## Pie Charts: Self-Judgement and Self-Difficulty Evaluation for Qwen2.5-14B-Instruct ### Overview The image contains two pie charts side-by-side. The left pie chart represents "Self-Judgement for Qwen2.5-14B-Instruct," categorizing responses as "perfect," "acceptable," or "bad." The right pie chart represents "Self-Difficulty Evaluation for Qwen2.5-14B-Instruct," showing the distribution of difficulty ratings from 0 to 8. ### Components/Axes **Left Pie Chart: Self-Judgement** * **Title:** Self-Judgement for Qwen2.5-14B-Instruct * **Categories:** * perfect (light purple): 35.3% * acceptable (light green): 64.1% * bad (light orange): 0.6% **Right Pie Chart: Self-Difficulty Evaluation** * **Title:** Self-Difficulty Evaluation for Qwen2.5-14B-Instruct * **Categories (Difficulty Ratings):** * 0 (light green): 6.9% * 1 (light orange): 5.2% * 2 (light red): 5.1% * 3 (light pink): 5.4% * 4 (light lime green): 5.8% * 5 (light yellow): 6.5% * 6 (light tan): 8.2% * 7 (light grey): 12.0% * 8 (light blue): 44.8% * A red line highlights the slices from 1 to 6. ### Detailed Analysis **Left Pie Chart: Self-Judgement** * The "acceptable" category makes up the majority of the pie chart at 64.1%. * The "perfect" category accounts for 35.3%. * The "bad" category is a very small fraction at 0.6%. **Right Pie Chart: Self-Difficulty Evaluation** * Difficulty rating "8" has the largest share at 44.8%. * Difficulty rating "7" accounts for 12.0%. * The remaining difficulty ratings (0-6) each account for less than 10% of the pie chart. ### Key Observations * In the Self-Judgement chart, the vast majority of responses are categorized as "acceptable." * In the Self-Difficulty Evaluation chart, the highest difficulty rating (8) is the most frequent. * The red line highlights the lower difficulty ratings (1-6), which collectively represent a smaller portion of the responses compared to ratings 7 and 8. ### Interpretation The data suggests that the Qwen2.5-14B-Instruct model is generally performing acceptably, according to self-judgement. However, the self-difficulty evaluation indicates that the model frequently encounters high levels of difficulty. The high percentage of difficulty rating "8" suggests that the model often struggles with the tasks it is given. The red line highlighting the lower difficulty ratings emphasizes that these ratings are less common, indicating that the model rarely finds the tasks easy or moderately challenging.

## Pie Charts: Self-Judgement and Self-Difficulty Evaluation for Qwen2.5-14B-Instruct ### Overview The image displays two pie charts side-by-side, both related to evaluations of "Qwen2.5-14B-Instruct". The left chart, titled "Self-Judgement for Qwen2.5-14B-Instruct", categorizes responses into "perfect", "acceptable", and "bad". The right chart, titled "Self-Difficulty Evaluation for Qwen2.5-14B-Instruct", presents a more granular breakdown of difficulty levels, labeled numerically from 0 to 8. ### Components/Axes **Left Pie Chart: Self-Judgement for Qwen2.5-14B-Instruct** * **Title:** Self-Judgement for Qwen2.5-14B-Instruct * **Categories and Percentages:** * perfect: 35.3% (represented by a light purple/blue slice) * acceptable: 64.1% (represented by a teal/green slice) * bad: 0.6% (represented by a thin orange slice) **Right Pie Chart: Self-Difficulty Evaluation for Qwen2.5-14B-Instruct** * **Title:** Self-Difficulty Evaluation for Qwen2.5-14B-Instruct * **Categories and Percentages:** * 0: 6.9% (represented by a light green slice) * 1: 5.2% (represented by an orange slice) * 2: 5.1% (represented by a coral slice) * 3: 5.4% (represented by a pink slice) * 4: 5.8% (represented by a light green slice) * 5: 6.5% (represented by a yellow slice) * 6: 8.2% (represented by a tan/beige slice) * 7: 12.0% (represented by a grey slice) * 8: 44.8% (represented by a light blue slice) * **Visual Element:** A red outline is present, encompassing slices 2 through 7, suggesting a potential grouping or focus on this range of difficulty levels. ### Detailed Analysis **Left Pie Chart:** The "Self-Judgement" pie chart indicates a strong positive self-assessment. The "acceptable" category dominates with 64.1% of the responses. "Perfect" responses account for a significant 35.3%. The "bad" category is extremely small, representing only 0.6% of the responses. **Right Pie Chart:** The "Self-Difficulty Evaluation" pie chart shows a bimodal distribution, with the highest proportion of responses at the highest difficulty level (8: 44.8%) and a secondary peak at a moderate difficulty level (7: 12.0%). The difficulty levels from 2 to 6 show a relatively consistent distribution, ranging from 5.1% to 8.2%. The lowest difficulty level (0) accounts for 6.9%. ### Key Observations * **Self-Judgement:** The overwhelming majority of self-judgements are positive ("acceptable" or "perfect"), with a negligible amount of negative feedback ("bad"). * **Difficulty Distribution:** The most frequently reported difficulty level is 8 (44.8%), followed by 7 (12.0%). This suggests that the model is perceived as most challenging at its highest difficulty settings. * **Red Outline:** The red outline on the right chart highlights difficulty levels 2 through 7. This range represents a substantial portion of the responses, but it is overshadowed by the highest difficulty level (8). ### Interpretation The two pie charts provide insights into the perceived performance and difficulty of the "Qwen2.5-14B-Instruct" model. The "Self-Judgement" chart suggests that users or evaluators have a generally positive view of the model's output, with a combined 99.4% of responses falling into the "perfect" or "acceptable" categories. This indicates a high level of satisfaction or perceived quality. The "Self-Difficulty Evaluation" chart, however, reveals a more nuanced picture. While the self-judgement is positive, the difficulty ratings indicate that the model is perceived as most challenging at its highest settings (level 8). The significant proportion of responses at level 8 (44.8%) suggests that users are frequently encountering situations where the model's task is difficult. The secondary peak at level 7 (12.0%) further supports the idea that higher difficulty levels are more commonly encountered. The relatively uniform distribution across difficulty levels 2-6, and the lower proportion at level 0, suggest that the model is not perceived as trivially easy across the board, but rather that the most significant challenges lie at the upper end of the difficulty scale. The red outline on the right chart might be intended to draw attention to the middle range of difficulty levels, perhaps as a point of focus for further analysis or improvement. However, the data clearly shows that the highest difficulty level (8) is the most prominent. In conclusion, the data suggests that "Qwen2.5-14B-Instruct" is generally well-received in terms of its output quality, but it is also perceived as being quite challenging to utilize effectively, particularly at its most advanced difficulty settings. This could imply that while the model is capable, users may struggle to fully leverage its potential or that the tasks presented at higher difficulty levels are inherently complex.

\n ## Pie Charts: Self-Judgement and Self-Difficulty Evaluation for Qwen2.5-14B-Instruct ### Overview The image contains two pie charts. The left chart displays the results of a "Self-Judgement" evaluation for the Qwen2.5-14B-Instruct model. The right chart shows the "Self-Difficulty Evaluation" for the same model. Both charts represent the distribution of responses across different categories. ### Components/Axes Both charts lack explicit axes, as they are pie charts. They are labeled with titles indicating the type of evaluation. Each slice of the pie charts is labeled with a category and its corresponding percentage. **Left Chart (Self-Judgement):** * Categories: "perfect", "bad" * Percentages: 35.3%, 64.1% **Right Chart (Self-Difficulty Evaluation):** * Categories: 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 * Percentages: 6.9%, 5.2%, 5.1%, 5.4%, 5.8%, 5.6%, 8.2%, 12.0%, 44.8% ### Detailed Analysis or Content Details **Left Chart (Self-Judgement):** The pie chart is dominated by the "bad" category, representing approximately 64.1% of the responses. The "perfect" category accounts for the remaining 35.3%. **Right Chart (Self-Difficulty Evaluation):** The largest segment of this pie chart is the "8" category, representing 44.8% of the responses. The remaining categories are distributed as follows: * 0: 6.9% * 1: 5.2% * 2: 5.1% * 3: 5.4% * 4: 5.8% * 5: 5.6% * 6: 8.2% * 7: 12.0% ### Key Observations * The model frequently self-judges its responses as "bad" (64.1%). * The most common self-assessed difficulty level is 8 (44.8%). * The distribution of difficulty levels is relatively even across the lower levels (0-7), with a slight increase in responses for difficulty level 7 (12.0%). ### Interpretation The data suggests that the Qwen2.5-14B-Instruct model tends to be critical of its own responses, frequently rating them as "bad". This could indicate a conservative self-assessment strategy or a genuine awareness of limitations in its performance. The concentration of responses at difficulty level 8 suggests that the model often perceives tasks as moderately challenging. The relatively even distribution of lower difficulty levels indicates that the model encounters a range of task complexities. The fact that the model rates itself as "bad" more often than "perfect" could be a sign of a well-calibrated model that doesn't overestimate its capabilities. Further investigation would be needed to understand the specific types of responses that are categorized as "bad" and the characteristics of tasks assigned a difficulty level of 8.

## Pie Charts: Self-Evaluation Metrics for Qwen2.5-14B-Instruct ### Overview The image displays two pie charts side-by-side, presenting self-evaluation data for the AI model "Qwen2.5-14B-Instruct." The left chart assesses the model's self-judgment of its response quality, while the right chart evaluates the model's self-assessed difficulty of the tasks it was given. ### Components/Axes **Left Chart: Self-Judgement for Qwen2.5-14B-Instruct** * **Type:** Pie chart. * **Categories & Data:** * **acceptable:** 64.1% (Large, teal-green segment, occupying the right and bottom portion of the chart). * **perfect:** 35.3% (Large, slate-blue segment, occupying the top-left portion of the chart). * **bad:** 0.6% (Very thin, orange sliver between the "perfect" and "acceptable" segments). * **Legend/Labels:** Labels are placed directly adjacent to their corresponding pie slices. **Right Chart: Self-Difficulty Evaluation for Qwen2.5-14B-Instruct** * **Type:** Pie chart. * **Categories & Data (from 12 o'clock position, moving clockwise):** * **0:** 6.9% (Teal-green segment). * **1:** 5.2% (Orange segment). * **2:** 5.1% (Slate-blue segment). * **3:** 5.4% (Pink segment). * **4:** 5.8% (Light green segment). * **5:** 6.5% (Yellow segment). * **6:** 8.2% (Tan/beige segment). * **7:** 12.0% (Grey segment). * **8:** 44.8% (Large, light blue segment, occupying the left half of the chart). * **Legend/Labels:** Labels are placed directly adjacent to their corresponding pie slices. The segments for difficulty levels 0 through 6 are outlined with a thin red border, visually grouping them together. ### Detailed Analysis **Self-Judgement (Left Chart):** The model's self-assessment is overwhelmingly positive. The vast majority of its responses (99.4%) are categorized as either "acceptable" (64.1%) or "perfect" (35.3%). The "bad" category is negligible at 0.6%. The visual trend shows a clear dominance of the "acceptable" category, followed by a substantial "perfect" category. **Self-Difficulty Evaluation (Right Chart):** The model's self-assessed task difficulty shows a strong skew towards higher difficulty levels. The single largest segment is for the highest difficulty rating, "8," which accounts for nearly half (44.8%) of all evaluations. The next most common ratings are "7" (12.0%) and "6" (8.2%). The lower difficulty ratings (0 through 5) each constitute between approximately 5% and 7% of the total, showing a relatively even but minor distribution. The visual trend is a clear concentration of mass on the left side of the chart (ratings 7 and 8), indicating the model frequently perceives its tasks as highly difficult. ### Key Observations 1. **High Confidence, High Perceived Difficulty:** There is a striking contrast between the two charts. The model judges its output quality very highly (left chart) while simultaneously rating the difficulty of the tasks it performs as very high (right chart). 2. **Concentration at Extremes:** Both charts show concentration at specific points. The left chart concentrates on "acceptable" and "perfect." The right chart concentrates heavily on the maximum difficulty rating of "8." 3. **Minimal Negative Self-Assessment:** The "bad" category in the self-judgment chart is almost non-existent (0.6%). 4. **Grouping of Lower Difficulties:** The red outline on the right chart visually groups difficulty levels 0-6, separating them from the dominant 7 and 8 categories. This emphasizes the dichotomy between "lower" and "higher" difficulty as perceived by the model. ### Interpretation The data suggests a model with a strong positive self-bias in its output quality assessment. It consistently rates its own responses as acceptable or perfect. Concurrently, it exhibits a form of "task difficulty inflation," where it perceives the problems it solves as being very challenging, with nearly half rated at the maximum difficulty. This combination could indicate several underlying factors: * **Calibration Issue:** The model may not be well-calibrated; its internal confidence (reflected in high-quality self-judgment) does not align with an objective measure of task difficulty. It might be overestimating task complexity. * **Training Data Reflection:** The high perceived difficulty might reflect the nature of the tasks in its training or evaluation set, which could be inherently complex. * **Architectural or Behavioral Trait:** This pattern could be a characteristic of the Qwen2.5-14B-Instruct model's training objective or reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF) process, encouraging confident outputs while acknowledging task complexity. The near absence of "bad" self-judgments is notable and could imply either exceptional performance or a systematic bias against negative self-evaluation. The clear visual separation of difficulty levels 0-6 from 7-8 in the right chart underscores that the model's experience is dominated by tasks it considers highly difficult, yet it believes it handles them with acceptable to perfect quality.

## Pie Charts: Self-Judgement and Self-Difficulty Evaluation for Qwen2.5-14B-Instruct ### Overview The image contains two pie charts comparing self-assessment metrics for the Qwen2.5-14B-Instruct model. The left chart shows self-judgement results (perfect, acceptable, bad), while the right chart displays self-difficulty evaluations (numerical scale 0–8). ### Components/Axes #### Left Chart (Self-Judgement): - **Labels**: - "perfect (35.3%)" (blue) - "acceptable (64.1%)" (green) - "bad (0.6%)" (red) - **Legend**: Positioned on the left, with color-coded labels. - **Structure**: Three segments, with "acceptable" dominating the chart. #### Right Chart (Self-Difficulty Evaluation): - **Labels**: - Numerical scale 0–8, each with percentages: - 8 (44.8%) - 7 (12.0%) - 6 (8.2%) - 5 (6.5%) - 4 (5.8%) - 3 (5.4%) - 2 (5.1%) - 1 (5.2%) - 0 (6.9%) - **Legend**: Positioned on the right, with a gradient color scale (blue for 8, gray for 7, yellow-to-red gradient for 6–0). - **Structure**: Nine segments, with 8 being the largest slice. ### Detailed Analysis #### Left Chart: - **Trends**: - "acceptable" (64.1%) is the largest segment, followed by "perfect" (35.3%). - "bad" (0.6%) is negligible. - **Data Points**: - Perfect: 35.3% - Acceptable: 64.1% - Bad: 0.6% #### Right Chart: - **Trends**: - Difficulty 8 (44.8%) is the most frequent, followed by 7 (12.0%). - Lower difficulties (0–6) collectively account for 43.1%, with 0 (6.9%) slightly higher than 1–3. - **Data Points**: - 8: 44.8% - 7: 12.0% - 6: 8.2% - 5: 6.5% - 4: 5.8% - 3: 5.4% - 2: 5.1% - 1: 5.2% - 0: 6.9% ### Key Observations 1. **Self-Judgement**: - The model rates 64.1% of tasks as "acceptable" and 35.3% as "perfect," indicating high self-confidence. - Only 0.6% of tasks are rated "bad," suggesting minimal self-criticism. 2. **Self-Difficulty Evaluation**: - Tasks are predominantly rated as difficulty 8 (44.8%) or 7 (12.0%), implying the model perceives most tasks as highly challenging. - Lower difficulties (0–6) are less common, with difficulty 0 (6.9%) slightly exceeding difficulties 1–3. ### Interpretation - **Self-Judgement**: The model’s high "acceptable" and "perfect" ratings suggest it generally performs well on tasks, with minimal self-doubt. - **Self-Difficulty**: The skew toward higher difficulty ratings (8 and 7) may indicate either: - The tasks are inherently complex for the model. - The model overestimates task difficulty, potentially due to calibration issues. - **Anomalies**: - The spike in difficulty 0 (6.9%) compared to 1–3 (5.1–5.4%) suggests some tasks were perceived as trivial, possibly due to task design or model bias. - The dominance of difficulty 8 (44.8%) raises questions about task distribution or model limitations in handling complex scenarios. The data highlights a discrepancy between self-judgement (high confidence) and self-difficulty (high perceived challenge), which could inform model tuning or task design strategies.