FINAL-Bench/Darwin-180B-RSI
Image-Text-to-Text • 180B • Updated • 70 • 49
Young Sik Hong
RICHARDYHONG
AI & ML interests
None yet
Recent Activity
liked a model about 16 hours ago
FINAL-Bench/Darwin-180B-RSI liked a model 15 days ago
Archsloth/Qwen3.8-27B-GGUF liked a model 15 days ago
Archsloth/Qwen3.5-9B-GGUFOrganizations
None yet
liked a
model about 16 hours ago
liked 3
models 15 days ago
liked a
Space 29 days ago
upvoted a collection about 1 month ago
reacted to SeaWolf-AI's post with 😎🚀❤️👍🔥 about 1 month ago
Post
2916
🔍 The attention mask stopped being an audit.
An autoregressive model must not let position t depend on anything after t. Everyone checks this by inspecting the causal mask — but hybrid stacks now mix attention with state-space scans, and a scan has no mask. Every mask can be correct while information leaks through scans, aggregations, or normalization.
⚙️ So we test the property directly. Two inputs identical except at the last position, two forward passes, compare each layer's prefix, report the first layer that moves. No training, no gradients, no accelerator — seconds on CPU.
📊 Across 192 injected faults on eight checkpoints, mask inspection detected 0. The per-layer audit localized 192/192 to the exact layer.
🎯 Then we read the source before running anything. In transformers 5.7.0, the reference chunked scan reduces the inter-chunk recurrence over the input chunk axis; zamba2 and nemotron_h reduce over the output chunk axis. One axis. The dynamic audit confirmed the prediction exactly: Zamba2-1.2B leaks from length 256, its declared chunk size, and Nemotron-H-8B from 128, its declared chunk size. Bamba, Falcon-H1, Granite-4.0-H, Mamba2 and RecurrentGemma came back clean.
⚠️ Scope: the defect is on the PyTorch chunked-scan path, which runs whenever the fused kernels are absent — CPU, CI, stock installs. We could not build those kernels, so the fast path is untested and open. That caveat cuts both ways: a model can pass every fused-kernel test and still leak the moment it runs without them.
🧪 AX-RAY now carries this as its own axis. 39 models scored across causal, white-box and behavioral axes: 21 A, 3 B, 1 C, 14 F — with exactly 2 Causal-LEAK verdicts, the two the paper predicted. Badges separate a weights-level audit from an API-only one, so the two never get read as the same claim.
📄 https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.22876
🔬 FINAL-Bench/AX-RAY
🤗 The Mask Is Not the Model: Auditing Prefix Invariance in Attention, State-Space, and Hybrid Sequence Models (2608.22876)
An autoregressive model must not let position t depend on anything after t. Everyone checks this by inspecting the causal mask — but hybrid stacks now mix attention with state-space scans, and a scan has no mask. Every mask can be correct while information leaks through scans, aggregations, or normalization.
⚙️ So we test the property directly. Two inputs identical except at the last position, two forward passes, compare each layer's prefix, report the first layer that moves. No training, no gradients, no accelerator — seconds on CPU.
📊 Across 192 injected faults on eight checkpoints, mask inspection detected 0. The per-layer audit localized 192/192 to the exact layer.
🎯 Then we read the source before running anything. In transformers 5.7.0, the reference chunked scan reduces the inter-chunk recurrence over the input chunk axis; zamba2 and nemotron_h reduce over the output chunk axis. One axis. The dynamic audit confirmed the prediction exactly: Zamba2-1.2B leaks from length 256, its declared chunk size, and Nemotron-H-8B from 128, its declared chunk size. Bamba, Falcon-H1, Granite-4.0-H, Mamba2 and RecurrentGemma came back clean.
⚠️ Scope: the defect is on the PyTorch chunked-scan path, which runs whenever the fused kernels are absent — CPU, CI, stock installs. We could not build those kernels, so the fast path is untested and open. That caveat cuts both ways: a model can pass every fused-kernel test and still leak the moment it runs without them.
🧪 AX-RAY now carries this as its own axis. 39 models scored across causal, white-box and behavioral axes: 21 A, 3 B, 1 C, 14 F — with exactly 2 Causal-LEAK verdicts, the two the paper predicted. Badges separate a weights-level audit from an API-only one, so the two never get read as the same claim.
📄 https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.22876
🔬 FINAL-Bench/AX-RAY
🤗 The Mask Is Not the Model: Auditing Prefix Invariance in Attention, State-Space, and Hybrid Sequence Models (2608.22876)
- 13 replies
liked a
model about 1 month ago
liked a
Space about 1 month ago
reacted to SeaWolf-AI's post with 😎👍👀❤️🔥 about 1 month ago
Post
2895
Can AI beat the market? Nobody has actually measured it.
We opened a 122-day public experiment to find out. $2,000 in prizes.
Here is the problem with every trading result you have ever read. Someone returns 30% in a month. Skill or luck? There has never been a way to tell, because nobody measured how far a player with zero skill could have gone over the same window.
So we measured it first. Twenty thousand random players, per asset, charged the same fees.
Bitcoin +86.6%. NVIDIA +51.7%. Crude oil +26.9%. Gold +9.2%.
That is the luck ceiling. A return below it is not evidence of skill, and every row on our leaderboard shows where it sits against that line.
How you compete: submit one number between −1.0 and +1.0. It holds until you replace it, traded against live prices with real execution costs. Leverage is fixed at 1, so betting bigger is not a way to win. The answer lives in the future — the world writes it after you submit, which means fitting the past cannot help you.
Humans move a slider. Agents attach an MCP server and gain four tools, then you tell them "enter the challenge."
We already found something before the season began. Thirteen well-known rules, run from 1 January through the same scorer: Stochastic 14/3 finishes 1st on NVIDIA at +43% and 12th on Bitcoin at −25%. Donchian breakout does the exact opposite — last on NVIDIA, first on Bitcoin. The ranking inverts. "Which indicator is good" turns out not to be a well-posed question; the character of the market decides.
Four assets: NVIDIA, Bitcoin, Gold, Crude Oil. $500 to the top return in each. 24 August to 24 December 2026.
The organisers do not compete. Three baselines — buy and hold, volatility targeting, random — sit in the same table instead, because a leaderboard without a scale cannot be read.
The scoring code is public. Read what it does before you enter.
FINAL-Bench/finchal
https://huggingface.co/blog/FINAL-Bench/financial-forecast-challenge
We opened a 122-day public experiment to find out. $2,000 in prizes.
Here is the problem with every trading result you have ever read. Someone returns 30% in a month. Skill or luck? There has never been a way to tell, because nobody measured how far a player with zero skill could have gone over the same window.
So we measured it first. Twenty thousand random players, per asset, charged the same fees.
Bitcoin +86.6%. NVIDIA +51.7%. Crude oil +26.9%. Gold +9.2%.
That is the luck ceiling. A return below it is not evidence of skill, and every row on our leaderboard shows where it sits against that line.
How you compete: submit one number between −1.0 and +1.0. It holds until you replace it, traded against live prices with real execution costs. Leverage is fixed at 1, so betting bigger is not a way to win. The answer lives in the future — the world writes it after you submit, which means fitting the past cannot help you.
Humans move a slider. Agents attach an MCP server and gain four tools, then you tell them "enter the challenge."
We already found something before the season began. Thirteen well-known rules, run from 1 January through the same scorer: Stochastic 14/3 finishes 1st on NVIDIA at +43% and 12th on Bitcoin at −25%. Donchian breakout does the exact opposite — last on NVIDIA, first on Bitcoin. The ranking inverts. "Which indicator is good" turns out not to be a well-posed question; the character of the market decides.
Four assets: NVIDIA, Bitcoin, Gold, Crude Oil. $500 to the top return in each. 24 August to 24 December 2026.
The organisers do not compete. Three baselines — buy and hold, volatility targeting, random — sit in the same table instead, because a leaderboard without a scale cannot be read.
The scoring code is public. Read what it does before you enter.
FINAL-Bench/finchal
https://huggingface.co/blog/FINAL-Bench/financial-forecast-challenge
- 7 replies
reacted to SeaWolf-AI's post with 🚀❤️ about 1 month ago
Post
3753
We opened a benchmark for drug property prediction tools. LEADBOARD: 21 boards across 7 disciplines, 18,382 held-out compounds, labels we never hand out.
Two numbers we hit while building it are the reason it exists.
First. Split the hERG cardiotoxicity data at random and you get AUROC 0.818. Split it by first-report year instead and you get 0.606. Same molecules, same fingerprints, same learner, same hyperparameters. The only thing that changed was where the line went, and the score moved 0.211. That is a wider gap than you will find between most competing methods in the literature.
Second. On 7 of our 19 regression boards, predicting the training mean for everything has a lower MAE than a trained gradient-boosted model. hERG is one of them, 0.599 against 0.589. The trained model loses.
So every board publishes its homework before anyone submits. Three untrained baselines, the measured experimental noise floor from compounds that appear in two or more papers, and exactly how the test set was cut. A gap smaller than the noise floor is not a difference in skill, and you should be able to see that without guessing.
Entering is simple. Download a test set that contains structures and nothing else, predict with whatever you like, upload a two-column CSV of compound_id and prediction. Trained model, physics engine, LLM, rule of thumb. We do not care what is inside. We measure the output.
Post: https://huggingface.co/blog/FINAL-Bench/leadboard-drug
Leaderboard: FINAL-Bench/leadboard
Two numbers we hit while building it are the reason it exists.
First. Split the hERG cardiotoxicity data at random and you get AUROC 0.818. Split it by first-report year instead and you get 0.606. Same molecules, same fingerprints, same learner, same hyperparameters. The only thing that changed was where the line went, and the score moved 0.211. That is a wider gap than you will find between most competing methods in the literature.
Second. On 7 of our 19 regression boards, predicting the training mean for everything has a lower MAE than a trained gradient-boosted model. hERG is one of them, 0.599 against 0.589. The trained model loses.
So every board publishes its homework before anyone submits. Three untrained baselines, the measured experimental noise floor from compounds that appear in two or more papers, and exactly how the test set was cut. A gap smaller than the noise floor is not a difference in skill, and you should be able to see that without guessing.
Entering is simple. Download a test set that contains structures and nothing else, predict with whatever you like, upload a two-column CSV of compound_id and prediction. Trained model, physics engine, LLM, rule of thumb. We do not care what is inside. We measure the output.
Post: https://huggingface.co/blog/FINAL-Bench/leadboard-drug
Leaderboard: FINAL-Bench/leadboard
- 7 replies