| 0 |
| 1 |
| Ecosystem | 1 | 0 |
| Match Graph | 0 | 0 |
| Pricing | Free | Free |
| Capabilities | 5 decomposed | 7 decomposed |
| Times Matched | 0 | 0 |
Classifies input text into one of six discrete emotion categories (sadness, joy, love, anger, fear, surprise) using a DistilBERT-based transformer architecture fine-tuned on the Emotion dataset. The model encodes text through 6 transformer layers with 12 attention heads, producing a 768-dimensional contextual representation that feeds into a linear classification head trained via cross-entropy loss. Inference runs in <100ms on CPU and supports batch processing for throughput optimization.
Unique: Distilled from BERT (40% smaller, 60% faster) while maintaining competitive emotion classification accuracy through knowledge distillation; published with safetensors format enabling secure, deterministic model loading without arbitrary code execution during deserialization
vs alternatives: Smaller and faster than full BERT-based emotion classifiers (268MB vs 440MB+) while maintaining comparable F1 scores; more specialized than generic sentiment models (VADER, TextBlob) which conflate sentiment polarity with discrete emotions
Processes multiple text samples in parallel through optimized batch inference pipelines supporting PyTorch, TensorFlow, and JAX backends. The model leverages dynamic batching and automatic mixed precision (AMP) to maximize throughput on heterogeneous hardware (CPU, NVIDIA GPU, TPU). Batch processing amortizes tokenization and model loading overhead, achieving 10-50x throughput improvement over sequential inference depending on batch size and hardware.
Unique: Supports three independent backend implementations (PyTorch, TensorFlow, JAX) with identical API surface, enabling seamless switching without code changes; safetensors format ensures deterministic loading across backends, eliminating pickle-based deserialization vulnerabilities
vs alternatives: More flexible than PyTorch-only emotion models (e.g., custom implementations) by supporting TensorFlow and JAX; faster than sequential inference by 10-50x through batching, but requires manual batch size tuning unlike some commercial APIs with auto-scaling
Enables rapid adaptation to custom emotion taxonomies or domain-specific text by fine-tuning the pre-trained DistilBERT backbone on small labeled datasets (100-1000 examples). The model's 6-layer transformer architecture and 768-dimensional embeddings provide sufficient representational capacity for transfer learning with low data requirements. Fine-tuning typically requires <1 hour on a single GPU and achieves convergence in 3-5 epochs, leveraging the model's pre-trained linguistic knowledge to generalize from limited domain-specific examples.
Unique: Distilled architecture (6 layers vs BERT's 12) reduces fine-tuning time and memory requirements by ~50% while maintaining transfer learning effectiveness; safetensors checkpoints enable reproducible fine-tuning with deterministic weight initialization across runs
vs alternatives: Faster to fine-tune than full BERT (2-3x speedup) due to smaller parameter count; more practical for resource-constrained teams than training emotion classifiers from scratch; more flexible than fixed-class APIs but requires labeled data unlike true zero-shot approaches
Extracts dense 768-dimensional contextual embeddings from the model's penultimate layer (before classification head), enabling use as feature vectors for clustering, similarity search, or downstream ML tasks. The embeddings capture semantic and emotional nuance in a continuous vector space, enabling applications like emotion-based document retrieval, clustering similar emotional expressions, or training lightweight classifiers on top of frozen embeddings. Extraction adds negligible overhead (<5ms) compared to full inference.
Unique: Embeddings derived from emotion-specialized DistilBERT capture emotional semantics more effectively than generic BERT embeddings; 768-dimensional space is optimized for emotion classification task, creating a learned representation where similar emotions cluster naturally in vector space
vs alternatives: More emotion-specific than general sentence embeddings (Sentence-BERT) which optimize for semantic similarity; smaller and faster to extract than full BERT embeddings (40% reduction in dimensionality); enables downstream tasks without retraining, unlike fixed-class predictions
Provides pre-configured deployment endpoints on HuggingFace Inference API, Azure ML, and other cloud platforms, enabling serverless inference without managing infrastructure. The model is registered in the HuggingFace Model Hub with automatic endpoint provisioning, auto-scaling based on request volume, and built-in monitoring. Requests are routed through optimized inference servers (vLLM, TensorRT) with batching and caching, reducing latency and cost compared to self-hosted deployment.
Unique: Pre-configured on HuggingFace Inference API with zero-configuration deployment — model automatically optimized for inference servers without manual containerization; endpoints_compatible flag indicates support for multiple cloud providers (Azure, AWS, GCP) with unified API
vs alternatives: Faster to deploy than self-hosted solutions (minutes vs hours); auto-scaling handles traffic spikes without manual intervention; lower operational overhead than managing Kubernetes clusters; but higher latency and cost per request than self-hosted for high-volume use cases
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 distilbert-base-uncased-emotion at 46/100. distilbert-base-uncased-emotion 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