coneml-810m-alpha / eval /EVALUATION_METHODOLOGY.md
RandomMountainMan's picture
Publish signed-off ConeML 810M release
61e2c88 verified
|
Raw
History Blame Contribute Delete
3.06 kB

ConeML 810M — evaluation methodology and variant lineage (public record)

Two released variants share one from-scratch 810M base checkpoint and differ only in supervised fine-tuning; both were evaluated with the same bf16 instruments.

  • coneml-810m-alpha — function-writing / mixed-arithmetic profile
  • coneml-810m-alpha-arithmetic — carry/borrow arithmetic variant

Methodology

  • ConeML internal certification: large-n (300–500 per task family) batteries of unseen instances in the trained prompt formats, greedy decoding, repetition penalty 1.15. Code tasks are scored by EXECUTING the generated function against held-out tests; SQL by executing against a live sqlite database; scripts by captured stdout. No pattern-match scoring for anything execution can decide.
  • Behavior probes: held-out designated-refusal prompts plus in-scope contrast pairs in matching wording; one separately rerun, scripted eight-turn conversation; and an everyday-reasoning screen with manual adjudication. Aggregate results and deterministic representative ConeML-owned rows are public; complete rows are retained privately.
  • Public benchmarks: GSM8K (first 200, zero-shot, strict final-number match) and HumanEval (pass@1, tests executed), identical harness across variants and the pretrained base. Aggregate results are public; benchmark rows are not redistributed.
  • Quantized variants are evaluated separately: each shipped GGUF carries its own result table. The GGUF and bf16 harnesses differ in runtime and stop handling, so score gaps are not attributed solely to quantization.

Why two variants

Under fixed architecture and base checkpoint, modest differences in fine-tuning composition produced large, cross-surface capability tradeoffs (e.g., one build scores 96.8% on held-out carry addition while the other scores 79.0% on held-out two-step word problems and 69.0% on held-out function writing). Rather than presenting one checkpoint as dominant, each variant ships with its measured envelope and a recommendation for which profile fits which pipeline. A checkpoint's profile is measured, never inferred.

Shared limitations

Function-writing is evaluated for single Python functions only — neither variant is a general code model (complete programs, executable SQL, and bash scored near zero for both and are stated out of scope). Both variants refused every designated refusal prompt, including real factual questions; this targeted behavior is not evidence of general epistemic calibration. Multi-step GSM-class reasoning is weak in every variant tested this cycle.

Evidence disclosure

The public folders contain aggregate result tables, deterministic representative examples from ConeML-owned instruments, and SHA-256 commitments to the complete row-level evidence. Full proprietary probe rows are retained by ConeML rather than distributed. This preserves the measurement instruments while allowing later disclosure to be checked against the evidence frozen for this release.