| Ecosystem | 1 | 0 |
| Match Graph | 0 | 0 |
| Pricing | Free | Free |
| Capabilities | 5 decomposed | 7 decomposed |
| Times Matched | 0 | 0 |
Classifies input text into arbitrary user-defined categories without fine-tuning by reformulating classification as an entailment task. Uses BART's sequence-to-sequence architecture trained on MNLI (Multi-Genre Natural Language Inference) to compute entailment scores between the input text and candidate label hypotheses, enabling dynamic category assignment at inference time without retraining or labeled examples.
Unique: Reformulates classification as entailment scoring using MNLI-trained BART, enabling arbitrary category definition at inference time without retraining. Distillation reduces the 12-layer BART model to 3 layers, cutting inference latency by ~60% while maintaining entailment reasoning capability through knowledge distillation from the full model.
vs alternatives: Faster and more flexible than fine-tuning-based classifiers (no labeled data required) and more accurate than simple semantic similarity approaches because it explicitly models logical entailment relationships learned from 433K MNLI examples rather than generic embeddings.
Extends zero-shot capability to multi-label scenarios by independently scoring each candidate label as a separate entailment hypothesis, then aggregating scores across labels to identify multiple applicable categories. Enables documents to be assigned multiple non-mutually-exclusive labels by computing entailment probability for each label independently rather than forcing a single-label softmax decision.
Unique: Leverages MNLI entailment training to score each label independently as a separate hypothesis, avoiding the mutual-exclusivity constraint of softmax-based single-label classifiers. Allows flexible threshold-based label selection post-inference, enabling dynamic precision/recall tradeoffs without retraining.
vs alternatives: More flexible than multi-class classifiers (no retraining for new labels) and more interpretable than multi-label neural networks because each label's score directly reflects entailment probability rather than learned feature interactions.
Processes multiple text samples and candidate labels in batches through the BART encoder-decoder, with support for custom hypothesis template formatting (e.g., 'This text is about [LABEL]' vs 'The topic is [LABEL]'). Batching amortizes model loading and GPU memory allocation across samples, while template flexibility allows domain-specific phrasing to improve entailment reasoning for specialized vocabularies.
Unique: Supports custom hypothesis template formatting at batch inference time, allowing users to inject domain-specific phrasing without model retraining. Batching is transparent to the user but critical for production throughput; templates are formatted per-label and cached within a batch to avoid redundant tokenization.
vs alternatives: More efficient than single-sample inference loops (10-50x faster on GPU) and more flexible than fixed-template classifiers because templates are user-configurable, enabling domain adaptation through prompt engineering rather than fine-tuning.
Applies the MNLI-trained entailment model to non-English text by leveraging BART's multilingual token vocabulary and cross-lingual transfer learned during pretraining. The model can classify text in languages not explicitly fine-tuned on MNLI (e.g., Spanish, French) by relying on shared semantic space learned during BART's multilingual pretraining, though with degraded accuracy compared to English.
Unique: Leverages BART's multilingual token vocabulary and cross-lingual pretraining to apply English MNLI-trained entailment reasoning to non-English text without language-specific fine-tuning. Distillation to 3 layers preserves multilingual semantic alignment while reducing model size, enabling deployment in resource-constrained multilingual settings.
vs alternatives: Simpler than maintaining separate language-specific classifiers and more practical than machine-translating text to English (which introduces translation errors). Cross-lingual transfer is weaker than language-specific fine-tuning but requires zero labeled data in target language.
Exposes raw entailment logits and softmax-normalized scores from the BART decoder, enabling users to interpret classification confidence and implement custom confidence thresholding. Entailment logits directly reflect the model's learned probability that the input text logically entails each hypothesis, allowing downstream applications to make threshold-based decisions (e.g., 'only accept predictions with >0.8 confidence').
Unique: Exposes raw entailment logits from BART's decoder, allowing direct interpretation of model confidence in each hypothesis. Unlike black-box classifiers, users can inspect the underlying entailment reasoning and implement custom confidence thresholding without retraining, enabling confidence-aware downstream workflows.
vs alternatives: More interpretable than neural network classifiers (entailment scores have semantic meaning) and more flexible than fixed-threshold systems because thresholds are user-configurable and can be tuned per application without model changes.
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 distilbart-mnli-12-3 at 39/100. distilbart-mnli-12-3 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