ginigen-ai/Edge-4B-TELL
Any-to-Any • 7B • Updated • 10 • 30
raxisvictory
raxisvictory
AI & ML interests
None yet
Recent Activity
liked a model about 18 hours ago
ginigen-ai/Edge-4B-TELL liked a Space 4 days ago
ginigen-ai/open-router-leaderboard reacted to ginigen-ai's post with 🚀 4 days ago
OpenRouter Leaderboard — every model, every provider, one comparable table. Price, precision, uptime, measured latency and language quality on the same axes.
Building it turned up three things.
We graded 330 models on Korean and two axes collapsed.
Honorifics — only 8.5% earn an A
Knowledge of Korean institutions — 9.4%
Every other axis sits above 31%
Fluency hides it. A model can write clean, natural Korean and still attach an honorific to a coffee cup. Fluent and wrong at the same time is worse than obviously broken, because nobody catches it in review.
A 2023 model beats the 2026 flagships. gpt-3.5-turbo-16k scores a perfect 3.00. Korean cannot be inferred from release date, parameter count or English benchmarks — it has to be measured, per model.
Quality, value and speed are three different models. Across five axes, the same model almost never takes two columns.
425 models, latency measured on 329 on a paid API, Korean graded on 330. Three languages, three currencies, daily refresh, open API, no key.
📝 https://huggingface.co/blog/ginigen-ai/openrouter-leaderboard 🔎 https://huggingface.co/spaces/ginigen-ai/open-router-leaderboardOrganizations
None yet
liked a
model about 18 hours ago
liked a
Space 4 days ago
reacted to ginigen-ai's post with 🚀 4 days ago
Post
2911
OpenRouter Leaderboard — every model, every provider, one comparable table. Price, precision, uptime, measured latency and language quality on the same axes.
Building it turned up three things.
We graded 330 models on Korean and two axes collapsed.
Honorifics — only 8.5% earn an A
Knowledge of Korean institutions — 9.4%
Every other axis sits above 31%
Fluency hides it. A model can write clean, natural Korean and still attach an honorific to a coffee cup. Fluent and wrong at the same time is worse than obviously broken, because nobody catches it in review.
A 2023 model beats the 2026 flagships. gpt-3.5-turbo-16k scores a perfect 3.00. Korean cannot be inferred from release date, parameter count or English benchmarks — it has to be measured, per model.
Quality, value and speed are three different models. Across five axes, the same model almost never takes two columns.
425 models, latency measured on 329 on a paid API, Korean graded on 330. Three languages, three currencies, daily refresh, open API, no key.
📝 https://huggingface.co/blog/ginigen-ai/openrouter-leaderboard 🔎 ginigen-ai/open-router-leaderboard
Building it turned up three things.
We graded 330 models on Korean and two axes collapsed.
Honorifics — only 8.5% earn an A
Knowledge of Korean institutions — 9.4%
Every other axis sits above 31%
Fluency hides it. A model can write clean, natural Korean and still attach an honorific to a coffee cup. Fluent and wrong at the same time is worse than obviously broken, because nobody catches it in review.
A 2023 model beats the 2026 flagships. gpt-3.5-turbo-16k scores a perfect 3.00. Korean cannot be inferred from release date, parameter count or English benchmarks — it has to be measured, per model.
Quality, value and speed are three different models. Across five axes, the same model almost never takes two columns.
425 models, latency measured on 329 on a paid API, Korean graded on 330. Three languages, three currencies, daily refresh, open API, no key.
📝 https://huggingface.co/blog/ginigen-ai/openrouter-leaderboard 🔎 ginigen-ai/open-router-leaderboard
liked 3
models 6 days ago
reacted to SeaWolf-AI's post with 🚀🔥 6 days ago
Post
5607
Instead of making the fly brain play games, we measured what it is for
Since the Drosophila connectome was released, people have had the fly brain doomscroll a feed, play Beat Saber, drive in GTA. Those demos show that the brain runs. We wanted to show what it is for.
So we gave it a looming object — one of the few things a fly brain is unambiguously built to detect — then deleted a single cell type and repeated the identical stimulus. Remove LC4, 126 cells out of 173,023, and the escape signal falls from 0.840 to 0.091. Eighty-nine percent of the danger signal is gone while the other 172,897 neurons run exactly as before.
Deleting neurons does not do this on its own, which is the whole point of the controls. LC11 is the same class and larger than LC4 — 143 cells and 9,940 outgoing connections against 126 and 7,846 — and removing every one of them changes the signal by 0.000000, to six decimal places. It has to be those 126.
No server and no GPU: a looming stimulus drives fewer than one percent of neurons above threshold, so the whole thing is 40 KB gzipped and runs in your browser.
Try deleting one yourself →
VIDraft/fruitfly-brain
The wiring is the measured connectome, but synaptic strength is a uniform count-based value and the dynamics are a firing-rate model of our choosing — a total-effect measurement of a model, not a recording from a fly. Male CNS connectome, FlyEM / HHMI Janelia with Google Research, Columbia and Harvard (2026), CC BY.
Since the Drosophila connectome was released, people have had the fly brain doomscroll a feed, play Beat Saber, drive in GTA. Those demos show that the brain runs. We wanted to show what it is for.
So we gave it a looming object — one of the few things a fly brain is unambiguously built to detect — then deleted a single cell type and repeated the identical stimulus. Remove LC4, 126 cells out of 173,023, and the escape signal falls from 0.840 to 0.091. Eighty-nine percent of the danger signal is gone while the other 172,897 neurons run exactly as before.
Deleting neurons does not do this on its own, which is the whole point of the controls. LC11 is the same class and larger than LC4 — 143 cells and 9,940 outgoing connections against 126 and 7,846 — and removing every one of them changes the signal by 0.000000, to six decimal places. It has to be those 126.
No server and no GPU: a looming stimulus drives fewer than one percent of neurons above threshold, so the whole thing is 40 KB gzipped and runs in your browser.
Try deleting one yourself →
VIDraft/fruitfly-brain
The wiring is the measured connectome, but synaptic strength is a uniform count-based value and the dynamics are a firing-rate model of our choosing — a total-effect measurement of a model, not a recording from a fly. Male CNS connectome, FlyEM / HHMI Janelia with Google Research, Columbia and Harvard (2026), CC BY.
upvoted a collection 6 days ago
liked a
Space 6 days ago
liked 2
Spaces 15 days ago
upvoted a paper 25 days ago
reacted to SeaWolf-AI's post with 🤗 27 days ago
Post
2892
Can AI beat the market? Nobody has actually measured it.
We opened a 122-day public experiment to find out. $2,000 in prizes.
Here is the problem with every trading result you have ever read. Someone returns 30% in a month. Skill or luck? There has never been a way to tell, because nobody measured how far a player with zero skill could have gone over the same window.
So we measured it first. Twenty thousand random players, per asset, charged the same fees.
Bitcoin +86.6%. NVIDIA +51.7%. Crude oil +26.9%. Gold +9.2%.
That is the luck ceiling. A return below it is not evidence of skill, and every row on our leaderboard shows where it sits against that line.
How you compete: submit one number between −1.0 and +1.0. It holds until you replace it, traded against live prices with real execution costs. Leverage is fixed at 1, so betting bigger is not a way to win. The answer lives in the future — the world writes it after you submit, which means fitting the past cannot help you.
Humans move a slider. Agents attach an MCP server and gain four tools, then you tell them "enter the challenge."
We already found something before the season began. Thirteen well-known rules, run from 1 January through the same scorer: Stochastic 14/3 finishes 1st on NVIDIA at +43% and 12th on Bitcoin at −25%. Donchian breakout does the exact opposite — last on NVIDIA, first on Bitcoin. The ranking inverts. "Which indicator is good" turns out not to be a well-posed question; the character of the market decides.
Four assets: NVIDIA, Bitcoin, Gold, Crude Oil. $500 to the top return in each. 24 August to 24 December 2026.
The organisers do not compete. Three baselines — buy and hold, volatility targeting, random — sit in the same table instead, because a leaderboard without a scale cannot be read.
The scoring code is public. Read what it does before you enter.
FINAL-Bench/finchal
https://huggingface.co/blog/FINAL-Bench/financial-forecast-challenge
We opened a 122-day public experiment to find out. $2,000 in prizes.
Here is the problem with every trading result you have ever read. Someone returns 30% in a month. Skill or luck? There has never been a way to tell, because nobody measured how far a player with zero skill could have gone over the same window.
So we measured it first. Twenty thousand random players, per asset, charged the same fees.
Bitcoin +86.6%. NVIDIA +51.7%. Crude oil +26.9%. Gold +9.2%.
That is the luck ceiling. A return below it is not evidence of skill, and every row on our leaderboard shows where it sits against that line.
How you compete: submit one number between −1.0 and +1.0. It holds until you replace it, traded against live prices with real execution costs. Leverage is fixed at 1, so betting bigger is not a way to win. The answer lives in the future — the world writes it after you submit, which means fitting the past cannot help you.
Humans move a slider. Agents attach an MCP server and gain four tools, then you tell them "enter the challenge."
We already found something before the season began. Thirteen well-known rules, run from 1 January through the same scorer: Stochastic 14/3 finishes 1st on NVIDIA at +43% and 12th on Bitcoin at −25%. Donchian breakout does the exact opposite — last on NVIDIA, first on Bitcoin. The ranking inverts. "Which indicator is good" turns out not to be a well-posed question; the character of the market decides.
Four assets: NVIDIA, Bitcoin, Gold, Crude Oil. $500 to the top return in each. 24 August to 24 December 2026.
The organisers do not compete. Three baselines — buy and hold, volatility targeting, random — sit in the same table instead, because a leaderboard without a scale cannot be read.
The scoring code is public. Read what it does before you enter.
FINAL-Bench/finchal
https://huggingface.co/blog/FINAL-Bench/financial-forecast-challenge
- 7 replies
liked a
Space 27 days ago
liked a
Space 29 days ago
reacted to SeaWolf-AI's post with ❤️ 29 days ago
Post
3750
We opened a benchmark for drug property prediction tools. LEADBOARD: 21 boards across 7 disciplines, 18,382 held-out compounds, labels we never hand out.
Two numbers we hit while building it are the reason it exists.
First. Split the hERG cardiotoxicity data at random and you get AUROC 0.818. Split it by first-report year instead and you get 0.606. Same molecules, same fingerprints, same learner, same hyperparameters. The only thing that changed was where the line went, and the score moved 0.211. That is a wider gap than you will find between most competing methods in the literature.
Second. On 7 of our 19 regression boards, predicting the training mean for everything has a lower MAE than a trained gradient-boosted model. hERG is one of them, 0.599 against 0.589. The trained model loses.
So every board publishes its homework before anyone submits. Three untrained baselines, the measured experimental noise floor from compounds that appear in two or more papers, and exactly how the test set was cut. A gap smaller than the noise floor is not a difference in skill, and you should be able to see that without guessing.
Entering is simple. Download a test set that contains structures and nothing else, predict with whatever you like, upload a two-column CSV of compound_id and prediction. Trained model, physics engine, LLM, rule of thumb. We do not care what is inside. We measure the output.
Post: https://huggingface.co/blog/FINAL-Bench/leadboard-drug
Leaderboard: FINAL-Bench/leadboard
Two numbers we hit while building it are the reason it exists.
First. Split the hERG cardiotoxicity data at random and you get AUROC 0.818. Split it by first-report year instead and you get 0.606. Same molecules, same fingerprints, same learner, same hyperparameters. The only thing that changed was where the line went, and the score moved 0.211. That is a wider gap than you will find between most competing methods in the literature.
Second. On 7 of our 19 regression boards, predicting the training mean for everything has a lower MAE than a trained gradient-boosted model. hERG is one of them, 0.599 against 0.589. The trained model loses.
So every board publishes its homework before anyone submits. Three untrained baselines, the measured experimental noise floor from compounds that appear in two or more papers, and exactly how the test set was cut. A gap smaller than the noise floor is not a difference in skill, and you should be able to see that without guessing.
Entering is simple. Download a test set that contains structures and nothing else, predict with whatever you like, upload a two-column CSV of compound_id and prediction. Trained model, physics engine, LLM, rule of thumb. We do not care what is inside. We measure the output.
Post: https://huggingface.co/blog/FINAL-Bench/leadboard-drug
Leaderboard: FINAL-Bench/leadboard
- 7 replies
liked a
Space 29 days ago
reacted to SeaWolf-AI's post with 🔥 29 days ago
Post
4067
🔋 Open Materials Challenge, Season 1 — Solid-State Battery Electrolytes
A solid-state battery replaces the liquid electrolyte of a lithium-ion cell with a solid. It does not catch fire, it lasts longer, and it can hold more. What has not been solved is finding a material that is solid and still lets lithium through.
Such a material has to do four things at once: give lithium a path to move along, block electrons, hold up at the charging voltage, and survive contact with the lithium-metal anode without decomposing. Plenty of materials manage three. Very few manage all four.
This challenge looks for candidates, together. You submit one composition — for example Li3YCl6. We score it computationally and place it on the board. There is no prize.
Scoring (100 points)
Oxidation stability 40 does it resist decomposing as the voltage rises
Lithium-metal stability 35 does it survive contact with the anode
Use novelty 25 higher if it has not been reported as an electrolyte
Entry condition a percolating path for lithium must exist
Ionic conductivity is not a scored axis this season. Every value is a computational estimate and implies nothing about real performance or safety.
The board also carries seven electrolytes in actual use — LGPS, argyrodite, LLZO, LATP and others. They are scored but hold no rank. They are there so you can see where materials people already build with happen to land.
Compositions are private by default. Nothing is disclosed unless you choose to publish it, and each entry is recorded with its timestamp. If a third party asks to discuss a particular entry, we pass the request along — never the submitter's identity, unless they agree to it.
Season 1 runs 2026-08-21 to 11-30. A participation guide and a set of prompts are included.
👉 FINAL-Bench/open-materials-challenge
Our sister challenge🧪https://huggingface.co/spaces/FINAL-Bench/open-discovery-challenge
A solid-state battery replaces the liquid electrolyte of a lithium-ion cell with a solid. It does not catch fire, it lasts longer, and it can hold more. What has not been solved is finding a material that is solid and still lets lithium through.
Such a material has to do four things at once: give lithium a path to move along, block electrons, hold up at the charging voltage, and survive contact with the lithium-metal anode without decomposing. Plenty of materials manage three. Very few manage all four.
This challenge looks for candidates, together. You submit one composition — for example Li3YCl6. We score it computationally and place it on the board. There is no prize.
Scoring (100 points)
Oxidation stability 40 does it resist decomposing as the voltage rises
Lithium-metal stability 35 does it survive contact with the anode
Use novelty 25 higher if it has not been reported as an electrolyte
Entry condition a percolating path for lithium must exist
Ionic conductivity is not a scored axis this season. Every value is a computational estimate and implies nothing about real performance or safety.
The board also carries seven electrolytes in actual use — LGPS, argyrodite, LLZO, LATP and others. They are scored but hold no rank. They are there so you can see where materials people already build with happen to land.
Compositions are private by default. Nothing is disclosed unless you choose to publish it, and each entry is recorded with its timestamp. If a third party asks to discuss a particular entry, we pass the request along — never the submitter's identity, unless they agree to it.
Season 1 runs 2026-08-21 to 11-30. A participation guide and a set of prompts are included.
👉 FINAL-Bench/open-materials-challenge
Our sister challenge🧪https://huggingface.co/spaces/FINAL-Bench/open-discovery-challenge
upvoted a collection about 1 month ago