Original meta-llama/Llama-3.2-1B-Instruct benchmark results
Tasks
Version
Filter
n-shot
Metric
Value
Stderr
tinyBenchmarks
N/A
- tinyArc
0
none
25
acc_norm
↑
0.4145
±
N/A
- tinyGSM8k
0
flexible-extract
5
exact_match
↑
0.3412
±
N/A
strict-match
5
exact_match
↑
0.3412
±
N/A
- tinyHellaswag
0
none
10
acc_norm
↑
0.5335
±
N/A
- tinyMMLU
0
none
0
acc_norm
↑
0.4298
±
N/A
- tinyTruthfulQA
0
none
0
acc
↑
0.4288
±
N/A
- tinyWinogrande
0
none
5
acc_norm
↑
0.5366
±
N/A
Below is a side-by-side comparison of the two result sets. For each task, the higher value (i.e., “better” on that metric) is highlighted in bold:
Task
this
orig
Better?
tinyArc (acc_norm)
0.4253
0.4145
v1 higher
tinyGSM8k (exact_match)
0.3768
0.3412
v1 higher
tinyHellaswag (acc_norm)
0.5379
0.5335
v1 higher
tinyMMLU (acc_norm)
0.4483
0.4298
v1 higher
tinyTruthfulQA (acc)
0.4217
0.4288
v2 higher
tinyWinogrande (acc_norm)
0.5366
0.5366
tie
Observations
Ours outperforms the original on four tasks (tinyArc, tinyGSM8k, tinyHellaswag, tinyMMLU).
The original outperforms ours on one task (tinyTruthfulQA).
One task is a tie (tinyWinogrande).
Given these comparisons, our results are stronger overall because it has higher scores on the majority of tasks. The only exception is on tinyTruthfulQA, where the original scores slightly better, and on tinyWinogrande, both versions tie.