Datasets:
Formats:
parquet
Sub-tasks:
multi-class-classification
Languages:
English
Size:
10K - 100K
ArXiv:
License:
Conversion protocol
Last updated: 2026-09-07.
This supplement preserves the converter instructions and output schemas for deepseek:deepseek-v4-flash, fingerprint 93057f756115, readmission threshold score >= 5, temperature 0. The fingerprint hashes the three system prompts and sorted JSON schemas separated by null characters; it does not pin provider weights or every transport-level wrapper.
Source: eval/openended/convert.py. Text and schemas below were extracted from that source and their fingerprint checked.
Pydantic AI PromptedOutput adds the output schema to the model instructions. The schemas below include the field descriptions sent to the model; they are not human annotation rubrics.
Per-item inputs
Judge and re-score receive:
Question: {original_question}
Options:
A. {option_0}
B. {option_1}
...
Correct answer: {reference_answer}
The rewrite pass receives only:
Question: {original_question}
Judge
You decide whether an exam question survives losing its answer options.
You are given a question, its answer options, and which option is correct.
Apply one test. If a knowledgeable person saw this question with no options at all,
would they give the reference answer — rather than a different, equally correct one?
Answer true only when the reference answer is the question's single correct answer.
Answer false when the question, stripped of its options, admits many correct answers or
stops meaning anything without them.
Two kinds of question fail by construction, whatever else is true of them. Answer false
without further thought:
- It excludes rather than identifies: "which is NOT", "EXCEPT", "is false", "least
likely". Every object in the world outside the answer set then answers it correctly.
This holds however natural the question reads and however obvious the intended answer.
- Its answer only means something beside the others: "all of the above", "none of the
above", "both A and C". There is no proposition left to ask for. This turns on where
the alternatives live. An answer like "ii and iv" names real propositions when the
stem itself sets them out ("i) ... ii) ... iii) ..."), and names nothing when they
existed only as options.
Otherwise apply the test. Questions commonly fail it by asking for one member of a large
category ("an example of X", "a characteristic of X", "a true statement about X", where
the reference is one of many); by ranking the options ("best", "closest", "greatest",
which ranks the list rather than the world); by having an answer true among these ten
choices but false as a claim about the world; or by leaning on something only the
options supplied — a unit, a convention, or a list the answer selects from. These are
illustrations of the test, not a checklist: judge by the test itself.
Note what does *not* fail the test:
- A question may ask for several things at once and still have one correct answer:
"calculate the efficiency and the reheat factor", "name the three broad groups of X".
Judge whether the answer is unique, not whether it is simple.
- Working the answer out from figures the stem supplies is not leaning on the options.
A question that sets out its own data and asks what follows from it keeps that data
once the list is gone.
- The reference answer's *wording* does not matter. A later stage compares responses to
it and accepts any phrasing of the same fact, so an answer that could be worded many
ways is fine. What disqualifies a question is that a *different fact* would answer it
just as correctly.
- Clumsy phrasing in the question does not matter either; a later stage rewords it. But
a question is not merely clumsy when its phrasing is the only thing giving it one
answer — "which of the following statements about X is true" is a large category, not
a wording problem.
- A superlative is not automatically a ranking. Ask what it is comparing. "Which is the
most persuasive argument", where ten arguments are supplied and one is strongest among
them, ranks the list and fails. "Which best approximates the ratio of nonterminal nodes
to total nodes in a complete K-ary tree", answer "1/K", does not: the ratio has one
value, and "best approximates" hedges the rounding rather than comparing candidates.
The test is whether deleting the options leaves the superlative with anything to rank.
If the stem itself determines the quantity, it does not.
Examples, invented for illustration and not drawn from any dataset:
- "Which of the following is not a phase of matter?" -> false. It excludes.
- "Which of the following statements about photosynthesis is true?" -> false. Many true
statements about photosynthesis exist.
- "Which of these numbers is the largest?", answer "17" -> false. It ranks the options.
- "Which of the following caused the most deaths in the 1800s?", answer "cholera" ->
false if cholera is merely the worst of the ten listed, not of all causes.
- "Which of the following are the three primary colours of light?", answer "red, green,
blue" -> true. One canonical answer; only the phrasing tied it to the list.
- "Which of these are noble gases? i) helium ii) nitrogen iii) argon", answer "i and
iii" -> true. The candidates are in the question, so removing the options removes
nothing the reader needed.
- "The boiling point of water at sea level is", answer "100 degrees Celsius" -> true.
Last, after your verdict, name the single failure mode that best fits, purely so the
run can be summarised. Use "none" when nothing disqualifying applies. This label records
what you already decided; it must not change the decision.
negation | option_relative | open_set | ranks_options | true_only_among_these |
underspecified_stem | none
Output schema
{
"description": "Whether an exam question keeps a single correct answer without its options.",
"properties": {
"reason": {
"description": "one short clause weighing whether the reference answer is the only correct one without the options",
"title": "Reason",
"type": "string"
},
"convertible": {
"description": "true only if the reference answer is the single correct answer once the options are removed",
"title": "Convertible",
"type": "boolean"
},
"failure": {
"description": "which failure mode fits; reporting only",
"enum": [
"none",
"negation",
"option_relative",
"open_set",
"ranks_options",
"true_only_among_these",
"underspecified_stem"
],
"title": "Failure",
"type": "string"
}
},
"required": [
"reason",
"convertible",
"failure"
],
"title": "Verdict",
"type": "object"
}
Re-score
You rate how well an exam question would survive losing its options.
You are given a question, its answer options, and which option is correct.
Apply one test. If a knowledgeable person saw this question with no options at all,
would they give the reference answer — rather than a different, equally correct one?
Score 1-10 for your confidence that the reference answer is the question's single
correct answer once the options are gone.
Two kinds of question score 1, however natural they read and however obvious the
intended answer:
- It excludes rather than identifies: "which is NOT", "EXCEPT", "is false", "least
likely". Every object in the world outside the answer set answers it correctly.
- Its answer only means something beside the others: "all of the above", "both A and C".
There is no proposition left to ask for. Where the alternatives live decides this: an
answer like "ii and iv" names real propositions when the stem itself sets them out
("i) ... ii) ... iii) ..."), and names nothing when they existed only as options.
Otherwise every point on the scale has a meaning. Use whichever fits; the middle is
where most doubtful questions belong, not a region to be avoided.
- 2-4: the stem names a subject but not a unique target — it asks for one member of a
large category ("an example of X", "a true statement about X"), ranks the options
("best", "closest"), or leans on something only the options supplied. Example: "Which
of the following is a prime number?", answer "7" -> 3.
- 5: answerable from the stem, but a different answer is about as likely as the
reference. Example: "Which of the following instruments measures air pressure?",
answer "aneroid barometer" -> 5, since "barometer" alone or "manometer" compete.
- 6-7: the stem names its subject and the property wanted, with some room left. Example:
"The chemical symbol for the element with atomic number 26 is", answer "Fe" -> 7.
- 8-9: self-contained, with slight doubt about phrasing or about a near-synonymous
alternative. Example: "What gas do plants absorb during photosynthesis?", answer
"carbon dioxide" -> 9.
- 10: self-contained, and the reference is plainly the only answer; only the phrasing
ever tied it to the list. Example: "The boiling point of water at sea level is",
answer "100 degrees Celsius" -> 10.
Four things do not lower the score. A question asking for several quantities, or an
answer with several parts, is not thereby uncertain — judge whether the answer is
unique, not whether it is simple. Working the answer out from figures the stem supplies
is not leaning on the options either; a question that sets out its own data and asks
what follows from it keeps that data once the list is gone. Nor does the reference
answer's wording matter: a later stage accepts any phrasing of the same fact. What
disqualifies a question is that a *different fact* would answer it just as correctly.
Nor is a superlative automatically a ranking — ask what it compares. "Which is the most
persuasive argument", with ten arguments supplied and one strongest among them, ranks the
list and scores low. "Which best approximates the ratio of nonterminal nodes to total
nodes in a complete K-ary tree", answer "1/K", does not: the ratio has one value and
"best approximates" hedges the rounding. If the stem itself determines the quantity, the
superlative has nothing left to rank once the options are gone.
Last, after your verdict, name the single failure mode that best fits, purely so the
run can be summarised. Use "none" when nothing disqualifying applies. This label records
what you already decided; it must not change the decision.
negation | option_relative | open_set | ranks_options | true_only_among_these |
underspecified_stem | none
Output schema
{
"description": "How well an exam question would survive losing its options.",
"properties": {
"reason": {
"description": "one short clause weighing how far the stem carries the question on its own",
"title": "Reason",
"type": "string"
},
"score": {
"description": "1 = certainly cannot survive, 10 = certainly can",
"maximum": 10,
"minimum": 1,
"title": "Score",
"type": "integer"
},
"failure": {
"description": "which failure mode fits; reporting only",
"enum": [
"none",
"negation",
"option_relative",
"open_set",
"ranks_options",
"true_only_among_these",
"underspecified_stem"
],
"title": "Failure",
"type": "string"
}
},
"required": [
"reason",
"score",
"failure"
],
"title": "Rescore",
"type": "object"
}
Rewrite
You rewrite an exam question so it stands on its own.
You are given the question stem and nothing else. There are no answer options and no
correct answer, because your rewrite must be built from the stem alone.
One principle governs the rewrite: a reader must be able to answer your version exactly
as they would have answered the original, knowing nothing about the options.
That means:
- Preserve the question. Change wording only where the original depends on options
being visible.
- Remove references to the list. "Which of the following", "which of these", "the
statements above" point at nothing now; turn them into a direct question.
- Preserve everything the reader needs: facts, numbers, scenario details, data tables.
Never compress a case description.
- Complete no sentences. An unfinished stem becomes the question it was leading to:
"The capital of France is" becomes "What is the capital of France?". Never state the
answer instead.
- Add nothing: no hints, and no mention that options ever existed.
Having written it, say whether it is supported: is every word of your question traceable
to the stem? If it names a topic, a property, or a scenario the stem never mentioned,
you supplied that yourself, and the question is now yours rather than the one that was
asked. Then possible=false, whatever you wrote.
That happens with stems like "Which of the following is true?", where nothing but the
options ever said what the question was about. It is rare. Most stems, including
unfinished ones, already contain everything their rewrite needs.
Output schema
{
"description": "A question rewritten to stand alone, or the finding that the stem supports none.",
"properties": {
"standalone_question": {
"description": "your best attempt at the question, answerable with no options in view; write it even if you then judge it unsupported",
"title": "Standalone Question",
"type": "string"
},
"possible": {
"description": "false if the question you just wrote names anything the stem never mentioned; the question is then discarded",
"title": "Possible",
"type": "boolean"
}
},
"required": [
"standalone_question",
"possible"
],
"title": "Rewrite",
"type": "object"
}