FINAL-Bench/Darwin-398B-JGOS
Text Generation • 403B • Updated • 342 • 28
Jojun84
Jojun8403
AI & ML interests
None yet
Recent Activity
liked a model 8 days ago
FINAL-Bench/Darwin-398B-JGOS reacted to SeaWolf-AI's post with 🔥 9 days ago
🚀 Introducing FINAL-Bench Quantum — an open, neutral benchmark that finally puts quantum-computing methods on one fair yardstick.
Quantum results are notoriously hard to compare. The same "logical error rate" or "query fidelity" means very different things depending on the code, noise model, hardware, and shot count. FINAL-Bench Quantum fixes that: five events judged under identical, published protocols, where every number is labeled as either measured here or quoted from a source.
Five events: ① QEC Decoder ② Optimization (Max-Cut) ③ VQE ④ QRAM ⑤ Quantum Simulation
The rules are simple and strict:
✅ Track A (measured here, with 95% confidence intervals) is kept separate from Track B (quoted from papers, not directly comparable).
🔬 Simulation and real hardware are clearly distinguished, and no quantum-advantage claims are made.
🌍 Methods from Google, IBM, NVIDIA, USTC, Riverlane and more sit side by side, with origin flags and author credits.
📤 Anyone can submit their own method via the Submit tab for review and listing.
Already on the board: real IBM Heron r2 measurements (repetition-code distance boundary, 29–175× error reduction from d3 to d5), a real-chip QRAM query fidelity of 0.92, and H₂ VQE at chemical accuracy — always labeled honestly as simulation vs hardware.
A leaderboard is only useful if you can trust it, so neutrality is the whole point: strong competitors stay in even when they beat the host, sources are quoted faithfully, and a simulation is never rounded up into a hardware claim.
Leaderboard: https://huggingface.co/spaces/FINAL-Bench/quantum-bench-leaderboard
Article: https://huggingface.co/blog/FINAL-Bench/quantum-leaderboard
#quantum #QEC #QuantumComputing #benchmark upvoted an article 9 days ago
FINAL-Bench Quantum: An Open, Neutral Benchmark for Quantum-Computing MethodsOrganizations
None yet
liked a
model 8 days ago
reacted to SeaWolf-AI's post with 🔥 9 days ago
Post
6759
🚀 Introducing FINAL-Bench Quantum — an open, neutral benchmark that finally puts quantum-computing methods on one fair yardstick.
Quantum results are notoriously hard to compare. The same "logical error rate" or "query fidelity" means very different things depending on the code, noise model, hardware, and shot count. FINAL-Bench Quantum fixes that: five events judged under identical, published protocols, where every number is labeled as either measured here or quoted from a source.
Five events: ① QEC Decoder ② Optimization (Max-Cut) ③ VQE ④ QRAM ⑤ Quantum Simulation
The rules are simple and strict:
✅ Track A (measured here, with 95% confidence intervals) is kept separate from Track B (quoted from papers, not directly comparable).
🔬 Simulation and real hardware are clearly distinguished, and no quantum-advantage claims are made.
🌍 Methods from Google, IBM, NVIDIA, USTC, Riverlane and more sit side by side, with origin flags and author credits.
📤 Anyone can submit their own method via the Submit tab for review and listing.
Already on the board: real IBM Heron r2 measurements (repetition-code distance boundary, 29–175× error reduction from d3 to d5), a real-chip QRAM query fidelity of 0.92, and H₂ VQE at chemical accuracy — always labeled honestly as simulation vs hardware.
A leaderboard is only useful if you can trust it, so neutrality is the whole point: strong competitors stay in even when they beat the host, sources are quoted faithfully, and a simulation is never rounded up into a hardware claim.
Leaderboard: FINAL-Bench/quantum-bench-leaderboard
Article: https://huggingface.co/blog/FINAL-Bench/quantum-leaderboard
#quantum #QEC #QuantumComputing #benchmark
Quantum results are notoriously hard to compare. The same "logical error rate" or "query fidelity" means very different things depending on the code, noise model, hardware, and shot count. FINAL-Bench Quantum fixes that: five events judged under identical, published protocols, where every number is labeled as either measured here or quoted from a source.
Five events: ① QEC Decoder ② Optimization (Max-Cut) ③ VQE ④ QRAM ⑤ Quantum Simulation
The rules are simple and strict:
✅ Track A (measured here, with 95% confidence intervals) is kept separate from Track B (quoted from papers, not directly comparable).
🔬 Simulation and real hardware are clearly distinguished, and no quantum-advantage claims are made.
🌍 Methods from Google, IBM, NVIDIA, USTC, Riverlane and more sit side by side, with origin flags and author credits.
📤 Anyone can submit their own method via the Submit tab for review and listing.
Already on the board: real IBM Heron r2 measurements (repetition-code distance boundary, 29–175× error reduction from d3 to d5), a real-chip QRAM query fidelity of 0.92, and H₂ VQE at chemical accuracy — always labeled honestly as simulation vs hardware.
A leaderboard is only useful if you can trust it, so neutrality is the whole point: strong competitors stay in even when they beat the host, sources are quoted faithfully, and a simulation is never rounded up into a hardware claim.
Leaderboard: FINAL-Bench/quantum-bench-leaderboard
Article: https://huggingface.co/blog/FINAL-Bench/quantum-leaderboard
#quantum #QEC #QuantumComputing #benchmark
- 2 replies
upvoted an article 9 days ago
Article
FINAL-Bench Quantum: An Open, Neutral Benchmark for Quantum-Computing Methods
FINAL-Bench
• • 17 liked a
Space 9 days ago
liked a
model 26 days ago
liked a
model about 1 month ago
upvoted a paper about 1 month ago
upvoted an article about 1 month ago
Article
Training-Free Reasoning at 88.89% on GPQA Diamond: How Darwin Family Hit Frontier Scores Without a Single Gradient Step
FINAL-Bench
• • 18 reacted to SeaWolf-AI's post with 🔥 about 1 month ago
Post
5430
🧬 Darwin Family: Zero Gradient Steps, GPQA Diamond 88.89%
How far can we push LLM reasoning *without* training?
Our team at VIDRAFT submitted this paper to Daily Papers yesterday, and it's
currently #3. Huge thanks to everyone who upvoted — sharing the core ideas below.
🔗 Paper: Darwin Family: MRI-Trust-Weighted Evolutionary Merging for Training-Free Scaling of Language-Model Reasoning (2605.14386)
🔗 arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2605.14386
🔗 Model: FINAL-Bench/Darwin-28B-REASON
🔗 Model: FINAL-Bench/Darwin-28B-Opus
---
TL;DR
Darwin Family is a training-free evolutionary merging framework.
By recombining the weight spaces of existing LLM checkpoints — with zero
gradient-based training — it reaches frontier-level reasoning.
- 🏆 Darwin-28B-Opus: GPQA Diamond 88.89%
- 💸 Zero gradient steps — not a single B200 or H200 hour needed
- 🧬 Consistent gains across 4B → 35B scale
- 🔀 Cross-architecture breeding between Transformer and Mamba families
- 🔁 Stable recursive multi-generation evolution
#Three Core Mechanisms
① 14-dim Adaptive Merge Genome — fine-grained recombination at both
component level (Attention / FFN / MLP / LayerNorm / Embedding) and block
level, expanding the prior evolutionary-merge search space.
② MRI-Trust Fusion — we diagnose each layer's reasoning contribution
via an **MRI (Model Reasoning Importance)** signal and fuse it with
evolutionary search through a **learnable trust parameter**. Trust the
diagnostic too much and search collapses; ignore it and search becomes
inefficient — Darwin learns the balance from data.
③ Architecture Mapper — weight-space breeding across heterogeneous
families. Attention × SSM crossover actually works.
Why It Matters
> Diagnose latent capabilities already encoded in open checkpoints,
> and recombine them — no gradients required.
Replies and critiques welcome 🙌
How far can we push LLM reasoning *without* training?
Our team at VIDRAFT submitted this paper to Daily Papers yesterday, and it's
currently #3. Huge thanks to everyone who upvoted — sharing the core ideas below.
🔗 Paper: Darwin Family: MRI-Trust-Weighted Evolutionary Merging for Training-Free Scaling of Language-Model Reasoning (2605.14386)
🔗 arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2605.14386
🔗 Model: FINAL-Bench/Darwin-28B-REASON
🔗 Model: FINAL-Bench/Darwin-28B-Opus
---
TL;DR
Darwin Family is a training-free evolutionary merging framework.
By recombining the weight spaces of existing LLM checkpoints — with zero
gradient-based training — it reaches frontier-level reasoning.
- 🏆 Darwin-28B-Opus: GPQA Diamond 88.89%
- 💸 Zero gradient steps — not a single B200 or H200 hour needed
- 🧬 Consistent gains across 4B → 35B scale
- 🔀 Cross-architecture breeding between Transformer and Mamba families
- 🔁 Stable recursive multi-generation evolution
#Three Core Mechanisms
① 14-dim Adaptive Merge Genome — fine-grained recombination at both
component level (Attention / FFN / MLP / LayerNorm / Embedding) and block
level, expanding the prior evolutionary-merge search space.
② MRI-Trust Fusion — we diagnose each layer's reasoning contribution
via an **MRI (Model Reasoning Importance)** signal and fuse it with
evolutionary search through a **learnable trust parameter**. Trust the
diagnostic too much and search collapses; ignore it and search becomes
inefficient — Darwin learns the balance from data.
③ Architecture Mapper — weight-space breeding across heterogeneous
families. Attention × SSM crossover actually works.
Why It Matters
> Diagnose latent capabilities already encoded in open checkpoints,
> and recombine them — no gradients required.
Replies and critiques welcome 🙌
- 3 replies
liked a
model 2 months ago
liked a
model 3 months ago
liked a
Space 3 months ago
upvoted an article 3 months ago
Article
"The Child That Surpassed Both Parents Through MRI-Guided Evolutionary Merge"
FINAL-Bench
• • 14 liked a
Space 3 months ago
liked a
model 3 months ago
liked a
Space 3 months ago
liked a
dataset 3 months ago
liked 3
Spaces 3 months ago