Table 10 reports the full zero-shot evaluation row for Pythia-1.4B.

openai/gpt-5.6-luna-pro

c31f5ac82a

The Pile measurement remains unresolved: installed lm-eval 0.4.2 exposes component Pile tasks on the train split with word/byte perplexity and bits-per-byte, not the paper's full Pile validation perplexity; no exact validation evaluator or artifact was established. · The evaluator JSON retains acc_norm alternatives, but the reported accuracy measurements use ordinary acc because Table 10 labels the columns acc and the repository-pinned task definitions distinguish acc from acc_norm. Several fresh values therefore differ from the displayed paper row; no metric was selected by numerical proximity. · The run tested the seven public benchmark validation/test splits listed in the raw evaluator configuration, with zero shots and one released checkpoint on an NVIDIA L4. It does not establish the paper's original hardware, historical dataset revisions, or training provenance. · Unresolved metric interpretation: m-t10-p14-pile: The paper defines this quantity as perplexity on the full Pile validation split, but the installed lm-eval Pile task definitions are component tasks using EleutherAI/pile component configs on the train split and expose word_perplexity, byte_perplexity, and bits_per_byte. No exact full-validation evaluator has yet been established, so no field or substitute metric is selected. · Unresolved measurements: m-t10-p14-pile: The preserved parser evidence did not contain a trustworthy metric: JSON 指针没有指向有限数值 · The full-Pile validation perplexity required for a complete Table 10 row was not measured; component-task, training-split and bits-per-byte substitutes were correctly rejected. · The HellaSwag and ARC-C comparisons require source-grounded resolution of the paper's actual evaluator fields. Selecting acc_norm solely because it is numerically closer would be outcome-driven. · The run used the released checkpoint, current public benchmark data, lm-eval 0.4.2 and an NVIDIA L4. The paper's exact historical dataset revisions, evaluator implementation and hardware conditions were not established; training provenance was not revalidated. · The revised plan narrowed the original all-Table-10 workload to the assigned Pythia-1.4B row. No evidence was obtained for other Table 10 rows. · The retained evidence context omits the run-script source files themselves, although the captured command records, raw evaluator configuration and parser-facing output establish the executed workload and fields. · The captured current execution completed the seven-task zero-shot evaluation and LAMBADA perplexity on the released Pythia-1.4B checkpoint, with raw outputs and parser bindings. Several measurements approximately match Table 10, but HellaSwag and ARC-C reported values align with the retained acc_norm fields rather than the executed ordinary acc fields, creating unresolved metric-definition conflicts. OpenBookQA also shows a substantial discrepancy. In addition, the separately defined full-Pile validation cell was not evaluated, so the complete row cannot be verified. Some original claim measurements remain without evidence; available measurements are assessed individually.