# Technical Document Extraction: Line Chart Analysis
## Chart Overview
The image depicts a line chart comparing performance scores across three evaluation metrics against model numbers 1-21. Key components include:
### Axis Labels
- **X-axis**: Model Number (1-21)
- **Y-axis**: Score (%)
### Legend
- **Location**: Top-right corner
- **Entries**:
1. `HumanEval` (Blue line)
2. `Aider's Polygot Whole` (Pink line)
3. `SWE-Bench Verified` (Cyan line)
## Data Series Analysis
### 1. HumanEval (Blue Line)
**Trend**: Stable high performance with minor fluctuations
- **Key Points**:
- Model 1: 68%
- Model 2: 67%
- Model 3: 87%
- Model 4: 87%
- Model 5: 90%
- Model 6: 93%
- Models 7-21: Maintains ~90% score
### 2. Aider's Polygot Whole (Pink Line)
**Trend**: Volatile performance with significant peaks/troughs
- **Key Points**:
- Model 1: 0%
- Model 2: 30%
- Model 3: 30%
- Model 4: 30%
- Model 5: 30%
- Model 6: 30%
- Model 7: 40%
- Model 8: 65%
- Model 9: 40%
- Model 10: 10%
- Model 11: 30%
- Model 12: 50%
- Model 13: 45%
- Model 14: 65%
- Model 15: 68%
- Model 16: 80%
- Model 17: 85%
- Model 18: 45%
- Model 19: 60%
- Model 20: 80%
- Model 21: 88%
### 3. SWE-Bench Verified (Cyan Line)
**Trend**: Gradual improvement with mid-range fluctuations
- **Key Points**:
- Model 1: 0%
- Model 2: 30%
- Model 3: 30%
- Model 4: 30%
- Model 5: 30%
- Model 6: 30%
- Model 7: 40%
- Model 8: 50%
- Model 9: 40%
- Model 10: 30%
- Model 11: 20%
- Model 12: 55%
- Model 13: 35%
- Model 14: 60%
- Model 15: 68%
- Model 16: 70%
- Model 17: 68%
- Model 18: 60%
- Model 19: 65%
- Model 20: 70%
- Model 21: 75%
## Cross-Reference Verification
- **Color Consistency**: All data points match legend colors
- **Legend Position**: Top-right corner (confirmed)
- **Axis Alignment**: X-axis (model numbers) and Y-axis (scores) properly scaled
## Observations
1. **HumanEval** demonstrates the most consistent performance, maintaining scores above 85% after model 3.
2. **Aider's Polygot Whole** shows erratic behavior with sharp increases/decreases, peaking at model 17 (85%) and model 21 (88%).
3. **SWE-Bench Verified** exhibits steady growth from 0% to 75% across models, with notable mid-range dips.
## Data Table Reconstruction
| Model # | HumanEval | Aider's Polygot Whole | SWE-Bench Verified |
|---------|-----------|-----------------------|--------------------|
| 1 | 68% | 0% | 0% |
| 2 | 67% | 30% | 30% |
| 3 | 87% | 30% | 30% |
| 4 | 87% | 30% | 30% |
| 5 | 90% | 30% | 30% |
| 6 | 93% | 30% | 30% |
| 7 | 90% | 40% | 40% |
| 8 | 90% | 65% | 50% |
| 9 | 90% | 40% | 40% |
| 10 | 90% | 10% | 30% |
| 11 | 90% | 30% | 20% |
| 12 | 90% | 50% | 55% |
| 13 | 90% | 45% | 35% |
| 14 | 90% | 65% | 60% |
| 15 | 90% | 68% | 68% |
| 16 | 90% | 80% | 70% |
| 17 | 90% | 85% | 68% |
| 18 | 90% | 45% | 60% |
| 19 | 90% | 60% | 65% |
| 20 | 90% | 80% | 70% |
| 21 | 90% | 88% | 75% |
## Conclusion
The chart reveals distinct performance characteristics across evaluation metrics, with HumanEval maintaining the highest and most stable scores, while Aider's Polygot Whole demonstrates the most variability despite achieving the highest peak score at model 21.
