Datasets:

mteb
/

arena-results


1	+ {"tstamp": 1722436132.3737, "task_type": "retrieval", "type": "leftvote", "models": ["", ""], "ip": "", "0_conv_id": "9fc7884f010949148b0c0372ed6bdc60", "0_model_name": "voyage-multilingual-2", "0_prompt": "are rolls and biscuits the same?", "0_output": [["are rolls and biscuits the same?", "English Stackexchange\n\nQ: Is a ship's biscuit a biscuit or a cake? Cakes go hard when they are stale. Biscuits go soft when they are stale.\nSo, what about a ship's biscuit?\n\nA: From an American point of view, none of the terms biscuit, cake, or cookie is an appropriate descriptor for ships biscuit, which is also known as hardtack and by other terms. The image below is from wikipedia's article about hardtack.\n\nThe article says\n\nHardtack (or hard tack) is a simple type of cracker or biscuit, made from flour, water, and sometimes salt\n\nFrom that description and from the picture, cracker evidently is the most appropriate term.\nNote, the previously-linked biscuit article begins by distinguishing American usage (where biscuits are like small breadrolls except often leavened with soda, not yeast) from British usage (where biscuits are like cookies or possibly like crackers).\n"]], "0_corpus": "stackexchange", "1_conv_id": "229c16e4a1cb4ca78bcc68c20a11da00", "1_model_name": "sentence-transformers/all-MiniLM-L6-v2", "1_prompt": "are rolls and biscuits the same?", "1_output": [["are rolls and biscuits the same?", "Math Stackexchange\n\nQ: Annihilator for a tensor $T\\in\\wedge V^{\\ast}$ For $T\\in\\wedge^{k} V^{\\ast}$ the annihilator is set\n$$an(T)= \\{\\phi\\in V^{\\ast}\\mid \\phi\\wedge T=0\\}$$\nThen I need to prove that $dim(an(T))\\leq k$ and is equal iff $T$ is decomposable ($i.e.$, $T=\\phi_1\\wedge\\cdots \\wedge \\phi_k$ for $\\phi_j \\in V^{\\ast}$).\nI do not know how to attack this problem, suppose that has dimension greater that $k$ but I get no contradiction or at least do not know how to find it.\n"]], "1_corpus": "stackexchange"}
2	+ {"tstamp": 1722436145.3122, "task_type": "retrieval", "type": "leftvote", "models": ["", ""], "ip": "", "0_conv_id": "fbbb80e6e1cd4354a3097f1d997a3063", "0_model_name": "nomic-ai/nomic-embed-text-v1.5", "0_prompt": "is chief executive officer capitalized?", "0_output": [["is chief executive officer capitalized?", "English Stackexchange\n\nQ: When should titles like \"captain\" or \"admiral\" be capitalized? Please excuse the contrived example below, but I am wondering if this example is properly capitalised? I'm assuming that capitals are used when addressing someone directly, but lower case is used elsewhere.\nCan someone give some rules on this? \n\nThe captain walked into the room. \n \"Hi, Captain,\" said the admiral.\n \"Hi, Sir,\" replied the captain.\n \"Call me Admiral.\"\n \"Hi Admiral.\"\n The captain and admiral stepped forward.\n \"Prime Minister, this is Captain Jones,\" said Admiral Brown.\n \"Pleased to meet you,\" said the prime minister.\n\n\nA: At least according to CMOS, there are a few rules that apply. (Your mileage may vary with AP or Oxford rules, I just happen to have CMOS within grabbing distance.)\n7.16 says that titles used in place of names in direct address are capitalized. (e.g., \"'Hi, Captain'\")\n7.17 says that titles used alone in place of a name are generally lowercased (e.g., \"replied the captain\").\n(Edit: Cited the wrong rule.)\n"]], "0_corpus": "stackexchange", "1_conv_id": "18f8939df9cf41d69bd7782b9f3819ce", "1_model_name": "Salesforce/SFR-Embedding-2_R", "1_prompt": "is chief executive officer capitalized?", "1_output": [["is chief executive officer capitalized?", "English Stackexchange\n\nQ: Correct capitalization for \"of\" in an acronym definition For an acronym that includes the word \"of\", do you capitalize its usage within the definition (or expansion) of the acronym\nFor example, in the follow sentence:\nMy coworker Steve suffers from Complete Avoidance of Work Syndrome (CAOWS).\nShould of be written as Of?\n\nA: I wouldn't capitalize the o in \"of\".\nHere's a well known example.\nTOEFL: \n\nTest of English as a Foreign Language.\n\nTypically, prepositions and articles should not be capitalized.\nFor a comprehensive capitalization rule list, see here.\n"]], "1_corpus": "stackexchange"}

data/retrieval_individual-c4bdd700-2c9c-4d9b-92d7-63fecd0c1575.jsonl ADDED Viewed

	@@ -0,0 +1,6 @@

+{"tstamp": 1722436085.5934, "task_type": "retrieval", "type": "chat", "model": "nomic-ai/nomic-embed-text-v1.5", "gen_params": {}, "start": 1722436085.0748, "finish": 1722436085.5934, "ip": "", "conv_id": "e3d32a02123346ba9834873247e64e02", "model_name": "nomic-ai/nomic-embed-text-v1.5", "prompt": "Effectiveness of different prompt types in bypassing ChatGPT constraints", "output": [["Effectiveness of different prompt types in bypassing ChatGPT constraints", "Title: Enhancing User Interaction in ChatGPT: Characterizing and Consolidating Multiple Prompts for Issue Resolution\n\nAbstract: Prompt design plays a crucial role in shaping the efficacy of ChatGPT, influencing the model's ability to extract contextually accurate responses. Thus, optimal prompt construction is essential for maximizing the utility and performance of ChatGPT. However, sub-optimal prompt design may necessitate iterative refinement, as imprecise or ambiguous instructions can lead to undesired responses from ChatGPT. Existing studies explore several prompt patterns and strategies to improve the relevance of responses generated by ChatGPT. However, the exploration of constraints that necessitate the submission of multiple prompts is still an unmet attempt. In this study, our contributions are twofold. First, we attempt to uncover gaps in prompt design that demand multiple iterations. In particular, we manually analyze 686 prompts that were submitted to resolve issues related to Java and Python programming languages and identify eleven prompt design gaps (e.g., missing specifications). Such gap exploration can enhance the efficacy of single prompts in ChatGPT. Second, we attempt to reproduce the ChatGPT response by consolidating multiple prompts into a single one. We can completely consolidate prompts with four gaps (e.g., missing context) and partially consolidate prompts with three gaps (e.g., additional functionality). Such an effort provides concrete evidence to users to design more optimal prompts mitigating these gaps. Our study findings and evidence can - (a) save users time, (b) reduce costs, and (c) increase user satisfaction."]], "corpus": "arxiv"}
+{"tstamp": 1722436085.5934, "task_type": "retrieval", "type": "chat", "model": "mixedbread-ai/mxbai-embed-large-v1", "gen_params": {}, "start": 1722436085.0748, "finish": 1722436085.5934, "ip": "", "conv_id": "87941706b3c4451dbd016edd94534e4a", "model_name": "mixedbread-ai/mxbai-embed-large-v1", "prompt": "Effectiveness of different prompt types in bypassing ChatGPT constraints", "output": [["Effectiveness of different prompt types in bypassing ChatGPT constraints", "Title: Enhancing User Interaction in ChatGPT: Characterizing and Consolidating Multiple Prompts for Issue Resolution\n\nAbstract: Prompt design plays a crucial role in shaping the efficacy of ChatGPT, influencing the model's ability to extract contextually accurate responses. Thus, optimal prompt construction is essential for maximizing the utility and performance of ChatGPT. However, sub-optimal prompt design may necessitate iterative refinement, as imprecise or ambiguous instructions can lead to undesired responses from ChatGPT. Existing studies explore several prompt patterns and strategies to improve the relevance of responses generated by ChatGPT. However, the exploration of constraints that necessitate the submission of multiple prompts is still an unmet attempt. In this study, our contributions are twofold. First, we attempt to uncover gaps in prompt design that demand multiple iterations. In particular, we manually analyze 686 prompts that were submitted to resolve issues related to Java and Python programming languages and identify eleven prompt design gaps (e.g., missing specifications). Such gap exploration can enhance the efficacy of single prompts in ChatGPT. Second, we attempt to reproduce the ChatGPT response by consolidating multiple prompts into a single one. We can completely consolidate prompts with four gaps (e.g., missing context) and partially consolidate prompts with three gaps (e.g., additional functionality). Such an effort provides concrete evidence to users to design more optimal prompts mitigating these gaps. Our study findings and evidence can - (a) save users time, (b) reduce costs, and (c) increase user satisfaction."]], "corpus": "arxiv"}
+{"tstamp": 1722436127.6676, "task_type": "retrieval", "type": "chat", "model": "voyage-multilingual-2", "gen_params": {}, "start": 1722436126.8716, "finish": 1722436127.6676, "ip": "", "conv_id": "9fc7884f010949148b0c0372ed6bdc60", "model_name": "voyage-multilingual-2", "prompt": "are rolls and biscuits the same?", "output": [["are rolls and biscuits the same?", "English Stackexchange\n\nQ: Is a ship's biscuit a biscuit or a cake? Cakes go hard when they are stale. Biscuits go soft when they are stale.\nSo, what about a ship's biscuit?\n\nA: From an American point of view, none of the terms biscuit, cake, or cookie is an appropriate descriptor for  ships biscuit, which is also known as hardtack and by other terms.  The image below is from wikipedia's article about hardtack.\n\nThe article says\n\nHardtack (or hard tack) is a simple type of cracker or biscuit, made from flour, water, and sometimes salt\n\nFrom that description and from the picture, cracker evidently is the most appropriate term.\nNote, the previously-linked biscuit article begins by distinguishing American usage (where biscuits are like small breadrolls except often leavened with soda, not yeast) from British usage (where biscuits are like cookies or possibly like crackers).\n"]], "corpus": "stackexchange"}
+{"tstamp": 1722436127.6676, "task_type": "retrieval", "type": "chat", "model": "sentence-transformers/all-MiniLM-L6-v2", "gen_params": {}, "start": 1722436126.8716, "finish": 1722436127.6676, "ip": "", "conv_id": "229c16e4a1cb4ca78bcc68c20a11da00", "model_name": "sentence-transformers/all-MiniLM-L6-v2", "prompt": "are rolls and biscuits the same?", "output": [["are rolls and biscuits the same?", "Math Stackexchange\n\nQ: Annihilator for a tensor $T\\in\\wedge V^{\\ast}$ For $T\\in\\wedge^{k} V^{\\ast}$ the annihilator is set\n$$an(T)= \\{\\phi\\in V^{\\ast}\\mid \\phi\\wedge T=0\\}$$\nThen I need to prove that $dim(an(T))\\leq k$ and is equal iff $T$ is decomposable ($i.e.$, $T=\\phi_1\\wedge\\cdots \\wedge \\phi_k$ for $\\phi_j \\in V^{\\ast}$).\nI do not know how to attack this problem, suppose that has dimension greater that $k$ but I get no contradiction or at least do not know how to find it.\n"]], "corpus": "stackexchange"}
+{"tstamp": 1722436136.8438, "task_type": "retrieval", "type": "chat", "model": "nomic-ai/nomic-embed-text-v1.5", "gen_params": {}, "start": 1722436136.3472, "finish": 1722436136.8438, "ip": "", "conv_id": "fbbb80e6e1cd4354a3097f1d997a3063", "model_name": "nomic-ai/nomic-embed-text-v1.5", "prompt": "is chief executive officer capitalized?", "output": [["is chief executive officer capitalized?", "English Stackexchange\n\nQ: When should titles like \"captain\" or \"admiral\" be capitalized? Please excuse the contrived example below, but I am wondering if this example is properly capitalised? I'm assuming that capitals are used when addressing someone directly, but lower case is used elsewhere.\nCan someone give some rules on this? \n\nThe captain walked into the room. \n  \"Hi, Captain,\" said the admiral.\n  \"Hi, Sir,\" replied the captain.\n  \"Call me Admiral.\"\n  \"Hi Admiral.\"\n  The captain and admiral stepped forward.\n  \"Prime Minister, this is Captain Jones,\" said Admiral Brown.\n  \"Pleased to meet you,\" said the prime minister.\n\n\nA: At least according to CMOS, there are a few rules that apply. (Your mileage may vary with AP or Oxford rules, I just happen to have CMOS within grabbing distance.)\n7.16 says that titles used in place of names in direct address are capitalized. (e.g., \"'Hi, Captain'\")\n7.17 says that titles used alone in place of a name are generally lowercased (e.g., \"replied the captain\").\n(Edit: Cited the wrong rule.)\n"]], "corpus": "stackexchange"}
+{"tstamp": 1722436136.8438, "task_type": "retrieval", "type": "chat", "model": "Salesforce/SFR-Embedding-2_R", "gen_params": {}, "start": 1722436136.3472, "finish": 1722436136.8438, "ip": "", "conv_id": "18f8939df9cf41d69bd7782b9f3819ce", "model_name": "Salesforce/SFR-Embedding-2_R", "prompt": "is chief executive officer capitalized?", "output": [["is chief executive officer capitalized?", "English Stackexchange\n\nQ: Correct capitalization for \"of\" in an acronym definition For an acronym that includes the word \"of\", do you capitalize its usage within the definition (or expansion) of the acronym\nFor example, in the follow sentence:\nMy coworker Steve suffers from Complete Avoidance of Work Syndrome (CAOWS).\nShould of be written as Of?\n\nA: I wouldn't capitalize the o in \"of\".\nHere's a well known example.\nTOEFL: \n\nTest of English as a Foreign Language.\n\nTypically, prepositions and articles should not be capitalized.\nFor a comprehensive capitalization rule list, see here.\n"]], "corpus": "stackexchange"}