Polybian Labs
Tiered Jurist #017 Results
Benchmarks Applied to All Outputs
1 MMLU
Massive Multitask Language Understanding evaluates knowledge and problem-solving across diverse domains including STEM, humanities, and professional subjects.
Evaluation Criteria:
- Factual accuracy across multiple domains
- Reasoning and problem-solving capabilities
- Domain-specific knowledge depth
- Error minimization in technical content
2 HELM
Holistic Evaluation of Language Models assesses accuracy, robustness, fairness, bias, toxicity, and efficiency in model outputs.
Evaluation Criteria:
- Output coherence and logical structure
- Bias and fairness considerations
- Robustness across diverse inputs
- Practical utility and implementability
3 MT-Bench
Multi-Turn Benchmark evaluates conversational ability, instruction following, and consistency across extended interactions.
Evaluation Criteria:
- Multi-turn conversational consistency
- Instruction adherence and comprehension
- Context retention across interactions
- User engagement quality
Output Assessments
| Benchmark | Score | Strengths | Weaknesses |
|---|---|---|---|
| MMLU | 7/10 | Strong factual accuracy in research contexts | Limited domain coverage outside research |
| HELM | 6/10 | Clear presentation of research findings | Lacks strategic context for decision-making |
| MT-Bench | 7/10 | Structured research-oriented responses | Limited conversational depth |
| Benchmark | Score | Strengths | Weaknesses |
|---|---|---|---|
| MMLU | 8/10 | Exceptional domain coverage in deep research | Occasional over-specialization in narrow areas |
| HELM | 9/10 | Superior strategic analysis for complex topics | Can be overly technical for non-specialists |
| MT-Bench | 8/10 | Strong contextual understanding in research dialogues | Occasional inconsistency in cross-domain topics |
| Benchmark | Score | Strengths | Weaknesses |
|---|---|---|---|
| MMLU | 5/10 | Efficient research sourcing | Factual inaccuracies in specialized domains |
| HELM | 7/10 | Good accessibility for research findings | Inconsistent analysis depth |
| MT-Bench | 6/10 | Engaging presentation of research | Conversational weaknesses in technical depth |
Analysis Type Alignment
Model to Analysis Type Mapping
Fact-Check Analysis
Claude Sonnet 4 Pro: excels in structured research verification with strong factual accuracy. Ideal for technical validation where research precision is prioritized.
Critical Review
Gemini 2.5 Pro: superior deep research analysis capabilities. Optimized for complex evaluations requiring contextual understanding and critical insight.
Accuracy Assessment
Perplexity Pro: research-focused accuracy evaluations. Effective for presentation-focused assessments where accessibility complements research depth.
Performance Insights
Research Accuracy
PS1-QCR1 (Claude Sonnet 4 Pro) shows strong factual precision in research contexts but limited coverage outside academic domains. Excels in technical verification tasks.
Deep Research Analysis
PS1-QCR2 (Gemini 2.5 Pro) demonstrates exceptional strategic depth in complex research domains. Maintains superior HELM score despite occasional over-specialization.
Research Presentation
PS1-QCR3 (Perplexity Pro) provides accessible research presentation but shows factual gaps in specialized domains. Strongest in HELM accessibility metrics.