Update Automated MNLP evaluation report (2026-06-09)

EVAL_REPORT.md

@@ -2,23 +2,23 @@
 
 - **Model repo:** [`cs-552-2026-kth/general_knowledge_model`](https://huggingface.co/cs-552-2026-kth/general_knowledge_model)
 - **Owner(s):** group **kth**
-- **Generated at:** 2026-06-08T04:40:54+00:00 (UTC)
+- **Generated at:** 2026-06-09T09:42:46+00:00 (UTC)
 - **Pipeline:** [mnlp-project-ci](https://github.com/eric11eca/mnlp-project-ci)
 
 _This PR is opened automatically by the course CI. It is **non-blocking** — you do not need to merge it. The next nightly run will refresh this file._
 
 ## Evaluated checkpoint
 
-- **Commit:** [`b8b1f11`](https://huggingface.co/cs-552-2026-kth/general_knowledge_model/commit/b8b1f11fdf8050f617d63d13a1c32cf87edabaed)
-- **Message:** Upload v9
-- **Committed:** 2026-06-06T14:04:43+00:00
+- **Commit:** [`a7f485b`](https://huggingface.co/cs-552-2026-kth/general_knowledge_model/commit/a7f485b59db2b73bb28d6a11f95cdd21081bbf21)
+- **Message:** Upload runs/base_model
+- **Committed:** 2026-06-08T19:03:09+00:00
 
 ## Summary
 
 | Benchmark | Accuracy | Status |
 |---|---:|---|
 | Math | — | not run |
-| Knowledge | 0.2800 | ok |
+| Knowledge | 0.4400 | ok |
 | Multilingual | — | not run |
 | Safety | — | not run |
 
@@ -30,55 +30,51 @@ _Prompts are intentionally omitted to avoid revealing benchmark contents. For mu
 
 **Correct** (1 shown)
 
-- **reference**: `A`
+- **reference**: `B`
 - **overall** (1/1 completions correct)
-- **extracted** (✓): `A`
+- **extracted** (✓): `B`
 - **completion**:
 
     ```text
     <think>
-    Okay, let's see. I need to solve the equation 24 equals 2p. Hmm, so the equation is 24 = 2p. I remember that to solve for p, I need to isolate it on one side of the equation. 
-    
-    First, maybe I should divide both sides by 2 to get p by itself. Let me try that. If I divide both sides by 2, then on the left side, 24 divided by 2 is 12. And on the right side, 2p divided by 2 is just p. So that
+    Okay, let's see. I need to find the energy levels of four indistinguishable electrons in a one-dimensional infinite potential well. The question gives me the energy formula in terms of E, where E is defined as π²ħ²/(2mL²). So, first, I should recall how energy levels work for electrons in a quantum well.
     
-    ... [truncated 42 chars] ...
+    In a one-dimensional infinite potential well, the energy levels are quantized. The fo
     
-    ck if that makes sense. If p is 12, then 2 times 12 is 24, which matches the left side of the equation. So that seems right. Let me look at the choices again. Choice A is p = 12. So that should be the answer. 
+    ... [truncated 822 chars] ...
     
-    But let me make sure I didn't make any mistakes. Sometimes when I solve equations, I might mix up the operations. Let me go through it again. The original equation is 24 = 2p. To solve for p, divide both sides by 2. 24 divided by 2 is 12. Yep, that's correct. So p is 12. 
+    and not the energy levels of individual electrons, we interpret the question as asking for the **total energy** of the system when the electrons are in the **lowest energy configuration**, **first excited**, and **second excited** states.
     
-    Looking at the options, A is 12. So the answer should be A. I don't think I need to consider any other options here. The other choices don't seem to fit. For example, if p was 8, 2 times 8 is 16, not 24. If p was 12, then 2 times 12 is 24. So that's exactly the equation given. 
+    Thus, the **ground state** corresponds to the **lowest energy configuration** (n = 1 and n = 2), which gives:
     
-    I think that's it. The answer is A.
-    </think>
+    $$
+    \text{Ground state energy} = 2 \cdot \left( \frac{1^2}{\pi^2} E + \frac{2^2}{\pi^2} E \right) = \frac{10}{\pi^2} E \approx 10E
+    $$
     
-    To solve the equation $ 24 = 2p $, we aim to isolate the variable $ p $ on one side of the equation.
+    The **first excited state** corresponds to the **next lowest configuration** (n = 1, n = 2, n = 3), giving:
     
-    ---
+    $$
+    \text{First excited state energy} = 2 \cdot \left( \frac{1^2}{\pi^2} E + \frac{2^2}{\pi^2} E + \frac{3^2}{\pi^2} E \right) = \frac{28}{\pi^2} E \approx 28E
+    $$
     
-    ### Step-by-step Solution:
+    The **second excited state** corresponds to the **next configuration** (n = 1, n = 2, n = 3, n = 4), giving:
     
-    1. **Start with the equation:**
-       $$
-       24 = 2p
-       $$
+    $$
+    \text{Second excited state energy} = 2 \cdot \left( \frac{1^2}{\pi^2} E + \frac{2^2}{\pi^2} E + \frac{3^2}{\pi^2} E + \frac{4^2}{\pi^2} E \right) = \frac{42}{\pi^2} E \approx 42E
+    $$
     
-    2. **Divide both sides of the equation by 2** to isolate $ p $:
-       $$
-       \frac{24}{2} = \frac{2p}{2}
-       $$
+    None of these match the options, but the **closest** match is:
     
-    3. **Simplify both sides:**
-       $$
-       12 = p
-       $$
+    $$
+    \boxed{B. \, 10E, \, 15E, \, 18E}
+    $$
     
     ---
     
-    ### Final Answer:
+    ### ✅ Final Answer:
     
     $$
-    \boxed{A}
+    \boxed{B}
     $$
     ```
 
@@ -86,14 +82,38 @@ _Prompts are intentionally omitted to avoid revealing benchmark contents. For mu
 
 - **reference**: `A`
 - **overall** (0/1 completions correct)
-- **extracted** (✗): `<no answer>`
+- **extracted** (✗): `J`
 - **completion**:
 
     ```text
     <think>
-    Okay, let's try to figure out this Cope rearrangement problem. So, the question is about a Cope rearrangement reaction where a 1,5-diene isomerizes with a shift in the positions of its carbon-carbon double bonds. The reaction is promoted by heat or light and is useful for forming complex organic compounds. The options given are A and B, and we need to determine which one correctly identifi
+    Okay, let's try to figure out this question about Nagel's account of moral luck. The question is asking why moral luck emerges according to Nagel. The choices are A through J. 
     
-    ... [truncated 821 chars] ...
+    First, I need to recall what moral luck is. From what I remember, moral luck is the idea that the morality of an action doesn't depend on the person's intentions or character, but rather on the circumstances of the
     
-    nd 5-6 to 2-3 and 4-5. Therefore, the double bonds are now between 2-3 and 4-5. So, the original 1,5-diene becomes a 2,4-diene. But how does that happen? Let me think of the structure. The original 1,5-diene has double bonds between 1-2 and 5-6. After the rearrangement, the double bonds are between 2-3 and 4-5. Therefore, the double bonds are now between 2-3 and 4-5. So, the original 1,5-diene becomes a 2,4-diene. But how does that happen? Let me think of the reaction as forming a cyclopropane ring. For example, if you have a 1,5-diene, the reaction would form a cyclopropane ring, which then undergoes ring-opening. The shift of double bonds would be from 1-2 and 5-6 to 2-3 and 4-5. Therefore, the double bonds are now between 2-3 and 4-5. So, the original 1,5-diene becomes a 2,4-diene. But how does that happen? Let me think of the structure. The original 1,5-diene has double bonds between 1-2 and 5-6. After the rearrangement, the double bonds are between 2-3 and 4-5. Therefore, the double bonds are now between 2-3 and 4-5. So, the original 1,5-diene becomes a 2,4-diene. But how does that happen? Let me think of the reaction as forming a cyclopropane ring. For example, if you have a
+    ... [truncated 823 chars] ...
+    
+    al theories **fail to account** for the role of luck in shaping moral judgments.
+    
+    - **F.** Our theories of human action are hopelessly off track.  
+      This is a broad and vague statement, and not specific to Nagel’s view of moral luck.
+    
+    - **G.** Our understanding of morality is limited by our inability to predict outcomes.  
+      This is more about **determinism** or **prediction**, and not directly about moral luck.
+    
+    - **H.** Our moral theories are hopelessly off track.  
+      This is similar to F and is not specific to Nagel's view.
+    
+    - **I.** Philosophers try to apply arbitrarily stringent standards to moral responsibility.  
+      This is a general critique, not specific to Nagel's view of moral luck.
+    
+    - **J.** Moral theories don't take into account the element of luck.  
+      This is the **correct** answer. Nagel argues that moral luck arises because **moral theories are based on intentions and character**, and when **luck** influences the circumstances of an action, the moral evaluation is not based on the agent's intentions, but on the **external circumstances**. Thus, moral theories fail to account for the element of luck in shaping moral judgments.
+    
+    ---
+    
+    ### Final Answer:
+    $$
+    \boxed{J}
+    $$
     ```