RiverRider/srt-omni-demo

Space

0

stars

24

commits

1

linked in READMEs

Aug 28, 2026

updated

gradio

README

One gallery, any encoder

Four multimodal models from four vendors encoded the same 5,000 COCO images. This Space searches one model's gallery using a different model's text encoder, fitting the towers live on CPU from the published states.

Across four vendors, cross-vendor retrieval is statistically indistinguishable from within-vendor retrieval: retention 0.988, 95% CI [0.955, 1.023]. The interval contains 1.0, so the claim is indistinguishability rather than a specific retained fraction. Four of the twelve cross directions score above the within-vendor baseline of the gallery they search.

Hosts: Qwen3-Omni-30B-A3B, gemma-4-31B-it, Mistral-Small-3.1-24B, Aria.

Read this before trusting a number here

Centering is not optional. Raw cosine between unrelated items on these states is +0.869 and raw retrieval sits exactly at chance. Everything shown is per-modality centered.

The Space fits its towers with a plain numpy loop so it can run on a free CPU box. That scores below the torch fit behind the published numbers, so read the cross-versus-within comparison rather than the absolute r@1.

Scope

Images only: two of the four hosts carry no audio or video tower, so the audio evidence elsewhere in this project is single-vendor and video is two-vendor. All four hosts train on overlapping web-scale corpora, so this shows the readable structure survives a change of vendor, architecture and training run. It does not show that independent minds would converge on it, and that reading is not asserted.

Contributors

RiverRider

24 commits

RiverRider/srt-omni-demo

Space

0

stars

24

commits

1

linked in READMEs

Aug 28, 2026

updated

gradio

README

One gallery, any encoder

Four multimodal models from four vendors encoded the same 5,000 COCO images. This Space searches one model's gallery using a different model's text encoder, fitting the towers live on CPU from the published states.

Across four vendors, cross-vendor retrieval is statistically indistinguishable from within-vendor retrieval: retention 0.988, 95% CI [0.955, 1.023]. The interval contains 1.0, so the claim is indistinguishability rather than a specific retained fraction. Four of the twelve cross directions score above the within-vendor baseline of the gallery they search.

Hosts: Qwen3-Omni-30B-A3B, gemma-4-31B-it, Mistral-Small-3.1-24B, Aria.

Read this before trusting a number here

Centering is not optional. Raw cosine between unrelated items on these states is +0.869 and raw retrieval sits exactly at chance. Everything shown is per-modality centered.

The Space fits its towers with a plain numpy loop so it can run on a free CPU box. That scores below the torch fit behind the published numbers, so read the cross-versus-within comparison rather than the absolute r@1.

Scope

Images only: two of the four hosts carry no audio or video tower, so the audio evidence elsewhere in this project is single-vendor and video is two-vendor. All four hosts train on overlapping web-scale corpora, so this shows the readable structure survives a change of vendor, architecture and training run. It does not show that independent minds would converge on it, and that reading is not asserted.

Contributors

RiverRider

24 commits