the case of real or complex Grassmannians, the following is an equivalent way to express the above construction in terms of matrices.\nGrassmannians Gr(k,Rn) and Gr(k,Cn) as affine algebraic varieties\nLet  denote the space of real  matrices and the subset  of matrices  that satisfy the three conditions:"]], "1_corpus": "wikipedia"}
 {"tstamp": 1726310354.7045, "task_type": "retrieval", "type": "bothbadvote", "models": ["", ""], "ip": "", "0_conv_id": "992c559bdf7140cda5f51c740bbff136", "0_model_name": "jinaai/jina-embeddings-v2-base-en", "0_prompt": "Which test was devised to determine whether robots can think?", "0_output": [["Which test was devised to determine whether robots can think?", "Cognitive test\n\nCognitive tests are assessments of the cognitive capabilities of humans and other animals. Tests administered to humans include various forms of IQ tests; those administered to animals include the mirror test (a test of visual self-awareness) and the T maze test (which tests learning ability). Such testing is used in psychology and psychometrics, as well as other fields studying human and animal intelligence."]], "0_corpus": "wikipedia", "1_conv_id": "35f7cbdae6b0444ca08827a195de3ba6", "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"}
 {"tstamp": 1726319492.1736, "task_type": "retrieval", "type": "rightvote", "models": ["", ""], "ip": "", "0_conv_id": "0a126fd2f4884f3f96e04f20645482de", "0_model_name": "mixedbread-ai/mxbai-embed-large-v1", "0_prompt": "Which test was devised to determine whether robots can think?", "0_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."]], "0_corpus": "wikipedia", "1_conv_id": "cb6a56a042354fd08577d0f1a95d72d0", "1_model_name": "nomic-ai/nomic-embed-text-v1.5", "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": 1726346126.967, "task_type": "retrieval", "type": "rightvote", "models": ["", ""], "ip": "", "0_conv_id": "b2b3b827c3914f26a1180a4f3c7209e7", "0_model_name": "intfloat/multilingual-e5-large-instruct", "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": "70fafc3532634e5694a9403fbf40051d", "1_model_name": "BAAI/bge-large-en-v1.5", "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": 1726346264.4223, "task_type": "retrieval", "type": "leftvote", "models": ["", ""], "ip": "", "0_conv_id": "cfdfed2129cf416eb8309fff16dfd4f6", "0_model_name": "nomic-ai/nomic-embed-text-v1.5", "0_prompt": "Why did the machines in The Matrix keep humans around?", "0_output": [["Why did the machines in The Matrix keep humans around?", "Scifi Stackexchange\n\nQ: Why use full brained humans as batteries? \nPossible Duplicate:\nIs the basic premise of humans as a power source in The Matrix reasonable?\nWhy Did the Machines Even Bother With a Matrix? \n\nThe machines in The Matrix series use humans as batteries. That's OK. But why did the machines not alter their livestock such that the matrix itself would be unnecessary?  \nConsider the recently proposed headless chicken farm. Something similar for the human batteries would seem to be an ideal solution for logical machines. No longer would they need to spend resources maintaining a virtual reality for their batteries. The energy, physical hardware and programs running the matrix could then be put to who knows what other uses.\n\nA: The explanation for the use of human brains would seem to be the fact that our complex thoughts lead to higher level of brain activity, thus resulting in exponentially more synapses firing (i.e. more electrical activity to harvest).\nThat makes human brains far more efficient than the brains of animals, even with the overhead of maintaining the matrix.  Plus, that movie would have really sucked... dumb cows and chickens revolt against the machines!  ;)\n"]], "0_corpus": "stackexchange", "1_conv_id": "3d48af9035c2483cae04c64168f9c4c2", "1_model_name": "mixedbread-ai/mxbai-embed-large-v1", "1_prompt": "Why did the machines in The Matrix keep humans around?", "1_output": [["Why did the machines in The Matrix keep humans around?", "Scifi Stackexchange\n\nQ: Do the Machines in \"The Matrix\" Adhere to the Three Laws of Robotics? In the \"real world\" of the Matrix, do the machines follow Asimov's Three Rules? Were they even programmed with them?\nEDIT: I realize that killing people goes against the 1st law, but by keeping people in the Matrix (which the machines view as a symbiosis) rather than simply killing off these \"annoying\" creatures, I wonder if the killings can be seen as \"preserving the greater good\" or something along those lines; and thus justify violating the laws.\n\nA: \nA robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a\n  human being to come to harm.\nA robot must obey the orders given to it by human beings, except where\n  such orders would conflict with the First Law.\nA robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does\n  not conflict with the First or Second Laws.\n\nNo, no, and no.\n"]], "1_corpus": "stackexchange"}

data/retrieval_individual-a660d6d7-6b46-4e6b-9c85-4651683faa00.jsonl

@@ -128,3 +128,7 @@
 {"tstamp": 1726326068.4737, "task_type": "retrieval", "type": "chat", "model": "nomic-ai/nomic-embed-text-v1.5", "gen_params": {}, "start": 1726326066.1024, "finish": 1726326068.4737, "ip": "", "conv_id": "994319efb88f41cbb08d72a4c104adea", "model_name": "nomic-ai/nomic-embed-text-v1.5", "prompt": "List best LLM prompts", "output": [["List best LLM prompts", "Stackoverflow Stackexchange\n\nQ: Command for finding the best linear model in R Is there a way to get R to run all possible models (with all combinations of variables in a dataset) to produce the best/most accurate linear model and then output that model?\nI feel like there is a way to do this, but I am having a hard time finding the information. \n\nA: There are numerous ways this could be achieved, but for a simple way of doing this I would suggest that you have a look at the glmulti package, which is described in detail in this paper:\n\n\n*\n\n*glmulti: An R Package for Easy Automated Model Selection with (Generalized) Linear Models\nAlternatively, very simple example of the model selection as available on the Quick-R website:\n# Stepwise Regression\nlibrary(MASS)\nfit <- lm(y~x1+x2+x3,data=mydata)\nstep <- stepAIC(fit, direction=\"both\")\nstep$anova # display results \n\nOr to simplify even more, you can do more manual model comparison:\nfit1 <- lm(y ~ x1 + x2 + x3 + x4, data=mydata)\nfit2 <- lm(y ~ x1 + x2, data=mydata)\nanova(fit1, fit2) \n\n"]], "corpus": "stackexchange"}
 {"tstamp": 1726346071.6707, "task_type": "retrieval", "type": "chat", "model": "intfloat/multilingual-e5-large-instruct", "gen_params": {}, "start": 1726346071.4692, "finish": 1726346071.6707, "ip": "", "conv_id": "b2b3b827c3914f26a1180a4f3c7209e7", "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": 1726346071.6707, "task_type": "retrieval", "type": "chat", "model": "BAAI/bge-large-en-v1.5", "gen_params": {}, "start": 1726346071.4692, "finish": 1726346071.6707, "ip": "", "conv_id": "70fafc3532634e5694a9403fbf40051d", "model_name": "BAAI/bge-large-en-v1.5", "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"}
+{"tstamp": 1726346178.1793, "task_type": "retrieval", "type": "chat", "model": "intfloat/e5-mistral-7b-instruct", "gen_params": {}, "start": 1726346175.905, "finish": 1726346178.1793, "ip": "", "conv_id": "2a871a424cdb49839291fe8e9d1c57a2", "model_name": "intfloat/e5-mistral-7b-instruct", "prompt": "In English when to use –, — vs -?", "output": [["In English when to use –, — vs -?", "English Stackexchange\n\nQ: When to use -, – and —? \nPossible Duplicate:\nWhen should I use an em-dash, an en-dash, and a hyphen? \n\nThis is about hyphens (-), en-dashes (–) and em-dashes (—).\nWhen to use which one? To be honest, I always use em-dashes unless I join words with a hyphen, but I never use an en-dash.\n\nA: Hyphens are used in compound modifiers.\n\n\n*\n\n*a well-trained professional\n\n*over-the-counter drugs\n\n\nEn dashes are used in place of \"to\" to connect numbers or words.\n\n\n*\n\n*The London–Amsterdam flight is delayed.\n\n*The meeting is from 3:00–4:30 p.m.\n\n\nEm dashes help set off amplifying or explanatory statements.\n\n\n*\n\n*The vampire—it had been awake half the night—flew out of its coffin.\n\n"]], "corpus": "stackexchange"}
+{"tstamp": 1726346178.1793, "task_type": "retrieval", "type": "chat", "model": "Salesforce/SFR-Embedding-2_R", "gen_params": {}, "start": 1726346175.905, "finish": 1726346178.1793, "ip": "", "conv_id": "918b27eeeef3436b87f7a53bbcae49c6", "model_name": "Salesforce/SFR-Embedding-2_R", "prompt": "In English when to use –, — vs -?", "output": [["In English when to use –, — vs -?", "English Stackexchange\n\nQ: When to use -, – and —? \nPossible Duplicate:\nWhen should I use an em-dash, an en-dash, and a hyphen? \n\nThis is about hyphens (-), en-dashes (–) and em-dashes (—).\nWhen to use which one? To be honest, I always use em-dashes unless I join words with a hyphen, but I never use an en-dash.\n\nA: Hyphens are used in compound modifiers.\n\n\n*\n\n*a well-trained professional\n\n*over-the-counter drugs\n\n\nEn dashes are used in place of \"to\" to connect numbers or words.\n\n\n*\n\n*The London–Amsterdam flight is delayed.\n\n*The meeting is from 3:00–4:30 p.m.\n\n\nEm dashes help set off amplifying or explanatory statements.\n\n\n*\n\n*The vampire—it had been awake half the night—flew out of its coffin.\n\n"]], "corpus": "stackexchange"}
+{"tstamp": 1726346221.303, "task_type": "retrieval", "type": "chat", "model": "nomic-ai/nomic-embed-text-v1.5", "gen_params": {}, "start": 1726346219.1423, "finish": 1726346221.303, "ip": "", "conv_id": "cfdfed2129cf416eb8309fff16dfd4f6", "model_name": "nomic-ai/nomic-embed-text-v1.5", "prompt": "Why did the machines in The Matrix keep humans around?", "output": [["Why did the machines in The Matrix keep humans around?", "Scifi Stackexchange\n\nQ: Why use full brained humans as batteries? \nPossible Duplicate:\nIs the basic premise of humans as a power source in The Matrix reasonable?\nWhy Did the Machines Even Bother With a Matrix? \n\nThe machines in The Matrix series use humans as batteries. That's OK. But why did the machines not alter their livestock such that the matrix itself would be unnecessary?  \nConsider the recently proposed headless chicken farm. Something similar for the human batteries would seem to be an ideal solution for logical machines. No longer would they need to spend resources maintaining a virtual reality for their batteries. The energy, physical hardware and programs running the matrix could then be put to who knows what other uses.\n\nA: The explanation for the use of human brains would seem to be the fact that our complex thoughts lead to higher level of brain activity, thus resulting in exponentially more synapses firing (i.e. more electrical activity to harvest).\nThat makes human brains far more efficient than the brains of animals, even with the overhead of maintaining the matrix.  Plus, that movie would have really sucked... dumb cows and chickens revolt against the machines!  ;)\n"]], "corpus": "stackexchange"}
+{"tstamp": 1726346221.303, "task_type": "retrieval", "type": "chat", "model": "mixedbread-ai/mxbai-embed-large-v1", "gen_params": {}, "start": 1726346219.1423, "finish": 1726346221.303, "ip": "", "conv_id": "3d48af9035c2483cae04c64168f9c4c2", "model_name": "mixedbread-ai/mxbai-embed-large-v1", "prompt": "Why did the machines in The Matrix keep humans around?", "output": [["Why did the machines in The Matrix keep humans around?", "Scifi Stackexchange\n\nQ: Do the Machines in \"The Matrix\" Adhere to the Three Laws of Robotics? In the \"real world\" of the Matrix, do the machines follow Asimov's Three Rules? Were they even programmed with them?\nEDIT: I realize that killing people goes against the 1st law, but by keeping people in the Matrix (which the machines view as a symbiosis) rather than simply killing off these \"annoying\" creatures, I wonder if the killings can be seen as \"preserving the greater good\" or something along those lines; and thus justify violating the laws.\n\nA: \nA robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a\n  human being to come to harm.\nA robot must obey the orders given to it by human beings, except where\n  such orders would conflict with the First Law.\nA robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does\n  not conflict with the First or Second Laws.\n\nNo, no, and no.\n"]], "corpus": "stackexchange"}