Human Feedback Types
partialPairwise Preference
Directly usable for protocol triage.
"We present Index-1.9B, a series of open small language models developed at Bilibili."
HFEPX · Eval paper review
Tianjiao Li, Lusheng Zhang, Shien He, Xiaojing Liu +7 more
Published
Jul 10, 2026
Citations
0
Trust level
Low
Usefulness score
40/100 (Low)
Extraction confidence
45% (Low)
Derived from extracted protocol signals and abstract evidence.
Rater population
Not reported
Signals refreshed
Aug 21, 2026
This paper is adjacent to HFEPX scope and is best used for background context, not as a primary protocol reference.
Use this as background context only. Do not make protocol decisions from this page alone.
Use this page for context, then validate protocol choices against stronger HFEPX references before implementation decisions.
Best use
Background context only
Use if you need
Background context only.
What to verify
Read the full paper before copying any benchmark, metric, or protocol choices.
Main weakness
The available metadata is too thin to trust this as a primary source.
Treat as adjacent context, not a core eval-method reference.
If you are doing eval pipeline work, start here
We present Index-1.9B, a series of open small language models developed at Bilibili. The series comprises four models: Index-1.9B-Base, a foundation model with 1.9 billion non-embedding parameters pre-trained on 2.8 trillion predominantly Chinese and English tokens; Index-1.9B-Pure, a control variant trained with an identical recipe but with all instruction-like data strictly filtered from the corpus; Index-1.9B-Chat, aligned from the base model with supervised fine-tuning and direct preference optimization; and Index-1.9B-Character, which augments the chat model with retrieval-augmented generation for few-shot role-playing customization. Pre-training employs a Warmup-Stable-Decay learning-rate schedule in which the concentration of curated data is raised substantially during the decay phase, together with a Norm-Head output layer that stabilizes training under large learning rates. On a suite of standard benchmarks covering examination, reasoning, mathematics, and code, Index-1.9B-Base attains an average score of 64.92, competitive with or exceeding open models of several times its size. We further report controlled studies on model depth, learning-rate magnitude and scheduling, the interaction between learning-rate decay and data quality, and the effect of including instruction data during pre-training, and we document an unexplained surge in benchmark performance midway through the constant-learning-rate phase. All models, together with evaluation code, are released at https://github.com/bilibili/Index-1.9B.
These are the protocol signals we could actually recover from the available paper metadata. Use them to decide whether this paper is worth deeper reading.
Pairwise Preference
Directly usable for protocol triage.
"We present Index-1.9B, a series of open small language models developed at Bilibili."
None explicit
Validate eval design from full paper text.
"We present Index-1.9B, a series of open small language models developed at Bilibili."
Not reported
No explicit QC controls found.
"We present Index-1.9B, a series of open small language models developed at Bilibili."
Not extracted
No benchmark anchors detected.
"We present Index-1.9B, a series of open small language models developed at Bilibili."
Not extracted
No metric anchors detected.
"We present Index-1.9B, a series of open small language models developed at Bilibili."
No benchmark or dataset names were extracted from the available abstract.
No metric terms were extracted from the available abstract.
We present Index-1.9B, a series of open small language models developed at Bilibili.
Based on abstract + metadata only. Check the source paper before making high-confidence protocol decisions.
Human feedback protocol is explicit
Detected: Pairwise Preference
Evaluation mode is explicit
No clear evaluation mode extracted.
Quality control reporting appears
No calibration/adjudication/IAA control explicitly detected.
Benchmark or dataset anchors are present
No benchmark/dataset anchor extracted from abstract.
Metric reporting is present
No metric terms extracted.