| --- |
| pretty_name: procedural-typed-decisions |
| language: |
| - en |
| license: apache-2.0 |
| task_categories: |
| - text-classification |
| tags: |
| - tasksource |
| - jev |
| - system-one |
| - procedural |
| - synthetic |
| - multi-question |
| configs: |
| - config_name: all |
| default: true |
| data_files: |
| - split: train |
| path: all/train-*.parquet |
| - split: validation |
| path: all/validation-*.parquet |
| - split: test |
| path: all/test-*.parquet |
| - config_name: arithmetic |
| data_files: |
| - split: train |
| path: arithmetic/train-*.parquet |
| - split: validation |
| path: arithmetic/validation-*.parquet |
| - split: test |
| path: arithmetic/test-*.parquet |
| - config_name: entity_belief_tracking |
| data_files: |
| - split: train |
| path: entity_belief_tracking/train-*.parquet |
| - split: validation |
| path: entity_belief_tracking/validation-*.parquet |
| - split: test |
| path: entity_belief_tracking/test-*.parquet |
| - config_name: event_state_reconstruction |
| data_files: |
| - split: train |
| path: event_state_reconstruction/train-*.parquet |
| - split: validation |
| path: event_state_reconstruction/validation-*.parquet |
| - split: test |
| path: event_state_reconstruction/test-*.parquet |
| - config_name: event_triggered_execution |
| data_files: |
| - split: train |
| path: event_triggered_execution/train-*.parquet |
| - split: validation |
| path: event_triggered_execution/validation-*.parquet |
| - split: test |
| path: event_triggered_execution/test-*.parquet |
| - config_name: evidence_sufficiency |
| data_files: |
| - split: train |
| path: evidence_sufficiency/train-*.parquet |
| - split: validation |
| path: evidence_sufficiency/validation-*.parquet |
| - split: test |
| path: evidence_sufficiency/test-*.parquet |
| - config_name: goal_directed_planning |
| data_files: |
| - split: train |
| path: goal_directed_planning/train-*.parquet |
| - split: validation |
| path: goal_directed_planning/validation-*.parquet |
| - split: test |
| path: goal_directed_planning/test-*.parquet |
| - config_name: graph_navigation |
| data_files: |
| - split: train |
| path: graph_navigation/train-*.parquet |
| - split: validation |
| path: graph_navigation/validation-*.parquet |
| - split: test |
| path: graph_navigation/test-*.parquet |
| - config_name: instruction_execution |
| data_files: |
| - split: train |
| path: instruction_execution/train-*.parquet |
| - split: validation |
| path: instruction_execution/validation-*.parquet |
| - split: test |
| path: instruction_execution/test-*.parquet |
| - config_name: multi_view_adjudication |
| data_files: |
| - split: train |
| path: multi_view_adjudication/train-*.parquet |
| - split: validation |
| path: multi_view_adjudication/validation-*.parquet |
| - split: test |
| path: multi_view_adjudication/test-*.parquet |
| - config_name: needle_retrieval |
| data_files: |
| - split: train |
| path: needle_retrieval/train-*.parquet |
| - split: validation |
| path: needle_retrieval/validation-*.parquet |
| - split: test |
| path: needle_retrieval/test-*.parquet |
| - config_name: partial_observation_calibration |
| data_files: |
| - split: train |
| path: partial_observation_calibration/train-*.parquet |
| - split: validation |
| path: partial_observation_calibration/validation-*.parquet |
| - split: test |
| path: partial_observation_calibration/test-*.parquet |
| - config_name: policy_applicability |
| data_files: |
| - split: train |
| path: policy_applicability/train-*.parquet |
| - split: validation |
| path: policy_applicability/validation-*.parquet |
| - split: test |
| path: policy_applicability/test-*.parquet |
| - config_name: policy_under_uncertainty |
| data_files: |
| - split: train |
| path: policy_under_uncertainty/train-*.parquet |
| - split: validation |
| path: policy_under_uncertainty/validation-*.parquet |
| - split: test |
| path: policy_under_uncertainty/test-*.parquet |
| - config_name: record_aggregation |
| data_files: |
| - split: train |
| path: record_aggregation/train-*.parquet |
| - split: validation |
| path: record_aggregation/validation-*.parquet |
| - split: test |
| path: record_aggregation/test-*.parquet |
| - config_name: record_eligibility |
| data_files: |
| - split: train |
| path: record_eligibility/train-*.parquet |
| - split: validation |
| path: record_eligibility/validation-*.parquet |
| - split: test |
| path: record_eligibility/test-*.parquet |
| - config_name: state_perturbation |
| data_files: |
| - split: train |
| path: state_perturbation/train-*.parquet |
| - split: validation |
| path: state_perturbation/validation-*.parquet |
| - split: test |
| path: state_perturbation/test-*.parquet |
| - config_name: table_lookup |
| data_files: |
| - split: train |
| path: table_lookup/train-*.parquet |
| - split: validation |
| path: table_lookup/validation-*.parquet |
| - split: test |
| path: table_lookup/test-*.parquet |
| - config_name: taxonomy_routing |
| data_files: |
| - split: train |
| path: taxonomy_routing/train-*.parquet |
| - split: validation |
| path: taxonomy_routing/validation-*.parquet |
| - split: test |
| path: taxonomy_routing/test-*.parquet |
| --- |
| |
| # procedural-typed-decisions |
|
|
| Procedurally generated decision problems. Each row is one structured state |
| (JSON, or a table, CSV, key=value lines, or prose for the arithmetic, |
| retrieval, and aggregation configs) with **several typed questions over that same state**, following the |
| Jev / System One request shape: `choice` (pick one criterion), `noul` (a |
| number in [0, 1]; a probability or a yes/no), and `score` (an ordered rubric). |
| Every answer is computed exactly from the state by rules that the state |
| itself spells out, so the labels are noise-free. No yes/no or choice label exceeds 60% of a question's answers: yes/no questions are at most a third of a task's questions. A state skips a question whose answer, or whose yes/no format, is already over-represented, so states ask varying subsets of their task's questions. Several configs vary the number of options |
| (4 to 60), to balance the binary and 4–6-option questions that dominate the rest of Jev. |
|
|
| The generators are the Jev tasks of [reasoning-core](https://github.com/sileod/reasoning-core) |
| (`reasoning_core/tasks/jev/`; `arithmetic` is `practical_arithmetic` there and `evidence_sufficiency` is |
| `claim_support`); [provenance.json](provenance.json) records the commit and task versions. |
|
|
| This is an independent dataset. It is not an official TypeSafe Jev dataset and |
| is not produced by or affiliated with TypeSafe or OpenJev. |
|
|
| ## Configs |
|
|
| | config | questions | |
| |---|---| |
| | `all` (default) | Every config below in one table, with a `task` column and the shared fields only (no flat label columns); the first 1,000 train rows cycle through levels and tasks, the rest is shuffled | |
| | `arithmetic` | An order with a discount/shipping rule, an account ledger, or a schedule; each state asks 2–5 of: `amount_due` / `final_balance` / `finish_time` (choice among the result and typical slips), `within_budget`, `went_negative`, `done_by_deadline` (noul), `random_line_bulk`, `random_is_deposit`, `random_is_long` (noul, exact probability k/n), `budget_use`, `net_change` (score, descriptive levels), `lines_above`, `withdrawal_count`, `starts_before_noon` (score), `largest_line`, `lowest_day`, `longest_task` (choice) | |
| | `entity_belief_tracking` | `world_location` (choice), `agent_belief_location` (choice), `belief_matches_world` (noul), from level 2 `nested_belief_location` (choice: where A thinks B believes an object is); 4 to 16 locations | |
| | `event_state_reconstruction` | `current_owner` (choice), `is_open` (noul), `current_severity` (score); the log is shuffled from level 2 and has voided entries from level 3 | |
| | `event_triggered_execution` | `rule_on_signal` (choice), `object_final_state`, `rule_enabled_at_end`, `object_ever_targeted` (noul), `total_firings` (score); 1–8 competing rules over 3–18 timestamped events, with priorities, event guards, cooldowns, enable/disable controls, and unsorted presentation | |
| | `evidence_sufficiency` | `claim_supported` (noul), `has_conflict` (noul), `strongest_support_origin` (choice); retractions from level 2, mirrored (non-independent) origins from level 3, validity by collection day at level 4 | |
| | `goal_directed_planning` | `goal_reachable`, `probe_applicable`, `probe_optimal_first`, `probe_required` (noul), `minimal_actions` (score), `first_legal_action` (choice); 3–12 steps with conjunctive and alternative prerequisites, unavailable actions, and exact shortest-plan labels | |
| | `graph_navigation` | `reachable`, `within_budget`, `edge_essential` (noul), `shortest_cost`, `first_hop` (choice); 4–16 directed nodes with edge costs, closures, mandatory waypoints, and optimal-route alternatives | |
| | `instruction_execution` | `resolution` and `deferred_registration` (choice), `target_count`, `changed_count` (score), `probe_selected`, `probe_final_state` (noul); natural-language selection, exceptions, immediate/deferred updates, ambiguity, and atomic/best-effort/ordered execution across 3–26 entities | |
| | `multi_view_adjudication` | `intent` (choice), `is_urgent` (noul), `workflow_impact` (score); near-threshold signals from level 2, auth failures counted from login events from level 3, deadlines as clock times at level 4 | |
| | `needle_retrieval` | `value_of_id` (choice), `id_has_value` (noul), `id_listed` (noul); up to ~300 records whose ids differ from the target by one or two digits, and from level 2 a chain of one to three id reissues to follow; 6 to 20 options | |
| | `partial_observation_calibration` | `incident_real` (noul, exact Bayesian posterior); 1 to 6 sensors | |
| | `policy_applicability` | `access_allowed` (noul), `governing_policy` (choice), `review_risk` (score); 2 one-constraint policies at level 0, about 12 policies of up to 5 constraints, many of them near misses, at level 4 | |
| | `policy_under_uncertainty` | `access_allowed` (noul), `governing_policy` (choice), `requester_role` (choice); exact posteriors over a role known through history counts and reports of stated reliability | |
| | `record_aggregation` | `count_in_category` (score), `largest_quantity` (choice), `any_out_of_stock` (noul), `total_above` (noul), from level 2 `count_filtered` (score, quantity and stock filters) | |
| | `record_eligibility` | Prose-only record descriptions and numbered user requirements. `probe_eligibility`, `requirement_status`, `first_eligible`, `decisive_constraint` (choice); `eligible_count` (score), `eligible_if_relaxed`, `probe_fully_eligible` (noul). Three-valued eligibility covers conjunction, negation, disjunction, conditional obligations, combined-cost limits, missing or conflicting evidence, and counterfactual relaxation. 4–27 records and 1–6 constraints by level. | |
| | `state_perturbation` | `material_change` (noul), `changed_dimension` (choice), `risk_direction` (score); 1 to 8 records with up to 4 simultaneous changes whose risk effects can offset, and look-alike non-material fields | |
| | `table_lookup` | `find_person` (choice, two-condition filter, through the manager from level 2 and with a start-year condition from level 3; 6 to 40 options, capped by the table), `manager_of` (choice, join), `started_before` (noul), `count_matching` (score) | |
| | `taxonomy_routing` | `route` (choice among the 4–60 categories of a routing guide drawn fresh per state; many rules share a condition with the right one), `belongs_to` (noul), `conditions_met` (score, 0–4) | |
|
|
| ## Record eligibility generation |
|
|
| The `record_eligibility` state contains only a natural-language user request, prose record descriptions, and explicit evaluation semantics. Source facts and logical expression trees are kept in generator test metadata, not the published dataset. Unknown facts are not treated as violations; a known violated requirement dominates any unknown requirements. The first eligible record is defined by the displayed order, and the decisive requirement by the numbered constraints. |
|
|
| Difficulty rises across five levels by increasing record count (4–6 to 25–27), requirement count (1 to 6), and the introduction of nested OR, conditional requirements, summed charges, near-threshold distractors and contradictory reports. |
|
|
| ## Schema |
|
|
| | field | meaning | |
| |---|---| |
| | `id` | `task:split:index` | |
| | `level` | Difficulty level (0–4), calibrated against Jev (see below). | |
| | `state` | The state: a JSON string, or rendered text for the retrieval and aggregation configs. | |
| | `questions` | JSON object of named System One questions (`type`, `instructions`, `criteria`). | |
| | `answers` | JSON object of reference answers, in the System One `answers` shape. | |
| | one column per question | Flat label, for browsing and filtering: a `ClassLabel` for choice, score, and yes/no noul questions; a float for graded noul (`incident_real`, `random_*`); the option text for open numeric choices (`amount_due`, `final_balance`, `finish_time`). Null when the state does not ask that question (`arithmetic`, and level-dependent questions). | |
|
|
| States are unique within a split, and validation/test states never occur in |
| train. In each config, the first 1,000 train rows cycle through the levels |
| (easiest first) for browsing; the rest of the split is shuffled. |
|
|
| ## Difficulty by level |
|
|
|
|
| Level 0 is meant to be easy for a strong decision model and level 4 hard. The |
| table gives Jev's chance-adjusted accuracy, kappa = (accuracy − chance) / |
| (1 − chance), on 40 fresh states per level (every question of each state; |
| `typesafe/jev-1.13-20260917`, September 2026; `jev-latest`, October 2026, for `event_triggered_execution`, |
| `goal_directed_planning`, `graph_navigation`, `instruction_execution`, `partial_observation_calibration` and `record_eligibility`, 30–40 states per level). 1 is perfect, 0 is chance. It was measured before the |
| generators moved to reasoning-core: five configs generate identical states there (`event_triggered_execution`, |
| `goal_directed_planning`, `graph_navigation`, `instruction_execution`, `record_eligibility`), the others keep their |
| rules and levels with revised renderings and sampling. |
|
|
| | config | level 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | |
| |---|---|---|---|---|---| |
| | `arithmetic` | 0.83 | 0.64 | 0.59 | 0.54 | 0.59 | |
| | `entity_belief_tracking` | 0.91 | 0.93 | 0.78 | 0.74 | 0.66 | |
| | `event_state_reconstruction` | 0.97 | 0.99 | 0.92 | 0.73 | 0.60 | |
| | `event_triggered_execution` | 0.91 | 0.75 | 0.63 | 0.44 | 0.60 | |
| | `evidence_sufficiency` | 0.99 | 0.97 | 0.78 | 0.72 | 0.78 | |
| | `goal_directed_planning` | 1.00 | 0.87 | 0.62 | 0.53 | 0.51 | |
| | `graph_navigation` | 0.90 | 0.81 | 0.54 | 0.27 | 0.17 | |
| | `instruction_execution` | 0.99 | 0.98 | 0.73 | 0.72 | 0.67 | |
| | `multi_view_adjudication` | 0.82 | 0.87 | 0.82 | 0.73 | 0.74 | |
| | `needle_retrieval` | 1.00 | 0.99 | 0.78 | 0.83 | 0.36 | |
| | `partial_observation_calibration` | 0.74 | 0.45 | 0.35 | 0.30 | 0.20 | |
| | `policy_applicability` | 0.73 | 0.60 | 0.53 | 0.64 | 0.35 | |
| | `policy_under_uncertainty` | 0.35 | 0.42 | 0.38 | 0.57 | 0.39 | |
| | `record_aggregation` | 0.99 | 0.96 | 0.84 | 0.75 | 0.70 | |
| | `record_eligibility` | 0.97 | 0.94 | 0.74 | 0.56 | 0.53 | |
| | `state_perturbation` | 0.95 | 0.89 | 0.44 | 0.63 | 0.50 | |
| | `table_lookup` | 1.00 | 0.98 | 0.97 | 0.90 | 0.87 | |
| | `taxonomy_routing` | 1.00 | 0.98 | 0.92 | 0.78 | 0.64 | |
|
|
| Probability answers are scored above by their rounding to yes/no; Jev's mean |
| absolute error on the exact probability grows from 0.16 (level 0) to 0.29 |
| (level 4) on `incident_real`, and stays around 0.33 on the posterior |
| `access_allowed` of `policy_under_uncertainty`. `policy_under_uncertainty` and |
| `partial_observation_calibration` (exact posteriors) are hard from level 0 on; |
| `table_lookup` and `multi_view_adjudication` remain the easiest at level 4. |
|
|
| A second model, `upstage/solar-decide` (10 states per level; it takes at most |
| 26 options, so the longest lists are left out), shows the same easy-to-hard |
| slope on most configs, e.g. 0.95 → 0.53 on `event_state_reconstruction`, |
| 1.00 → 0.48 on `evidence_sufficiency`, 0.88 → 0.42 on `policy_applicability`; |
| `arithmetic`, `table_lookup`, and `state_perturbation` stay easy for it (about |
| 0.8–0.9 at every level). Rerun with `scripts/calibrate_procedural_levels.py` |
| (`--model` for another model of the OpenRouter decisions API). |
|
|
| ## Use |
|
|
| As a multi-question Jev request, send `{"state": row["state"], "questions": |
| json.loads(row["questions"])}` (parsing the state first when it is JSON) and |
| compare with `row["answers"]`. |
| The same rows are included, grouped by state, in |
| [`tasksource/tasksource-jev-typed-decisions`](https://huggingface.co/datasets/tasksource/tasksource-jev-typed-decisions). |
|
|
| ## Reproduction |
|
|
| Generation is deterministic (row `i` of a split is seeded by `task:split:i`). |
| From a [tasksource](https://github.com/sileod/tasksource) checkout, with the reasoning-core commit of |
| [provenance.json](provenance.json) installed: |
|
|
| ```bash |
| PYTHONPATH=.:src python scripts/build_procedural_jev.py --output build/procedural-typed-decisions --upload |
| ``` |
|
|
| ## Citation |
|
|
| If you use tasksource, its standardized task annotations, or datasets derived from them in published research, please cite the tasksource paper (Sileo, LREC-COLING 2024). The procedural data is generated with Reasoning Core; please also cite the Reasoning Core paper (Sileo et al., 2026). |
|
|
| ```bibtex |
| @inproceedings{sileo-2024-tasksource, |
| title = "tasksource: A Large Collection of {NLP} tasks with a Structured Dataset Preprocessing Framework", |
| author = "Sileo, Damien", |
| booktitle = "Proceedings of the 2024 Joint International Conference on Computational Linguistics, Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC-COLING 2024)", |
| month = may, |
| year = "2024", |
| address = "Torino, Italia", |
| publisher = "ELRA and ICCL", |
| url = "https://aclanthology.org/2024.lrec-main.1361", |
| doi = "10.63317/2h4pkr685mkq", |
| pages = "15655--15684", |
| } |
| |
| @article{sileo2026reasoning, |
| title={Reasoning Core: Designing Broad Procedural Data for Completion-Supervised Reasoning Training}, |
| author={Sileo, Damien and Lacombe, Valentin and Kachler, Dimitri}, |
| journal={arXiv preprint arXiv:2608.05148}, |
| year={2026}, |
| url={https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.05148} |
| } |
| ``` |
|
|
