| 1 |
| Ecosystem | 1 | 0 |
| Match Graph | 0 | 0 |
| Pricing | Free | Free |
| Capabilities | 5 decomposed | 7 decomposed |
| Times Matched | 0 | 0 |
Performs zero-shot classification by reformulating classification tasks as natural language inference (NLI) problems. The model encodes input text and candidate labels as premise-hypothesis pairs, computing entailment probabilities to determine label relevance without task-specific fine-tuning. Uses DeBERTa-v3's disentangled attention mechanism with cross-lingual transfer learned from MNLI and XNLI datasets, enabling classification across 11+ languages without language-specific retraining.
Unique: Combines DeBERTa-v3's disentangled attention (which separates content and position representations for better cross-lingual generalization) with NLI-based reformulation, enabling zero-shot classification across 11 languages without language-specific adapters. The MNLI+XNLI training ensures both English and cross-lingual entailment reasoning, unlike single-language zero-shot models.
vs alternatives: Outperforms BERT-base and RoBERTa-base zero-shot classifiers by 3-8% on multilingual benchmarks due to DeBERTa's superior attention mechanism, and requires no language-specific fine-tuning unlike mBERT or XLM-R which need task adaptation for optimal performance.
Scores the relationship between premise and hypothesis text pairs across 11 languages by computing three-way classification (entailment, neutral, contradiction) using transformer-based sequence pair encoding. The model processes concatenated premise-hypothesis inputs through DeBERTa-v3-base's 12 layers with 768 hidden dimensions, outputting normalized probabilities for each relationship type. Trained on MNLI (English) and XNLI (multilingual) datasets, enabling zero-shot cross-lingual inference without language-specific fine-tuning.
Unique: Trained jointly on MNLI (English, 433K examples) and XNLI (15 languages, 75K examples), enabling zero-shot cross-lingual entailment without language-specific fine-tuning. DeBERTa-v3's disentangled attention mechanism explicitly separates content and position information, improving cross-lingual generalization compared to standard transformer architectures.
vs alternatives: Achieves 2-5% higher accuracy on XNLI multilingual benchmarks than mBERT and XLM-R due to DeBERTa's attention design, and requires no language-specific adapters unlike adapter-based approaches, making it faster to deploy across new languages.
Enables runtime definition of arbitrary classification labels by leveraging NLI reformulation, allowing label sets to change between inference calls without model retraining or fine-tuning. The model treats each candidate label as a hypothesis and computes entailment probability with the input text as premise, enabling open-ended categorization. Supports both single-label and multi-label scenarios by adjusting probability aggregation (argmax vs threshold-based).
Unique: Decouples label definition from model training by reformulating classification as NLI, enabling arbitrary label sets at inference time. Unlike traditional classifiers that require retraining for new labels, this approach treats labels as natural language hypotheses, leveraging the model's learned entailment reasoning.
vs alternatives: Eliminates retraining overhead compared to fine-tuned classifiers when label sets change, and supports arbitrary label descriptions without vocabulary constraints, making it ideal for dynamic or user-defined categorization systems.
Encodes text semantics across 11 languages (English, Arabic, Bulgarian, German, Greek, Spanish, French, Hindi, Russian, Swahili, Thai) using a shared transformer representation space learned from MNLI and XNLI multilingual training data. The model's disentangled attention mechanism learns language-agnostic content representations while maintaining position information, enabling cross-lingual transfer without language-specific parameters or adapters.
Unique: Trained on MNLI (English) and XNLI (15 languages) with DeBERTa-v3's disentangled attention, which explicitly separates content and position representations. This architecture enables stronger cross-lingual transfer than standard transformers because content representations are learned to be language-agnostic while position information remains language-specific.
vs alternatives: Achieves 2-5% higher multilingual accuracy than mBERT and XLM-R on XNLI benchmarks, and requires no language-specific adapters or fine-tuning for new languages, making deployment faster and more resource-efficient than adapter-based approaches.
Implements DeBERTa-v3-base architecture (12 layers, 768 hidden dimensions, 86M parameters) with disentangled attention mechanism that separates content and position representations, reducing computational complexity compared to standard multi-head attention. The model uses ONNX and SafeTensors export formats for optimized inference across CPU, GPU, and edge devices, with native support for quantization and distillation.
Unique: DeBERTa-v3's disentangled attention mechanism reduces attention complexity by computing content-to-content and position-to-position attention separately, lowering computational cost compared to standard multi-head attention. Combined with ONNX and SafeTensors export, enables optimized inference across heterogeneous hardware.
vs alternatives: Achieves 2-3x faster inference than standard BERT-base on CPU due to disentangled attention, and supports ONNX quantization for additional 4-8x speedup with minimal accuracy loss, outperforming DistilBERT on accuracy-latency tradeoff for zero-shot classification.
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 mDeBERTa-v3-base-mnli-xnli at 43/100. mDeBERTa-v3-base-mnli-xnli 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