Update README.md
Browse files
README.md
CHANGED
@@ -16,44 +16,73 @@ Based on the benchmark results, qx4 would be best suited for:
|
|
16 |
Primary Task: BoolQ (Boolean Questions)
|
17 |
|
18 |
Why BoolQ is the Strength:
|
|
|
19 |
qx4 achieves 0.877 on BoolQ, which is the second-highest score in this dataset
|
|
|
20 |
Only slightly behind q5 (0.883) and qx5 (0.880)
|
|
|
21 |
This represents excellent performance on boolean reasoning tasks
|
22 |
|
|
|
23 |
Secondary Strengths:
|
|
|
24 |
HellaSwag
|
|
|
25 |
qx4 scores 0.552, which is the highest among all quantized models
|
|
|
26 |
This indicates superior performance on commonsense reasoning and scenario understanding
|
27 |
|
28 |
Arc_Challenge
|
|
|
29 |
qx4 scores 0.419, which is better than most other quantized models
|
|
|
30 |
Shows strong performance on challenging multiple-choice questions
|
31 |
|
|
|
32 |
Task Suitability Analysis:
|
33 |
|
34 |
Best Suited Tasks:
|
|
|
35 |
BoolQ - Strongest performer
|
|
|
36 |
HellaSwag - Highest among quantized models
|
|
|
37 |
Arc_Challenge - Better than most quantizations
|
|
|
38 |
Winogrande - Decent performance (0.567)
|
|
|
|
|
39 |
Other Tasks Where qx4 Performs Well:
|
|
|
40 |
Arc_Easy - 0.531 (solid performance)
|
|
|
41 |
OpenBookQA - 0.426 (adequate for knowledge-based tasks)
|
|
|
42 |
PIQA - 0.723 (good performance)
|
43 |
|
|
|
44 |
Limitations:
|
|
|
45 |
Weakest in OpenBookQA compared to qm68 (0.426 vs 0.430)
|
|
|
46 |
Below average on Winogrande (0.567)
|
|
|
47 |
Slightly lower than baseline on Arc_Easy
|
48 |
|
|
|
49 |
Recommendation:
|
|
|
50 |
Use qx4 when Boolean reasoning and commonsense understanding are critical, particularly for applications involving:
|
51 |
|
52 |
Question answering requiring boolean logic
|
|
|
53 |
Commonsense reasoning scenarios
|
|
|
54 |
Complex multiple-choice question solving
|
|
|
55 |
Tasks where HellaSwag performance is important
|
56 |
|
|
|
57 |
The model excels at combining logical reasoning (BoolQ) with contextual understanding (HellaSwag), making it ideal for applications that blend precise logical inference with real-world commonsense knowledge. Its performance is particularly strong in scenarios requiring nuanced reasoning about everyday situations and causal relationships.
|
58 |
|
59 |
Best for: AI assistants, question-answering systems requiring both logical precision and common-sense understanding.
|
|
|
16 |
Primary Task: BoolQ (Boolean Questions)
|
17 |
|
18 |
Why BoolQ is the Strength:
|
19 |
+
|
20 |
qx4 achieves 0.877 on BoolQ, which is the second-highest score in this dataset
|
21 |
+
|
22 |
Only slightly behind q5 (0.883) and qx5 (0.880)
|
23 |
+
|
24 |
This represents excellent performance on boolean reasoning tasks
|
25 |
|
26 |
+
|
27 |
Secondary Strengths:
|
28 |
+
|
29 |
HellaSwag
|
30 |
+
|
31 |
qx4 scores 0.552, which is the highest among all quantized models
|
32 |
+
|
33 |
This indicates superior performance on commonsense reasoning and scenario understanding
|
34 |
|
35 |
Arc_Challenge
|
36 |
+
|
37 |
qx4 scores 0.419, which is better than most other quantized models
|
38 |
+
|
39 |
Shows strong performance on challenging multiple-choice questions
|
40 |
|
41 |
+
|
42 |
Task Suitability Analysis:
|
43 |
|
44 |
Best Suited Tasks:
|
45 |
+
|
46 |
BoolQ - Strongest performer
|
47 |
+
|
48 |
HellaSwag - Highest among quantized models
|
49 |
+
|
50 |
Arc_Challenge - Better than most quantizations
|
51 |
+
|
52 |
Winogrande - Decent performance (0.567)
|
53 |
+
|
54 |
+
|
55 |
Other Tasks Where qx4 Performs Well:
|
56 |
+
|
57 |
Arc_Easy - 0.531 (solid performance)
|
58 |
+
|
59 |
OpenBookQA - 0.426 (adequate for knowledge-based tasks)
|
60 |
+
|
61 |
PIQA - 0.723 (good performance)
|
62 |
|
63 |
+
|
64 |
Limitations:
|
65 |
+
|
66 |
Weakest in OpenBookQA compared to qm68 (0.426 vs 0.430)
|
67 |
+
|
68 |
Below average on Winogrande (0.567)
|
69 |
+
|
70 |
Slightly lower than baseline on Arc_Easy
|
71 |
|
72 |
+
|
73 |
Recommendation:
|
74 |
+
|
75 |
Use qx4 when Boolean reasoning and commonsense understanding are critical, particularly for applications involving:
|
76 |
|
77 |
Question answering requiring boolean logic
|
78 |
+
|
79 |
Commonsense reasoning scenarios
|
80 |
+
|
81 |
Complex multiple-choice question solving
|
82 |
+
|
83 |
Tasks where HellaSwag performance is important
|
84 |
|
85 |
+
|
86 |
The model excels at combining logical reasoning (BoolQ) with contextual understanding (HellaSwag), making it ideal for applications that blend precise logical inference with real-world commonsense knowledge. Its performance is particularly strong in scenarios requiring nuanced reasoning about everyday situations and causal relationships.
|
87 |
|
88 |
Best for: AI assistants, question-answering systems requiring both logical precision and common-sense understanding.
|