FinQA ranks higher at 60/100 vs mDeBERTa-v3-base-xnli-multilingual-nli-2mil7 at 45/100. Capability-level comparison backed by match graph evidence from real search data.
| Feature | mDeBERTa-v3-base-xnli-multilingual-nli-2mil7 | FinQA |
|---|---|---|
| Type | Model | Dataset |
| UnfragileRank | 45/100 | 60/100 |
| Adoption | 1 | 1 |
| Quality | 0 | 1 |
| Ecosystem | 1 | 0 |
| Match Graph | 0 | 0 |
| Pricing | Free | Free |
| Capabilities | 7 decomposed | 7 decomposed |
| Times Matched | 0 | 0 |
Performs zero-shot classification on text in 11+ languages (English, Chinese, Japanese, Arabic, Korean, German, French, Spanish, Portuguese, Hindi, Indonesian, Italian) using DeBERTa-v3 architecture fine-tuned on XNLI (cross-lingual natural language inference) dataset with 2.7M examples. The model encodes input text and candidate labels as premise-hypothesis pairs through the NLI framework, computing entailment scores to determine label relevance without requiring task-specific training data. Uses transformer-based attention mechanisms with disentangled attention and enhanced mask tokens for improved multilingual representation.
Unique: Combines DeBERTa-v3's disentangled attention mechanism (which separates content and position representations) with XNLI's 2.7M cross-lingual NLI examples, enabling zero-shot classification across 11+ languages without language-specific fine-tuning. Unlike monolingual models or simpler multilingual baselines, this architecture preserves semantic relationships across typologically diverse languages through shared NLI reasoning patterns.
vs alternatives: Outperforms mBERT and XLM-RoBERTa on zero-shot XNLI benchmarks (85%+ vs 75-80% accuracy) while supporting the same 11+ languages, and requires no task-specific labeled data unlike supervised classifiers, making it faster to deploy than fine-tuned alternatives for new domains.
Performs NLI (natural language inference) tasks by encoding premise-hypothesis pairs through DeBERTa-v3's transformer layers and outputting entailment/neutral/contradiction classifications. The model was trained on XNLI's 2.7M multilingual examples covering 15 languages, learning to recognize logical relationships between text pairs regardless of language. Internally uses masked language modeling and next sentence prediction objectives adapted for cross-lingual transfer, with disentangled attention allowing the model to reason about semantic entailment patterns that generalize across language families.
Unique: Trained on XNLI's 2.7M examples across 15 languages with DeBERTa-v3's disentangled attention, which explicitly separates content and position information in attention heads. This architectural choice allows the model to learn language-agnostic entailment patterns that transfer across typologically distant languages (e.g., English to Japanese) better than standard BERT-style models.
vs alternatives: Achieves 85%+ accuracy on XNLI benchmark vs 75-80% for XLM-RoBERTa, and unlike task-specific models (e.g., RoBERTa-large-mnli), maintains strong cross-lingual transfer without requiring language-specific fine-tuning.
Computes fine-grained entailment scores between text pairs by passing them through DeBERTa-v3's 12 transformer layers and extracting logits from the classification head, producing three scores (entailment, neutral, contradiction) that reflect the model's confidence in each relationship type. The scoring is language-agnostic due to XNLI's multilingual training, allowing direct comparison of entailment strength across premise-hypothesis pairs in different languages. Scores can be converted to probabilities via softmax or used as raw logits for threshold-based decision making.
Unique: Produces language-agnostic entailment scores by leveraging DeBERTa-v3's disentangled attention and XNLI's 2.7M multilingual training examples, enabling direct score comparison across language pairs without language-specific calibration. Unlike lexical similarity metrics (cosine, Jaccard), these scores capture logical relationships and semantic entailment, not just surface-level overlap.
vs alternatives: Provides semantic ranking superior to BM25 or TF-IDF for relevance tasks, and unlike embedding-based similarity (e.g., sentence-transformers), explicitly models entailment relationships rather than general semantic closeness, making scores more interpretable for fact-checking and reasoning tasks.
Processes multiple text samples and label sets in a single forward pass using PyTorch's batching mechanisms, encoding all premise-hypothesis pairs together and returning classification results for each sample. The model leverages transformer attention's quadratic complexity to efficiently compute entailment scores across batches, with batch size limited by GPU/CPU memory (typically 8-64 samples per batch). Supports both homogeneous batches (same labels for all samples) and heterogeneous batches (different labels per sample) through dynamic padding and attention masking.
Unique: Implements efficient batch processing through PyTorch's native batching and attention masking, allowing heterogeneous label sets per sample without recomputation. Unlike simple loop-based inference, batching leverages GPU parallelism to achieve 10-50x throughput improvements on large datasets while maintaining per-sample accuracy.
vs alternatives: Outperforms sequential inference by 10-50x on GPU by amortizing model loading and attention computation across samples, and unlike distributed inference frameworks (Ray, Kubernetes), requires no infrastructure setup for single-machine batch processing.
Encodes candidate labels in any of 11+ supported languages through the same transformer tokenizer and embedding space, enabling zero-shot classification without language-specific label preprocessing. The model treats labels as hypotheses in the NLI framework, tokenizing them with the same vocabulary and encoding them through the same transformer layers as premise text. This shared embedding space, learned during XNLI training, allows labels in different languages to be compared directly against premises in any language, supporting cross-lingual classification (e.g., English text with Spanish labels).
Unique: Leverages XNLI's shared multilingual embedding space to encode labels and premises in different languages without translation, relying on DeBERTa-v3's cross-lingual transfer capabilities. Unlike monolingual models or simple translation pipelines, this approach preserves semantic nuance and avoids translation errors by operating directly in the shared embedding space.
vs alternatives: Eliminates translation latency and errors compared to translate-then-classify pipelines, and unlike language-specific label sets, supports arbitrary label languages without retraining or per-language model variants.
Exports the DeBERTa-v3-base model to ONNX (Open Neural Network Exchange) format for hardware-agnostic inference, enabling deployment on CPUs, edge devices, and non-PyTorch runtimes without model recompilation. The ONNX export preserves the full transformer architecture including attention masking and token type embeddings, allowing inference through ONNX Runtime with minimal accuracy loss (<0.5% in most cases). Supports both static and dynamic input shapes, enabling flexible batch sizes and sequence lengths without reexporting.
Unique: Enables ONNX export of the DeBERTa-v3-base architecture with full transformer semantics preserved, supporting dynamic batch sizes and sequence lengths without reexport. Unlike simple PyTorch-to-ONNX conversion, this approach maintains cross-lingual capabilities and NLI reasoning patterns across different runtime environments.
vs alternatives: Provides hardware-agnostic inference without PyTorch dependency, enabling 2-5x faster startup and lower memory overhead than PyTorch on CPU, and supports quantization for 4x model size reduction with minimal accuracy loss vs full-precision models.
Loads model weights from safetensors format, a secure serialization format that prevents arbitrary code execution during model loading (unlike pickle-based PyTorch checkpoints). The model is distributed in safetensors format on HuggingFace Hub, allowing users to load weights directly without security risks. Loading is ~2-3x faster than PyTorch's pickle format due to memory-mapped file access and zero-copy tensor operations, reducing model initialization latency from ~2-3 seconds to ~0.5-1 second.
Unique: Distributes model weights in safetensors format, enabling secure, fast loading without pickle deserialization risks. This architectural choice prevents arbitrary code execution during model loading while providing 2-3x faster initialization than pickle-based checkpoints through memory-mapped file access.
vs alternatives: Provides security guarantees against code execution attacks that pickle-based models lack, while achieving 2-3x faster loading than PyTorch's native format, making it ideal for untrusted model sources and latency-sensitive deployments.
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 mDeBERTa-v3-base-xnli-multilingual-nli-2mil7 at 45/100. mDeBERTa-v3-base-xnli-multilingual-nli-2mil7 leads on ecosystem, while FinQA is stronger on adoption and 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