Adding Evaluation Results

README.md

@@ -77,4 +77,17 @@ Same process applies. Usually, it is best to do a sliding window over the user a
 
 The intended use-case for this model is fictional writing for entertainment purposes. Any other sort of usage is out of scope.
 
-As such, it was **not** fine-tuned to be safe and harmless: the base model _and_ this fine-tune have been trained on data known to contain profanity and texts that are lewd or otherwise offensive. It may produce socially unacceptable or undesirable text, even if the prompt itself does not include anything explicitly offensive. Outputs might often be factually wrong or misleading.
+As such, it was **not** fine-tuned to be safe and harmless: the base model _and_ this fine-tune have been trained on data known to contain profanity and texts that are lewd or otherwise offensive. It may produce socially unacceptable or undesirable text, even if the prompt itself does not include anything explicitly offensive. Outputs might often be factually wrong or misleading.
+# [Open LLM Leaderboard Evaluation Results](https://huggingface.co/spaces/HuggingFaceH4/open_llm_leaderboard)
+Detailed results can be found [here](https://huggingface.co/datasets/open-llm-leaderboard/details_Neko-Institute-of-Science__metharme-7b)
+
+| Metric                | Value                     |
+|-----------------------|---------------------------|
+| Avg.                  | 41.5   |
+| ARC (25-shot)         | 53.67          |
+| HellaSwag (10-shot)   | 78.62    |
+| MMLU (5-shot)         | 35.91         |
+| TruthfulQA (0-shot)   | 39.16   |
+| Winogrande (5-shot)   | 72.53   |
+| GSM8K (5-shot)        | 5.0        |
+| DROP (3-shot)         | 5.62         |