Datasets:
leaderboard: add UltraBERT-150M clairic-extraction (zero-shot, #1)
Browse files
README.md
CHANGED
|
@@ -48,7 +48,8 @@ their instructions, nothing else.
|
|
| 48 |
| # | Model | Kind | Headline ↑ | Fields with a value ↑ | Hallucination ↓ | Miss ↓ | Computed ↑ | `p_null` AUROC ↑ |
|
| 49 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 50 |
| 1 | **[ScaleDown Extract](https://openrouter.ai/scaledown/extract)** | extraction API | **0.782** | 0.723 | 0.117 | 0.200 | 0.570 | – |
|
| 51 |
-
| 2 | [
|
|
|
|
| 52 |
| – | Always null (answers nothing) | reference | **0.199** | 0.000 | 0.000 | 1.000 | 0.000 | – |
|
| 53 |
| – | Regex rules | reference | **0.129** | 0.152 | 0.993 | 0.000 | 0.026 | 0.503 |
|
| 54 |
|
|
@@ -76,6 +77,14 @@ test-only families never appear in `train`, so they still test transfer.
|
|
| 76 |
compute, and for fields that have a value the right answer is among their
|
| 77 |
candidates only 49% of the time. That ceiling, not the classifier, is what holds them back. They are
|
| 78 |
published as reproducible open baselines, not as competitive extractors.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 79 |
- **Always null** answers nothing; it scores 0.199 because 31% of fields are
|
| 80 |
absent. A model below it is doing more harm than good.
|
| 81 |
- Remote models were called once, at temperature 0, with responses cached.
|
|
|
|
| 48 |
| # | Model | Kind | Headline ↑ | Fields with a value ↑ | Hallucination ↓ | Miss ↓ | Computed ↑ | `p_null` AUROC ↑ |
|
| 49 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 50 |
| 1 | **[ScaleDown Extract](https://openrouter.ai/scaledown/extract)** | extraction API | **0.782** | 0.723 | 0.117 | 0.200 | 0.570 | – |
|
| 51 |
+
| 2 | [UltraBERT-150M clairic-extraction](https://huggingface.co/tasksource/UltraBERT-150M-clairic-extraction) | span extractor, open 150M encoder | **0.616** | 0.548 | 0.141 | 0.297 | 0.013 | 0.815 |
|
| 52 |
+
| 3 | [Schematron V2 Small](https://openrouter.ai/inference-net/schematron-v2-small) | extraction LLM | **0.562** | 0.529 | 0.445 | 0.303 | 0.134 | – |
|
| 53 |
| – | Always null (answers nothing) | reference | **0.199** | 0.000 | 0.000 | 1.000 | 0.000 | – |
|
| 54 |
| – | Regex rules | reference | **0.129** | 0.152 | 0.993 | 0.000 | 0.026 | 0.503 |
|
| 55 |
|
|
|
|
| 77 |
compute, and for fields that have a value the right answer is among their
|
| 78 |
candidates only 49% of the time. That ceiling, not the classifier, is what holds them back. They are
|
| 79 |
published as reproducible open baselines, not as competitive extractors.
|
| 80 |
+
- **UltraBERT-150M clairic-extraction** (submitted by sileod, [discussion #1](https://huggingface.co/datasets/LocalLLaMA/typed-extraction/discussions/1))
|
| 81 |
+
is the first open-weight row. It tags answer spans per field with no LLM and
|
| 82 |
+
maps them to types in plain code, so it rarely computes values (0.013). Its
|
| 83 |
+
confidence is the raw span probability (ECE 0.42), but it ranks nulls well. We
|
| 84 |
+
re-scored the published predictions with the unmodified `score.py` and got the
|
| 85 |
+
same numbers. Its training data includes the SQuAD 2.0, DROP and CUAD train
|
| 86 |
+
splits; 23 test documents share text with it, and dropping them leaves the
|
| 87 |
+
headline at 0.616.
|
| 88 |
- **Always null** answers nothing; it scores 0.199 because 31% of fields are
|
| 89 |
absent. A model below it is doing more harm than good.
|
| 90 |
- Remote models were called once, at temperature 0, with responses cached.
|