Find research datasets worth reusing
Search datasets from major research repositories and use ShareScore to quickly assess how well each record supports discovery, access, and reuse.
3
datasets available to search
ShareScore release 0.9.0
Dataset results
3 results for “GPT-3.5”
Programming Problems Submitted for Evaluation of LLMs GPT-3.5 and Gemini Pro 1.0
<p>Problems extracted from platforms LeetCode and BeeCrowd for evaluation of LLMs GPT3.5 and Gemini Pro 1.0.</p> <p>The data from the plataforms has the following columns and values:</p> <p> </p> <table> <tbody> <tr> <td><strong>LeetCode Data</strong></td> <td> </td> <td><strong>BeeCrowd Data</strong></td> <td> </td> </tr> <tr> <td><strong>Column</strong></td> <td><strong>Doc</strong></td> <td><strong>Column</strong></td> <td><strong>Doc</strong></td> </tr> <tr> <td>problem_level</td> <td>easy | medium | hard</td> <td>problem_level</td> <td><1...10></td> </tr> <tr> <td>problem_link</td> <td><LeetCode link for the problem></td> <td>problem_link</td> <td><BeeCrowd link for the problem></td> </tr> <tr> <td>prompt</td> <td><text submitted to LLM></td> <td>prompt</td> <td><text submitted to LLM></td> </tr> <tr> <td>response_code</td> <td><code provided by the LLM></td> <td>response_code</td> <td><code provided by the LLM></td> </tr> <tr> <td>response_evaluation</td> <td>True | False</td> <td>response_evaluation</td> <td>True | False</td> </tr> <tr> <td>execution_time_ms</td> <td><time></td> <td>execution_time_ms</td> <td><time></td> </tr> <tr> <td>memory_usage_mb</td> <td><memory></td> <td>error_generated</td> <td>Wrong Answer | Time Limit Exceeded | Memory Limit Exceeded....</td> </tr> <tr> <td>error_generated</td> <td>Wrong Answer | Time Limit Exceeded | Memory Limit Exceeded....</td> <td>attempts_number</td> <td>1 | 2 | 3</td> </tr> <tr> <td>attempts_number</td> <td>1 | 2 | 3</td> <td>author</td> <td><author's name></td> </tr> <tr> <td>contains_image</td> <td>True | False</td> <td>source</td> <td><origin institution></td> </tr> <tr> <td>related_topic_1</td> <td><topic></td> <td>origin_country</td> <td><origin country></td> </tr> <tr> <td>related_topic_2</td> <td><topic></td> <td>contains_image</td> <td>True | False</td> </tr> <tr> <td>related_topic_3</td> <td><topic></td> <td>related_topic_1</td> <td><topic></td> </tr> <tr> <td>related_topic_4</td> <td><topic></td> <td> </td> <td> </td> </tr> <tr> <td>related_topic_5</td> <td><topic></td> <td> </td> <td> </td> </tr> </tbody> </table> <p> </p>
Model Output of GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 for ECHR-AM
<p> <strong>"gpt3.5-gpt4-input-output-echram.zip"</strong> :</p> <blockquote> <p>Input and output to GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 based on <a href="http://www.di.uevora.pt/~pq/echr/">ECHR dataset</a> published in JSON format in this <a href="https://aclanthology.org/2020.argmining-1.8.pdf">paper</a> for argument component classification only i.e. clauses that are argumentative (conclusion/premise), extracted from the JSON file</p> </blockquote> <p>Note: Output of the model is under <a href="https://openai.com/policies">OpenAI Terms & policies</a>.</p> <p> </p> <p>Please cite our paper also if you use this dataset: <a href="https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/frai.2023.1278796">Performance analysis of large language models in the domain of legal argument mining</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/artificial-intelligence/articles/10.3389/frai.2023.1278796/bibtex">You can click here for BibTex</a> or copy the text below. </p> <blockquote> <p>@ARTICLE{10.3389/frai.2023.1278796,</p> <p>AUTHOR={Al Zubaer, Abdullah and Granitzer, Michael and Mitrović, Jelena },</p> <p>TITLE={Performance analysis of large language models in the domain of legal argument mining},</p> <p>JOURNAL={Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence},</p> <p>VOLUME={6},</p> <p>YEAR={2023},</p> <p>URL={https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/artificial-intelligence/articles/10.3389/frai.2023.1278796},</p> <p>DOI={10.3389/frai.2023.1278796},</p> <p>ISSN={2624-8212},</p> <p>ABSTRACT={<p>Generative pre-trained transformers (GPT) have recently demonstrated excellent performance in various natural language tasks. The development of ChatGPT and the recently released GPT-4 model has shown competence in solving complex and higher-order reasoning tasks without further training or fine-tuning. However, the applicability and strength of these models in classifying legal texts in the context of argument mining are yet to be realized and have not been tested thoroughly. In this study, we investigate the effectiveness of GPT-like models, specifically GPT-3.5 and GPT-4, for argument mining via prompting. We closely study the model's performance considering diverse prompt formulation and example selection in the prompt via semantic search using state-of-the-art embedding models from OpenAI and sentence transformers. We primarily concentrate on the argument component classification task on the legal corpus from the European Court of Human Rights. To address these models' inherent non-deterministic nature and make our result statistically sound, we conducted 5-fold cross-validation on the test set. Our experiments demonstrate, quite surprisingly, that relatively small domain-specific models outperform GPT 3.5 and GPT-4 in the F1-score for premise and conclusion classes, with 1.9% and 12% improvements, respectively. We hypothesize that the performance drop indirectly reflects the complexity of the structure in the dataset, which we verify through prompt and data analysis. Nevertheless, our results demonstrate a noteworthy variation in the performance of GPT models based on prompt formulation. We observe comparable performance between the two embedding models, with a slight improvement in the local model's ability for prompt selection. This suggests that local models are as semantically rich as the embeddings from the OpenAI model. Our results indicate that the structure of prompts significantly impacts the performance of GPT models and should be considered when designing them.</p>}}</p> </blockquote> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p>
Is GPT-4 Less Politically Biased than GPT-3.5? A Renewed Investigation of ChatGPT's Political Biases
Open the record for dataset details and reuse information.
ScienceDex guides
Understand access before you commit
These curated guides explain access requirements, typical timelines, costs, and reuse considerations for widely used research datasets.
Allen Brain Atlas
Allen Brain Atlas is an Allen Institute collection of brain map atlases, datasets, APIs, and analysis tools covering mouse, human, and non-human primate brain resources.
Annotated Behaviour and Observability Dataset (ABODe)
ABODe is a University of Edinburgh DataShare dataset for behavior classification in group-housed mice using home-cage video, identities, bounding boxes, ground-plate positions, and annotator labels.
DANDI Archive for NWB datasets
DANDI is a BRAIN Initiative archive for publishing and sharing neurophysiology data, including electrophysiology, optophysiology, and behavioral data packaged as NWB and related standards.
International Brain Laboratory public data
The International Brain Laboratory public data releases expose standardized mouse decision-making experiments, including Neuropixels recordings, widefield calcium imaging, behavior, and session metadata accessed through the ONE API.
OpenNeuro
OpenNeuro is a free, open platform for sharing neuroimaging datasets, with public search, dataset pages, and download paths for web, S3, DataLad, and the OpenNeuro CLI.