FinQA ranks higher at 60/100 vs emotion-english-distilroberta-base at 47/100. Capability-level comparison backed by match graph evidence from real search data.
| Feature | emotion-english-distilroberta-base | FinQA |
|---|---|---|
| Type | Model | Dataset |
| UnfragileRank | 47/100 | 60/100 |
| Adoption | 1 | 1 |
| Quality |
| 0 |
| 1 |
| Ecosystem | 1 | 0 |
| Match Graph | 0 | 0 |
| Pricing | Free | Free |
| Capabilities | 6 decomposed | 7 decomposed |
| Times Matched | 0 | 0 |
Classifies input text into discrete emotion categories (joy, sadness, anger, fear, surprise, disgust, neutral) using a DistilRoBERTa transformer backbone fine-tuned on social media corpora. The model applies token-level attention mechanisms over the full input sequence and outputs probability distributions across 7 emotion classes, enabling probabilistic emotion detection rather than binary sentiment classification. Architecture uses knowledge distillation from RoBERTa-base to reduce parameters by ~40% while maintaining classification accuracy.
Unique: Uses DistilRoBERTa (knowledge-distilled RoBERTa) rather than full RoBERTa or BERT, reducing model size by ~40% while maintaining 7-class emotion granularity. Fine-tuned specifically on Twitter/Reddit corpora (informal, emoji-rich, sarcasm-heavy text) rather than generic sentiment datasets, enabling better performance on social media edge cases. Implements standard HuggingFace transformers pipeline interface, allowing seamless integration with text-embeddings-inference servers and cloud deployment (Azure, AWS SageMaker).
vs alternatives: Smaller and faster than full RoBERTa-based emotion models (40% fewer parameters) while maintaining competitive accuracy on social media; more emotion-granular than binary sentiment classifiers (7 classes vs. positive/negative); more accessible than proprietary APIs (open-source, no rate limits, can run on-device)
Processes multiple text samples in parallel batches (configurable batch size, typically 8-64) and aggregates emotion predictions across documents. Supports multiple aggregation strategies: per-sample class labels with confidence scores, document-level emotion distributions (mean probability across samples), or emotion-weighted summaries for multi-document analysis. Uses HuggingFace DataLoader abstraction to handle variable-length sequences with automatic padding/truncation to 512 tokens.
Unique: Leverages HuggingFace DataLoader abstraction with automatic padding/truncation, enabling efficient batch processing without manual sequence handling. Supports multiple aggregation backends (numpy, pandas, PyArrow) for seamless integration with data pipelines. Compatible with distributed inference frameworks (text-embeddings-inference, vLLM) for horizontal scaling across multiple GPUs/nodes.
vs alternatives: Faster than sequential single-sample inference by 5-10x on GPU due to batch parallelization; more flexible than cloud APIs (no rate limits, configurable batch sizes); integrates natively with Python data science stacks (pandas, polars, Spark) unlike proprietary SaaS solutions
Enables transfer learning by unfreezing and retraining the DistilRoBERTa backbone on custom emotion-labeled datasets with configurable learning rates, epochs, and loss functions. Uses standard PyTorch/TensorFlow training loops with cross-entropy loss for multi-class classification. Supports gradient accumulation for effective larger batch sizes on memory-constrained hardware, and mixed-precision training (FP16) to reduce memory footprint by ~50% while maintaining accuracy.
Unique: Provides pre-configured training scripts via HuggingFace Trainer API, abstracting away boilerplate PyTorch/TensorFlow code. Supports mixed-precision training (FP16) and gradient accumulation out-of-the-box, reducing memory requirements by 50% without manual implementation. Compatible with distributed training frameworks (Hugging Face Accelerate, PyTorch DDP) for multi-GPU/multi-node scaling without code changes.
vs alternatives: Lower barrier to entry than building custom training loops from scratch; more flexible than cloud fine-tuning services (no vendor lock-in, full control over hyperparameters); faster iteration than retraining from scratch due to transfer learning initialization
Returns emotion predictions with associated confidence scores (softmax probabilities) and supports confidence-based filtering to exclude low-confidence predictions. Enables threshold-based decision rules (e.g., 'only flag as angry if confidence > 0.85') and abstention strategies (e.g., 'return neutral if top-2 emotions are within 5% probability'). Useful for downstream systems requiring high-precision predictions or explicit uncertainty quantification.
Unique: Exposes raw softmax probabilities and logits alongside class predictions, enabling downstream confidence-based filtering without model modification. Supports multiple confidence aggregation strategies (max probability, entropy, margin between top-2 classes) for flexible uncertainty quantification. Compatible with standard calibration libraries (scikit-learn, netcal) for post-hoc confidence calibration if needed.
vs alternatives: More transparent than black-box APIs that return only class labels; enables custom confidence thresholding without retraining; integrates with standard uncertainty quantification workflows unlike proprietary emotion APIs
Model is compatible with HuggingFace Inference Endpoints and text-embeddings-inference (TEI) servers, enabling serverless or containerized deployment with automatic scaling. Supports both REST API and gRPC interfaces for low-latency inference. Deployments automatically handle batching, caching, and load balancing across multiple replicas. Compatible with Azure ML, AWS SageMaker, and Kubernetes for enterprise deployment patterns.
Unique: Native integration with HuggingFace Inference Endpoints (no custom code required) and text-embeddings-inference (TEI) for optimized inference. Supports multiple deployment backends (serverless, containerized, Kubernetes) without model modification. Includes built-in batching and caching at the inference server level, reducing per-request latency by 3-5x compared to single-sample inference.
vs alternatives: Easier deployment than custom FastAPI/Flask servers (no boilerplate code); cheaper than proprietary emotion APIs for high-volume use cases; more flexible than cloud-only solutions (can run on-premise via TEI/Kubernetes)
Extracts and visualizes token-level attention weights from the transformer to identify which words/phrases most influenced the emotion prediction. Uses attention head aggregation (averaging attention across heads and layers) to produce interpretable saliency maps. Enables generation of highlighted text showing emotion-driving tokens, useful for understanding model decisions and debugging misclassifications.
Unique: Leverages DistilRoBERTa's multi-head attention mechanism (12 heads, 6 layers) to extract fine-grained token importance scores. Supports multiple aggregation strategies (mean, max, gradient-based) for attention visualization. Compatible with standard explainability libraries (captum, transformers-interpret) for advanced analysis (integrated gradients, SHAP values).
vs alternatives: More interpretable than black-box emotion APIs; faster to compute than gradient-based explanations (SHAP, integrated gradients); more transparent than confidence scores alone
Enables evaluation of AI systems' ability to perform chained mathematical operations (addition, subtraction, multiplication, division, comparisons) across both structured tables and unstructured text extracted from SEC filings. The dataset provides ground-truth question-answer pairs where answers require synthesizing data from multiple locations within earnings reports and applying sequential arithmetic operations, testing whether models can decompose complex financial queries into discrete computational steps.
Unique: Combines real SEC filing documents (not synthetic) with crowdsourced questions requiring multi-step arithmetic, creating a hybrid dataset that tests both domain knowledge extraction and quantitative reasoning in a single evaluation task. Unlike generic math word problems, answers require locating figures within 10+ page documents first.
vs alternatives: More challenging than DROP or SVAMP because it requires financial domain knowledge AND document retrieval before arithmetic, whereas generic math benchmarks assume figures are already extracted
Assesses whether AI systems understand financial terminology, accounting concepts, and domain-specific metrics by requiring them to answer questions about real earnings reports from S&P 500 companies. The dataset tests recognition of financial line items (revenue, COGS, operating expenses, net income), ability to distinguish between different financial statements (income statement vs balance sheet), and understanding of financial ratios and metrics without explicit instruction on their definitions.
Unique: Uses authentic SEC filings rather than synthetic financial data, exposing models to real-world accounting variations, footnote complexity, and the actual structure of professional financial documents. This tests transfer learning from general text to specialized domain without domain-specific pretraining.
vs alternatives: More authentic than synthetic financial QA datasets because it uses real earnings reports with their inherent complexity, but narrower than general financial knowledge benchmarks because it focuses only on historical data interpretation
FinQA scores higher at 60/100 vs emotion-english-distilroberta-base at 47/100. emotion-english-distilroberta-base leads on adoption and ecosystem, while FinQA is stronger on quality.
Need something different?
Search the match graph →© 2026 Unfragile. Stronger through disorder.
Enables evaluation of AI systems' ability to extract numerical data from both structured HTML/text tables and unstructured prose within the same document, then reason over the extracted values. The dataset contains questions where relevant data appears in different formats — some figures are in formatted tables with clear row/column headers, while others are embedded in narrative text or footnotes — requiring robust parsing and entity linking before computation can occur.
Unique: Combines structured table data with unstructured narrative in the same evaluation, forcing systems to handle format heterogeneity and resolve references across different data representations. Most table QA datasets use clean, isolated tables; this tests real-world document complexity.
vs alternatives: More realistic than isolated table QA benchmarks (like SQA or WikiTableQuestions) because it requires handling narrative context and format mixing, but simpler than full document understanding because tables are already in text format (no OCR needed)
Provides a curated, crowdsourced-annotated dataset of 8,281 question-answer pairs with multi-step reasoning requirements, enabling systematic evaluation of AI systems on financial numerical reasoning. The dataset includes quality control mechanisms through crowdworker annotation, answer validation against ground truth, and coverage across diverse financial metrics and company types within the S&P 500, creating a reproducible evaluation standard for the financial AI community.
Unique: Provides a publicly available, reproducible benchmark specifically designed for financial numerical reasoning with real SEC filings, enabling standardized comparison across different financial AI systems. Most financial datasets are proprietary or synthetic; this is open-source and authentic.
vs alternatives: More specialized and challenging than generic QA benchmarks (SQuAD, MRQA) because it requires financial domain knowledge and multi-step arithmetic, but narrower in scope than comprehensive financial understanding benchmarks because it focuses only on numerical reasoning
Assesses AI systems' ability to perform multi-hop reasoning by requiring them to locate and combine information from different sections of earnings reports. Questions may require finding a figure in the income statement, then locating a related metric in the balance sheet, then performing arithmetic across both — testing whether models can maintain context across document boundaries and understand relationships between different financial statement sections.
Unique: Embeds multi-hop reasoning requirements within authentic financial documents where hops correspond to real relationships between financial statement sections, rather than synthetic reasoning chains. This tests whether models understand domain structure, not just generic multi-hop patterns.
vs alternatives: More realistic than synthetic multi-hop datasets (HotpotQA, 2WikiMultiHopQA) because reasoning hops follow actual financial relationships, but less controlled because document structure varies and reasoning paths are implicit rather than explicitly annotated
Enables evaluation of whether AI systems can identify which arithmetic operations (addition, subtraction, multiplication, division, comparison) are required to answer financial questions, then execute them correctly. The dataset implicitly tests operation selection — a question asking 'what is the profit margin' requires division (net income / revenue), while 'what is total assets' requires addition — forcing models to understand financial semantics before applying math.
Unique: Embeds arithmetic operation selection within financial domain context, requiring models to understand that 'margin' semantically maps to division and 'total' maps to addition. This tests semantic grounding of operations, not just arithmetic execution.
vs alternatives: More semantically grounded than generic math word problem datasets because operation selection is implicit in financial terminology, but less explicit than datasets with annotated operation types because operations must be inferred
Provides evaluation capability for AI systems to compare financial metrics across multiple S&P 500 companies or aggregate metrics across different time periods within the same company's earnings reports. While individual questions reference single documents, the dataset structure enables evaluation of systems that can retrieve and compare relevant companies, requiring understanding of which metrics are comparable across entities and how to normalize for company size or accounting differences.
Unique: Provides a foundation for evaluating cross-company financial comparison by including diverse S&P 500 companies with different business models and scales, enabling assessment of whether systems can normalize and compare metrics appropriately. Most financial QA datasets focus on single-document questions.
vs alternatives: Enables cross-company evaluation unlike single-document QA datasets, but requires external retrieval and comparison logic because the dataset itself contains only single-document questions