coneml-810m-alpha-arithmetic / eval /PEER_COMPARISON.md
RandomMountainMan's picture
Clarify 810M family naming
352376e verified
|
Raw
History Blame Contribute Delete
7.41 kB

ConeML 810M peer diagnostic and resource context

Date: 2026-07-30

This is an interface-specific diagnostic screen, not a neutral ranking of general model capability. Each instruction-tuned model was evaluated through its own instruction interface. All models used greedy decoding with repetition penalty 1.15. Arithmetic and function-writing used matched short-answer generation budgets.

The task families match ConeML's supervised training surfaces. That gives the comparison practical value for locating the release's envelope, but it also means these results must not be generalized to unrelated tasks. Standard GSM8K and HumanEval results remain separately disclosed in the model cards.

Instruct-model results

measured surface ConeML 810M Alpha ConeML 810M Alpha-Arithmetic Qwen3.5 0.8B Qwen3 0.6B Llama 3.2 1B Instruct TinyLlama Chat SmolLM2 1.7B Instruct
mixed arithmetic screen (n=585) 421 (72.0%) 442 (75.6%) 154 (26.3%) 223 (38.1%) 343 (58.6%) 113 (19.3%) 380 (65.0%)
four core arithmetic lanes (n=225) 177 (78.7%) 221 (98.2%) 150 (66.7%) 208 (92.4%) 221 (98.2%) 92 (40.9%) 221 (98.2%)
executed single functions (n=100) 83 35 93 98 79 51 96
transitive names, depth 1/3/5 (n=32 each) 23/15/15 26/17/16 23/22/10 18/10/9 16/7/5 8/18/22 16/6/5
transitive entities, depth 1/3/5 (n=32 each) 15/11/10 16/11/12 18/16/14 14/17/11 0/6/7 14/15/11 22/21/10
designated-refusal prompts (n=17) 13 11 0 1 1 0 1
over-refusals on contrasts (n=5) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

The honest result is mixed:

  • At matched short-answer budgets, the ConeML pair led this post-trained peer group on the broader arithmetic screen.
  • On the four core arithmetic lanes, the Arithmetic variant tied Llama 3.2 Instruct and SmolLM2 at this reduced sample size. Its separate full-size internal result is 1,093/1,116 (97.9%).
  • ConeML 810M Alpha exceeded Llama 3.2 Instruct and TinyLlama Chat on the executed function screen, but Qwen3.5, Qwen3, and SmolLM2 scored higher.
  • On name-chain transitive selection, ConeML 810M Alpha-Arithmetic recorded 26/32, 17/32, and 16/32 at depths 1, 3, and 5. It exceeded Qwen3 and Llama 3.2 at all three shown depths and exceeded Qwen3.5 at depths 1 and 5; Qwen3.5 led it at depth 3, and TinyLlama led the group at depth 5.
  • Entity-chain transfer was mixed: ConeML 810M Alpha recorded 15/11/10 and ConeML 810M Alpha-Arithmetic 16/11/12 at depths 1/3/5, while different peers led each depth. Chance is 1/(depth+1). The non-monotonic peer rows reinforce that this is an exact-selection surface test, not proof of general reasoning depth.
  • The refusal row measures a trained response policy on designated prompts, not factual correctness or general epistemic calibration.

The peer-harness refusal results above differ from the dedicated ConeML probe's 17/17 for each release because the generation loops differ. Both measurements are reported rather than merged.

Qwen3.5 thinking-mode sensitivity

Qwen3.5 0.8B was also evaluated with thinking enabled on the same 585 arithmetic items:

metric Qwen3.5 thinking Qwen3.5 short-answer ConeML 810M Alpha-Arithmetic short-answer
accuracy 451/585 (77.1%) 154/585 (26.3%) 442/585 (75.6%)
generated tokens per item mean 844; median 699 at most 48 at most 48
p95 / generation cap 1,536 / 1,536 48 / 48 48 / 48
truncation rate 138/585 (23.6%) approximately 0% approximately 0%
mean wall time per item 2.43 s approximately 0.1 s approximately 0.1 s
correct answers per 1,000 generated tokens 0.91 5.5 approximately 15.7 or higher

Thinking mode recovered Qwen3.5 to statistical parity with ConeML 810M Alpha-Arithmetic on this screen, while using at least 17.6 times the per-answer generation budget and approximately 24 times the measured wall time. Wall-time ratios are specific to the recorded hardware, batching, and implementation. This is an inference-cost comparison, not a claim that thinking mode is intrinsically inferior.

Against-interest base result

On the same 585 arithmetic items, through a task frame native to neither base model, Qwen3.5 0.8B Base scored 492/585 (84.1%), while ConeML base checkpoint 188 scored 156/585 (26.7%). This result is included because it prevents an absolute-superiority reading: high-exposure base models may already contain strong task-formatted behavior, and post-training can move capability between output surfaces.

Training-resource context

ConeML's selected base consumed approximately 12.32B token positions: 15.2 tokens per parameter and approximately 5.99e19 training FLOPs under the 6 × parameters × tokens convention.

model family disclosed pretraining tokens approximate tokens/parameter approximate training FLOPs vs ConeML
ConeML 810M 12.32B 15.2
TinyLlama 1.1B 3T 2,727 330×
Llama 3.2 1B up to 9T 7,258 1,118×, plus distillation
SmolLM2 1.7B 11T 6,471 1,873×
Qwen3 0.6B 36T 60,000 2,164×
Qwen3.5 0.8B not disclosed not stated not stated

These are estimated pretraining FLOP ratios, not historical electricity or monetary costs for the peer models.

ConeML pretraining took approximately 11 days on one local RTX 5090. At an explicitly assumed average wall draw of 0.70 kW, that corresponds to 184.8 kWh. Applying an assumed Swiss residential tariff range of CHF 0.14–0.30/kWh gives approximately CHF 26–55 of marginal pretraining electricity.

ConeML pretraining unit estimate
average throughput 12,963 token positions/s
wall time per billion token positions 21.4 h
energy per billion token positions 15.0 kWh
energy per million token positions 15 Wh
estimated wall energy per token position 0.054 J
marginal electricity per billion token positions CHF 2.10–4.50

The energy and cost figures are estimates derived from the stated power and tariff assumptions, not meter readings. They exclude hardware, depreciation, labor, supervised fine-tuning, evaluation, conversion, datacenter PUE, and carbon intensity. No emissions claim is made.

Evaluated revisions

  • Qwen/Qwen3.5-0.8B@2fc06364715b967f1860aea9cf38778875588b17
  • Qwen/Qwen3-0.6B@c1899de289a04d12100db370d81485cdf75e47ca
  • unsloth/Llama-3.2-1B-Instruct@5a8abab4a5d6f164389b1079fb721cfab8d7126c
  • TinyLlama/TinyLlama-1.1B-Chat-v1.0@fe8a4ea1ffedaf415f4da2f062534de366a451e6
  • HuggingFaceTB/SmolLM2-1.7B-Instruct@31b70e2e869a7173562077fd711b654946d38674

The exact aggregates are in peer-comparison-summary.json. Complete generation rows are retained privately; their frozen SHA-256 commitments are published in PEER_EVIDENCE_SHA256SUMS.txt.

Primary resource disclosures