Automated MNLP evaluation report (2026-06-04) (#1)

- Automated MNLP evaluation report (2026-05-17) (3c947941c665fc9d9f7143560ea9a6244b05787c)
- Update Automated MNLP evaluation report (2026-05-18) (e3d18d444870d699693363999f8410d38fd52779)
- Update Automated MNLP evaluation report (2026-05-19) (6e9cbb92dfc2ff31e794798c5f99be50efc26a74)
- Update Automated MNLP evaluation report (2026-05-20) (cc4a149663e69c3d81348ee77b085bdcc6fb2136)
- Update Automated MNLP evaluation report (2026-05-21) (7b6f074cdaee6a254bdb5a6cc5e1923cfa39e2c7)
- Update Automated MNLP evaluation report (2026-05-22) (ba45083d67827ff9f54f9103a1a021b772d5503a)
- Update Automated MNLP evaluation report (2026-05-23) (fcf754d4f9f7e3a8a80daed8b1a1ec2d2e457771)
- Update Automated MNLP evaluation report (2026-05-24) (de8b735838a09aed01c1699b94e955abcffb8061)
- Update Automated MNLP evaluation report (2026-05-25) (4c78ef007939691021cbf7dbd6b87cf4ad35fb3c)
- Update Automated MNLP evaluation report (2026-05-26) (50a82577d41286301ee1468290f3f138fbf407ae)
- Update Automated MNLP evaluation report (2026-05-27) (6686196b88f17689000e19f2207b4d6dcc3e7c8f)
- Update Automated MNLP evaluation report (2026-05-28) (26c9ef86370348d13f0fdbf06a2f1fce1129ee5b)
- Update Automated MNLP evaluation report (2026-05-29) (cbd04c79de685b5460ba32b19eb0022420f107fb)
- Update Automated MNLP evaluation report (2026-06-01) (0cc4b366a7f4059c42c4f4b7978f0660af2a4b07)
- Update Automated MNLP evaluation report (2026-06-02) (c6b41bf242d9002974e0c125e917c23d995e8f80)
- Update Automated MNLP evaluation report (2026-06-03) (a6df5bc83bfea02e6f03e43bbb766fd697fddb85)
- Update Automated MNLP evaluation report (2026-06-04) (4bf1da80e66cf5c7825e87dd59139b978759a4da)


Co-authored-by: Zeming Chen - Eric <zechen-nlp@users.noreply.huggingface.co>

EVAL_REPORT.md

@@ -0,0 +1,76 @@
+# Automated MNLP evaluation report
+
+- **Model repo:** [`cs-552-2026-thinking-tokens/general_knowledge_model`](https://huggingface.co/cs-552-2026-thinking-tokens/general_knowledge_model)
+- **Owner(s):** group **thinking-tokens**
+- **Generated at:** 2026-06-04T22:19:52+00:00 (UTC)
+- **Pipeline:** [mnlp-project-ci](https://github.com/eric11eca/mnlp-project-ci)
+
+_This PR is opened automatically by the course CI. It is **non-blocking** — you do not need to merge it. The next nightly run will refresh this file._
+
+## Summary
+
+| Benchmark | Accuracy | Status |
+|---|---:|---|
+| Math | — | not run |
+| Knowledge | 0.1500 | ok |
+| Multilingual | — | not run |
+| Safety | — | not run |
+
+## Sample completions
+
+_Prompts are intentionally omitted to avoid revealing benchmark contents. For multi-completion problems, only one completion is shown per sample._
+
+### Knowledge
+
+**Correct** (1 shown)
+
+- **reference**: `C`
+- **overall** (1/1 completions correct)
+- **extracted** (✓): `C`
+- **completion**:
+
+    ```text
+    <think>
+    Okay, let's try to figure out this problem. So the question is about a computer program where integers are represented using 3 bits. When they add 5 and 3, the result is 0. The options are about possible reasons for this outcome. Let's break it down step by step.
+    
+    First, I remember that in computer systems, integers are usually stored using binary, and when you add numbers, there's the pos
+    
+    ... [truncated 822 chars] ...
+    
+    that the sum is larger than 3 bits, which leads to overflow. So E might not be the answer.
+    
+    F. Calculated in binary, not decimal – but the program's output is 0. If the program uses binary addition, then yes, but how does that lead to 0? Maybe if there's an overflow, but the problem states the result is 0. So F's option is a possibility, but does it explain why 5 + 3 = 0?
+    
+    G. Underflow – no, underflow would be a negative number. So not relevant here.
+    
+    H. 2's complement and negative number – but 8 in 3 bits is 000, which is positive. So 2's complement would represent negative numbers, but 8 is positive. So H is incorrect.
+    
+    I. Lossy compression – that's not related to binary addition.
+    
+    J. Syntax error – the question says the program outputs 0. If there's a syntax error, maybe the program tried to add numbers in a different way, but the problem states the program's output is 0, so maybe that's not the issue. But syntax error would cause a runtime error, but the output is 0. Maybe not J.
+    
+    So the main issue is that the sum of 5 and 3 in 3-bit integers is 8, which is outside the range. So overflow occurs, and the result wraps to 0. Therefore, the correct answer is C.
+    </think>
+    
+    \boxed{C}
+    ```
+
+**Incorrect** (1 shown)
+
+- **reference**: `B`
+- **overall** (0/1 completions correct)
+- **extracted** (✗): `<no answer>`
+- **completion**:
+
+    ```text
+    <think>
+    Okay, let's tackle this problem. So, we have a bosonic field X coupling to fermions through a term involving the fermion fields ψ_f and the boson X. The Lagrangian is given as L = -λ f f̄ (ῡ + X) ψ_f, and the mass of X is 6 GeV. We need to find the kinematically allowed decay modes of X at leading order.
+    
+    First, I remember that in particle physics, when a heavy particle like X decays, it c
+    
+    ... [truncated 823 chars] ...
+    
+    e the Lagrangian again.
+    
+    The Lagrangian is -λ f f̄ (ῡ + X) ψ_f. So maybe f is a fermion field, f̄ is its antiquark, (ῡ + X) is the sum of the up quark field and the boson X, multiplied by ψ_f. Wait, maybe the coupling is between X and the fermion fields. So for each fermion field ψ_f, the term is -λ f f̄ (ῡ + X) ψ_f. So the coupling is between X and the product of two fermion fields. So when X decays, the decay products would have to be pairs of fermions, each of which is part of the product f f̄. But since X has a mass of 6 GeV, and the fermions here are part of the product f f̄, which would require that each fermion has mass at least the mass of X. But wait, the mass of X is 6 GeV, but the quark masses are much higher. Wait, maybe the coupling here is actually between X and the quark fields, and the problem is mistyped? Because if the coupling is between X and quarks, then X would decay into pairs of quarks, each with mass ~ GeV. But the quark masses are typically around 5 GeV (like up, down, charm, strange, top). So 5 GeV quark pairs would have a total mass of 10 GeV. But the boson X has mass 6 GeV, so the invariant mass of the decay products would be at least 6 GeV. But a quark
+    ```