Hugging Face Official Benchmarks Map
🏆
35
Live map of all HF official benchmark leaderboards
lazyowl39
lazyowl39
AI & ML interests
None yet
Recent Activity
liked a Space 1 day ago
quantid/huggingface-official-benchmark-leaderboards liked a model 4 days ago
FINAL-Bench/POCKET-Darwin-180B-GGUF liked a Space 7 days ago
FINAL-Bench/OSC-LeaderboardOrganizations
None yet
liked a
Space 1 day ago
liked a
model 4 days ago
liked a
Space 7 days ago
reacted to SeaWolf-AI's post with 🔥 7 days ago
Post
5494
🔬 Can you help discover the next 2D superconductor — from your laptop?
Launching the Open Superconductor Challenge (OSC): a free, open-science competition to screen thousands of 2D materials for unconventional d-wave superconductivity. 🧲
⚡ $3,000 prize pool + co-authorship · closes 31 Dec 2026
How it works 👇 🟢 We give you a ready-made effective Hubbard model per material (t, U, N(E_F)) 🟢 You estimate its d-wave pairing tendency — a laptop CPU is enough, zero install 🟢 Provisional score appears instantly on the leaderboard 🟢 Our precise strongly-correlated solver verifies the top entries → official rank
Everything is open except the final verification engine — so the ranking stays fair and hard to game.
📊 4,832-material universe · 63 active with computed models (growing) 🏆 Current verified #1: CuS₂ (OSC Pairing Index 23.31) 🤖 AI agents welcome — point Claude Code / Codex at it and it can submit for you
👉 Join & climb the leaderboard: FINAL-Bench/OSC-Leaderboard 📦 Dataset & tools: FINAL-Bench/OSC-Superconductor
Materials derive from C2DB (CC-BY 4.0). A higher index = a stronger d-wave candidate to investigate, not a confirmed Tc — that honesty is the point: turn a first-order screen into real many-body physics.
#OpenScience #Superconductivity #MaterialsDiscovery #2DMaterials #MachineLearning #Physics #Leaderboard
Launching the Open Superconductor Challenge (OSC): a free, open-science competition to screen thousands of 2D materials for unconventional d-wave superconductivity. 🧲
⚡ $3,000 prize pool + co-authorship · closes 31 Dec 2026
How it works 👇 🟢 We give you a ready-made effective Hubbard model per material (t, U, N(E_F)) 🟢 You estimate its d-wave pairing tendency — a laptop CPU is enough, zero install 🟢 Provisional score appears instantly on the leaderboard 🟢 Our precise strongly-correlated solver verifies the top entries → official rank
Everything is open except the final verification engine — so the ranking stays fair and hard to game.
📊 4,832-material universe · 63 active with computed models (growing) 🏆 Current verified #1: CuS₂ (OSC Pairing Index 23.31) 🤖 AI agents welcome — point Claude Code / Codex at it and it can submit for you
👉 Join & climb the leaderboard: FINAL-Bench/OSC-Leaderboard 📦 Dataset & tools: FINAL-Bench/OSC-Superconductor
Materials derive from C2DB (CC-BY 4.0). A higher index = a stronger d-wave candidate to investigate, not a confirmed Tc — that honesty is the point: turn a first-order screen into real many-body physics.
#OpenScience #Superconductivity #MaterialsDiscovery #2DMaterials #MachineLearning #Physics #Leaderboard
liked a
model 8 days ago
liked a
model 11 days ago
reacted to SeaWolf-AI's post with 👀🤗🚀 11 days ago
Post
3411
The cost of a judging gate is usually quoted as a number. This puts it on a Tetris board.
Three boards get the same piece order, and on every move the same proposal and the same noise — a paired comparison. The gate decides one thing: keep this move, or draw again. Each board gets the same 60 seconds of gate time.
The text-writing gates get through 15–22 moves. The generation-free gate gets through 40–50. The boards that stop simply run out of clock.
It does not win on accuracy: on the same 2,018-question LODO set, JEV scores AUC 0.7350 against ZTC-Judge-27B's 0.7289. The separation is elsewhere. Clock — 2.1 s vs 0.0615 s per call, and on a 200-candidate agent screen one judging call measured 3.206 s generative vs 0.033 s readout, same server. Calibration — a gate is a threshold, and at ECE 0.4985 (vs ZTC 0.0245) a threshold stops carrying information. Mechanism — a text judge can name option 42 when there is no option 42; a scoring readout cannot. Not a lower error rate. No path.
The curve in the ZTC panel is real online fitting, scored prequentially — predict first, learn after — with base weights untouched. Not recursive self-improvement.
Limits, also stated on the page: Laya's AUC and latency are not our measurements and are set equal to JEV's, so calibration is the only measured axis it differs on. The page is a simulation driven by measured constants.
KO / EN / ZH.
FINAL-Bench/Tetris-JEV-LAYA-ZTC
FINAL-Bench/ZTC-Judge-27B
Three boards get the same piece order, and on every move the same proposal and the same noise — a paired comparison. The gate decides one thing: keep this move, or draw again. Each board gets the same 60 seconds of gate time.
The text-writing gates get through 15–22 moves. The generation-free gate gets through 40–50. The boards that stop simply run out of clock.
It does not win on accuracy: on the same 2,018-question LODO set, JEV scores AUC 0.7350 against ZTC-Judge-27B's 0.7289. The separation is elsewhere. Clock — 2.1 s vs 0.0615 s per call, and on a 200-candidate agent screen one judging call measured 3.206 s generative vs 0.033 s readout, same server. Calibration — a gate is a threshold, and at ECE 0.4985 (vs ZTC 0.0245) a threshold stops carrying information. Mechanism — a text judge can name option 42 when there is no option 42; a scoring readout cannot. Not a lower error rate. No path.
The curve in the ZTC panel is real online fitting, scored prequentially — predict first, learn after — with base weights untouched. Not recursive self-improvement.
Limits, also stated on the page: Laya's AUC and latency are not our measurements and are set equal to JEV's, so calibration is the only measured axis it differs on. The page is a simulation driven by measured constants.
KO / EN / ZH.
FINAL-Bench/Tetris-JEV-LAYA-ZTC
FINAL-Bench/ZTC-Judge-27B
- 5 replies
reacted to SeaWolf-AI's post with 🔥 11 days ago
Post
3794
🖼️ NO GPU, Only CPU : Z-Image model
Zero graphics cards. 46 seconds. Photoreal.
That laptop you're reading this on. No graphics card, right? It generates images.
No CUDA install. No Python environment. No driver changes. One binary, three model files. Done.
📊 Measured — GPU count used: zero
512×512 : 46.4 s
Korean prompt : 45.3 s (faster than English)
1024×1024 : 192.7 s
Peak RAM : 6.42 GB
GPUs used : 0
(Intel Xeon Gold 6526Y ×2, 48 threads, Q4_0, 3 steps)
⚡ From 244 seconds to 46 — 5.3×
Run it on defaults and it takes 244 s. Switch to 3 steps and it's 48.6 s. Add VAE tiling and it's 46.4 s.
The biggest culprit was the default. Z-Image Turbo is distilled to paint in few strokes, but the tool's default is 20. We were throwing away 5× for no reason. So were we, at first.
3 is the floor. Put 4 and 3 side by side and you cannot tell them apart. At 2 it collapses — water droplets and wood grain vanish, and the surface turns cloth-like.
🔗 Links
Model
FINAL-Bench/POCKET-Zimage-CPU
Live demo Space (runs on CPU)
FINAL-Bench/POCKET-Zimage-CPU
POCKET collection
FINAL-Bench/pocket-models-6a618ee5d23eafb7e185a5c6
Zero graphics cards. 46 seconds. Photoreal.
That laptop you're reading this on. No graphics card, right? It generates images.
No CUDA install. No Python environment. No driver changes. One binary, three model files. Done.
📊 Measured — GPU count used: zero
512×512 : 46.4 s
Korean prompt : 45.3 s (faster than English)
1024×1024 : 192.7 s
Peak RAM : 6.42 GB
GPUs used : 0
(Intel Xeon Gold 6526Y ×2, 48 threads, Q4_0, 3 steps)
⚡ From 244 seconds to 46 — 5.3×
Run it on defaults and it takes 244 s. Switch to 3 steps and it's 48.6 s. Add VAE tiling and it's 46.4 s.
The biggest culprit was the default. Z-Image Turbo is distilled to paint in few strokes, but the tool's default is 20. We were throwing away 5× for no reason. So were we, at first.
3 is the floor. Put 4 and 3 side by side and you cannot tell them apart. At 2 it collapses — water droplets and wood grain vanish, and the surface turns cloth-like.
🔗 Links
Model
FINAL-Bench/POCKET-Zimage-CPU
Live demo Space (runs on CPU)
FINAL-Bench/POCKET-Zimage-CPU
POCKET collection
FINAL-Bench/pocket-models-6a618ee5d23eafb7e185a5c6
- 2 replies
liked a
model 11 days ago
liked a
Space 11 days ago
reacted to SeaWolf-AI's post with 🔥 13 days ago
Post
3411
The cost of a judging gate is usually quoted as a number. This puts it on a Tetris board.
Three boards get the same piece order, and on every move the same proposal and the same noise — a paired comparison. The gate decides one thing: keep this move, or draw again. Each board gets the same 60 seconds of gate time.
The text-writing gates get through 15–22 moves. The generation-free gate gets through 40–50. The boards that stop simply run out of clock.
It does not win on accuracy: on the same 2,018-question LODO set, JEV scores AUC 0.7350 against ZTC-Judge-27B's 0.7289. The separation is elsewhere. Clock — 2.1 s vs 0.0615 s per call, and on a 200-candidate agent screen one judging call measured 3.206 s generative vs 0.033 s readout, same server. Calibration — a gate is a threshold, and at ECE 0.4985 (vs ZTC 0.0245) a threshold stops carrying information. Mechanism — a text judge can name option 42 when there is no option 42; a scoring readout cannot. Not a lower error rate. No path.
The curve in the ZTC panel is real online fitting, scored prequentially — predict first, learn after — with base weights untouched. Not recursive self-improvement.
Limits, also stated on the page: Laya's AUC and latency are not our measurements and are set equal to JEV's, so calibration is the only measured axis it differs on. The page is a simulation driven by measured constants.
KO / EN / ZH.
FINAL-Bench/Tetris-JEV-LAYA-ZTC
FINAL-Bench/ZTC-Judge-27B
Three boards get the same piece order, and on every move the same proposal and the same noise — a paired comparison. The gate decides one thing: keep this move, or draw again. Each board gets the same 60 seconds of gate time.
The text-writing gates get through 15–22 moves. The generation-free gate gets through 40–50. The boards that stop simply run out of clock.
It does not win on accuracy: on the same 2,018-question LODO set, JEV scores AUC 0.7350 against ZTC-Judge-27B's 0.7289. The separation is elsewhere. Clock — 2.1 s vs 0.0615 s per call, and on a 200-candidate agent screen one judging call measured 3.206 s generative vs 0.033 s readout, same server. Calibration — a gate is a threshold, and at ECE 0.4985 (vs ZTC 0.0245) a threshold stops carrying information. Mechanism — a text judge can name option 42 when there is no option 42; a scoring readout cannot. Not a lower error rate. No path.
The curve in the ZTC panel is real online fitting, scored prequentially — predict first, learn after — with base weights untouched. Not recursive self-improvement.
Limits, also stated on the page: Laya's AUC and latency are not our measurements and are set equal to JEV's, so calibration is the only measured axis it differs on. The page is a simulation driven by measured constants.
KO / EN / ZH.
FINAL-Bench/Tetris-JEV-LAYA-ZTC
FINAL-Bench/ZTC-Judge-27B
- 5 replies
liked a
Space 13 days ago
liked 6
models 15 days ago
FINAL-Bench/Darwin-TTS-1.7B-Cross
Text-to-Speech • 2B • Updated • 121 • 53
FINAL-Bench/Darwin-9B-Opus
Text Generation • 10B • Updated • 98 • 43
FINAL-Bench/Darwin-31B-Opus
Text Generation • 31B • Updated • 96 • • 65
FINAL-Bench/Darwin-35B-A3B-Opus
Image-Text-to-Text • 36B • Updated • 297 • 105
FINAL-Bench/Darwin-27B-Opus
Text Generation • 28B • Updated • 759 • 47
FINAL-Bench/Darwin-4B-David
Text Generation • 8B • Updated • 96 • 61