| Ecosystem | 1 | 0 |
| Match Graph | 0 | 0 |
| Pricing | Free | Free |
| Capabilities | 5 decomposed | 7 decomposed |
| Times Matched | 0 | 0 |
Performs text classification using a RoBERTa-based transformer architecture that has been fine-tuned with adversarial robustness objectives (RADAR training). The model uses masked language modeling pretraining combined with adversarial examples during fine-tuning to learn representations that are resistant to input perturbations and adversarial attacks. It processes raw text through subword tokenization, contextual embedding layers, and a classification head to output class probabilities.
Unique: Integrates adversarial robustness training (RADAR framework from arxiv:2307.03838) into RoBERTa fine-tuning, using adversarial example generation during training to create representations resistant to input perturbations — distinct from standard supervised fine-tuning which lacks this robustness objective
vs alternatives: More robust to adversarial text attacks and input noise than standard RoBERTa classifiers, while maintaining the efficiency of a 7B parameter model compared to larger instruction-tuned models like Llama-2-7B for classification tasks
Processes multiple text inputs in parallel through the RoBERTa encoder, accumulating embeddings and computing class probabilities for each sample. Supports configurable confidence thresholds to filter low-confidence predictions, enabling downstream systems to handle uncertain classifications separately. Batching is handled via HuggingFace's pipeline API which manages tokenization, padding, and attention mask generation automatically.
Unique: Leverages HuggingFace pipeline abstraction with automatic batching, padding, and device management, combined with post-hoc confidence thresholding to separate high-confidence from uncertain predictions without requiring model retraining
vs alternatives: Simpler integration than raw PyTorch inference (no manual tokenization/padding) while maintaining flexibility to adjust confidence thresholds at inference time without redeployment
Model is packaged and registered on HuggingFace Model Hub with built-in compatibility for HuggingFace Inference Endpoints and Azure ML deployment pipelines. The model card includes metadata for automatic containerization, API schema generation, and region-specific deployment configuration. Supports both REST API access via HuggingFace's hosted inference service and direct deployment to Azure Container Instances or Azure ML endpoints with minimal configuration.
Unique: Dual-path deployment support via HuggingFace Inference Endpoints (managed, serverless) and Azure ML (enterprise, customizable) with automatic model card metadata enabling one-click deployment to either platform without code changes
vs alternatives: Faster time-to-production than self-managed Docker/Kubernetes deployment while maintaining flexibility to migrate between HuggingFace and Azure ecosystems without model repackaging
Supports transfer learning by fine-tuning the pretrained RADAR-Vicuna-7B weights on custom labeled datasets while maintaining adversarial robustness properties. Uses standard supervised fine-tuning with optional adversarial example augmentation during training. The fine-tuning process leverages HuggingFace Trainer API with configurable learning rates, batch sizes, and adversarial training parameters. Preserves the RoBERTa backbone's robustness while adapting the classification head to new label spaces.
Unique: Integrates adversarial example generation into the fine-tuning loop (via RADAR framework) to preserve robustness properties while adapting to new classification tasks, rather than standard supervised fine-tuning which would degrade adversarial robustness
vs alternatives: Maintains adversarial robustness gains from pretraining during downstream fine-tuning, unlike standard RoBERTa fine-tuning which typically loses robustness properties when adapted to new tasks
Exposes attention weights from the RoBERTa transformer layers, enabling visualization of which input tokens the model attends to when making classification decisions. Supports extraction of attention patterns from multiple layers and heads, and can compute token-level attribution scores (e.g., via gradient-based methods or attention rollout) to identify which words most influence the final classification. Integrates with libraries like Captum or custom attribution scripts for deeper interpretability analysis.
Unique: Leverages RoBERTa's multi-head attention mechanism to expose token-level importance scores, with optional integration to gradient-based attribution methods (Captum) for deeper interpretability of adversarially-trained representations
vs alternatives: Provides both attention-based and gradient-based attribution methods, enabling comparison of different interpretability approaches; adversarial training may reveal more robust feature importance patterns than standard models
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 RADAR-Vicuna-7B at 42/100. RADAR-Vicuna-7B 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