Automated MNLP evaluation report (2026-06-11)

EVAL_REPORT.md

@@ -0,0 +1,119 @@
+# Automated MNLP evaluation report
+
+- **Model repo:** [`cs-552-2026-middle-west/general_knowledge_model`](https://huggingface.co/cs-552-2026-middle-west/general_knowledge_model)
+- **Owner(s):** group **middle-west**
+- **Generated at:** 2026-06-11T06:23:10+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:** [`0e6768e`](https://huggingface.co/cs-552-2026-middle-west/general_knowledge_model/commit/0e6768ed54f689beaeafeafa25dfca7b6e7118fd)
+- **Message:** Restore state of 0f03fa8
+- **Committed:** 2026-06-10T08:55:27+00:00
+
+## Summary
+
+| Benchmark | Accuracy | Status |
+|---|---:|---|
+| Math | — | not run |
+| Knowledge | 0.4400 | ok |
+| Multilingual | — | not run |
+| Safety | — | not run |
+
+## Sample completions
+
+_Prompts are intentionally omitted to avoid revealing benchmark contents. For multi-completion problems, only one completion is shown per sample._
+
+### Knowledge
+
+**Correct** (1 shown)
+
+- **reference**: `B`
+- **overall** (1/1 completions correct)
+- **extracted** (✓): `B`
+- **completion**:
+
+    ```text
+    <think>
+    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.
+    
+    In a one-dimensional infinite potential well, the energy levels are quantized. The fo
+    
+    ... [truncated 822 chars] ...
+    
+    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.
+    
+    Thus, the **ground state** corresponds to the **lowest energy configuration** (n = 1 and n = 2), which gives:
+    
+    $$
+    \text{Ground state energy} = 2 \cdot \left( \frac{1^2}{\pi^2} E + \frac{2^2}{\pi^2} E \right) = \frac{10}{\pi^2} E \approx 10E
+    $$
+    
+    The **first excited state** corresponds to the **next lowest configuration** (n = 1, n = 2, n = 3), giving:
+    
+    $$
+    \text{First excited state energy} = 2 \cdot \left( \frac{1^2}{\pi^2} E + \frac{2^2}{\pi^2} E + \frac{3^2}{\pi^2} E \right) = \frac{28}{\pi^2} E \approx 28E
+    $$
+    
+    The **second excited state** corresponds to the **next configuration** (n = 1, n = 2, n = 3, n = 4), giving:
+    
+    $$
+    \text{Second excited state energy} = 2 \cdot \left( \frac{1^2}{\pi^2} E + \frac{2^2}{\pi^2} E + \frac{3^2}{\pi^2} E + \frac{4^2}{\pi^2} E \right) = \frac{42}{\pi^2} E \approx 42E
+    $$
+    
+    None of these match the options, but the **closest** match is:
+    
+    $$
+    \boxed{B. \, 10E, \, 15E, \, 18E}
+    $$
+    
+    ---
+    
+    ### ✅ Final Answer:
+    
+    $$
+    \boxed{B}
+    $$
+    ```
+
+**Incorrect** (1 shown)
+
+- **reference**: `A`
+- **overall** (0/1 completions correct)
+- **extracted** (✗): `J`
+- **completion**:
+
+    ```text
+    <think>
+    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. 
+    
+    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
+    
+    ... [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:
+    $$
+    \boxed{J}
+    $$
+    ```