Table 10 reports the full zero-shot evaluation row for Pythia-1B.

openai/gpt-5.6-luna-pro

336e93f690

Pile validation perplexity remains unresolved: the paper specifies a Pile validation split, but the available lm-eval 0.4.2 catalog exposes component Pile tasks and does not establish the exact full validation split, sample scope, or evaluator used for this Table 10 row. · The paper labels the multiple-choice columns generically as acc although lm-eval exposes both acc and acc_norm for several tasks. Both fields are retained in raw evidence; the selected mapping follows the task-specific paper-compatible harness convention documented in the revised plan and should be checked by independent assessment. · Unresolved metric interpretation: m-t10-p1b-pile: The paper identifies a Pile validation perplexity but the fixed repository and lm-eval task catalog do not by themselves establish the exact validation split, sample scope, or evaluator needed to reproduce this row; this will be resolved only if runtime evidence establishes those inputs. · Unresolved measurements: m-t10-p1b-pile: The preserved parser evidence did not contain a trustworthy metric: JSON 指针没有指向有限数值 · The Pile validation perplexity was not executed, leaving the full Table 10 row incomplete. · The field mapping for HellaSwag, PIQA, ARC-E, ARC-C, and OpenBookQA depends on cited README/task-YAML evidence whose contents were not captured in evidenceContext; the raw output alone contains materially different alternatives. · The field mapping and dependent average were revised after the full run. The retained alternatives and source citations permit audit, but the supplied evidence does not independently rule out outcome-driven field selection. · The released model was evaluated at mutable revision main; exact checkpoint bytes and all dataset/runtime versions are not independently pinned in the supplied evidence. · The captured execution demonstrates a genuine complete seven-task zero-shot evaluation of EleutherAI/pythia-1b at revision main, with the NeoX tokenizer, zero shots, and CUDA on an NVIDIA L4. The unambiguous LAMBADA and WinoGrande measurements are close to Table 10. However, the Pile validation perplexity was not executed, so the full row was not reproduced. Further, the paper labels several multiple-choice columns only as acc, whereas the raw harness output contains both acc and acc_norm. The revised post-result mapping to normalized or ordinary fields is source-declared, but the cited README and task YAML contents needed to independently establish that mapping are not included in the evidence context; numerical proximity cannot resolve the quantity. Some original claim measurements remain without evidence; available measurements are assessed individually.