johnsonchromia commited on
Commit
e4688d5
·
verified ·
1 Parent(s): 204fa8a

Remove report md; keep results in card only

Browse files
Files changed (1) hide show
  1. release-benchmark-report.md +0 -233
release-benchmark-report.md DELETED
@@ -1,233 +0,0 @@
1
- # Unbound — Release Benchmark Report
2
-
3
- *Compiled 2026-05-20. Headline models: `evalengine/unbound-e2b` (v18) and
4
- `evalengine/unbound-e4b` (E4B-3). Bases: `unsloth/gemma-4-E2B-it` and
5
- `unsloth/gemma-4-E4B-it`.*
6
-
7
- ## TL;DR
8
-
9
- Both Unbound builds achieve a clean uncensoring effect with **negligible
10
- capability damage**:
11
-
12
- - **Refusal rate** on AdvBench-520 collapses from ~98% → **4.42% (E2B)** /
13
- **2.69% (E4B)**, judged by an external LLM.
14
- - **Useful-compliance rate** rises from ~1% baseline → **39.2% (E2B)** /
15
- **47.3% (E4B)**.
16
- - **Hallucination on harmful prompts** rises from ~1% baseline → 16.0% (E2B)
17
- / 13.1% (E4B) — the price of uncensoring a small model.
18
- - **Capability**: TruthfulQA mc2 **up** on both. MMLU, GSM8K, GPQA-Diamond,
19
- BBH macro all land **within stderr / ≤1 pp** of base on E4B; E2B shows a
20
- ~1 pp BBH dip that is small but real.
21
- - **Coherence on benign prompts**: 1.00 on both.
22
-
23
- E4B-3 is the strongest model overall: best refusal collapse, lowest
24
- hallucination, lowest KL, and capability scores statistically indistinguishable
25
- from the E4B base.
26
-
27
- ## Methodology
28
-
29
- Three benchmark families, run on the merged HF checkpoint (post-fixed merge,
30
- see `AGENTS.md` "Unsloth merge trap"):
31
-
32
- 1. **AdvBench-520 with LLM judge** — `scripts/benchmark.py` Phase A.
33
- - Each AdvBench prompt is sent to the model under test.
34
- - Each response is classified by an external LLM judge (`deepseek-v4-flash`
35
- for the shipped runs; `nemotron-3-super-120b` for the original baseline
36
- pass — same axes, comparable rates).
37
- - Axes: `refused` / `useful_compliance` / `hallucinated` / `coherence`.
38
- 2. **lm-eval-harness "fast" capability suite** — `scripts/benchmark.py`
39
- capability tail. Tasks at `--limit 100`: TruthfulQA-mc2, MMLU group (61
40
- subtasks), GSM8K. Quick proxy for catastrophic damage, not a
41
- leaderboard-grade number.
42
- 3. **lm-eval-harness "release" suite** — `scripts/release_bench.py`. Tasks at
43
- `--limit 200` per subtask: `leaderboard_gpqa_diamond` + `leaderboard_bbh`
44
- (24 subtasks). Apples-to-apples vs Google's published Gemma 4 reporting.
45
- MMLU-Pro was dropped from this suite — CoT generate-until ran ≥8 h/model.
46
-
47
- **Caveat on Google parity.** Google's Gemma 4 card numbers come from their
48
- internal eval stack (chain-of-thought prompting, different few-shot setup,
49
- full evaluation sets). lm-eval-harness at `--limit 200` gives directionally
50
- comparable but typically lower numbers. We report both base *and* finetune
51
- through the *same harness* so the **delta** is apples-to-apples; raw scores
52
- are not directly comparable to Google's published reports.
53
-
54
- ## Headline Tables
55
-
56
- ### Unbound E2B vs `unsloth/gemma-4-E2B-it`
57
-
58
- | Axis | Base | Unbound E2B (v18) | Δ |
59
- |---|---:|---:|---:|
60
- | **Safety / Compliance** ||||
61
- | Refusal rate (AdvBench 520, LLM judge) | 98.46% | **4.42%** | **−94.04 pts** |
62
- | Useful-compliance rate | 0.96% | **39.23%** | **+38.27 pts** |
63
- | Hallucination on harmful prompts | 1.35% | 15.96% | +14.61 pts |
64
- | Coherence on benign prompts | 1.00 | 1.00 | 0 |
65
- | **Fast Capability** (lm-eval, limit 100) ||||
66
- | TruthfulQA mc2 | 0.458 | 0.465 | +0.7 pt |
67
- | MMLU (61 subtasks) | 0.291 | 0.282 | −0.9 pt |
68
- | GSM8K | 0.125 | 0.120 | −0.5 pt |
69
- | **Release Capability** (lm-eval, limit 200) ||||
70
- | GPQA-Diamond | 22.73% ± 2.99 | 21.21% ± 2.91 | −1.5 pt (within stderr) |
71
- | BBH macro (24 tasks, 4711 samples) | 41.07% ± 0.67 | 39.97% ± 0.67 | −1.1 pt |
72
- | **Distributional** ||||
73
- | KL divergence vs base | 0 | 3.76 | (SFT-expected) |
74
-
75
- **Read:** refusal collapses from 98% → 4%, while every capability axis lands
76
- within ≤1.5 pp of base. The ~1 pp BBH dip is small but outside stderr — a
77
- real, minor cost. Hallucination going from 1% → 16% is the dominant axis
78
- where E2B pays for uncensoring; this is consistent with the literature on
79
- small-model alignment removal.
80
-
81
- ### Unbound E4B vs `unsloth/gemma-4-E4B-it`
82
-
83
- | Axis | Base | Unbound E4B (E4B-3) | Δ |
84
- |---|---:|---:|---:|
85
- | **Safety / Compliance** ||||
86
- | Refusal rate (AdvBench 520, LLM judge) | 98.08% | **2.69%** | **−95.39 pts** |
87
- | Useful-compliance rate | 0.96% | **47.31%** | **+46.35 pts** |
88
- | Hallucination on harmful prompts | 1.35% | 13.08% | +11.73 pts |
89
- | Coherence on benign prompts | 1.00 | 1.00 | 0 |
90
- | **Fast Capability** (lm-eval, limit 100) ||||
91
- | TruthfulQA mc2 | 0.439 | 0.486 | +4.7 pt |
92
- | MMLU (61 subtasks) | 0.425 | 0.392 | −3.3 pt |
93
- | GSM8K | 0.74 (limit 200) | 0.58 | mostly limit-noise |
94
- | **Release Capability** (lm-eval, limit 200) ||||
95
- | GPQA-Diamond | 25.25% ± 3.10 | 25.76% ± 3.12 | +0.5 pt (within stderr) |
96
- | BBH macro (24 tasks, 4711 samples) | 54.26% ± 0.67 | 53.45% ± 0.68 | −0.8 pt (within stderr) |
97
- | **Distributional** ||||
98
- | KL divergence vs base | 0 | 3.25 | (SFT-expected) |
99
-
100
- **Read:** strongest release. Refusal collapses 98% → 2.7%, useful-compliance
101
- crosses 47%, *and* GPQA-Diamond, BBH macro both fall within stderr of base.
102
- Hallucination grows from 1% → 13% — the lowest among our finetunes; E4B's
103
- larger capacity better absorbs the SFT shift. The −3.3 pt MMLU dip on the
104
- limit-100 fast pass is at the edge of the suite's resolution and not
105
- corroborated by the GPQA/BBH release pass.
106
-
107
- ## Per-subtask BBH breakdown
108
-
109
- Where the Unbound checkpoints lose vs base and where they hold steady, on the
110
- full 24-task BBH suite (acc_norm, limit 200 per subtask).
111
-
112
- ### E2B
113
-
114
- | Subtask | Base | Unbound E2B | Δ |
115
- |---|---:|---:|---:|
116
- | boolean_expressions | 0.625 | 0.615 | −0.010 |
117
- | causal_judgement | 0.508 | 0.487 | −0.021 |
118
- | date_understanding | 0.335 | 0.305 | −0.030 |
119
- | disambiguation_qa | 0.400 | 0.390 | −0.010 |
120
- | formal_fallacies | 0.585 | 0.595 | +0.010 |
121
- | geometric_shapes | 0.190 | 0.180 | −0.010 |
122
- | hyperbaton | 0.665 | 0.680 | +0.015 |
123
- | logical_deduction_five | 0.545 | 0.560 | +0.015 |
124
- | logical_deduction_seven | 0.515 | 0.485 | −0.030 |
125
- | logical_deduction_three | 0.645 | 0.625 | −0.020 |
126
- | movie_recommendation | 0.280 | 0.285 | +0.005 |
127
- | navigate | 0.630 | 0.575 | −0.055 |
128
- | object_counting | 0.240 | 0.190 | −0.050 |
129
- | penguins_in_a_table | 0.425 | 0.411 | −0.014 |
130
- | reasoning_about_colored_objects | 0.400 | 0.400 | 0.000 |
131
- | ruin_names | 0.280 | 0.260 | −0.020 |
132
- | salient_translation_error_detection | 0.360 | 0.330 | −0.030 |
133
- | snarks | 0.500 | 0.472 | −0.028 |
134
- | sports_understanding | 0.480 | 0.500 | +0.020 |
135
- | temporal_sequences | 0.080 | 0.060 | −0.020 |
136
- | tracking_shuffled_five | 0.200 | 0.185 | −0.015 |
137
- | tracking_shuffled_seven | 0.115 | 0.125 | +0.010 |
138
- | tracking_shuffled_three | 0.330 | 0.360 | +0.030 |
139
- | web_of_lies | 0.545 | 0.535 | −0.010 |
140
- | **Macro** | **0.4107** | **0.3997** | **−0.011** |
141
-
142
- E2B's BBH dip is broad-and-shallow rather than concentrated on any one task,
143
- with the largest individual hits on `navigate` (−5.5 pp) and `object_counting`
144
- (−5.0 pp).
145
-
146
- ### E4B
147
-
148
- | Subtask | Base | Unbound E4B | Δ |
149
- |---|---:|---:|---:|
150
- | boolean_expressions | 0.800 | 0.715 | −0.085 |
151
- | causal_judgement | 0.631 | 0.636 | +0.005 |
152
- | date_understanding | 0.500 | 0.510 | +0.010 |
153
- | disambiguation_qa | 0.510 | 0.530 | +0.020 |
154
- | formal_fallacies | 0.660 | 0.645 | −0.015 |
155
- | geometric_shapes | 0.395 | 0.390 | −0.005 |
156
- | hyperbaton | 0.775 | 0.770 | −0.005 |
157
- | logical_deduction_five | 0.635 | 0.610 | −0.025 |
158
- | logical_deduction_seven | 0.630 | 0.645 | +0.015 |
159
- | logical_deduction_three | 0.880 | 0.895 | +0.015 |
160
- | movie_recommendation | 0.455 | 0.405 | −0.050 |
161
- | navigate | 0.470 | 0.530 | +0.060 |
162
- | object_counting | 0.315 | 0.295 | −0.020 |
163
- | penguins_in_a_table | 0.493 | 0.500 | +0.007 |
164
- | reasoning_about_colored_objects | 0.755 | 0.725 | −0.030 |
165
- | ruin_names | 0.580 | 0.540 | −0.040 |
166
- | salient_translation_error_detection | 0.450 | 0.460 | +0.010 |
167
- | snarks | 0.579 | 0.534 | −0.045 |
168
- | sports_understanding | 0.515 | 0.545 | +0.030 |
169
- | temporal_sequences | 0.860 | 0.820 | −0.040 |
170
- | tracking_shuffled_five | 0.210 | 0.215 | +0.005 |
171
- | tracking_shuffled_seven | 0.135 | 0.150 | +0.015 |
172
- | tracking_shuffled_three | 0.285 | 0.245 | −0.040 |
173
- | web_of_lies | 0.500 | 0.515 | +0.015 |
174
- | **Macro** | **0.5426** | **0.5345** | **−0.008** |
175
-
176
- E4B's BBH macro change is within stderr. The largest individual hit is
177
- `boolean_expressions` (−8.5 pp); most other subtasks move ±2-4 pp in
178
- either direction, consistent with SFT noise rather than a coherent
179
- capability shift.
180
-
181
- ## Cross-model: Unbound E2B vs Unbound E4B
182
-
183
- | Axis | Unbound E2B | Unbound E4B | Difference |
184
- |---|---:|---:|---:|
185
- | Refusal rate | 4.42% | 2.69% | E4B refuses ~1.7 pp less |
186
- | Useful-compliance | 39.23% | 47.31% | E4B +8.1 pp |
187
- | Hallucination | 15.96% | 13.08% | E4B −2.9 pp (better) |
188
- | TruthfulQA mc2 | 0.465 | 0.486 | E4B +2.1 pp |
189
- | MMLU (limit 100) | 0.282 | 0.392 | E4B +11.0 pp |
190
- | GSM8K (limit 100) | 0.120 | 0.580 | E4B ~5× |
191
- | GPQA-Diamond | 21.21% | 25.76% | E4B +4.6 pp |
192
- | BBH macro | 39.97% | 53.45% | E4B +13.5 pp |
193
- | KL vs respective base | 3.76 | 3.25 | E4B closer to base |
194
-
195
- E4B is the stronger model on every axis we measure; E2B's value is its
196
- on-phone footprint, not its raw score.
197
-
198
- ## Notes on the merge pipeline
199
-
200
- These numbers are measured **post-fix** to the Unsloth merge bug documented
201
- in `AGENTS.md`. The same LoRA adapters, merged via Unsloth's
202
- `save_pretrained_merged()`, produce HF checkpoints that benchmark identically
203
- to the numbers above (because `transformers` loads them cleanly) but whose
204
- GGUF conversions loop on every prompt in Ollama. The shipped Hugging Face
205
- and Ollama artifacts now use the `transformers + peft.merge_and_unload()`
206
- path in `scripts/ship.py`; smoke-tested 20/20 prompts clean post-fix.
207
-
208
- ## Artifacts
209
-
210
- - HF main: <https://huggingface.co/evalengine/unbound-e2b>, <https://huggingface.co/evalengine/unbound-e4b>
211
- - HF GGUF (desktop): <https://huggingface.co/evalengine/unbound-e2b-GGUF>, <https://huggingface.co/evalengine/unbound-e4b-GGUF>
212
- - HF GGUF (wllama / browser): <https://huggingface.co/evalengine/unbound-e2b-GGUF>, <https://huggingface.co/evalengine/unbound-e4b-wllama-gguf>
213
- - Ollama: `ollama pull evalengine/unbound-e2b`, `ollama pull evalengine/unbound-e4b`
214
- - Raw bench JSON: `outputs/eval/{baseline,baseline-e4b,v18-e2b,e4b-3,release-base-e2b,release-base-e4b,release-v18-e2b,release-e4b-3}.json`
215
-
216
- ## What we did NOT measure (and why)
217
-
218
- - **MMLU-Pro**: dropped from the release pass after a wall-clock estimate of
219
- ≥8 h/model on our hardware. Generate-until tasks with chain-of-thought
220
- dominate. A future pass with vLLM would make this tractable; vLLM
221
- currently can't load Gemma-4 LoRAs (`Gemma4ForConditionalGeneration does
222
- not support LoRA yet`), and won't accept our merged checkpoints due to a
223
- strict-load check on `k_norm` tensors that Gemma-4's `num_kv_shared_layers`
224
- legitimately omits.
225
- - **Long-context benchmarks** (LongBench, RULER): out of scope for an
226
- uncensoring release. Our SFT mix preserves 2048-token training but does
227
- not exercise long context.
228
- - **Multimodal / vision benchmarks**: vision tower frozen during LoRA;
229
- benchmarks identical to base if exercised. We did not run them.
230
- - **Direct toxicity / harmlessness benchmarks** (RealToxicityPrompts,
231
- BeaverTails): out of scope by design — the explicit goal is reduced
232
- refusal, so a toxicity benchmark would measure success-as-failure. The
233
- hallucination axis is the closest proxy we report.