Missing LEXam Evaluation of parent model Qwen3.8-Flash-Next makes your benchmarks useless

#2
by akos2 - opened

Darwin-180B-RSI steht auf Platz 1 der LEXam- und der LEXam-hard-Rangliste. Für das Elternmodell Qwen3.8-Flash-Next gibt es aber weder auf diesen Ranglisten noch in den Darwin-Karten einen LEXam- oder LEXam-hard-Wert mit gleichem Protokoll. Ob der Vorsprung vom Nachtraining kommt, ist damit nicht belegt

And the worst part is that their benchmarks use MAJ@16, which makes for an unfair comparison with other models in the table.

FINAL_Bench org

Thanks for checking. Small correction: LEXam is majority of 4, not 16, and the card also lists the single-sample score (60.54) and the mean of 4 (61.42). LEXam-hard (45.72) is a single sample with no voting.

Even using only the single-sample score, 60.54 is above the next entry on the LEXam board (DeepSeek-R1, 52.41).

GPQA, AIME and HMMT do use majority voting over up to 16 samples. We label them that way, and we show the mean accuracy next to each (AIME 98.75, HMMT 96.59), so anyone can compare on whichever basis they prefer.

Sign up or log in to comment