| 1 |
| Ecosystem | 1 | 0 |
| Match Graph | 0 | 0 |
| Pricing | Free | Free |
| Capabilities | 5 decomposed | 7 decomposed |
| Times Matched | 0 | 0 |
Classifies input text as either human-written or AI-generated (specifically OpenAI model outputs) using a fine-tuned RoBERTa-base transformer backbone. The model was trained on a dataset of human text from BookCorpus and Wikipedia paired with text generated by GPT-2, enabling it to detect statistical and linguistic patterns characteristic of neural language model outputs. It outputs logits for both classes, allowing threshold-based confidence tuning for different detection sensitivity requirements.
Unique: Fine-tuned specifically on GPT-2 generated text paired with BookCorpus/Wikipedia human text, making it one of the earliest publicly available detectors trained on a controlled synthetic dataset rather than heuristic rules or proprietary data. Uses RoBERTa's masked language modeling pretraining as a foundation, which captures deeper syntactic and semantic patterns than bag-of-words or n-gram baselines.
vs alternatives: More accurate than rule-based detectors (perplexity thresholds, entropy analysis) on GPT-2 outputs, but significantly less effective than newer detectors trained on GPT-3.5/4 outputs; trades generalization for interpretability since it's a standard transformer classifier rather than a black-box ensemble.
Supports inference across PyTorch, TensorFlow, and JAX backends through the HuggingFace transformers library's unified interface, with automatic model weight conversion via safetensors format. The model weights are stored in safetensors (a safer, faster serialization format than pickle) and automatically loaded into the target framework's runtime, eliminating manual format conversion. This enables deployment flexibility across different infrastructure stacks without retraining or maintaining separate model checkpoints.
Unique: Distributed as safetensors format rather than PyTorch .bin files, enabling zero-copy memory mapping and automatic framework detection/conversion through transformers' AutoModel API. This design choice prioritizes security (no arbitrary code execution via pickle) and performance (faster loading via mmap) over backward compatibility with older pickle-based checkpoints.
vs alternatives: Safer and faster than models distributed as .bin (pickle) files, but requires transformers library as a dependency; more flexible than framework-locked models but slower than native framework-optimized inference (e.g., TensorFlow SavedModel format for TF-only deployments).
Model is compatible with HuggingFace Inference Endpoints, enabling serverless deployment without managing containers or infrastructure. The model metadata and task definition (text-classification) are registered in HuggingFace's model hub, allowing one-click deployment to managed endpoints with automatic scaling, batching, and monitoring. Requests are routed through HuggingFace's inference API, which handles tokenization, model loading, and response formatting transparently.
Unique: Pre-registered on HuggingFace's Inference Endpoints platform with task-specific metadata, enabling zero-configuration deployment. The model card includes task definition (text-classification) and example payloads, allowing the platform to automatically generate API documentation and handle request/response serialization without custom code.
vs alternatives: Faster to deploy than self-hosted solutions (minutes vs hours), but slower and more expensive than local inference; better for prototyping and low-volume use cases, worse for latency-sensitive or high-throughput production systems.
Model is deployable to Azure cloud infrastructure with region-specific endpoint configuration, enabling compliance with data residency and latency requirements. Azure integration is handled through HuggingFace's model hub metadata (region:us tag) and Azure's native model registry, allowing deployment to Azure ML endpoints with automatic scaling and monitoring. This enables organizations to keep inference workloads within specific geographic regions for regulatory compliance (GDPR, HIPAA, etc.).
Unique: Model metadata includes explicit Azure region tagging (region:us) and deploy:azure flag, enabling HuggingFace's integration layer to automatically configure Azure ML endpoint deployment without manual model conversion. This is distinct from generic cloud deployment because it leverages Azure-specific optimizations and compliance features.
vs alternatives: Better for Azure-native organizations and regulatory compliance scenarios, but adds operational overhead vs HuggingFace Endpoints; less flexible than self-hosted inference but more compliant than multi-region public APIs.
Model is compatible with HuggingFace's Text Embeddings Inference (TEI) server, a high-performance inference engine optimized for transformer-based text classification and embedding models. TEI provides SIMD vectorization, dynamic batching, and memory-efficient inference through Rust-based implementation, reducing latency by 3-5x compared to standard PyTorch inference. The model can be deployed as a TEI container, automatically benefiting from these optimizations without code changes.
Unique: Explicitly marked as text-embeddings-inference compatible in model metadata, enabling automatic deployment to TEI servers which apply Rust-based SIMD optimizations and dynamic batching. This is distinct from generic transformer inference because TEI's architecture is specifically tuned for transformer encoder models (like RoBERTa) used in classification tasks.
vs alternatives: 3-5x faster inference than standard PyTorch servers with similar accuracy, but requires container infrastructure and adds deployment complexity; better for production high-throughput systems, worse for simple prototyping or single-request scenarios.
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 roberta-base-openai-detector at 45/100. roberta-base-openai-detector 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