diff --git "a/cross_query_benchmark/benchmark_full_v2.json" "b/cross_query_benchmark/benchmark_full_v2.json" new file mode 100644--- /dev/null +++ "b/cross_query_benchmark/benchmark_full_v2.json" @@ -0,0 +1,41737 @@ +{ + "metadata": { + "name": "Cross-Query Contradiction Benchmark", + "version": "2.0", + "description": "Multi-query reasoning benchmark with z3-verified labels, cross-query dependencies, and formal representations.", + "labels": [ + "ENTAILED", + "CONTRADICTED", + "UNKNOWN" + ], + "generation": "Procedural with z3 solver verification (all labels machine-checked)", + "domains": [ + "relational", + "temporal", + "policy", + "underspecified" + ] + }, + "statistics": { + "total_cases": 390, + "total_bundles": 390, + "total_queries": 2515, + "total_unique_queries": 2073, + "avg_queries_per_bundle": 6.45, + "label_distribution": { + "UNKNOWN": 1377, + "ENTAILED": 329, + "CONTRADICTED": 809 + }, + "domain_statistics": { + "relational": { + "cases": 120, + "bundles": 120, + "queries": 787 + }, + "temporal": { + "cases": 100, + "bundles": 100, + "queries": 637 + }, + "policy": { + "cases": 80, + "bundles": 80, + "queries": 506 + }, + "underspecified": { + "cases": 90, + "bundles": 90, + "queries": 585 + } + }, + "label_per_domain": { + "relational": { + "UNKNOWN": 425, + "ENTAILED": 123, + "CONTRADICTED": 239 + }, + "temporal": { + "ENTAILED": 69, + "CONTRADICTED": 202, + "UNKNOWN": 366 + }, + "policy": { + "UNKNOWN": 315, + "CONTRADICTED": 160, + "ENTAILED": 31 + }, + "underspecified": { + "UNKNOWN": 271, + "CONTRADICTED": 208, + "ENTAILED": 106 + } + }, + "avg_reasoning_length": 94.8, + "unique_query_ratio": 0.824 + }, + "cases": [ + { + "id": "rel_seating_0123", + "domain": "relational", + "subdomain": "seating_arrangement", + "logic_type": "propositional", + "premises": [ + "There are 6 people seated at a circular table: Victor, Nathan, Daphne, Marco, Willow, and Bob.", + "Each person occupies exactly one seat and all seats are distinct.", + "Victor must sit directly next to Daphne.", + "Nathan must not sit directly next to Daphne.", + "Willow must sit directly next to Bob." + ], + "formal_representation": "; Seating: 6 people, circular\n; Variables: pos_X in [0, 5] for each person\n; All-different constraint on positions\n; CONSTRAINT: adjacent(Victor, Daphne)\n; CONSTRAINT: not_adjacent(Nathan, Daphne)\n; CONSTRAINT: adjacent(Willow, Bob)", + "entities": [ + "Victor", + "Nathan", + "Daphne", + "Marco", + "Willow", + "Bob" + ], + "num_entities": 6, + "constraint_type": "circular", + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 7, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Must Daphne always be seated next to Marco?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid arrangements have Daphne next to Marco and others do not. The constraints do not force this adjacency.", + "query_type": "adj_forced", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Is it possible for Victor and Nathan to be seated beside each other?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "The constraints do not fully determine whether Victor and Nathan are adjacent. Some valid arrangements place them together, others do not.", + "query_type": "adj", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Is it possible for Nathan to be in the first seat?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Position 1 is available to Nathan in some arrangements but not others, depending on how other constraints resolve.", + "query_type": "pos", + "depends_on": [ + 1 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "In every valid arrangement, is Nathan adjacent to Marco?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid arrangements have Nathan next to Marco and others do not. The constraints do not force this adjacency.", + "query_type": "adj_forced", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1, + 2 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Can Victor sit directly next to Marco?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "The constraints do not fully determine whether Victor and Marco are adjacent. Some valid arrangements place them together, others do not.", + "query_type": "adj", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1, + 3 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q5", + "query": "Can Nathan sit directly next to Willow?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "The constraints do not fully determine whether Nathan and Willow are adjacent. Some valid arrangements place them together, others do not.", + "query_type": "adj", + "depends_on": [ + 1, + 2, + 3 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q6", + "query": "Can Bob and Willow be separated by exactly 1 seat?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "The constraints force exactly 1 seat(s) between Bob and Willow in every valid circular arrangement.", + "query_type": "sep", + "depends_on": [ + 5 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "UNKNOWN": 6, + "ENTAILED": 1 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "rel_assign_0027", + "domain": "relational", + "subdomain": "office_assignment", + "logic_type": "propositional", + "premises": [ + "There are 6 employees: Iris, Grace, Nora, Luna, Paul, and Sasha.", + "There are 4 offices: Room E, Room B, Room C, and Room A.", + "Each employee is assigned to exactly one office.", + "Nora must be assigned to Room E.", + "Iris and Grace must be assigned to the same office.", + "Iris and Nora must be in different offices.", + "Grace and Luna must be assigned to the same office.", + "Grace and Nora must be in different offices." + ], + "formal_representation": "; Assignment: 6 employees -> 4 offices\n; CONSTRAINT: ('forced', 'Nora', 'Room E')\n; CONSTRAINT: ('same', 'Iris', 'Grace')\n; CONSTRAINT: ('diff', 'Iris', 'Nora')\n; CONSTRAINT: ('same', 'Grace', 'Luna')\n; CONSTRAINT: ('diff', 'Grace', 'Nora')", + "entities": [ + "Iris", + "Grace", + "Nora", + "Luna", + "Paul", + "Sasha" + ], + "slots": [ + "Room E", + "Room B", + "Room C", + "Room A" + ], + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 7, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Must at least 1 employee(s) be assigned to Room C?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid assignments have 1+ employee(s) in Room C and others do not.", + "query_type": "capacity", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Must Nora and Grace always end up in the same office?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "The constraints prohibit Nora and Grace from sharing a office; no valid assignment allows it.", + "query_type": "same_slot", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Is it feasible for Paul to be placed in Room E?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Paul may or may not end up in Room E\u2014multiple valid assignments exist with different placements.", + "query_type": "slot_possible", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Must at least 3 employee(s) be assigned to Room B?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid assignments have 3+ employee(s) in Room B and others do not.", + "query_type": "capacity", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Is it feasible for Iris to be placed in Room E?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "Iris cannot be placed in Room E without violating at least one constraint.", + "query_type": "slot_possible", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q5", + "query": "Must at least 1 employee(s) be assigned to Room A?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid assignments have 1+ employee(s) in Room A and others do not.", + "query_type": "capacity", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q6", + "query": "Must at least 1 employee(s) be assigned to Room B?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid assignments have 1+ employee(s) in Room B and others do not.", + "query_type": "capacity", + "depends_on": [] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "UNKNOWN": 5, + "CONTRADICTED": 2 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "rel_seating_0006", + "domain": "relational", + "subdomain": "seating_arrangement", + "logic_type": "propositional", + "premises": [ + "There are 5 people seated at a circular table: Olivia, Yara, Theo, Jack, and Ursula.", + "Each person occupies exactly one seat and all seats are distinct.", + "Olivia must not sit directly next to Jack.", + "Olivia must sit directly next to Theo.", + "Theo must not sit directly next to Ursula." + ], + "formal_representation": "; Seating: 5 people, circular\n; Variables: pos_X in [0, 4] for each person\n; All-different constraint on positions\n; CONSTRAINT: not_adjacent(Olivia, Jack)\n; CONSTRAINT: adjacent(Olivia, Theo)\n; CONSTRAINT: not_adjacent(Theo, Ursula)", + "entities": [ + "Olivia", + "Yara", + "Theo", + "Jack", + "Ursula" + ], + "num_entities": 5, + "constraint_type": "circular", + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 5, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Must Olivia always be seated next to Ursula?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid arrangements have Olivia next to Ursula and others do not. The constraints do not force this adjacency.", + "query_type": "adj_forced", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Is it possible for Jack to be in the second seat?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Position 2 is available to Jack in some arrangements but not others, depending on how other constraints resolve.", + "query_type": "pos", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Can Jack and Olivia be separated by exactly 2 seats?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "The constraints force exactly 2 seat(s) between Jack and Olivia in every valid circular arrangement.", + "query_type": "sep", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Is it possible for Yara and Jack to be seated beside each other?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "The constraints do not fully determine whether Yara and Jack are adjacent. Some valid arrangements place them together, others do not.", + "query_type": "adj", + "depends_on": [ + 1, + 2 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "In every valid arrangement, is Yara adjacent to Theo?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid arrangements have Yara next to Theo and others do not. The constraints do not force this adjacency.", + "query_type": "adj_forced", + "depends_on": [ + 3 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "UNKNOWN": 4, + "ENTAILED": 1 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "rel_seating_0029", + "domain": "relational", + "subdomain": "seating_arrangement", + "logic_type": "propositional", + "premises": [ + "There are 5 people seated at a row of chairs: Kyle, Ivan, Jack, Karen, and Uma.", + "Each person occupies exactly one chair and all chairs are distinct.", + "Kyle must not sit directly next to Karen.", + "Jack must sit directly next to Uma.", + "Ivan must not sit directly next to Uma." + ], + "formal_representation": "; Seating: 5 people, linear\n; Variables: pos_X in [0, 4] for each person\n; All-different constraint on positions\n; CONSTRAINT: not_adjacent(Kyle, Karen)\n; CONSTRAINT: adjacent(Jack, Uma)\n; CONSTRAINT: not_adjacent(Ivan, Uma)", + "entities": [ + "Kyle", + "Ivan", + "Jack", + "Karen", + "Uma" + ], + "num_entities": 5, + "constraint_type": "linear", + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 6, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Must Jack always be seated next to Karen?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid arrangements have Jack next to Karen and others do not. The constraints do not force this adjacency.", + "query_type": "adj_forced", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Is it possible for Karen and Uma to be seated beside each other?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "The constraints do not fully determine whether Karen and Uma are adjacent. Some valid arrangements place them together, others do not.", + "query_type": "adj", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Can Kyle sit at position 5?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Position 5 is available to Kyle in some arrangements but not others, depending on how other constraints resolve.", + "query_type": "pos", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Is it possible for Karen to be in the fourth seat?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Position 4 is available to Karen in some arrangements but not others, depending on how other constraints resolve.", + "query_type": "pos", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Can Ivan and Uma be separated by exactly 2 seats?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether Ivan and Uma have exactly 2 seat(s) between them depends on how the remaining positions resolve.", + "query_type": "sep", + "depends_on": [ + 1 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q5", + "query": "Can Kyle and Ivan be separated by exactly 2 seats?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "No valid arrangement has exactly 2 seat(s) between Kyle and Ivan, given the linear constraint structure.", + "query_type": "sep", + "depends_on": [ + 2, + 4 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "UNKNOWN": 5, + "CONTRADICTED": 1 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "rel_assign_0079", + "domain": "relational", + "subdomain": "color_assignment", + "logic_type": "propositional", + "premises": [ + "There are 6 nodes: Amara, Paul, Kyle, Jack, Blake, and Tina.", + "There are 3 colors: black, purple, and blue.", + "Each node is assigned to exactly one color.", + "Amara and Blake must be in different colors.", + "Amara must be assigned to blue.", + "Kyle and Blake must be assigned to the same color.", + "Amara and Jack must be in different colors.", + "Paul must be assigned to blue.", + "Kyle and Jack must be assigned to the same color.", + "Jack must be assigned to purple." + ], + "formal_representation": "; Assignment: 6 nodes -> 3 colors\n; CONSTRAINT: ('diff', 'Amara', 'Blake')\n; CONSTRAINT: ('forced', 'Amara', 'blue')\n; CONSTRAINT: ('same', 'Kyle', 'Blake')\n; CONSTRAINT: ('diff', 'Amara', 'Jack')\n; CONSTRAINT: ('forced', 'Paul', 'blue')\n; CONSTRAINT: ('same', 'Kyle', 'Jack')\n; CONSTRAINT: ('forced', 'Jack', 'purple')", + "entities": [ + "Amara", + "Paul", + "Kyle", + "Jack", + "Blake", + "Tina" + ], + "slots": [ + "black", + "purple", + "blue" + ], + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 6, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Is it feasible for Jack to be placed in blue?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "Jack cannot be placed in blue without violating at least one constraint.", + "query_type": "slot_possible", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Must Kyle and Amara always end up in the same color?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "The constraints prohibit Kyle and Amara from sharing a color; no valid assignment allows it.", + "query_type": "same_slot", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Must at least 3 node(s) be assigned to blue?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid assignments have 3+ node(s) in blue and others do not.", + "query_type": "capacity", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Must at least 3 node(s) be assigned to black?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "No valid assignment places 3 or more node(s) in black, given the constraints.", + "query_type": "capacity", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Is it feasible for Paul to be placed in black?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "Paul cannot be placed in black without violating at least one constraint.", + "query_type": "slot_possible", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q5", + "query": "Must Blake be assigned to black?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "Blake cannot be placed in black without violating at least one constraint.", + "query_type": "forced_slot", + "depends_on": [] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "CONTRADICTED": 5, + "UNKNOWN": 1 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "rel_seating_0109", + "domain": "relational", + "subdomain": "seating_arrangement", + "logic_type": "propositional", + "premises": [ + "There are 7 people seated at a circular table: Xavier, Leo, Zane, Yara, Kyle, Olivia, and Bob.", + "Each person occupies exactly one seat and all seats are distinct.", + "Xavier must not sit directly next to Kyle.", + "Zane must not sit directly next to Kyle.", + "Zane must sit directly next to Yara.", + "Leo must sit directly next to Yara." + ], + "formal_representation": "; Seating: 7 people, circular\n; Variables: pos_X in [0, 6] for each person\n; All-different constraint on positions\n; CONSTRAINT: not_adjacent(Xavier, Kyle)\n; CONSTRAINT: not_adjacent(Zane, Kyle)\n; CONSTRAINT: adjacent(Zane, Yara)\n; CONSTRAINT: adjacent(Leo, Yara)", + "entities": [ + "Xavier", + "Leo", + "Zane", + "Yara", + "Kyle", + "Olivia", + "Bob" + ], + "num_entities": 7, + "constraint_type": "circular", + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 5, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "In every valid arrangement, is Xavier adjacent to Yara?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "No valid arrangement exists where Xavier is adjacent to Yara, given the combined constraints.", + "query_type": "adj_forced", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Is it possible for Xavier and Olivia to be seated beside each other?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "The constraints do not fully determine whether Xavier and Olivia are adjacent. Some valid arrangements place them together, others do not.", + "query_type": "adj", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Can Olivia and Leo be separated by exactly 3 seats?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether Olivia and Leo have exactly 3 seat(s) between them depends on how the remaining positions resolve.", + "query_type": "sep", + "depends_on": [ + 1 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "In every valid arrangement, is Leo adjacent to Kyle?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid arrangements have Leo next to Kyle and others do not. The constraints do not force this adjacency.", + "query_type": "adj_forced", + "depends_on": [ + 2 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Can Xavier and Bob be separated by exactly 2 seats?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether Xavier and Bob have exactly 2 seat(s) between them depends on how the remaining positions resolve.", + "query_type": "sep", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "CONTRADICTED": 1, + "UNKNOWN": 4 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "rel_assign_0076", + "domain": "relational", + "subdomain": "shift_assignment", + "logic_type": "propositional", + "premises": [ + "There are 4 workers: Frank, Diana, Victor, and Wendy.", + "There are 4 shifts: night, morning, evening, and afternoon.", + "Each worker is assigned to exactly one shift.", + "Victor and Wendy must be in different shifts.", + "Diana must be assigned to morning.", + "Diana and Victor must be assigned to the same shift.", + "Wendy cannot be assigned to night.", + "Frank and Diana must be in different shifts." + ], + "formal_representation": "; Assignment: 4 workers -> 4 shifts\n; CONSTRAINT: ('diff', 'Victor', 'Wendy')\n; CONSTRAINT: ('forced', 'Diana', 'morning')\n; CONSTRAINT: ('same', 'Diana', 'Victor')\n; CONSTRAINT: ('banned', 'Wendy', 'night')\n; CONSTRAINT: ('diff', 'Frank', 'Diana')", + "entities": [ + "Frank", + "Diana", + "Victor", + "Wendy" + ], + "slots": [ + "night", + "morning", + "evening", + "afternoon" + ], + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 8, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Must at least 3 worker(s) be assigned to night?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "No valid assignment places 3 or more worker(s) in night, given the constraints.", + "query_type": "capacity", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Is Diana's assignment to afternoon guaranteed?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "Diana cannot be placed in afternoon without violating at least one constraint.", + "query_type": "forced_slot", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Must at least 1 worker(s) be assigned to evening?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid assignments have 1+ worker(s) in evening and others do not.", + "query_type": "capacity", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Must at least 3 worker(s) be assigned to afternoon?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "No valid assignment places 3 or more worker(s) in afternoon, given the constraints.", + "query_type": "capacity", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Is Wendy's assignment to afternoon guaranteed?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Wendy may or may not end up in afternoon\u2014multiple valid assignments exist with different placements.", + "query_type": "forced_slot", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q5", + "query": "Must Diana be assigned to evening?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "Diana cannot be placed in evening without violating at least one constraint.", + "query_type": "forced_slot", + "depends_on": [ + 1 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q6", + "query": "Must at least 2 worker(s) be assigned to evening?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid assignments have 2+ worker(s) in evening and others do not.", + "query_type": "capacity", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q7", + "query": "Must Diana be assigned to morning?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "All constraints together force Diana into morning; no other shift is feasible.", + "query_type": "forced_slot", + "depends_on": [ + 1, + 5 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "CONTRADICTED": 4, + "UNKNOWN": 3, + "ENTAILED": 1 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "rel_assign_0056", + "domain": "relational", + "subdomain": "shift_assignment", + "logic_type": "propositional", + "premises": [ + "There are 5 workers: Charlie, Jade, Freya, Nathan, and Theo.", + "There are 3 shifts: evening, morning, and night.", + "Each worker is assigned to exactly one shift.", + "Jade must be assigned to morning.", + "Freya must be assigned to morning.", + "Charlie and Jade must be assigned to the same shift." + ], + "formal_representation": "; Assignment: 5 workers -> 3 shifts\n; CONSTRAINT: ('forced', 'Jade', 'morning')\n; CONSTRAINT: ('forced', 'Freya', 'morning')\n; CONSTRAINT: ('same', 'Charlie', 'Jade')", + "entities": [ + "Charlie", + "Jade", + "Freya", + "Nathan", + "Theo" + ], + "slots": [ + "evening", + "morning", + "night" + ], + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 6, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Is it possible for Jade and Charlie to share a shift?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "The combined constraints force Jade and Charlie into the same shift in every valid assignment.", + "query_type": "same_slot", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Is it feasible for Freya to be placed in morning?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "All constraints together force Freya into morning; no other shift is feasible.", + "query_type": "slot_possible", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Is it possible for Nathan and Theo to share a shift?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid assignments place Nathan and Theo together, while others separate them. The constraints are insufficient to determine this.", + "query_type": "same_slot", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Can Jade be in morning?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "All constraints together force Jade into morning; no other shift is feasible.", + "query_type": "forced_slot", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Is it feasible for Nathan to be placed in night?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Nathan may or may not end up in night\u2014multiple valid assignments exist with different placements.", + "query_type": "slot_possible", + "depends_on": [ + 2 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q5", + "query": "Must at least 2 worker(s) be assigned to night?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid assignments have 2+ worker(s) in night and others do not.", + "query_type": "capacity", + "depends_on": [] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "ENTAILED": 3, + "UNKNOWN": 3 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "rel_assign_0105", + "domain": "relational", + "subdomain": "shift_assignment", + "logic_type": "propositional", + "premises": [ + "There are 5 workers: Theo, Elias, Luna, Bob, and Uma.", + "There are 3 shifts: night, afternoon, and morning.", + "Each worker is assigned to exactly one shift.", + "Elias cannot be assigned to afternoon.", + "Luna and Bob must be assigned to the same shift.", + "Theo and Luna must be in different shifts.", + "Luna must be assigned to night.", + "Uma must be assigned to afternoon." + ], + "formal_representation": "; Assignment: 5 workers -> 3 shifts\n; CONSTRAINT: ('banned', 'Elias', 'afternoon')\n; CONSTRAINT: ('same', 'Luna', 'Bob')\n; CONSTRAINT: ('diff', 'Theo', 'Luna')\n; CONSTRAINT: ('forced', 'Luna', 'night')\n; CONSTRAINT: ('forced', 'Uma', 'afternoon')", + "entities": [ + "Theo", + "Elias", + "Luna", + "Bob", + "Uma" + ], + "slots": [ + "night", + "afternoon", + "morning" + ], + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 7, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Must at least 3 worker(s) be assigned to afternoon?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "No valid assignment places 3 or more worker(s) in afternoon, given the constraints.", + "query_type": "capacity", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Must at least 3 worker(s) be assigned to morning?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "No valid assignment places 3 or more worker(s) in morning, given the constraints.", + "query_type": "capacity", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Is Luna's assignment to night guaranteed?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "All constraints together force Luna into night; no other shift is feasible.", + "query_type": "forced_slot", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Is it possible for Uma and Luna to share a shift?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "The constraints prohibit Uma and Luna from sharing a shift; no valid assignment allows it.", + "query_type": "same_slot", + "depends_on": [ + 2 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Is it feasible for Uma to be placed in afternoon?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "All constraints together force Uma into afternoon; no other shift is feasible.", + "query_type": "slot_possible", + "depends_on": [ + 3 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q5", + "query": "Is it feasible for Elias to be placed in afternoon?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "Elias cannot be placed in afternoon without violating at least one constraint.", + "query_type": "slot_possible", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q6", + "query": "Must Uma be assigned to morning?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "Uma cannot be placed in morning without violating at least one constraint.", + "query_type": "forced_slot", + "depends_on": [ + 3, + 4 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "CONTRADICTED": 5, + "ENTAILED": 2 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "rel_assign_0048", + "domain": "relational", + "subdomain": "color_assignment", + "logic_type": "propositional", + "premises": [ + "There are 5 nodes: Oscar, Frank, Ursula, Reed, and Vince.", + "There are 3 colors: black, red, and green.", + "Each node is assigned to exactly one color.", + "Frank cannot be assigned to red.", + "Reed cannot be assigned to red.", + "Oscar cannot be assigned to red.", + "Oscar and Vince must be in different colors.", + "Reed and Vince must be in different colors.", + "Oscar cannot be assigned to black." + ], + "formal_representation": "; Assignment: 5 nodes -> 3 colors\n; CONSTRAINT: ('banned', 'Frank', 'red')\n; CONSTRAINT: ('banned', 'Reed', 'red')\n; CONSTRAINT: ('banned', 'Oscar', 'red')\n; CONSTRAINT: ('diff', 'Oscar', 'Vince')\n; CONSTRAINT: ('diff', 'Reed', 'Vince')\n; CONSTRAINT: ('banned', 'Oscar', 'black')", + "entities": [ + "Oscar", + "Frank", + "Ursula", + "Reed", + "Vince" + ], + "slots": [ + "black", + "red", + "green" + ], + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 7, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Is it feasible for Oscar to be placed in red?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "Oscar cannot be placed in red without violating at least one constraint.", + "query_type": "slot_possible", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Is it feasible for Frank to be placed in red?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "Frank cannot be placed in red without violating at least one constraint.", + "query_type": "slot_possible", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Is it feasible for Oscar to be placed in black?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "Oscar cannot be placed in black without violating at least one constraint.", + "query_type": "slot_possible", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Can Ursula and Frank be in the same color?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid assignments place Ursula and Frank together, while others separate them. The constraints are insufficient to determine this.", + "query_type": "same_slot", + "depends_on": [ + 1 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Is it feasible for Vince to be placed in green?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "Vince cannot be placed in green without violating at least one constraint.", + "query_type": "slot_possible", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q5", + "query": "Must Oscar be assigned to green?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "All constraints together force Oscar into green; no other color is feasible.", + "query_type": "forced_slot", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 2 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q6", + "query": "Must at least 1 node(s) be assigned to green?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "The constraints guarantee at least 1 node(s) in green across all valid assignments.", + "query_type": "capacity", + "depends_on": [] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "CONTRADICTED": 4, + "UNKNOWN": 1, + "ENTAILED": 2 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "rel_seating_0060", + "domain": "relational", + "subdomain": "seating_arrangement", + "logic_type": "propositional", + "premises": [ + "There are 6 people seated at a row of chairs: Jade, Elias, Luna, Kyle, Reed, and Amara.", + "Each person occupies exactly one chair and all chairs are distinct.", + "Jade must not sit directly next to Reed.", + "Jade must sit directly next to Amara.", + "Luna must sit directly next to Kyle.", + "Reed must not sit directly next to Amara.", + "Luna must sit directly next to Amara.", + "Elias must sit directly next to Reed." + ], + "formal_representation": "; Seating: 6 people, linear\n; Variables: pos_X in [0, 5] for each person\n; All-different constraint on positions\n; CONSTRAINT: not_adjacent(Jade, Reed)\n; CONSTRAINT: adjacent(Jade, Amara)\n; CONSTRAINT: adjacent(Luna, Kyle)\n; CONSTRAINT: not_adjacent(Reed, Amara)\n; CONSTRAINT: adjacent(Luna, Amara)\n; CONSTRAINT: adjacent(Elias, Reed)", + "entities": [ + "Jade", + "Elias", + "Luna", + "Kyle", + "Reed", + "Amara" + ], + "num_entities": 6, + "constraint_type": "linear", + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 8, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Is it possible for Jade and Elias to be seated beside each other?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "The constraints do not fully determine whether Jade and Elias are adjacent. Some valid arrangements place them together, others do not.", + "query_type": "adj", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Can Kyle and Luna be separated by exactly 3 seats?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "No valid arrangement has exactly 3 seat(s) between Kyle and Luna, given the linear constraint structure.", + "query_type": "sep", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "In every valid arrangement, is Jade adjacent to Luna?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "No valid arrangement exists where Jade is adjacent to Luna, given the combined constraints.", + "query_type": "adj_forced", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Can Kyle sit at position 2?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "Placing Kyle at position 2 would violate one or more constraints; no valid arrangement allows it.", + "query_type": "pos", + "depends_on": [ + 1 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "In every valid arrangement, is Kyle adjacent to Amara?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "No valid arrangement exists where Kyle is adjacent to Amara, given the combined constraints.", + "query_type": "adj_forced", + "depends_on": [ + 1, + 3 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q5", + "query": "Is it possible for Elias to be in the fifth seat?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Position 5 is available to Elias in some arrangements but not others, depending on how other constraints resolve.", + "query_type": "pos", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q6", + "query": "Can Elias sit directly next to Luna?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "The combination of constraints on Elias and Luna's required/forbidden neighbors leaves no valid arrangement where they are adjacent.", + "query_type": "adj", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1, + 2, + 5 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q7", + "query": "Must Kyle always be seated next to Reed?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid arrangements have Kyle next to Reed and others do not. The constraints do not force this adjacency.", + "query_type": "adj_forced", + "depends_on": [ + 1, + 3, + 4 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "UNKNOWN": 3, + "CONTRADICTED": 5 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "rel_assign_0135", + "domain": "relational", + "subdomain": "office_assignment", + "logic_type": "propositional", + "premises": [ + "There are 6 employees: Quinn, Paul, Marco, Luna, Reed, and Karen.", + "There are 3 offices: Room A, Room E, and Room C.", + "Each employee is assigned to exactly one office.", + "Reed cannot be assigned to Room E.", + "Karen cannot be assigned to Room A.", + "Marco and Karen must be assigned to the same office.", + "Paul must be assigned to Room E.", + "Paul and Luna must be in different offices.", + "Karen cannot be assigned to Room E.", + "Luna and Karen must be assigned to the same office." + ], + "formal_representation": "; Assignment: 6 employees -> 3 offices\n; CONSTRAINT: ('banned', 'Reed', 'Room E')\n; CONSTRAINT: ('banned', 'Karen', 'Room A')\n; CONSTRAINT: ('same', 'Marco', 'Karen')\n; CONSTRAINT: ('forced', 'Paul', 'Room E')\n; CONSTRAINT: ('diff', 'Paul', 'Luna')\n; CONSTRAINT: ('banned', 'Karen', 'Room E')\n; CONSTRAINT: ('same', 'Luna', 'Karen')", + "entities": [ + "Quinn", + "Paul", + "Marco", + "Luna", + "Reed", + "Karen" + ], + "slots": [ + "Room A", + "Room E", + "Room C" + ], + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 8, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Can Luna and Reed be in the same office?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid assignments place Luna and Reed together, while others separate them. The constraints are insufficient to determine this.", + "query_type": "same_slot", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Must Paul be assigned to Room E?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "All constraints together force Paul into Room E; no other office is feasible.", + "query_type": "forced_slot", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Must Luna be assigned to Room A?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "Luna cannot be placed in Room A without violating at least one constraint.", + "query_type": "forced_slot", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Is it feasible for Paul to be placed in Room C?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "Paul cannot be placed in Room C without violating at least one constraint.", + "query_type": "slot_possible", + "depends_on": [ + 1 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Must at least 1 employee(s) be assigned to Room A?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid assignments have 1+ employee(s) in Room A and others do not.", + "query_type": "capacity", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q5", + "query": "Must Karen and Luna always end up in the same office?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "The combined constraints force Karen and Luna into the same office in every valid assignment.", + "query_type": "same_slot", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 2 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q6", + "query": "Must at least 2 employee(s) be assigned to Room C?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "The constraints guarantee at least 2 employee(s) in Room C across all valid assignments.", + "query_type": "capacity", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q7", + "query": "Is Paul's assignment to Room A guaranteed?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "Paul cannot be placed in Room A without violating at least one constraint.", + "query_type": "forced_slot", + "depends_on": [ + 1, + 3 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "UNKNOWN": 2, + "ENTAILED": 3, + "CONTRADICTED": 3 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "rel_seating_0012", + "domain": "relational", + "subdomain": "seating_arrangement", + "logic_type": "propositional", + "premises": [ + "There are 5 people seated at a row of chairs: Eve, Rachel, Amara, Victor, and Gavin.", + "Each person occupies exactly one chair and all chairs are distinct.", + "Eve must not sit directly next to Rachel.", + "Eve must not sit directly next to Victor.", + "Rachel must not sit directly next to Victor." + ], + "formal_representation": "; Seating: 5 people, linear\n; Variables: pos_X in [0, 4] for each person\n; All-different constraint on positions\n; CONSTRAINT: not_adjacent(Eve, Rachel)\n; CONSTRAINT: not_adjacent(Eve, Victor)\n; CONSTRAINT: not_adjacent(Rachel, Victor)", + "entities": [ + "Eve", + "Rachel", + "Amara", + "Victor", + "Gavin" + ], + "num_entities": 5, + "constraint_type": "linear", + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 7, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Can Eve and Rachel be separated by exactly 2 seats?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether Eve and Rachel have exactly 2 seat(s) between them depends on how the remaining positions resolve.", + "query_type": "sep", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Could Victor end up adjacent to Gavin?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "The constraints do not fully determine whether Victor and Gavin are adjacent. Some valid arrangements place them together, others do not.", + "query_type": "adj", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Can Amara and Gavin be separated by exactly 2 seats?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "The constraints force exactly 2 seat(s) between Amara and Gavin in every valid linear arrangement.", + "query_type": "sep", + "depends_on": [ + 1 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Is it possible for Amara and Gavin to be seated beside each other?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "The combination of constraints on Amara and Gavin's required/forbidden neighbors leaves no valid arrangement where they are adjacent.", + "query_type": "adj", + "depends_on": [ + 1, + 2 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Must Rachel always be seated next to Gavin?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid arrangements have Rachel next to Gavin and others do not. The constraints do not force this adjacency.", + "query_type": "adj_forced", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1, + 2, + 3 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q5", + "query": "Is it possible for Eve and Gavin to be seated beside each other?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "The constraints do not fully determine whether Eve and Gavin are adjacent. Some valid arrangements place them together, others do not.", + "query_type": "adj", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1, + 2, + 3, + 4 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q6", + "query": "Is it possible for Rachel and Amara to be seated beside each other?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "The constraints do not fully determine whether Rachel and Amara are adjacent. Some valid arrangements place them together, others do not.", + "query_type": "adj", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 2, + 3, + 4 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "UNKNOWN": 5, + "ENTAILED": 1, + "CONTRADICTED": 1 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "rel_assign_0096", + "domain": "relational", + "subdomain": "office_assignment", + "logic_type": "propositional", + "premises": [ + "There are 5 employees: Luna, Jack, Kyle, Alice, and Amara.", + "There are 3 offices: Room A, Room D, and Room C.", + "Each employee is assigned to exactly one office.", + "Kyle and Amara must be assigned to the same office.", + "Luna and Jack must be assigned to the same office.", + "Jack cannot be assigned to Room A.", + "Kyle must be assigned to Room A." + ], + "formal_representation": "; Assignment: 5 employees -> 3 offices\n; CONSTRAINT: ('same', 'Kyle', 'Amara')\n; CONSTRAINT: ('same', 'Luna', 'Jack')\n; CONSTRAINT: ('banned', 'Jack', 'Room A')\n; CONSTRAINT: ('forced', 'Kyle', 'Room A')", + "entities": [ + "Luna", + "Jack", + "Kyle", + "Alice", + "Amara" + ], + "slots": [ + "Room A", + "Room D", + "Room C" + ], + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 6, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Is it feasible for Alice to be placed in Room D?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Alice may or may not end up in Room D\u2014multiple valid assignments exist with different placements.", + "query_type": "slot_possible", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Is it feasible for Amara to be placed in Room A?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "All constraints together force Amara into Room A; no other office is feasible.", + "query_type": "slot_possible", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Must at least 2 employee(s) be assigned to Room A?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "The constraints guarantee at least 2 employee(s) in Room A across all valid assignments.", + "query_type": "capacity", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Is it feasible for Jack to be placed in Room C?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Jack may or may not end up in Room C\u2014multiple valid assignments exist with different placements.", + "query_type": "slot_possible", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Can Alice and Amara be in the same office?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid assignments place Alice and Amara together, while others separate them. The constraints are insufficient to determine this.", + "query_type": "same_slot", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q5", + "query": "Must Luna and Alice always end up in the same office?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid assignments place Luna and Alice together, while others separate them. The constraints are insufficient to determine this.", + "query_type": "same_slot", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 4 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "UNKNOWN": 4, + "ENTAILED": 2 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "rel_assign_0080", + "domain": "relational", + "subdomain": "team_assignment", + "logic_type": "propositional", + "premises": [ + "There are 4 persons: Freya, Elias, Iris, and Karen.", + "There are 4 departments: Finance, Engineering, Operations, and Research.", + "Each person is assigned to exactly one department.", + "Freya and Karen must be assigned to the same department.", + "Elias and Iris must be in different departments.", + "Karen cannot be assigned to Operations.", + "Elias cannot be assigned to Research." + ], + "formal_representation": "; Assignment: 4 persons -> 4 departments\n; CONSTRAINT: ('same', 'Freya', 'Karen')\n; CONSTRAINT: ('diff', 'Elias', 'Iris')\n; CONSTRAINT: ('banned', 'Karen', 'Operations')\n; CONSTRAINT: ('banned', 'Elias', 'Research')", + "entities": [ + "Freya", + "Elias", + "Iris", + "Karen" + ], + "slots": [ + "Finance", + "Engineering", + "Operations", + "Research" + ], + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 8, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Must at least 3 person(s) be assigned to Finance?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid assignments have 3+ person(s) in Finance and others do not.", + "query_type": "capacity", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Must at least 1 person(s) be assigned to Finance?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid assignments have 1+ person(s) in Finance and others do not.", + "query_type": "capacity", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Is it possible for Freya and Elias to share a department?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid assignments place Freya and Elias together, while others separate them. The constraints are insufficient to determine this.", + "query_type": "same_slot", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Is it feasible for Iris to be placed in Research?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Iris may or may not end up in Research\u2014multiple valid assignments exist with different placements.", + "query_type": "slot_possible", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Must at least 2 person(s) be assigned to Operations?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "No valid assignment places 2 or more person(s) in Operations, given the constraints.", + "query_type": "capacity", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q5", + "query": "Must Elias and Iris always end up in the same department?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "The constraints prohibit Elias and Iris from sharing a department; no valid assignment allows it.", + "query_type": "same_slot", + "depends_on": [ + 2, + 3 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q6", + "query": "Is Karen's assignment to Operations guaranteed?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "Karen cannot be placed in Operations without violating at least one constraint.", + "query_type": "forced_slot", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q7", + "query": "Is it feasible for Karen to be placed in Research?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Karen may or may not end up in Research\u2014multiple valid assignments exist with different placements.", + "query_type": "slot_possible", + "depends_on": [ + 6 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "UNKNOWN": 5, + "CONTRADICTED": 3 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "rel_seating_0113", + "domain": "relational", + "subdomain": "seating_arrangement", + "logic_type": "propositional", + "premises": [ + "There are 6 people seated at a row of chairs: Daphne, Sasha, Olivia, Priya, Vince, and Jack.", + "Each person occupies exactly one chair and all chairs are distinct.", + "Priya must sit directly next to Vince.", + "Daphne must sit directly next to Sasha.", + "Olivia must sit directly next to Priya." + ], + "formal_representation": "; Seating: 6 people, linear\n; Variables: pos_X in [0, 5] for each person\n; All-different constraint on positions\n; CONSTRAINT: adjacent(Priya, Vince)\n; CONSTRAINT: adjacent(Daphne, Sasha)\n; CONSTRAINT: adjacent(Olivia, Priya)", + "entities": [ + "Daphne", + "Sasha", + "Olivia", + "Priya", + "Vince", + "Jack" + ], + "num_entities": 6, + "constraint_type": "linear", + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 8, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Can Olivia sit at position 2?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Position 2 is available to Olivia in some arrangements but not others, depending on how other constraints resolve.", + "query_type": "pos", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Can Sasha and Jack be separated by exactly 2 seats?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether Sasha and Jack have exactly 2 seat(s) between them depends on how the remaining positions resolve.", + "query_type": "sep", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Can Vince sit directly next to Jack?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "The constraints do not fully determine whether Vince and Jack are adjacent. Some valid arrangements place them together, others do not.", + "query_type": "adj", + "depends_on": [ + 1 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Can Jack and Olivia be separated by exactly 2 seats?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "No valid arrangement has exactly 2 seat(s) between Jack and Olivia, given the linear constraint structure.", + "query_type": "sep", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1, + 2 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Can Sasha sit directly next to Vince?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "The constraints do not fully determine whether Sasha and Vince are adjacent. Some valid arrangements place them together, others do not.", + "query_type": "adj", + "depends_on": [ + 1, + 2 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q5", + "query": "Can Jack and Priya be separated by exactly 3 seats?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "No valid arrangement has exactly 3 seat(s) between Jack and Priya, given the linear constraint structure.", + "query_type": "sep", + "depends_on": [ + 1, + 2, + 3 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q6", + "query": "Could Daphne end up adjacent to Olivia?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "The constraints do not fully determine whether Daphne and Olivia are adjacent. Some valid arrangements place them together, others do not.", + "query_type": "adj", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 3 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q7", + "query": "Must Olivia always be seated next to Jack?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid arrangements have Olivia next to Jack and others do not. The constraints do not force this adjacency.", + "query_type": "adj_forced", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1, + 2, + 3, + 5, + 6 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "UNKNOWN": 6, + "CONTRADICTED": 2 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "rel_assign_0013", + "domain": "relational", + "subdomain": "color_assignment", + "logic_type": "propositional", + "premises": [ + "There are 5 nodes: Ivan, Charlie, Nora, Eve, and Paul.", + "There are 4 colors: yellow, orange, red, and black.", + "Each node is assigned to exactly one color.", + "Nora must be assigned to red.", + "Charlie cannot be assigned to orange.", + "Paul cannot be assigned to orange." + ], + "formal_representation": "; Assignment: 5 nodes -> 4 colors\n; CONSTRAINT: ('forced', 'Nora', 'red')\n; CONSTRAINT: ('banned', 'Charlie', 'orange')\n; CONSTRAINT: ('banned', 'Paul', 'orange')", + "entities": [ + "Ivan", + "Charlie", + "Nora", + "Eve", + "Paul" + ], + "slots": [ + "yellow", + "orange", + "red", + "black" + ], + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 8, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Is Charlie's assignment to yellow guaranteed?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Charlie may or may not end up in yellow\u2014multiple valid assignments exist with different placements.", + "query_type": "forced_slot", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Must Eve and Nora always end up in the same color?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid assignments place Eve and Nora together, while others separate them. The constraints are insufficient to determine this.", + "query_type": "same_slot", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Is Charlie's assignment to black guaranteed?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Charlie may or may not end up in black\u2014multiple valid assignments exist with different placements.", + "query_type": "forced_slot", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Must at least 1 node(s) be assigned to red?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "The constraints guarantee at least 1 node(s) in red across all valid assignments.", + "query_type": "capacity", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Must at least 2 node(s) be assigned to orange?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid assignments have 2+ node(s) in orange and others do not.", + "query_type": "capacity", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q5", + "query": "Can Ivan be in black?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Ivan may or may not end up in black\u2014multiple valid assignments exist with different placements.", + "query_type": "forced_slot", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q6", + "query": "Is it feasible for Eve to be placed in red?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Eve may or may not end up in red\u2014multiple valid assignments exist with different placements.", + "query_type": "slot_possible", + "depends_on": [ + 1 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q7", + "query": "Must at least 1 node(s) be assigned to black?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid assignments have 1+ node(s) in black and others do not.", + "query_type": "capacity", + "depends_on": [] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "UNKNOWN": 7, + "ENTAILED": 1 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "rel_seating_0136", + "domain": "relational", + "subdomain": "seating_arrangement", + "logic_type": "propositional", + "premises": [ + "There are 5 people seated at a circular table: Quinn, Amara, Cyrus, Oscar, and Nora.", + "Each person occupies exactly one seat and all seats are distinct.", + "Cyrus must sit directly next to Nora.", + "Amara must not sit directly next to Nora.", + "Cyrus must not sit directly next to Oscar.", + "Amara must sit directly next to Oscar." + ], + "formal_representation": "; Seating: 5 people, circular\n; Variables: pos_X in [0, 4] for each person\n; All-different constraint on positions\n; CONSTRAINT: adjacent(Cyrus, Nora)\n; CONSTRAINT: not_adjacent(Amara, Nora)\n; CONSTRAINT: not_adjacent(Cyrus, Oscar)\n; CONSTRAINT: adjacent(Amara, Oscar)", + "entities": [ + "Quinn", + "Amara", + "Cyrus", + "Oscar", + "Nora" + ], + "num_entities": 5, + "constraint_type": "circular", + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 7, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Is it possible for Quinn and Cyrus to be seated beside each other?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "The constraints do not fully determine whether Quinn and Cyrus are adjacent. Some valid arrangements place them together, others do not.", + "query_type": "adj", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Can Nora and Quinn be separated by exactly 2 seats?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether Nora and Quinn have exactly 2 seat(s) between them depends on how the remaining positions resolve.", + "query_type": "sep", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Can Quinn sit directly next to Oscar?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "The constraints do not fully determine whether Quinn and Oscar are adjacent. Some valid arrangements place them together, others do not.", + "query_type": "adj", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Is it possible for Oscar to be in the fourth seat?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Position 4 is available to Oscar in some arrangements but not others, depending on how other constraints resolve.", + "query_type": "pos", + "depends_on": [ + 2 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Can Cyrus and Nora be separated by exactly 2 seats?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "No valid arrangement has exactly 2 seat(s) between Cyrus and Nora, given the circular constraint structure.", + "query_type": "sep", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q5", + "query": "Is it possible for Quinn to be in the first seat?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Position 1 is available to Quinn in some arrangements but not others, depending on how other constraints resolve.", + "query_type": "pos", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1, + 2 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q6", + "query": "Is it possible for Amara to be in the third seat?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Position 3 is available to Amara in some arrangements but not others, depending on how other constraints resolve.", + "query_type": "pos", + "depends_on": [] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "UNKNOWN": 6, + "CONTRADICTED": 1 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "rel_assign_0064", + "domain": "relational", + "subdomain": "color_assignment", + "logic_type": "propositional", + "premises": [ + "There are 5 nodes: Iris, Reed, Priya, Paul, and Grace.", + "There are 4 colors: blue, black, green, and yellow.", + "Each node is assigned to exactly one color.", + "Priya and Paul must be assigned to the same color.", + "Reed must be assigned to black.", + "Priya cannot be assigned to green.", + "Reed and Paul must be in different colors." + ], + "formal_representation": "; Assignment: 5 nodes -> 4 colors\n; CONSTRAINT: ('same', 'Priya', 'Paul')\n; CONSTRAINT: ('forced', 'Reed', 'black')\n; CONSTRAINT: ('banned', 'Priya', 'green')\n; CONSTRAINT: ('diff', 'Reed', 'Paul')", + "entities": [ + "Iris", + "Reed", + "Priya", + "Paul", + "Grace" + ], + "slots": [ + "blue", + "black", + "green", + "yellow" + ], + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 8, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Must Priya and Reed always end up in the same color?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "The constraints prohibit Priya and Reed from sharing a color; no valid assignment allows it.", + "query_type": "same_slot", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Must Iris and Grace always end up in the same color?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid assignments place Iris and Grace together, while others separate them. The constraints are insufficient to determine this.", + "query_type": "same_slot", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Is it feasible for Paul to be placed in yellow?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Paul may or may not end up in yellow\u2014multiple valid assignments exist with different placements.", + "query_type": "slot_possible", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Must at least 1 node(s) be assigned to black?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "The constraints guarantee at least 1 node(s) in black across all valid assignments.", + "query_type": "capacity", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Is Priya's assignment to blue guaranteed?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Priya may or may not end up in blue\u2014multiple valid assignments exist with different placements.", + "query_type": "forced_slot", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q5", + "query": "Must at least 1 node(s) be assigned to blue?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid assignments have 1+ node(s) in blue and others do not.", + "query_type": "capacity", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q6", + "query": "Is it feasible for Grace to be placed in yellow?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Grace may or may not end up in yellow\u2014multiple valid assignments exist with different placements.", + "query_type": "slot_possible", + "depends_on": [ + 1 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q7", + "query": "Must at least 2 node(s) be assigned to green?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid assignments have 2+ node(s) in green and others do not.", + "query_type": "capacity", + "depends_on": [] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "CONTRADICTED": 1, + "UNKNOWN": 6, + "ENTAILED": 1 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "rel_seating_0074", + "domain": "relational", + "subdomain": "seating_arrangement", + "logic_type": "propositional", + "premises": [ + "There are 5 people seated at a row of chairs: Grace, Freya, Mia, Charlie, and Kyle.", + "Each person occupies exactly one chair and all chairs are distinct.", + "Freya must not sit directly next to Charlie.", + "Freya must sit directly next to Kyle.", + "Grace must not sit directly next to Kyle.", + "Mia must sit directly next to Charlie.", + "Charlie must not sit directly next to Kyle.", + "Grace must not sit directly next to Mia." + ], + "formal_representation": "; Seating: 5 people, linear\n; Variables: pos_X in [0, 4] for each person\n; All-different constraint on positions\n; CONSTRAINT: not_adjacent(Freya, Charlie)\n; CONSTRAINT: adjacent(Freya, Kyle)\n; CONSTRAINT: not_adjacent(Grace, Kyle)\n; CONSTRAINT: adjacent(Mia, Charlie)\n; CONSTRAINT: not_adjacent(Charlie, Kyle)\n; CONSTRAINT: not_adjacent(Grace, Mia)", + "entities": [ + "Grace", + "Freya", + "Mia", + "Charlie", + "Kyle" + ], + "num_entities": 5, + "constraint_type": "linear", + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 6, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Must Grace always be seated next to Freya?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid arrangements have Grace next to Freya and others do not. The constraints do not force this adjacency.", + "query_type": "adj_forced", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Can Grace sit at position 2?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "Placing Grace at position 2 would violate one or more constraints; no valid arrangement allows it.", + "query_type": "pos", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Could Freya end up adjacent to Mia?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "The constraints do not fully determine whether Freya and Mia are adjacent. Some valid arrangements place them together, others do not.", + "query_type": "adj", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "In every valid arrangement, is Mia adjacent to Kyle?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid arrangements have Mia next to Kyle and others do not. The constraints do not force this adjacency.", + "query_type": "adj_forced", + "depends_on": [ + 2 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Can Grace and Freya be separated by exactly 1 seat?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether Grace and Freya have exactly 1 seat(s) between them depends on how the remaining positions resolve.", + "query_type": "sep", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1, + 2 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q5", + "query": "Can Kyle sit at position 1?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Position 1 is available to Kyle in some arrangements but not others, depending on how other constraints resolve.", + "query_type": "pos", + "depends_on": [ + 3 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "UNKNOWN": 5, + "CONTRADICTED": 1 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "rel_assign_0102", + "domain": "relational", + "subdomain": "team_assignment", + "logic_type": "propositional", + "premises": [ + "There are 5 persons: Iris, Cyrus, Marco, Helena, and Victor.", + "There are 4 departments: HR, Engineering, Legal, and Research.", + "Each person is assigned to exactly one department.", + "Iris cannot be assigned to HR.", + "Iris and Victor must be assigned to the same department.", + "Helena cannot be assigned to HR." + ], + "formal_representation": "; Assignment: 5 persons -> 4 departments\n; CONSTRAINT: ('banned', 'Iris', 'HR')\n; CONSTRAINT: ('same', 'Iris', 'Victor')\n; CONSTRAINT: ('banned', 'Helena', 'HR')", + "entities": [ + "Iris", + "Cyrus", + "Marco", + "Helena", + "Victor" + ], + "slots": [ + "HR", + "Engineering", + "Legal", + "Research" + ], + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 7, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Must Iris and Marco always end up in the same department?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid assignments place Iris and Marco together, while others separate them. The constraints are insufficient to determine this.", + "query_type": "same_slot", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Is Iris's assignment to HR guaranteed?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "Iris cannot be placed in HR without violating at least one constraint.", + "query_type": "forced_slot", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Is it feasible for Iris to be placed in HR?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "Iris cannot be placed in HR without violating at least one constraint.", + "query_type": "slot_possible", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Must Victor be assigned to Engineering?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Victor may or may not end up in Engineering\u2014multiple valid assignments exist with different placements.", + "query_type": "forced_slot", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Is it possible for Helena and Iris to share a department?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid assignments place Helena and Iris together, while others separate them. The constraints are insufficient to determine this.", + "query_type": "same_slot", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1, + 2 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q5", + "query": "Must Iris and Victor always end up in the same department?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "The combined constraints force Iris and Victor into the same department in every valid assignment.", + "query_type": "same_slot", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1, + 2, + 3, + 4 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q6", + "query": "Can Marco be in Legal?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Marco may or may not end up in Legal\u2014multiple valid assignments exist with different placements.", + "query_type": "forced_slot", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "UNKNOWN": 4, + "CONTRADICTED": 2, + "ENTAILED": 1 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "rel_assign_0051", + "domain": "relational", + "subdomain": "color_assignment", + "logic_type": "propositional", + "premises": [ + "There are 5 nodes: Olivia, Iris, Tina, Willow, and Cyrus.", + "There are 3 colors: purple, orange, and yellow.", + "Each node is assigned to exactly one color.", + "Willow and Cyrus must be in different colors.", + "Olivia and Tina must be assigned to the same color.", + "Cyrus must be assigned to orange." + ], + "formal_representation": "; Assignment: 5 nodes -> 3 colors\n; CONSTRAINT: ('diff', 'Willow', 'Cyrus')\n; CONSTRAINT: ('same', 'Olivia', 'Tina')\n; CONSTRAINT: ('forced', 'Cyrus', 'orange')", + "entities": [ + "Olivia", + "Iris", + "Tina", + "Willow", + "Cyrus" + ], + "slots": [ + "purple", + "orange", + "yellow" + ], + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 7, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Is it possible for Iris and Tina to share a color?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid assignments place Iris and Tina together, while others separate them. The constraints are insufficient to determine this.", + "query_type": "same_slot", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Is it feasible for Iris to be placed in orange?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Iris may or may not end up in orange\u2014multiple valid assignments exist with different placements.", + "query_type": "slot_possible", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Is it feasible for Willow to be placed in yellow?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Willow may or may not end up in yellow\u2014multiple valid assignments exist with different placements.", + "query_type": "slot_possible", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Must at least 2 node(s) be assigned to purple?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid assignments have 2+ node(s) in purple and others do not.", + "query_type": "capacity", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Must at least 1 node(s) be assigned to yellow?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid assignments have 1+ node(s) in yellow and others do not.", + "query_type": "capacity", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q5", + "query": "Must Olivia be assigned to orange?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Olivia may or may not end up in orange\u2014multiple valid assignments exist with different placements.", + "query_type": "forced_slot", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q6", + "query": "Must Iris be assigned to purple?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Iris may or may not end up in purple\u2014multiple valid assignments exist with different placements.", + "query_type": "forced_slot", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "UNKNOWN": 7 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "rel_assign_0138", + "domain": "relational", + "subdomain": "team_assignment", + "logic_type": "propositional", + "premises": [ + "There are 6 persons: Freya, Sam, Ursula, Yara, Diana, and Victor.", + "There are 3 departments: Finance, Research, and Legal.", + "Each person is assigned to exactly one department.", + "Victor cannot be assigned to Research.", + "Yara must be assigned to Research.", + "Diana and Victor must be assigned to the same department.", + "Ursula must be assigned to Legal.", + "Yara and Diana must be in different departments." + ], + "formal_representation": "; Assignment: 6 persons -> 3 departments\n; CONSTRAINT: ('banned', 'Victor', 'Research')\n; CONSTRAINT: ('forced', 'Yara', 'Research')\n; CONSTRAINT: ('same', 'Diana', 'Victor')\n; CONSTRAINT: ('forced', 'Ursula', 'Legal')\n; CONSTRAINT: ('diff', 'Yara', 'Diana')", + "entities": [ + "Freya", + "Sam", + "Ursula", + "Yara", + "Diana", + "Victor" + ], + "slots": [ + "Finance", + "Research", + "Legal" + ], + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 5, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Can Ursula and Diana be in the same department?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid assignments place Ursula and Diana together, while others separate them. The constraints are insufficient to determine this.", + "query_type": "same_slot", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Must Sam be assigned to Legal?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Sam may or may not end up in Legal\u2014multiple valid assignments exist with different placements.", + "query_type": "forced_slot", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Is it feasible for Diana to be placed in Finance?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Diana may or may not end up in Finance\u2014multiple valid assignments exist with different placements.", + "query_type": "slot_possible", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Is Yara's assignment to Research guaranteed?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "All constraints together force Yara into Research; no other department is feasible.", + "query_type": "forced_slot", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Must at least 1 person(s) be assigned to Finance?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid assignments have 1+ person(s) in Finance and others do not.", + "query_type": "capacity", + "depends_on": [] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "UNKNOWN": 4, + "ENTAILED": 1 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "rel_assign_0071", + "domain": "relational", + "subdomain": "color_assignment", + "logic_type": "propositional", + "premises": [ + "There are 6 nodes: Quinn, Xavier, Vince, Jade, Theo, and Willow.", + "There are 4 colors: red, yellow, black, and green.", + "Each node is assigned to exactly one color.", + "Jade and Willow must be assigned to the same color.", + "Theo cannot be assigned to black.", + "Willow cannot be assigned to yellow.", + "Vince and Theo must be in different colors.", + "Jade must be assigned to green.", + "Vince and Jade must be assigned to the same color." + ], + "formal_representation": "; Assignment: 6 nodes -> 4 colors\n; CONSTRAINT: ('same', 'Jade', 'Willow')\n; CONSTRAINT: ('banned', 'Theo', 'black')\n; CONSTRAINT: ('banned', 'Willow', 'yellow')\n; CONSTRAINT: ('diff', 'Vince', 'Theo')\n; CONSTRAINT: ('forced', 'Jade', 'green')\n; CONSTRAINT: ('same', 'Vince', 'Jade')", + "entities": [ + "Quinn", + "Xavier", + "Vince", + "Jade", + "Theo", + "Willow" + ], + "slots": [ + "red", + "yellow", + "black", + "green" + ], + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 8, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Can Xavier and Vince be in the same color?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid assignments place Xavier and Vince together, while others separate them. The constraints are insufficient to determine this.", + "query_type": "same_slot", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Must at least 1 node(s) be assigned to green?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "The constraints guarantee at least 1 node(s) in green across all valid assignments.", + "query_type": "capacity", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Is it feasible for Theo to be placed in green?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "Theo cannot be placed in green without violating at least one constraint.", + "query_type": "slot_possible", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Is Quinn's assignment to yellow guaranteed?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Quinn may or may not end up in yellow\u2014multiple valid assignments exist with different placements.", + "query_type": "forced_slot", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Is it feasible for Jade to be placed in black?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "Jade cannot be placed in black without violating at least one constraint.", + "query_type": "slot_possible", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q5", + "query": "Is Willow's assignment to black guaranteed?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "Willow cannot be placed in black without violating at least one constraint.", + "query_type": "forced_slot", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q6", + "query": "Is it feasible for Vince to be placed in black?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "Vince cannot be placed in black without violating at least one constraint.", + "query_type": "slot_possible", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q7", + "query": "Is it possible for Xavier and Willow to share a color?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid assignments place Xavier and Willow together, while others separate them. The constraints are insufficient to determine this.", + "query_type": "same_slot", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 5 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "UNKNOWN": 3, + "ENTAILED": 1, + "CONTRADICTED": 4 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "rel_seating_0097", + "domain": "relational", + "subdomain": "seating_arrangement", + "logic_type": "propositional", + "premises": [ + "There are 6 people seated at a circular table: Diana, Hank, Yara, Xavier, Daphne, and Nora.", + "Each person occupies exactly one seat and all seats are distinct.", + "Yara must sit directly next to Xavier.", + "Daphne must sit directly next to Nora.", + "Hank must not sit directly next to Xavier.", + "Diana must not sit directly next to Hank.", + "Diana must not sit directly next to Nora." + ], + "formal_representation": "; Seating: 6 people, circular\n; Variables: pos_X in [0, 5] for each person\n; All-different constraint on positions\n; CONSTRAINT: adjacent(Yara, Xavier)\n; CONSTRAINT: adjacent(Daphne, Nora)\n; CONSTRAINT: not_adjacent(Hank, Xavier)\n; CONSTRAINT: not_adjacent(Diana, Hank)\n; CONSTRAINT: not_adjacent(Diana, Nora)", + "entities": [ + "Diana", + "Hank", + "Yara", + "Xavier", + "Daphne", + "Nora" + ], + "num_entities": 6, + "constraint_type": "circular", + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 7, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "In every valid arrangement, is Hank adjacent to Yara?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "After accounting for all adjacency constraints, every satisfying assignment requires Hank next to Yara.", + "query_type": "adj_forced", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Can Xavier sit directly next to Daphne?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "The combination of constraints on Xavier and Daphne's required/forbidden neighbors leaves no valid arrangement where they are adjacent.", + "query_type": "adj", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Is it possible for Diana and Xavier to be seated beside each other?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "Given the adjacency constraints on Diana and Xavier's neighbors, all valid seatings force them to be adjacent.", + "query_type": "adj", + "depends_on": [ + 1 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Can Hank sit directly next to Nora?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "Given the adjacency constraints on Hank and Nora's neighbors, all valid seatings force them to be adjacent.", + "query_type": "adj", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Could Xavier end up adjacent to Nora?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "The combination of constraints on Xavier and Nora's required/forbidden neighbors leaves no valid arrangement where they are adjacent.", + "query_type": "adj", + "depends_on": [ + 1, + 2, + 3 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q5", + "query": "Is it possible for Xavier to be in the fifth seat?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Position 5 is available to Xavier in some arrangements but not others, depending on how other constraints resolve.", + "query_type": "pos", + "depends_on": [ + 1, + 2, + 4 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q6", + "query": "In every valid arrangement, is Yara adjacent to Nora?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "No valid arrangement exists where Yara is adjacent to Nora, given the combined constraints.", + "query_type": "adj_forced", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 3, + 4 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "ENTAILED": 3, + "CONTRADICTED": 3, + "UNKNOWN": 1 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "rel_assign_0129", + "domain": "relational", + "subdomain": "color_assignment", + "logic_type": "propositional", + "premises": [ + "There are 4 nodes: Grace, Victor, Kyle, and Cyrus.", + "There are 4 colors: blue, black, red, and purple.", + "Each node is assigned to exactly one color.", + "Grace and Kyle must be assigned to the same color.", + "Kyle cannot be assigned to black.", + "Grace and Victor must be in different colors.", + "Grace must be assigned to purple." + ], + "formal_representation": "; Assignment: 4 nodes -> 4 colors\n; CONSTRAINT: ('same', 'Grace', 'Kyle')\n; CONSTRAINT: ('banned', 'Kyle', 'black')\n; CONSTRAINT: ('diff', 'Grace', 'Victor')\n; CONSTRAINT: ('forced', 'Grace', 'purple')", + "entities": [ + "Grace", + "Victor", + "Kyle", + "Cyrus" + ], + "slots": [ + "blue", + "black", + "red", + "purple" + ], + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 5, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Is it feasible for Victor to be placed in purple?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "Victor cannot be placed in purple without violating at least one constraint.", + "query_type": "slot_possible", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Can Kyle and Cyrus be in the same color?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid assignments place Kyle and Cyrus together, while others separate them. The constraints are insufficient to determine this.", + "query_type": "same_slot", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Is Grace's assignment to black guaranteed?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "Grace cannot be placed in black without violating at least one constraint.", + "query_type": "forced_slot", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Must at least 3 node(s) be assigned to black?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "No valid assignment places 3 or more node(s) in black, given the constraints.", + "query_type": "capacity", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Must at least 3 node(s) be assigned to purple?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid assignments have 3+ node(s) in purple and others do not.", + "query_type": "capacity", + "depends_on": [] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "CONTRADICTED": 3, + "UNKNOWN": 2 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "rel_seating_0053", + "domain": "relational", + "subdomain": "seating_arrangement", + "logic_type": "propositional", + "premises": [ + "There are 5 people seated at a circular table: Diana, Marco, Zane, Reed, and Uma.", + "Each person occupies exactly one seat and all seats are distinct.", + "Diana must not sit directly next to Zane.", + "Reed must sit directly next to Uma.", + "Diana must not sit directly next to Reed." + ], + "formal_representation": "; Seating: 5 people, circular\n; Variables: pos_X in [0, 4] for each person\n; All-different constraint on positions\n; CONSTRAINT: not_adjacent(Diana, Zane)\n; CONSTRAINT: adjacent(Reed, Uma)\n; CONSTRAINT: not_adjacent(Diana, Reed)", + "entities": [ + "Diana", + "Marco", + "Zane", + "Reed", + "Uma" + ], + "num_entities": 5, + "constraint_type": "circular", + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 7, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Is it possible for Zane to be in the third seat?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Position 3 is available to Zane in some arrangements but not others, depending on how other constraints resolve.", + "query_type": "pos", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Can Diana sit at position 4?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Position 4 is available to Diana in some arrangements but not others, depending on how other constraints resolve.", + "query_type": "pos", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Is it possible for Uma to be in the second seat?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Position 2 is available to Uma in some arrangements but not others, depending on how other constraints resolve.", + "query_type": "pos", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Must Zane always be seated next to Uma?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "No valid arrangement exists where Zane is adjacent to Uma, given the combined constraints.", + "query_type": "adj_forced", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 2 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Is it possible for Marco to be in the third seat?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Position 3 is available to Marco in some arrangements but not others, depending on how other constraints resolve.", + "query_type": "pos", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q5", + "query": "Can Diana and Reed be separated by exactly 1 seat?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "No valid arrangement has exactly 1 seat(s) between Diana and Reed, given the circular constraint structure.", + "query_type": "sep", + "depends_on": [ + 1 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q6", + "query": "Is it possible for Marco and Uma to be seated beside each other?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "The combination of constraints on Marco and Uma's required/forbidden neighbors leaves no valid arrangement where they are adjacent.", + "query_type": "adj", + "depends_on": [ + 2, + 3, + 4 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "UNKNOWN": 4, + "CONTRADICTED": 3 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "rel_seating_0025", + "domain": "relational", + "subdomain": "seating_arrangement", + "logic_type": "propositional", + "premises": [ + "There are 4 people seated at a row of chairs: Karen, Cyrus, Amara, and Elias.", + "Each person occupies exactly one chair and all chairs are distinct.", + "Karen must not sit directly next to Cyrus.", + "Amara must not sit directly next to Elias.", + "Cyrus must sit directly next to Amara.", + "Karen must not sit directly next to Amara." + ], + "formal_representation": "; Seating: 4 people, linear\n; Variables: pos_X in [0, 3] for each person\n; All-different constraint on positions\n; CONSTRAINT: not_adjacent(Karen, Cyrus)\n; CONSTRAINT: not_adjacent(Amara, Elias)\n; CONSTRAINT: adjacent(Cyrus, Amara)\n; CONSTRAINT: not_adjacent(Karen, Amara)", + "entities": [ + "Karen", + "Cyrus", + "Amara", + "Elias" + ], + "num_entities": 4, + "constraint_type": "linear", + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 6, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Can Elias and Karen be separated by exactly 1 seat?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "The constraints force exactly 1 seat(s) between Elias and Karen in every valid linear arrangement.", + "query_type": "sep", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Can Elias and Cyrus be separated by exactly 2 seats?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "No valid arrangement has exactly 2 seat(s) between Elias and Cyrus, given the linear constraint structure.", + "query_type": "sep", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Is it possible for Cyrus to be in the second seat?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Position 2 is available to Cyrus in some arrangements but not others, depending on how other constraints resolve.", + "query_type": "pos", + "depends_on": [ + 1 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Can Elias sit at position 4?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "Placing Elias at position 4 would violate one or more constraints; no valid arrangement allows it.", + "query_type": "pos", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Can Elias sit at position 2?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Position 2 is available to Elias in some arrangements but not others, depending on how other constraints resolve.", + "query_type": "pos", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1, + 3 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q5", + "query": "In every valid arrangement, is Karen adjacent to Elias?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "After accounting for all adjacency constraints, every satisfying assignment requires Karen next to Elias.", + "query_type": "adj_forced", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1, + 3, + 4 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "ENTAILED": 2, + "CONTRADICTED": 2, + "UNKNOWN": 2 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "rel_seating_0022", + "domain": "relational", + "subdomain": "seating_arrangement", + "logic_type": "propositional", + "premises": [ + "There are 6 people seated at a row of chairs: Mia, Charlie, Willow, Vince, Uma, and Tina.", + "Each person occupies exactly one chair and all chairs are distinct.", + "Willow must not sit directly next to Tina.", + "Mia must not sit directly next to Willow.", + "Charlie must not sit directly next to Uma.", + "Willow must not sit directly next to Vince.", + "Mia must not sit directly next to Vince.", + "Charlie must sit directly next to Tina." + ], + "formal_representation": "; Seating: 6 people, linear\n; Variables: pos_X in [0, 5] for each person\n; All-different constraint on positions\n; CONSTRAINT: not_adjacent(Willow, Tina)\n; CONSTRAINT: not_adjacent(Mia, Willow)\n; CONSTRAINT: not_adjacent(Charlie, Uma)\n; CONSTRAINT: not_adjacent(Willow, Vince)\n; CONSTRAINT: not_adjacent(Mia, Vince)\n; CONSTRAINT: adjacent(Charlie, Tina)", + "entities": [ + "Mia", + "Charlie", + "Willow", + "Vince", + "Uma", + "Tina" + ], + "num_entities": 6, + "constraint_type": "linear", + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 7, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Can Willow and Uma be separated by exactly 3 seats?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "No valid arrangement has exactly 3 seat(s) between Willow and Uma, given the linear constraint structure.", + "query_type": "sep", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Is it possible for Willow to be in the fourth seat?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Position 4 is available to Willow in some arrangements but not others, depending on how other constraints resolve.", + "query_type": "pos", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Is it possible for Mia and Charlie to be seated beside each other?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "The constraints do not fully determine whether Mia and Charlie are adjacent. Some valid arrangements place them together, others do not.", + "query_type": "adj", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "In every valid arrangement, is Mia adjacent to Tina?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid arrangements have Mia next to Tina and others do not. The constraints do not force this adjacency.", + "query_type": "adj_forced", + "depends_on": [ + 2 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Can Willow and Mia be separated by exactly 1 seat?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "No valid arrangement has exactly 1 seat(s) between Willow and Mia, given the linear constraint structure.", + "query_type": "sep", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1, + 2, + 3 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q5", + "query": "In every valid arrangement, is Charlie adjacent to Willow?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid arrangements have Charlie next to Willow and others do not. The constraints do not force this adjacency.", + "query_type": "adj_forced", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1, + 2, + 4 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q6", + "query": "Is it possible for Vince to be in the first seat?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Position 1 is available to Vince in some arrangements but not others, depending on how other constraints resolve.", + "query_type": "pos", + "depends_on": [] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "CONTRADICTED": 2, + "UNKNOWN": 5 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "rel_assign_0127", + "domain": "relational", + "subdomain": "office_assignment", + "logic_type": "propositional", + "premises": [ + "There are 4 employees: Nathan, Vince, Frank, and Elias.", + "There are 4 offices: Room B, Room D, Room C, and Room E.", + "Each employee is assigned to exactly one office.", + "Elias cannot be assigned to Room E.", + "Elias must be assigned to Room B.", + "Vince and Frank must be in different offices.", + "Vince and Elias must be in different offices.", + "Frank and Elias must be in different offices." + ], + "formal_representation": "; Assignment: 4 employees -> 4 offices\n; CONSTRAINT: ('banned', 'Elias', 'Room E')\n; CONSTRAINT: ('forced', 'Elias', 'Room B')\n; CONSTRAINT: ('diff', 'Vince', 'Frank')\n; CONSTRAINT: ('diff', 'Vince', 'Elias')\n; CONSTRAINT: ('diff', 'Frank', 'Elias')", + "entities": [ + "Nathan", + "Vince", + "Frank", + "Elias" + ], + "slots": [ + "Room B", + "Room D", + "Room C", + "Room E" + ], + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 6, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Must at least 2 employee(s) be assigned to Room E?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid assignments have 2+ employee(s) in Room E and others do not.", + "query_type": "capacity", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Is it feasible for Elias to be placed in Room E?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "Elias cannot be placed in Room E without violating at least one constraint.", + "query_type": "slot_possible", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Must at least 2 employee(s) be assigned to Room D?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid assignments have 2+ employee(s) in Room D and others do not.", + "query_type": "capacity", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Can Frank be in Room E?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Frank may or may not end up in Room E\u2014multiple valid assignments exist with different placements.", + "query_type": "forced_slot", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Must at least 1 employee(s) be assigned to Room C?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid assignments have 1+ employee(s) in Room C and others do not.", + "query_type": "capacity", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q5", + "query": "Is it possible for Vince and Nathan to share a office?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid assignments place Vince and Nathan together, while others separate them. The constraints are insufficient to determine this.", + "query_type": "same_slot", + "depends_on": [] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "UNKNOWN": 5, + "CONTRADICTED": 1 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "rel_assign_0121", + "domain": "relational", + "subdomain": "team_assignment", + "logic_type": "propositional", + "premises": [ + "There are 4 persons: Grace, Ivan, Karen, and Sam.", + "There are 3 departments: Sales, Operations, and Engineering.", + "Each person is assigned to exactly one department.", + "Ivan must be assigned to Sales.", + "Grace and Karen must be assigned to the same department.", + "Sam must be assigned to Sales." + ], + "formal_representation": "; Assignment: 4 persons -> 3 departments\n; CONSTRAINT: ('forced', 'Ivan', 'Sales')\n; CONSTRAINT: ('same', 'Grace', 'Karen')\n; CONSTRAINT: ('forced', 'Sam', 'Sales')", + "entities": [ + "Grace", + "Ivan", + "Karen", + "Sam" + ], + "slots": [ + "Sales", + "Operations", + "Engineering" + ], + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 6, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Must Karen and Sam always end up in the same department?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid assignments place Karen and Sam together, while others separate them. The constraints are insufficient to determine this.", + "query_type": "same_slot", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Is it feasible for Karen to be placed in Operations?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Karen may or may not end up in Operations\u2014multiple valid assignments exist with different placements.", + "query_type": "slot_possible", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Can Grace and Sam be in the same department?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid assignments place Grace and Sam together, while others separate them. The constraints are insufficient to determine this.", + "query_type": "same_slot", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Is Sam's assignment to Engineering guaranteed?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "Sam cannot be placed in Engineering without violating at least one constraint.", + "query_type": "forced_slot", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 2 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Must at least 2 person(s) be assigned to Sales?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "The constraints guarantee at least 2 person(s) in Sales across all valid assignments.", + "query_type": "capacity", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q5", + "query": "Is it feasible for Ivan to be placed in Operations?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "Ivan cannot be placed in Operations without violating at least one constraint.", + "query_type": "slot_possible", + "depends_on": [] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "UNKNOWN": 3, + "CONTRADICTED": 2, + "ENTAILED": 1 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "rel_seating_0035", + "domain": "relational", + "subdomain": "seating_arrangement", + "logic_type": "propositional", + "premises": [ + "There are 5 people seated at a row of chairs: Sasha, Yara, Karen, Iris, and Rachel.", + "Each person occupies exactly one chair and all chairs are distinct.", + "Sasha must sit directly next to Yara.", + "Yara must not sit directly next to Karen.", + "Yara must not sit directly next to Rachel.", + "Yara must sit directly next to Iris.", + "Karen must not sit directly next to Rachel." + ], + "formal_representation": "; Seating: 5 people, linear\n; Variables: pos_X in [0, 4] for each person\n; All-different constraint on positions\n; CONSTRAINT: adjacent(Sasha, Yara)\n; CONSTRAINT: not_adjacent(Yara, Karen)\n; CONSTRAINT: not_adjacent(Yara, Rachel)\n; CONSTRAINT: adjacent(Yara, Iris)\n; CONSTRAINT: not_adjacent(Karen, Rachel)", + "entities": [ + "Sasha", + "Yara", + "Karen", + "Iris", + "Rachel" + ], + "num_entities": 5, + "constraint_type": "linear", + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 6, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Is it possible for Iris to be in the third seat?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "Placing Iris at position 3 would violate one or more constraints; no valid arrangement allows it.", + "query_type": "pos", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "In every valid arrangement, is Karen adjacent to Iris?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid arrangements have Karen next to Iris and others do not. The constraints do not force this adjacency.", + "query_type": "adj_forced", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Can Karen and Iris be separated by exactly 1 seat?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether Karen and Iris have exactly 1 seat(s) between them depends on how the remaining positions resolve.", + "query_type": "sep", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Can Karen sit at position 5?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Position 5 is available to Karen in some arrangements but not others, depending on how other constraints resolve.", + "query_type": "pos", + "depends_on": [ + 1, + 2 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Is it possible for Iris and Rachel to be seated beside each other?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "The constraints do not fully determine whether Iris and Rachel are adjacent. Some valid arrangements place them together, others do not.", + "query_type": "adj", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1, + 2 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q5", + "query": "Can Karen sit at position 4?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "Placing Karen at position 4 would violate one or more constraints; no valid arrangement allows it.", + "query_type": "pos", + "depends_on": [ + 1, + 2, + 3 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "CONTRADICTED": 2, + "UNKNOWN": 4 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "rel_assign_0010", + "domain": "relational", + "subdomain": "shift_assignment", + "logic_type": "propositional", + "premises": [ + "There are 5 workers: Sam, Charlie, Olivia, Ursula, and Theo.", + "There are 4 shifts: morning, evening, night, and afternoon.", + "Each worker is assigned to exactly one shift.", + "Ursula and Theo must be assigned to the same shift.", + "Sam and Theo must be in different shifts.", + "Theo must be assigned to night." + ], + "formal_representation": "; Assignment: 5 workers -> 4 shifts\n; CONSTRAINT: ('same', 'Ursula', 'Theo')\n; CONSTRAINT: ('diff', 'Sam', 'Theo')\n; CONSTRAINT: ('forced', 'Theo', 'night')", + "entities": [ + "Sam", + "Charlie", + "Olivia", + "Ursula", + "Theo" + ], + "slots": [ + "morning", + "evening", + "night", + "afternoon" + ], + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 7, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Is it feasible for Ursula to be placed in night?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "All constraints together force Ursula into night; no other shift is feasible.", + "query_type": "slot_possible", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Must at least 1 worker(s) be assigned to afternoon?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid assignments have 1+ worker(s) in afternoon and others do not.", + "query_type": "capacity", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Is it feasible for Theo to be placed in morning?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "Theo cannot be placed in morning without violating at least one constraint.", + "query_type": "slot_possible", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Is Theo's assignment to morning guaranteed?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "Theo cannot be placed in morning without violating at least one constraint.", + "query_type": "forced_slot", + "depends_on": [ + 2 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Must at least 2 worker(s) be assigned to morning?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid assignments have 2+ worker(s) in morning and others do not.", + "query_type": "capacity", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q5", + "query": "Can Ursula be in afternoon?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "Ursula cannot be placed in afternoon without violating at least one constraint.", + "query_type": "forced_slot", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q6", + "query": "Must Ursula and Olivia always end up in the same shift?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid assignments place Ursula and Olivia together, while others separate them. The constraints are insufficient to determine this.", + "query_type": "same_slot", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 5 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "ENTAILED": 1, + "UNKNOWN": 3, + "CONTRADICTED": 3 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "rel_seating_0111", + "domain": "relational", + "subdomain": "seating_arrangement", + "logic_type": "propositional", + "premises": [ + "There are 4 people seated at a row of chairs: Olivia, Leo, Charlie, and Elias.", + "Each person occupies exactly one chair and all chairs are distinct.", + "Olivia must sit directly next to Elias.", + "Olivia must not sit directly next to Charlie.", + "Olivia must not sit directly next to Leo.", + "Leo must not sit directly next to Elias." + ], + "formal_representation": "; Seating: 4 people, linear\n; Variables: pos_X in [0, 3] for each person\n; All-different constraint on positions\n; CONSTRAINT: adjacent(Olivia, Elias)\n; CONSTRAINT: not_adjacent(Olivia, Charlie)\n; CONSTRAINT: not_adjacent(Olivia, Leo)\n; CONSTRAINT: not_adjacent(Leo, Elias)", + "entities": [ + "Olivia", + "Leo", + "Charlie", + "Elias" + ], + "num_entities": 4, + "constraint_type": "linear", + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 8, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Can Olivia sit at position 3?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "Placing Olivia at position 3 would violate one or more constraints; no valid arrangement allows it.", + "query_type": "pos", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Can Olivia and Elias be separated by exactly 2 seats?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "No valid arrangement has exactly 2 seat(s) between Olivia and Elias, given the linear constraint structure.", + "query_type": "sep", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Can Olivia and Charlie be separated by exactly 1 seat?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "No valid arrangement has exactly 1 seat(s) between Olivia and Charlie, given the linear constraint structure.", + "query_type": "sep", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Is it possible for Leo to be in the second seat?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "Placing Leo at position 2 would violate one or more constraints; no valid arrangement allows it.", + "query_type": "pos", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Can Leo sit directly next to Charlie?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "Given the adjacency constraints on Leo and Charlie's neighbors, all valid seatings force them to be adjacent.", + "query_type": "adj", + "depends_on": [ + 2, + 3 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q5", + "query": "Is it possible for Charlie and Elias to be seated beside each other?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "Given the adjacency constraints on Charlie and Elias's neighbors, all valid seatings force them to be adjacent.", + "query_type": "adj", + "depends_on": [ + 1, + 2, + 4 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q6", + "query": "Can Charlie and Elias be separated by exactly 1 seat?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "The constraints force exactly 1 seat(s) between Charlie and Elias in every valid linear arrangement.", + "query_type": "sep", + "depends_on": [ + 1, + 2, + 4, + 5 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q7", + "query": "Can Leo sit at position 1?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Position 1 is available to Leo in some arrangements but not others, depending on how other constraints resolve.", + "query_type": "pos", + "depends_on": [ + 3, + 4 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "CONTRADICTED": 4, + "ENTAILED": 3, + "UNKNOWN": 1 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "rel_assign_0042", + "domain": "relational", + "subdomain": "office_assignment", + "logic_type": "propositional", + "premises": [ + "There are 6 employees: Paul, Jade, Marco, Ursula, Theo, and Sam.", + "There are 3 offices: Room C, Room B, and Room E.", + "Each employee is assigned to exactly one office.", + "Marco and Ursula must be assigned to the same office.", + "Marco must be assigned to Room C.", + "Theo cannot be assigned to Room B.", + "Theo must be assigned to Room E.", + "Jade and Sam must be in different offices.", + "Paul cannot be assigned to Room C.", + "Paul and Theo must be assigned to the same office." + ], + "formal_representation": "; Assignment: 6 employees -> 3 offices\n; CONSTRAINT: ('same', 'Marco', 'Ursula')\n; CONSTRAINT: ('forced', 'Marco', 'Room C')\n; CONSTRAINT: ('banned', 'Theo', 'Room B')\n; CONSTRAINT: ('forced', 'Theo', 'Room E')\n; CONSTRAINT: ('diff', 'Jade', 'Sam')\n; CONSTRAINT: ('banned', 'Paul', 'Room C')\n; CONSTRAINT: ('same', 'Paul', 'Theo')", + "entities": [ + "Paul", + "Jade", + "Marco", + "Ursula", + "Theo", + "Sam" + ], + "slots": [ + "Room C", + "Room B", + "Room E" + ], + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 7, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Can Theo and Jade be in the same office?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid assignments place Theo and Jade together, while others separate them. The constraints are insufficient to determine this.", + "query_type": "same_slot", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Can Marco be in Room C?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "All constraints together force Marco into Room C; no other office is feasible.", + "query_type": "forced_slot", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Must at least 3 employee(s) be assigned to Room C?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid assignments have 3+ employee(s) in Room C and others do not.", + "query_type": "capacity", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Can Marco and Jade be in the same office?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid assignments place Marco and Jade together, while others separate them. The constraints are insufficient to determine this.", + "query_type": "same_slot", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Must Marco and Ursula always end up in the same office?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "The combined constraints force Marco and Ursula into the same office in every valid assignment.", + "query_type": "same_slot", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1, + 3 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q5", + "query": "Is it possible for Ursula and Theo to share a office?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "The constraints prohibit Ursula and Theo from sharing a office; no valid assignment allows it.", + "query_type": "same_slot", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 4 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q6", + "query": "Is it feasible for Ursula to be placed in Room E?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "Ursula cannot be placed in Room E without violating at least one constraint.", + "query_type": "slot_possible", + "depends_on": [ + 4, + 5 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "UNKNOWN": 3, + "ENTAILED": 2, + "CONTRADICTED": 2 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "rel_seating_0031", + "domain": "relational", + "subdomain": "seating_arrangement", + "logic_type": "propositional", + "premises": [ + "There are 6 people seated at a row of chairs: Olivia, Vince, Kyle, Uma, Ursula, and Marco.", + "Each person occupies exactly one chair and all chairs are distinct.", + "Kyle must not sit directly next to Uma.", + "Uma must sit directly next to Ursula.", + "Uma must not sit directly next to Marco.", + "Olivia must not sit directly next to Kyle." + ], + "formal_representation": "; Seating: 6 people, linear\n; Variables: pos_X in [0, 5] for each person\n; All-different constraint on positions\n; CONSTRAINT: not_adjacent(Kyle, Uma)\n; CONSTRAINT: adjacent(Uma, Ursula)\n; CONSTRAINT: not_adjacent(Uma, Marco)\n; CONSTRAINT: not_adjacent(Olivia, Kyle)", + "entities": [ + "Olivia", + "Vince", + "Kyle", + "Uma", + "Ursula", + "Marco" + ], + "num_entities": 6, + "constraint_type": "linear", + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 8, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "In every valid arrangement, is Olivia adjacent to Marco?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid arrangements have Olivia next to Marco and others do not. The constraints do not force this adjacency.", + "query_type": "adj_forced", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Must Kyle always be seated next to Ursula?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid arrangements have Kyle next to Ursula and others do not. The constraints do not force this adjacency.", + "query_type": "adj_forced", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Could Vince end up adjacent to Uma?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "The constraints do not fully determine whether Vince and Uma are adjacent. Some valid arrangements place them together, others do not.", + "query_type": "adj", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "In every valid arrangement, is Olivia adjacent to Ursula?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid arrangements have Olivia next to Ursula and others do not. The constraints do not force this adjacency.", + "query_type": "adj_forced", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "In every valid arrangement, is Vince adjacent to Ursula?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid arrangements have Vince next to Ursula and others do not. The constraints do not force this adjacency.", + "query_type": "adj_forced", + "depends_on": [ + 1, + 2, + 3 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q5", + "query": "Can Uma and Ursula be separated by exactly 3 seats?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "No valid arrangement has exactly 3 seat(s) between Uma and Ursula, given the linear constraint structure.", + "query_type": "sep", + "depends_on": [ + 1, + 2, + 3, + 4 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q6", + "query": "Is it possible for Olivia and Vince to be seated beside each other?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "The constraints do not fully determine whether Olivia and Vince are adjacent. Some valid arrangements place them together, others do not.", + "query_type": "adj", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 2, + 3, + 4 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q7", + "query": "Is it possible for Marco to be in the second seat?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Position 2 is available to Marco in some arrangements but not others, depending on how other constraints resolve.", + "query_type": "pos", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "UNKNOWN": 7, + "CONTRADICTED": 1 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "rel_seating_0122", + "domain": "relational", + "subdomain": "seating_arrangement", + "logic_type": "propositional", + "premises": [ + "There are 5 people seated at a row of chairs: Jade, Priya, Iris, Tina, and Kyle.", + "Each person occupies exactly one chair and all chairs are distinct.", + "Priya must not sit directly next to Iris.", + "Iris must sit directly next to Tina.", + "Jade must sit directly next to Priya.", + "Priya must not sit directly next to Tina.", + "Jade must not sit directly next to Tina.", + "Tina must sit directly next to Kyle." + ], + "formal_representation": "; Seating: 5 people, linear\n; Variables: pos_X in [0, 4] for each person\n; All-different constraint on positions\n; CONSTRAINT: not_adjacent(Priya, Iris)\n; CONSTRAINT: adjacent(Iris, Tina)\n; CONSTRAINT: adjacent(Jade, Priya)\n; CONSTRAINT: not_adjacent(Priya, Tina)\n; CONSTRAINT: not_adjacent(Jade, Tina)\n; CONSTRAINT: adjacent(Tina, Kyle)", + "entities": [ + "Jade", + "Priya", + "Iris", + "Tina", + "Kyle" + ], + "num_entities": 5, + "constraint_type": "linear", + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 5, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Can Priya sit directly next to Kyle?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "The constraints do not fully determine whether Priya and Kyle are adjacent. Some valid arrangements place them together, others do not.", + "query_type": "adj", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Is it possible for Tina to be in the second seat?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Position 2 is available to Tina in some arrangements but not others, depending on how other constraints resolve.", + "query_type": "pos", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Is it possible for Iris to be in the fourth seat?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "Placing Iris at position 4 would violate one or more constraints; no valid arrangement allows it.", + "query_type": "pos", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Can Iris sit directly next to Kyle?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "The combination of constraints on Iris and Kyle's required/forbidden neighbors leaves no valid arrangement where they are adjacent.", + "query_type": "adj", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 2 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Is it possible for Jade and Kyle to be seated beside each other?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "The constraints do not fully determine whether Jade and Kyle are adjacent. Some valid arrangements place them together, others do not.", + "query_type": "adj", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 3 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "UNKNOWN": 3, + "CONTRADICTED": 2 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "rel_assign_0118", + "domain": "relational", + "subdomain": "color_assignment", + "logic_type": "propositional", + "premises": [ + "There are 6 nodes: Helena, Ivan, Sam, Nathan, Frank, and Gavin.", + "There are 3 colors: orange, white, and black.", + "Each node is assigned to exactly one color.", + "Gavin must be assigned to black.", + "Helena must be assigned to orange.", + "Helena and Nathan must be assigned to the same color.", + "Sam cannot be assigned to black.", + "Helena and Ivan must be assigned to the same color." + ], + "formal_representation": "; Assignment: 6 nodes -> 3 colors\n; CONSTRAINT: ('forced', 'Gavin', 'black')\n; CONSTRAINT: ('forced', 'Helena', 'orange')\n; CONSTRAINT: ('same', 'Helena', 'Nathan')\n; CONSTRAINT: ('banned', 'Sam', 'black')\n; CONSTRAINT: ('same', 'Helena', 'Ivan')", + "entities": [ + "Helena", + "Ivan", + "Sam", + "Nathan", + "Frank", + "Gavin" + ], + "slots": [ + "orange", + "white", + "black" + ], + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 6, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Is Gavin's assignment to white guaranteed?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "Gavin cannot be placed in white without violating at least one constraint.", + "query_type": "forced_slot", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Is Helena's assignment to white guaranteed?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "Helena cannot be placed in white without violating at least one constraint.", + "query_type": "forced_slot", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Can Nathan be in orange?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "All constraints together force Nathan into orange; no other color is feasible.", + "query_type": "forced_slot", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Must Sam be assigned to white?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Sam may or may not end up in white\u2014multiple valid assignments exist with different placements.", + "query_type": "forced_slot", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Must at least 1 node(s) be assigned to white?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid assignments have 1+ node(s) in white and others do not.", + "query_type": "capacity", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q5", + "query": "Can Gavin be in white?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "Gavin cannot be placed in white without violating at least one constraint.", + "query_type": "forced_slot", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "CONTRADICTED": 3, + "ENTAILED": 1, + "UNKNOWN": 2 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "rel_seating_0018", + "domain": "relational", + "subdomain": "seating_arrangement", + "logic_type": "propositional", + "premises": [ + "There are 5 people seated at a row of chairs: Tina, Nathan, Iris, Quinn, and Sam.", + "Each person occupies exactly one chair and all chairs are distinct.", + "Quinn must sit directly next to Sam.", + "Nathan must not sit directly next to Iris.", + "Tina must sit directly next to Quinn." + ], + "formal_representation": "; Seating: 5 people, linear\n; Variables: pos_X in [0, 4] for each person\n; All-different constraint on positions\n; CONSTRAINT: adjacent(Quinn, Sam)\n; CONSTRAINT: not_adjacent(Nathan, Iris)\n; CONSTRAINT: adjacent(Tina, Quinn)", + "entities": [ + "Tina", + "Nathan", + "Iris", + "Quinn", + "Sam" + ], + "num_entities": 5, + "constraint_type": "linear", + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 6, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Can Tina and Iris be separated by exactly 1 seat?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether Tina and Iris have exactly 1 seat(s) between them depends on how the remaining positions resolve.", + "query_type": "sep", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Can Quinn and Iris be separated by exactly 1 seat?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "No valid arrangement has exactly 1 seat(s) between Quinn and Iris, given the linear constraint structure.", + "query_type": "sep", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Can Iris and Sam be separated by exactly 1 seat?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether Iris and Sam have exactly 1 seat(s) between them depends on how the remaining positions resolve.", + "query_type": "sep", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "In every valid arrangement, is Nathan adjacent to Quinn?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "No valid arrangement exists where Nathan is adjacent to Quinn, given the combined constraints.", + "query_type": "adj_forced", + "depends_on": [ + 1 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Can Iris and Tina be separated by exactly 2 seats?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "No valid arrangement has exactly 2 seat(s) between Iris and Tina, given the linear constraint structure.", + "query_type": "sep", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1, + 2 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q5", + "query": "Can Nathan sit at position 1?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Position 1 is available to Nathan in some arrangements but not others, depending on how other constraints resolve.", + "query_type": "pos", + "depends_on": [ + 3 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "UNKNOWN": 3, + "CONTRADICTED": 3 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "rel_assign_0120", + "domain": "relational", + "subdomain": "team_assignment", + "logic_type": "propositional", + "premises": [ + "There are 6 persons: Kyle, Cyrus, Victor, Yara, Elias, and Marco.", + "There are 4 departments: Sales, HR, Legal, and Finance.", + "Each person is assigned to exactly one department.", + "Marco must be assigned to Sales.", + "Yara and Elias must be in different departments.", + "Cyrus and Elias must be assigned to the same department.", + "Elias must be assigned to Sales.", + "Victor and Elias must be assigned to the same department.", + "Yara and Marco must be in different departments." + ], + "formal_representation": "; Assignment: 6 persons -> 4 departments\n; CONSTRAINT: ('forced', 'Marco', 'Sales')\n; CONSTRAINT: ('diff', 'Yara', 'Elias')\n; CONSTRAINT: ('same', 'Cyrus', 'Elias')\n; CONSTRAINT: ('forced', 'Elias', 'Sales')\n; CONSTRAINT: ('same', 'Victor', 'Elias')\n; CONSTRAINT: ('diff', 'Yara', 'Marco')", + "entities": [ + "Kyle", + "Cyrus", + "Victor", + "Yara", + "Elias", + "Marco" + ], + "slots": [ + "Sales", + "HR", + "Legal", + "Finance" + ], + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 8, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Must Marco be assigned to Finance?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "Marco cannot be placed in Finance without violating at least one constraint.", + "query_type": "forced_slot", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Is it feasible for Yara to be placed in Sales?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "Yara cannot be placed in Sales without violating at least one constraint.", + "query_type": "slot_possible", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Is it possible for Elias and Victor to share a department?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "The combined constraints force Elias and Victor into the same department in every valid assignment.", + "query_type": "same_slot", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Must Kyle be assigned to Legal?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Kyle may or may not end up in Legal\u2014multiple valid assignments exist with different placements.", + "query_type": "forced_slot", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Can Elias and Marco be in the same department?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "The combined constraints force Elias and Marco into the same department in every valid assignment.", + "query_type": "same_slot", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 2 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q5", + "query": "Must at least 2 person(s) be assigned to Sales?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "The constraints guarantee at least 2 person(s) in Sales across all valid assignments.", + "query_type": "capacity", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q6", + "query": "Must at least 1 person(s) be assigned to Sales?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "The constraints guarantee at least 1 person(s) in Sales across all valid assignments.", + "query_type": "capacity", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q7", + "query": "Must at least 2 person(s) be assigned to HR?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid assignments have 2+ person(s) in HR and others do not.", + "query_type": "capacity", + "depends_on": [] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "CONTRADICTED": 2, + "ENTAILED": 4, + "UNKNOWN": 2 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "rel_assign_0125", + "domain": "relational", + "subdomain": "color_assignment", + "logic_type": "propositional", + "premises": [ + "There are 5 nodes: Grace, Elias, Paul, Victor, and Diana.", + "There are 3 colors: yellow, red, and purple.", + "Each node is assigned to exactly one color.", + "Paul cannot be assigned to purple.", + "Victor and Diana must be assigned to the same color.", + "Paul and Victor must be in different colors." + ], + "formal_representation": "; Assignment: 5 nodes -> 3 colors\n; CONSTRAINT: ('banned', 'Paul', 'purple')\n; CONSTRAINT: ('same', 'Victor', 'Diana')\n; CONSTRAINT: ('diff', 'Paul', 'Victor')", + "entities": [ + "Grace", + "Elias", + "Paul", + "Victor", + "Diana" + ], + "slots": [ + "yellow", + "red", + "purple" + ], + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 5, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Is it possible for Victor and Diana to share a color?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "The combined constraints force Victor and Diana into the same color in every valid assignment.", + "query_type": "same_slot", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Is it possible for Victor and Grace to share a color?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid assignments place Victor and Grace together, while others separate them. The constraints are insufficient to determine this.", + "query_type": "same_slot", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Must at least 1 node(s) be assigned to red?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid assignments have 1+ node(s) in red and others do not.", + "query_type": "capacity", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Must at least 3 node(s) be assigned to purple?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid assignments have 3+ node(s) in purple and others do not.", + "query_type": "capacity", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Is it possible for Diana and Grace to share a color?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid assignments place Diana and Grace together, while others separate them. The constraints are insufficient to determine this.", + "query_type": "same_slot", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "ENTAILED": 1, + "UNKNOWN": 4 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "rel_seating_0128", + "domain": "relational", + "subdomain": "seating_arrangement", + "logic_type": "propositional", + "premises": [ + "There are 6 people seated at a circular table: Alice, Tina, Sam, Wendy, Zane, and Sasha.", + "Each person occupies exactly one seat and all seats are distinct.", + "Alice must not sit directly next to Tina.", + "Tina must sit directly next to Sam.", + "Sam must not sit directly next to Sasha.", + "Zane must sit directly next to Sasha.", + "Alice must not sit directly next to Sasha.", + "Alice must not sit directly next to Sam." + ], + "formal_representation": "; Seating: 6 people, circular\n; Variables: pos_X in [0, 5] for each person\n; All-different constraint on positions\n; CONSTRAINT: not_adjacent(Alice, Tina)\n; CONSTRAINT: adjacent(Tina, Sam)\n; CONSTRAINT: not_adjacent(Sam, Sasha)\n; CONSTRAINT: adjacent(Zane, Sasha)\n; CONSTRAINT: not_adjacent(Alice, Sasha)\n; CONSTRAINT: not_adjacent(Alice, Sam)", + "entities": [ + "Alice", + "Tina", + "Sam", + "Wendy", + "Zane", + "Sasha" + ], + "num_entities": 6, + "constraint_type": "circular", + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 7, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Can Alice sit directly next to Zane?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "Given the adjacency constraints on Alice and Zane's neighbors, all valid seatings force them to be adjacent.", + "query_type": "adj", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "In every valid arrangement, is Tina adjacent to Sasha?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "After accounting for all adjacency constraints, every satisfying assignment requires Tina next to Sasha.", + "query_type": "adj_forced", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Is it possible for Sam to be in the second seat?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Position 2 is available to Sam in some arrangements but not others, depending on how other constraints resolve.", + "query_type": "pos", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Could Sam end up adjacent to Zane?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "The combination of constraints on Sam and Zane's required/forbidden neighbors leaves no valid arrangement where they are adjacent.", + "query_type": "adj", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 2 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Is it possible for Sasha to be in the first seat?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Position 1 is available to Sasha in some arrangements but not others, depending on how other constraints resolve.", + "query_type": "pos", + "depends_on": [ + 1 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q5", + "query": "Can Sasha and Wendy be separated by exactly 3 seats?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "The constraints force exactly 3 seat(s) between Sasha and Wendy in every valid circular arrangement.", + "query_type": "sep", + "depends_on": [ + 1, + 4 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q6", + "query": "Can Wendy and Tina be separated by exactly 2 seats?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "The constraints force exactly 2 seat(s) between Wendy and Tina in every valid circular arrangement.", + "query_type": "sep", + "depends_on": [ + 1, + 5 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "ENTAILED": 4, + "UNKNOWN": 2, + "CONTRADICTED": 1 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "rel_assign_0110", + "domain": "relational", + "subdomain": "shift_assignment", + "logic_type": "propositional", + "premises": [ + "There are 4 workers: Jade, Diana, Victor, and Paul.", + "There are 3 shifts: evening, night, and morning.", + "Each worker is assigned to exactly one shift.", + "Jade and Diana must be in different shifts.", + "Jade and Paul must be assigned to the same shift.", + "Diana and Victor must be in different shifts.", + "Diana must be assigned to morning.", + "Victor cannot be assigned to night." + ], + "formal_representation": "; Assignment: 4 workers -> 3 shifts\n; CONSTRAINT: ('diff', 'Jade', 'Diana')\n; CONSTRAINT: ('same', 'Jade', 'Paul')\n; CONSTRAINT: ('diff', 'Diana', 'Victor')\n; CONSTRAINT: ('forced', 'Diana', 'morning')\n; CONSTRAINT: ('banned', 'Victor', 'night')", + "entities": [ + "Jade", + "Diana", + "Victor", + "Paul" + ], + "slots": [ + "evening", + "night", + "morning" + ], + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 8, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Is Jade's assignment to night guaranteed?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Jade may or may not end up in night\u2014multiple valid assignments exist with different placements.", + "query_type": "forced_slot", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Is it feasible for Victor to be placed in morning?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "Victor cannot be placed in morning without violating at least one constraint.", + "query_type": "slot_possible", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Must at least 2 worker(s) be assigned to evening?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid assignments have 2+ worker(s) in evening and others do not.", + "query_type": "capacity", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Must at least 1 worker(s) be assigned to evening?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "The constraints guarantee at least 1 worker(s) in evening across all valid assignments.", + "query_type": "capacity", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Is it feasible for Paul to be placed in evening?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Paul may or may not end up in evening\u2014multiple valid assignments exist with different placements.", + "query_type": "slot_possible", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q5", + "query": "Can Victor and Jade be in the same shift?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid assignments place Victor and Jade together, while others separate them. The constraints are insufficient to determine this.", + "query_type": "same_slot", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q6", + "query": "Is it feasible for Paul to be placed in night?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Paul may or may not end up in night\u2014multiple valid assignments exist with different placements.", + "query_type": "slot_possible", + "depends_on": [ + 4 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q7", + "query": "Must at least 3 worker(s) be assigned to night?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "No valid assignment places 3 or more worker(s) in night, given the constraints.", + "query_type": "capacity", + "depends_on": [] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "UNKNOWN": 5, + "CONTRADICTED": 2, + "ENTAILED": 1 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "rel_assign_0024", + "domain": "relational", + "subdomain": "color_assignment", + "logic_type": "propositional", + "premises": [ + "There are 5 nodes: Helena, Amara, Kyle, Eve, and Iris.", + "There are 4 colors: blue, yellow, white, and purple.", + "Each node is assigned to exactly one color.", + "Amara and Eve must be in different colors.", + "Helena and Eve must be in different colors.", + "Amara must be assigned to white.", + "Helena must be assigned to white.", + "Kyle and Iris must be in different colors." + ], + "formal_representation": "; Assignment: 5 nodes -> 4 colors\n; CONSTRAINT: ('diff', 'Amara', 'Eve')\n; CONSTRAINT: ('diff', 'Helena', 'Eve')\n; CONSTRAINT: ('forced', 'Amara', 'white')\n; CONSTRAINT: ('forced', 'Helena', 'white')\n; CONSTRAINT: ('diff', 'Kyle', 'Iris')", + "entities": [ + "Helena", + "Amara", + "Kyle", + "Eve", + "Iris" + ], + "slots": [ + "blue", + "yellow", + "white", + "purple" + ], + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 6, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Must Iris and Amara always end up in the same color?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid assignments place Iris and Amara together, while others separate them. The constraints are insufficient to determine this.", + "query_type": "same_slot", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Is it feasible for Amara to be placed in purple?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "Amara cannot be placed in purple without violating at least one constraint.", + "query_type": "slot_possible", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Is Amara's assignment to white guaranteed?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "All constraints together force Amara into white; no other color is feasible.", + "query_type": "forced_slot", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Can Helena and Iris be in the same color?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid assignments place Helena and Iris together, while others separate them. The constraints are insufficient to determine this.", + "query_type": "same_slot", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Is it feasible for Amara to be placed in white?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "All constraints together force Amara into white; no other color is feasible.", + "query_type": "slot_possible", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1, + 2 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q5", + "query": "Is it feasible for Eve to be placed in yellow?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Eve may or may not end up in yellow\u2014multiple valid assignments exist with different placements.", + "query_type": "slot_possible", + "depends_on": [] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "UNKNOWN": 3, + "CONTRADICTED": 1, + "ENTAILED": 2 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "rel_seating_0091", + "domain": "relational", + "subdomain": "seating_arrangement", + "logic_type": "propositional", + "premises": [ + "There are 6 people seated at a row of chairs: Sam, Daphne, Reed, Eve, Oscar, and Vince.", + "Each person occupies exactly one chair and all chairs are distinct.", + "Reed must not sit directly next to Eve.", + "Oscar must not sit directly next to Vince.", + "Daphne must sit directly next to Vince.", + "Daphne must not sit directly next to Oscar.", + "Sam must sit directly next to Oscar.", + "Sam must not sit directly next to Daphne." + ], + "formal_representation": "; Seating: 6 people, linear\n; Variables: pos_X in [0, 5] for each person\n; All-different constraint on positions\n; CONSTRAINT: not_adjacent(Reed, Eve)\n; CONSTRAINT: not_adjacent(Oscar, Vince)\n; CONSTRAINT: adjacent(Daphne, Vince)\n; CONSTRAINT: not_adjacent(Daphne, Oscar)\n; CONSTRAINT: adjacent(Sam, Oscar)\n; CONSTRAINT: not_adjacent(Sam, Daphne)", + "entities": [ + "Sam", + "Daphne", + "Reed", + "Eve", + "Oscar", + "Vince" + ], + "num_entities": 6, + "constraint_type": "linear", + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 7, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Is it possible for Eve to be in the first seat?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Position 1 is available to Eve in some arrangements but not others, depending on how other constraints resolve.", + "query_type": "pos", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Must Sam always be seated next to Eve?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid arrangements have Sam next to Eve and others do not. The constraints do not force this adjacency.", + "query_type": "adj_forced", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Must Daphne always be seated next to Reed?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid arrangements have Daphne next to Reed and others do not. The constraints do not force this adjacency.", + "query_type": "adj_forced", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Can Vince and Reed be separated by exactly 1 seat?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether Vince and Reed have exactly 1 seat(s) between them depends on how the remaining positions resolve.", + "query_type": "sep", + "depends_on": [ + 2 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Could Reed end up adjacent to Vince?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "The constraints do not fully determine whether Reed and Vince are adjacent. Some valid arrangements place them together, others do not.", + "query_type": "adj", + "depends_on": [ + 2, + 3 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q5", + "query": "Can Eve sit directly next to Oscar?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "The constraints do not fully determine whether Eve and Oscar are adjacent. Some valid arrangements place them together, others do not.", + "query_type": "adj", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q6", + "query": "Can Reed and Daphne be separated by exactly 3 seats?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "No valid arrangement has exactly 3 seat(s) between Reed and Daphne, given the linear constraint structure.", + "query_type": "sep", + "depends_on": [ + 2, + 3, + 4 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "UNKNOWN": 6, + "CONTRADICTED": 1 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "rel_seating_0002", + "domain": "relational", + "subdomain": "seating_arrangement", + "logic_type": "propositional", + "premises": [ + "There are 7 people seated at a circular table: Jade, Karen, Quinn, Helena, Marco, Blake, and Nathan.", + "Each person occupies exactly one seat and all seats are distinct.", + "Marco must sit directly next to Nathan.", + "Karen must sit directly next to Helena.", + "Jade must sit directly next to Helena.", + "Karen must not sit directly next to Quinn.", + "Karen must sit directly next to Nathan." + ], + "formal_representation": "; Seating: 7 people, circular\n; Variables: pos_X in [0, 6] for each person\n; All-different constraint on positions\n; CONSTRAINT: adjacent(Marco, Nathan)\n; CONSTRAINT: adjacent(Karen, Helena)\n; CONSTRAINT: adjacent(Jade, Helena)\n; CONSTRAINT: not_adjacent(Karen, Quinn)\n; CONSTRAINT: adjacent(Karen, Nathan)", + "entities": [ + "Jade", + "Karen", + "Quinn", + "Helena", + "Marco", + "Blake", + "Nathan" + ], + "num_entities": 7, + "constraint_type": "circular", + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 8, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Must Karen always be seated next to Blake?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "No valid arrangement exists where Karen is adjacent to Blake, given the combined constraints.", + "query_type": "adj_forced", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "In every valid arrangement, is Karen adjacent to Marco?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "No valid arrangement exists where Karen is adjacent to Marco, given the combined constraints.", + "query_type": "adj_forced", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Can Quinn and Helena be separated by exactly 2 seats?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether Quinn and Helena have exactly 2 seat(s) between them depends on how the remaining positions resolve.", + "query_type": "sep", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Can Jade sit directly next to Quinn?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "The constraints do not fully determine whether Jade and Quinn are adjacent. Some valid arrangements place them together, others do not.", + "query_type": "adj", + "depends_on": [ + 2 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "In every valid arrangement, is Quinn adjacent to Marco?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid arrangements have Quinn next to Marco and others do not. The constraints do not force this adjacency.", + "query_type": "adj_forced", + "depends_on": [ + 1, + 2, + 3 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q5", + "query": "In every valid arrangement, is Jade adjacent to Marco?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "No valid arrangement exists where Jade is adjacent to Marco, given the combined constraints.", + "query_type": "adj_forced", + "depends_on": [ + 1, + 3, + 4 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q6", + "query": "Can Blake and Quinn be separated by exactly 1 seat?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "The constraints force exactly 1 seat(s) between Blake and Quinn in every valid circular arrangement.", + "query_type": "sep", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 2, + 3, + 4 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q7", + "query": "Can Nathan and Blake be separated by exactly 1 seat?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "No valid arrangement has exactly 1 seat(s) between Nathan and Blake, given the circular constraint structure.", + "query_type": "sep", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 6 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "CONTRADICTED": 4, + "UNKNOWN": 3, + "ENTAILED": 1 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "rel_assign_0047", + "domain": "relational", + "subdomain": "team_assignment", + "logic_type": "propositional", + "premises": [ + "There are 6 persons: Leo, Freya, Charlie, Frank, Diana, and Olivia.", + "There are 4 departments: Engineering, HR, Finance, and Operations.", + "Each person is assigned to exactly one department.", + "Olivia must be assigned to Operations.", + "Freya and Charlie must be assigned to the same department.", + "Charlie must be assigned to Finance." + ], + "formal_representation": "; Assignment: 6 persons -> 4 departments\n; CONSTRAINT: ('forced', 'Olivia', 'Operations')\n; CONSTRAINT: ('same', 'Freya', 'Charlie')\n; CONSTRAINT: ('forced', 'Charlie', 'Finance')", + "entities": [ + "Leo", + "Freya", + "Charlie", + "Frank", + "Diana", + "Olivia" + ], + "slots": [ + "Engineering", + "HR", + "Finance", + "Operations" + ], + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 7, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Must at least 1 person(s) be assigned to Finance?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "The constraints guarantee at least 1 person(s) in Finance across all valid assignments.", + "query_type": "capacity", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Must Charlie be assigned to Engineering?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "Charlie cannot be placed in Engineering without violating at least one constraint.", + "query_type": "forced_slot", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Is it feasible for Freya to be placed in HR?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "Freya cannot be placed in HR without violating at least one constraint.", + "query_type": "slot_possible", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Can Olivia be in Engineering?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "Olivia cannot be placed in Engineering without violating at least one constraint.", + "query_type": "forced_slot", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Is it possible for Freya and Diana to share a department?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid assignments place Freya and Diana together, while others separate them. The constraints are insufficient to determine this.", + "query_type": "same_slot", + "depends_on": [ + 2 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q5", + "query": "Is Freya's assignment to Operations guaranteed?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "Freya cannot be placed in Operations without violating at least one constraint.", + "query_type": "forced_slot", + "depends_on": [ + 2, + 4 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q6", + "query": "Must at least 3 person(s) be assigned to Finance?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid assignments have 3+ person(s) in Finance and others do not.", + "query_type": "capacity", + "depends_on": [] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "ENTAILED": 1, + "CONTRADICTED": 4, + "UNKNOWN": 2 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "rel_seating_0045", + "domain": "relational", + "subdomain": "seating_arrangement", + "logic_type": "propositional", + "premises": [ + "There are 6 people seated at a circular table: Jack, Frank, Ursula, Paul, Wendy, and Zane.", + "Each person occupies exactly one seat and all seats are distinct.", + "Frank must sit directly next to Ursula.", + "Paul must sit directly next to Wendy.", + "Wendy must sit directly next to Zane.", + "Jack must sit directly next to Ursula.", + "Ursula must not sit directly next to Wendy." + ], + "formal_representation": "; Seating: 6 people, circular\n; Variables: pos_X in [0, 5] for each person\n; All-different constraint on positions\n; CONSTRAINT: adjacent(Frank, Ursula)\n; CONSTRAINT: adjacent(Paul, Wendy)\n; CONSTRAINT: adjacent(Wendy, Zane)\n; CONSTRAINT: adjacent(Jack, Ursula)\n; CONSTRAINT: not_adjacent(Ursula, Wendy)", + "entities": [ + "Jack", + "Frank", + "Ursula", + "Paul", + "Wendy", + "Zane" + ], + "num_entities": 6, + "constraint_type": "circular", + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 7, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Can Paul sit at position 2?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Position 2 is available to Paul in some arrangements but not others, depending on how other constraints resolve.", + "query_type": "pos", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Can Zane and Paul be separated by exactly 2 seats?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "The constraints force exactly 2 seat(s) between Zane and Paul in every valid circular arrangement.", + "query_type": "sep", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Can Frank and Ursula be separated by exactly 1 seat?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "The constraints force exactly 1 seat(s) between Frank and Ursula in every valid circular arrangement.", + "query_type": "sep", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Is it possible for Frank and Wendy to be seated beside each other?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "The combination of constraints on Frank and Wendy's required/forbidden neighbors leaves no valid arrangement where they are adjacent.", + "query_type": "adj", + "depends_on": [ + 2 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Is it possible for Jack to be in the first seat?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Position 1 is available to Jack in some arrangements but not others, depending on how other constraints resolve.", + "query_type": "pos", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q5", + "query": "In every valid arrangement, is Jack adjacent to Frank?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "No valid arrangement exists where Jack is adjacent to Frank, given the combined constraints.", + "query_type": "adj_forced", + "depends_on": [ + 2, + 3, + 4 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q6", + "query": "Must Frank always be seated next to Paul?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid arrangements have Frank next to Paul and others do not. The constraints do not force this adjacency.", + "query_type": "adj_forced", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1, + 2, + 3, + 5 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "UNKNOWN": 3, + "ENTAILED": 2, + "CONTRADICTED": 2 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "rel_assign_0069", + "domain": "relational", + "subdomain": "shift_assignment", + "logic_type": "propositional", + "premises": [ + "There are 5 workers: Gavin, Quinn, Ivan, Kyle, and Theo.", + "There are 3 shifts: night, evening, and afternoon.", + "Each worker is assigned to exactly one shift.", + "Gavin and Theo must be assigned to the same shift.", + "Quinn cannot be assigned to afternoon.", + "Quinn and Kyle must be in different shifts.", + "Kyle must be assigned to evening.", + "Ivan and Kyle must be assigned to the same shift." + ], + "formal_representation": "; Assignment: 5 workers -> 3 shifts\n; CONSTRAINT: ('same', 'Gavin', 'Theo')\n; CONSTRAINT: ('banned', 'Quinn', 'afternoon')\n; CONSTRAINT: ('diff', 'Quinn', 'Kyle')\n; CONSTRAINT: ('forced', 'Kyle', 'evening')\n; CONSTRAINT: ('same', 'Ivan', 'Kyle')", + "entities": [ + "Gavin", + "Quinn", + "Ivan", + "Kyle", + "Theo" + ], + "slots": [ + "night", + "evening", + "afternoon" + ], + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 7, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Must Theo be assigned to evening?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Theo may or may not end up in evening\u2014multiple valid assignments exist with different placements.", + "query_type": "forced_slot", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Is it feasible for Quinn to be placed in night?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "All constraints together force Quinn into night; no other shift is feasible.", + "query_type": "slot_possible", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Must Kyle be assigned to afternoon?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "Kyle cannot be placed in afternoon without violating at least one constraint.", + "query_type": "forced_slot", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Is it feasible for Quinn to be placed in evening?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "Quinn cannot be placed in evening without violating at least one constraint.", + "query_type": "slot_possible", + "depends_on": [ + 1 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Must Quinn be assigned to evening?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "Quinn cannot be placed in evening without violating at least one constraint.", + "query_type": "forced_slot", + "depends_on": [ + 1, + 3 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q5", + "query": "Can Kyle be in evening?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "All constraints together force Kyle into evening; no other shift is feasible.", + "query_type": "forced_slot", + "depends_on": [ + 2 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q6", + "query": "Is Quinn's assignment to night guaranteed?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "All constraints together force Quinn into night; no other shift is feasible.", + "query_type": "forced_slot", + "depends_on": [ + 1, + 3, + 4 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "UNKNOWN": 1, + "ENTAILED": 3, + "CONTRADICTED": 3 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "rel_assign_0088", + "domain": "relational", + "subdomain": "color_assignment", + "logic_type": "propositional", + "premises": [ + "There are 6 nodes: Ursula, Gavin, Rachel, Amara, Ivan, and Kyle.", + "There are 3 colors: red, black, and purple.", + "Each node is assigned to exactly one color.", + "Gavin and Ivan must be assigned to the same color.", + "Rachel and Kyle must be in different colors.", + "Kyle cannot be assigned to purple.", + "Gavin and Rachel must be assigned to the same color.", + "Ivan must be assigned to red.", + "Ivan must be assigned to red.", + "Amara cannot be assigned to purple." + ], + "formal_representation": "; Assignment: 6 nodes -> 3 colors\n; CONSTRAINT: ('same', 'Gavin', 'Ivan')\n; CONSTRAINT: ('diff', 'Rachel', 'Kyle')\n; CONSTRAINT: ('banned', 'Kyle', 'purple')\n; CONSTRAINT: ('same', 'Gavin', 'Rachel')\n; CONSTRAINT: ('forced', 'Ivan', 'red')\n; CONSTRAINT: ('forced', 'Ivan', 'red')\n; CONSTRAINT: ('banned', 'Amara', 'purple')", + "entities": [ + "Ursula", + "Gavin", + "Rachel", + "Amara", + "Ivan", + "Kyle" + ], + "slots": [ + "red", + "black", + "purple" + ], + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 8, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Is it feasible for Kyle to be placed in purple?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "Kyle cannot be placed in purple without violating at least one constraint.", + "query_type": "slot_possible", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Must at least 3 node(s) be assigned to purple?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "No valid assignment places 3 or more node(s) in purple, given the constraints.", + "query_type": "capacity", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Is it feasible for Ursula to be placed in purple?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Ursula may or may not end up in purple\u2014multiple valid assignments exist with different placements.", + "query_type": "slot_possible", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Must Kyle and Rachel always end up in the same color?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "The constraints prohibit Kyle and Rachel from sharing a color; no valid assignment allows it.", + "query_type": "same_slot", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Is it feasible for Rachel to be placed in red?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "All constraints together force Rachel into red; no other color is feasible.", + "query_type": "slot_possible", + "depends_on": [ + 3 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q5", + "query": "Is it feasible for Amara to be placed in black?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Amara may or may not end up in black\u2014multiple valid assignments exist with different placements.", + "query_type": "slot_possible", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q6", + "query": "Must at least 1 node(s) be assigned to purple?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid assignments have 1+ node(s) in purple and others do not.", + "query_type": "capacity", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q7", + "query": "Must Kyle and Ivan always end up in the same color?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "The constraints prohibit Kyle and Ivan from sharing a color; no valid assignment allows it.", + "query_type": "same_slot", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 3 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "CONTRADICTED": 4, + "UNKNOWN": 3, + "ENTAILED": 1 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "rel_seating_0046", + "domain": "relational", + "subdomain": "seating_arrangement", + "logic_type": "propositional", + "premises": [ + "There are 6 people seated at a row of chairs: Freya, Amara, Jade, Elias, Diana, and Frank.", + "Each person occupies exactly one chair and all chairs are distinct.", + "Amara must not sit directly next to Diana.", + "Freya must not sit directly next to Jade.", + "Freya must not sit directly next to Frank.", + "Elias must not sit directly next to Frank.", + "Diana must sit directly next to Frank.", + "Amara must sit directly next to Jade." + ], + "formal_representation": "; Seating: 6 people, linear\n; Variables: pos_X in [0, 5] for each person\n; All-different constraint on positions\n; CONSTRAINT: not_adjacent(Amara, Diana)\n; CONSTRAINT: not_adjacent(Freya, Jade)\n; CONSTRAINT: not_adjacent(Freya, Frank)\n; CONSTRAINT: not_adjacent(Elias, Frank)\n; CONSTRAINT: adjacent(Diana, Frank)\n; CONSTRAINT: adjacent(Amara, Jade)", + "entities": [ + "Freya", + "Amara", + "Jade", + "Elias", + "Diana", + "Frank" + ], + "num_entities": 6, + "constraint_type": "linear", + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 7, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Can Elias sit directly next to Diana?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "The constraints do not fully determine whether Elias and Diana are adjacent. Some valid arrangements place them together, others do not.", + "query_type": "adj", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Can Jade and Amara be separated by exactly 1 seat?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "The constraints force exactly 1 seat(s) between Jade and Amara in every valid linear arrangement.", + "query_type": "sep", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Can Jade sit directly next to Frank?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "The constraints do not fully determine whether Jade and Frank are adjacent. Some valid arrangements place them together, others do not.", + "query_type": "adj", + "depends_on": [ + 1 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Must Jade always be seated next to Diana?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid arrangements have Jade next to Diana and others do not. The constraints do not force this adjacency.", + "query_type": "adj_forced", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1, + 2 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Must Amara always be seated next to Elias?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid arrangements have Amara next to Elias and others do not. The constraints do not force this adjacency.", + "query_type": "adj_forced", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q5", + "query": "In every valid arrangement, is Freya adjacent to Diana?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid arrangements have Freya next to Diana and others do not. The constraints do not force this adjacency.", + "query_type": "adj_forced", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 3 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q6", + "query": "In every valid arrangement, is Jade adjacent to Elias?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid arrangements have Jade next to Elias and others do not. The constraints do not force this adjacency.", + "query_type": "adj_forced", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1, + 2, + 3, + 4 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "UNKNOWN": 6, + "ENTAILED": 1 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "rel_assign_0019", + "domain": "relational", + "subdomain": "shift_assignment", + "logic_type": "propositional", + "premises": [ + "There are 5 workers: Priya, Frank, Nora, Marco, and Gavin.", + "There are 3 shifts: night, evening, and morning.", + "Each worker is assigned to exactly one shift.", + "Priya must be assigned to morning.", + "Nora and Marco must be in different shifts.", + "Priya and Gavin must be assigned to the same shift." + ], + "formal_representation": "; Assignment: 5 workers -> 3 shifts\n; CONSTRAINT: ('forced', 'Priya', 'morning')\n; CONSTRAINT: ('diff', 'Nora', 'Marco')\n; CONSTRAINT: ('same', 'Priya', 'Gavin')", + "entities": [ + "Priya", + "Frank", + "Nora", + "Marco", + "Gavin" + ], + "slots": [ + "night", + "evening", + "morning" + ], + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 8, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Can Nora be in evening?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Nora may or may not end up in evening\u2014multiple valid assignments exist with different placements.", + "query_type": "forced_slot", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Is Nora's assignment to evening guaranteed?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Nora may or may not end up in evening\u2014multiple valid assignments exist with different placements.", + "query_type": "forced_slot", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Is it feasible for Priya to be placed in morning?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "All constraints together force Priya into morning; no other shift is feasible.", + "query_type": "slot_possible", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Is it feasible for Gavin to be placed in night?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "Gavin cannot be placed in night without violating at least one constraint.", + "query_type": "slot_possible", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Is it possible for Nora and Priya to share a shift?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid assignments place Nora and Priya together, while others separate them. The constraints are insufficient to determine this.", + "query_type": "same_slot", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1, + 2 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q5", + "query": "Must at least 2 worker(s) be assigned to evening?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid assignments have 2+ worker(s) in evening and others do not.", + "query_type": "capacity", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q6", + "query": "Is it possible for Gavin and Marco to share a shift?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid assignments place Gavin and Marco together, while others separate them. The constraints are insufficient to determine this.", + "query_type": "same_slot", + "depends_on": [ + 3 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q7", + "query": "Is Marco's assignment to evening guaranteed?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Marco may or may not end up in evening\u2014multiple valid assignments exist with different placements.", + "query_type": "forced_slot", + "depends_on": [ + 6 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "UNKNOWN": 6, + "ENTAILED": 1, + "CONTRADICTED": 1 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "rel_assign_0063", + "domain": "relational", + "subdomain": "office_assignment", + "logic_type": "propositional", + "premises": [ + "There are 5 employees: Bob, Yara, Sasha, Hank, and Ivan.", + "There are 4 offices: Room E, Room A, Room C, and Room D.", + "Each employee is assigned to exactly one office.", + "Bob cannot be assigned to Room D.", + "Bob and Sasha must be in different offices.", + "Yara and Hank must be in different offices.", + "Hank and Ivan must be in different offices.", + "Ivan cannot be assigned to Room C.", + "Bob and Hank must be in different offices." + ], + "formal_representation": "; Assignment: 5 employees -> 4 offices\n; CONSTRAINT: ('banned', 'Bob', 'Room D')\n; CONSTRAINT: ('diff', 'Bob', 'Sasha')\n; CONSTRAINT: ('diff', 'Yara', 'Hank')\n; CONSTRAINT: ('diff', 'Hank', 'Ivan')\n; CONSTRAINT: ('banned', 'Ivan', 'Room C')\n; CONSTRAINT: ('diff', 'Bob', 'Hank')", + "entities": [ + "Bob", + "Yara", + "Sasha", + "Hank", + "Ivan" + ], + "slots": [ + "Room E", + "Room A", + "Room C", + "Room D" + ], + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 7, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Is it feasible for Sasha to be placed in Room E?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Sasha may or may not end up in Room E\u2014multiple valid assignments exist with different placements.", + "query_type": "slot_possible", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Is it feasible for Yara to be placed in Room E?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Yara may or may not end up in Room E\u2014multiple valid assignments exist with different placements.", + "query_type": "slot_possible", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Is Ivan's assignment to Room E guaranteed?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Ivan may or may not end up in Room E\u2014multiple valid assignments exist with different placements.", + "query_type": "forced_slot", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Must Bob be assigned to Room E?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Bob may or may not end up in Room E\u2014multiple valid assignments exist with different placements.", + "query_type": "forced_slot", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Can Sasha and Bob be in the same office?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "The constraints prohibit Sasha and Bob from sharing a office; no valid assignment allows it.", + "query_type": "same_slot", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 3 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q5", + "query": "Can Sasha be in Room A?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Sasha may or may not end up in Room A\u2014multiple valid assignments exist with different placements.", + "query_type": "forced_slot", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 4 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q6", + "query": "Must Yara be assigned to Room A?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Yara may or may not end up in Room A\u2014multiple valid assignments exist with different placements.", + "query_type": "forced_slot", + "depends_on": [ + 1 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "UNKNOWN": 6, + "CONTRADICTED": 1 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "rel_assign_0075", + "domain": "relational", + "subdomain": "color_assignment", + "logic_type": "propositional", + "premises": [ + "There are 6 nodes: Reed, Karen, Ivan, Marco, Cyrus, and Wendy.", + "There are 4 colors: orange, white, green, and yellow.", + "Each node is assigned to exactly one color.", + "Marco and Cyrus must be assigned to the same color.", + "Ivan and Cyrus must be assigned to the same color.", + "Cyrus must be assigned to orange.", + "Karen and Marco must be in different colors.", + "Reed must be assigned to green.", + "Ivan and Wendy must be in different colors." + ], + "formal_representation": "; Assignment: 6 nodes -> 4 colors\n; CONSTRAINT: ('same', 'Marco', 'Cyrus')\n; CONSTRAINT: ('same', 'Ivan', 'Cyrus')\n; CONSTRAINT: ('forced', 'Cyrus', 'orange')\n; CONSTRAINT: ('diff', 'Karen', 'Marco')\n; CONSTRAINT: ('forced', 'Reed', 'green')\n; CONSTRAINT: ('diff', 'Ivan', 'Wendy')", + "entities": [ + "Reed", + "Karen", + "Ivan", + "Marco", + "Cyrus", + "Wendy" + ], + "slots": [ + "orange", + "white", + "green", + "yellow" + ], + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 5, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Is it feasible for Marco to be placed in white?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "Marco cannot be placed in white without violating at least one constraint.", + "query_type": "slot_possible", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Is Wendy's assignment to orange guaranteed?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "Wendy cannot be placed in orange without violating at least one constraint.", + "query_type": "forced_slot", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Is Ivan's assignment to orange guaranteed?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "All constraints together force Ivan into orange; no other color is feasible.", + "query_type": "forced_slot", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Can Karen be in green?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Karen may or may not end up in green\u2014multiple valid assignments exist with different placements.", + "query_type": "forced_slot", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Must at least 3 node(s) be assigned to orange?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "The constraints guarantee at least 3 node(s) in orange across all valid assignments.", + "query_type": "capacity", + "depends_on": [] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "CONTRADICTED": 2, + "ENTAILED": 2, + "UNKNOWN": 1 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "rel_assign_0023", + "domain": "relational", + "subdomain": "color_assignment", + "logic_type": "propositional", + "premises": [ + "There are 5 nodes: Kyle, Iris, Helena, Xavier, and Zane.", + "There are 3 colors: purple, blue, and red.", + "Each node is assigned to exactly one color.", + "Kyle and Iris must be in different colors.", + "Xavier must be assigned to purple.", + "Kyle and Xavier must be assigned to the same color.", + "Helena and Xavier must be in different colors.", + "Iris and Helena must be assigned to the same color.", + "Iris cannot be assigned to red." + ], + "formal_representation": "; Assignment: 5 nodes -> 3 colors\n; CONSTRAINT: ('diff', 'Kyle', 'Iris')\n; CONSTRAINT: ('forced', 'Xavier', 'purple')\n; CONSTRAINT: ('same', 'Kyle', 'Xavier')\n; CONSTRAINT: ('diff', 'Helena', 'Xavier')\n; CONSTRAINT: ('same', 'Iris', 'Helena')\n; CONSTRAINT: ('banned', 'Iris', 'red')", + "entities": [ + "Kyle", + "Iris", + "Helena", + "Xavier", + "Zane" + ], + "slots": [ + "purple", + "blue", + "red" + ], + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 5, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Is it feasible for Helena to be placed in red?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "Helena cannot be placed in red without violating at least one constraint.", + "query_type": "slot_possible", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Must Zane be assigned to purple?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Zane may or may not end up in purple\u2014multiple valid assignments exist with different placements.", + "query_type": "forced_slot", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Must Kyle be assigned to purple?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "All constraints together force Kyle into purple; no other color is feasible.", + "query_type": "forced_slot", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Is Iris's assignment to blue guaranteed?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "All constraints together force Iris into blue; no other color is feasible.", + "query_type": "forced_slot", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Is it feasible for Xavier to be placed in red?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "Xavier cannot be placed in red without violating at least one constraint.", + "query_type": "slot_possible", + "depends_on": [] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "CONTRADICTED": 2, + "UNKNOWN": 1, + "ENTAILED": 2 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "rel_assign_0137", + "domain": "relational", + "subdomain": "shift_assignment", + "logic_type": "propositional", + "premises": [ + "There are 6 workers: Xavier, Cyrus, Nora, Sasha, Reed, and Elias.", + "There are 3 shifts: afternoon, morning, and night.", + "Each worker is assigned to exactly one shift.", + "Xavier and Cyrus must be assigned to the same shift.", + "Nora cannot be assigned to night.", + "Nora and Reed must be in different shifts.", + "Cyrus and Nora must be in different shifts.", + "Reed and Elias must be assigned to the same shift.", + "Sasha and Reed must be in different shifts." + ], + "formal_representation": "; Assignment: 6 workers -> 3 shifts\n; CONSTRAINT: ('same', 'Xavier', 'Cyrus')\n; CONSTRAINT: ('banned', 'Nora', 'night')\n; CONSTRAINT: ('diff', 'Nora', 'Reed')\n; CONSTRAINT: ('diff', 'Cyrus', 'Nora')\n; CONSTRAINT: ('same', 'Reed', 'Elias')\n; CONSTRAINT: ('diff', 'Sasha', 'Reed')", + "entities": [ + "Xavier", + "Cyrus", + "Nora", + "Sasha", + "Reed", + "Elias" + ], + "slots": [ + "afternoon", + "morning", + "night" + ], + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 6, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Is it possible for Cyrus and Nora to share a shift?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "The constraints prohibit Cyrus and Nora from sharing a shift; no valid assignment allows it.", + "query_type": "same_slot", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Must Xavier and Sasha always end up in the same shift?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid assignments place Xavier and Sasha together, while others separate them. The constraints are insufficient to determine this.", + "query_type": "same_slot", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Must at least 2 worker(s) be assigned to afternoon?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid assignments have 2+ worker(s) in afternoon and others do not.", + "query_type": "capacity", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Is Cyrus's assignment to afternoon guaranteed?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Cyrus may or may not end up in afternoon\u2014multiple valid assignments exist with different placements.", + "query_type": "forced_slot", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Can Sasha and Reed be in the same shift?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "The constraints prohibit Sasha and Reed from sharing a shift; no valid assignment allows it.", + "query_type": "same_slot", + "depends_on": [ + 1 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q5", + "query": "Is it feasible for Elias to be placed in morning?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Elias may or may not end up in morning\u2014multiple valid assignments exist with different placements.", + "query_type": "slot_possible", + "depends_on": [] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "CONTRADICTED": 2, + "UNKNOWN": 4 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "rel_seating_0095", + "domain": "relational", + "subdomain": "seating_arrangement", + "logic_type": "propositional", + "premises": [ + "There are 6 people seated at a row of chairs: Olivia, Hank, Uma, Willow, Grace, and Paul.", + "Each person occupies exactly one chair and all chairs are distinct.", + "Olivia must not sit directly next to Willow.", + "Hank must sit directly next to Uma.", + "Hank must not sit directly next to Paul.", + "Willow must sit directly next to Paul." + ], + "formal_representation": "; Seating: 6 people, linear\n; Variables: pos_X in [0, 5] for each person\n; All-different constraint on positions\n; CONSTRAINT: not_adjacent(Olivia, Willow)\n; CONSTRAINT: adjacent(Hank, Uma)\n; CONSTRAINT: not_adjacent(Hank, Paul)\n; CONSTRAINT: adjacent(Willow, Paul)", + "entities": [ + "Olivia", + "Hank", + "Uma", + "Willow", + "Grace", + "Paul" + ], + "num_entities": 6, + "constraint_type": "linear", + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 6, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Must Grace always be seated next to Paul?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid arrangements have Grace next to Paul and others do not. The constraints do not force this adjacency.", + "query_type": "adj_forced", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Can Paul and Hank be separated by exactly 1 seat?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "No valid arrangement has exactly 1 seat(s) between Paul and Hank, given the linear constraint structure.", + "query_type": "sep", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Is it possible for Hank and Willow to be seated beside each other?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "The constraints do not fully determine whether Hank and Willow are adjacent. Some valid arrangements place them together, others do not.", + "query_type": "adj", + "depends_on": [ + 1 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Must Olivia always be seated next to Hank?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid arrangements have Olivia next to Hank and others do not. The constraints do not force this adjacency.", + "query_type": "adj_forced", + "depends_on": [ + 1, + 2 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Can Willow and Uma be separated by exactly 1 seat?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether Willow and Uma have exactly 1 seat(s) between them depends on how the remaining positions resolve.", + "query_type": "sep", + "depends_on": [ + 2 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q5", + "query": "Can Willow and Hank be separated by exactly 2 seats?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether Willow and Hank have exactly 2 seat(s) between them depends on how the remaining positions resolve.", + "query_type": "sep", + "depends_on": [ + 1, + 2, + 3, + 4 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "UNKNOWN": 5, + "CONTRADICTED": 1 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "rel_assign_0028", + "domain": "relational", + "subdomain": "team_assignment", + "logic_type": "propositional", + "premises": [ + "There are 6 persons: Ursula, Leo, Alice, Victor, Sam, and Kyle.", + "There are 4 departments: Sales, HR, Legal, and Finance.", + "Each person is assigned to exactly one department.", + "Victor and Kyle must be in different departments.", + "Alice cannot be assigned to Legal.", + "Sam must be assigned to Sales.", + "Kyle must be assigned to Legal.", + "Leo and Victor must be in different departments.", + "Leo and Kyle must be assigned to the same department." + ], + "formal_representation": "; Assignment: 6 persons -> 4 departments\n; CONSTRAINT: ('diff', 'Victor', 'Kyle')\n; CONSTRAINT: ('banned', 'Alice', 'Legal')\n; CONSTRAINT: ('forced', 'Sam', 'Sales')\n; CONSTRAINT: ('forced', 'Kyle', 'Legal')\n; CONSTRAINT: ('diff', 'Leo', 'Victor')\n; CONSTRAINT: ('same', 'Leo', 'Kyle')", + "entities": [ + "Ursula", + "Leo", + "Alice", + "Victor", + "Sam", + "Kyle" + ], + "slots": [ + "Sales", + "HR", + "Legal", + "Finance" + ], + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 7, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Can Leo be in HR?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "Leo cannot be placed in HR without violating at least one constraint.", + "query_type": "forced_slot", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Is it possible for Kyle and Alice to share a department?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "The constraints prohibit Kyle and Alice from sharing a department; no valid assignment allows it.", + "query_type": "same_slot", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Must at least 3 person(s) be assigned to Legal?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid assignments have 3+ person(s) in Legal and others do not.", + "query_type": "capacity", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Can Victor and Alice be in the same department?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid assignments place Victor and Alice together, while others separate them. The constraints are insufficient to determine this.", + "query_type": "same_slot", + "depends_on": [ + 1 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Must Sam and Victor always end up in the same department?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid assignments place Sam and Victor together, while others separate them. The constraints are insufficient to determine this.", + "query_type": "same_slot", + "depends_on": [ + 3 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q5", + "query": "Is it feasible for Ursula to be placed in Sales?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Ursula may or may not end up in Sales\u2014multiple valid assignments exist with different placements.", + "query_type": "slot_possible", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q6", + "query": "Can Victor be in Legal?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "Victor cannot be placed in Legal without violating at least one constraint.", + "query_type": "forced_slot", + "depends_on": [ + 3, + 4 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "CONTRADICTED": 3, + "UNKNOWN": 4 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "rel_assign_0050", + "domain": "relational", + "subdomain": "team_assignment", + "logic_type": "propositional", + "premises": [ + "There are 4 persons: Ursula, Charlie, Gavin, and Kyle.", + "There are 4 departments: Marketing, Research, Finance, and Operations.", + "Each person is assigned to exactly one department.", + "Ursula and Gavin must be assigned to the same department.", + "Charlie cannot be assigned to Research.", + "Gavin must be assigned to Marketing.", + "Gavin and Kyle must be assigned to the same department.", + "Kyle cannot be assigned to Finance.", + "Kyle must be assigned to Marketing." + ], + "formal_representation": "; Assignment: 4 persons -> 4 departments\n; CONSTRAINT: ('same', 'Ursula', 'Gavin')\n; CONSTRAINT: ('banned', 'Charlie', 'Research')\n; CONSTRAINT: ('forced', 'Gavin', 'Marketing')\n; CONSTRAINT: ('same', 'Gavin', 'Kyle')\n; CONSTRAINT: ('banned', 'Kyle', 'Finance')\n; CONSTRAINT: ('forced', 'Kyle', 'Marketing')", + "entities": [ + "Ursula", + "Charlie", + "Gavin", + "Kyle" + ], + "slots": [ + "Marketing", + "Research", + "Finance", + "Operations" + ], + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 7, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Must Charlie be assigned to Marketing?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Charlie may or may not end up in Marketing\u2014multiple valid assignments exist with different placements.", + "query_type": "forced_slot", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Is it possible for Gavin and Charlie to share a department?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid assignments place Gavin and Charlie together, while others separate them. The constraints are insufficient to determine this.", + "query_type": "same_slot", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Must Gavin be assigned to Operations?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "Gavin cannot be placed in Operations without violating at least one constraint.", + "query_type": "forced_slot", + "depends_on": [ + 1 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Is it feasible for Charlie to be placed in Marketing?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Charlie may or may not end up in Marketing\u2014multiple valid assignments exist with different placements.", + "query_type": "slot_possible", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Is it possible for Gavin and Kyle to share a department?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "The combined constraints force Gavin and Kyle into the same department in every valid assignment.", + "query_type": "same_slot", + "depends_on": [ + 1, + 2 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q5", + "query": "Must at least 2 person(s) be assigned to Finance?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "No valid assignment places 2 or more person(s) in Finance, given the constraints.", + "query_type": "capacity", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q6", + "query": "Must at least 2 person(s) be assigned to Marketing?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "The constraints guarantee at least 2 person(s) in Marketing across all valid assignments.", + "query_type": "capacity", + "depends_on": [] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "UNKNOWN": 3, + "CONTRADICTED": 2, + "ENTAILED": 2 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "rel_seating_0033", + "domain": "relational", + "subdomain": "seating_arrangement", + "logic_type": "propositional", + "premises": [ + "There are 7 people seated at a row of chairs: Iris, Oscar, Olivia, Eve, Jack, Alice, and Nathan.", + "Each person occupies exactly one chair and all chairs are distinct.", + "Iris must sit directly next to Nathan.", + "Iris must sit directly next to Eve.", + "Olivia must sit directly next to Jack.", + "Alice must not sit directly next to Nathan.", + "Iris must not sit directly next to Jack." + ], + "formal_representation": "; Seating: 7 people, linear\n; Variables: pos_X in [0, 6] for each person\n; All-different constraint on positions\n; CONSTRAINT: adjacent(Iris, Nathan)\n; CONSTRAINT: adjacent(Iris, Eve)\n; CONSTRAINT: adjacent(Olivia, Jack)\n; CONSTRAINT: not_adjacent(Alice, Nathan)\n; CONSTRAINT: not_adjacent(Iris, Jack)", + "entities": [ + "Iris", + "Oscar", + "Olivia", + "Eve", + "Jack", + "Alice", + "Nathan" + ], + "num_entities": 7, + "constraint_type": "linear", + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 7, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "In every valid arrangement, is Olivia adjacent to Eve?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid arrangements have Olivia next to Eve and others do not. The constraints do not force this adjacency.", + "query_type": "adj_forced", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Must Eve always be seated next to Nathan?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "No valid arrangement exists where Eve is adjacent to Nathan, given the combined constraints.", + "query_type": "adj_forced", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Can Jack sit at position 7?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Position 7 is available to Jack in some arrangements but not others, depending on how other constraints resolve.", + "query_type": "pos", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Could Jack end up adjacent to Alice?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "The constraints do not fully determine whether Jack and Alice are adjacent. Some valid arrangements place them together, others do not.", + "query_type": "adj", + "depends_on": [ + 2 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Can Oscar sit directly next to Nathan?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "The constraints do not fully determine whether Oscar and Nathan are adjacent. Some valid arrangements place them together, others do not.", + "query_type": "adj", + "depends_on": [ + 1 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q5", + "query": "Can Nathan and Eve be separated by exactly 3 seats?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "No valid arrangement has exactly 3 seat(s) between Nathan and Eve, given the linear constraint structure.", + "query_type": "sep", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1, + 4 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q6", + "query": "Could Olivia end up adjacent to Nathan?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "The constraints do not fully determine whether Olivia and Nathan are adjacent. Some valid arrangements place them together, others do not.", + "query_type": "adj", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1, + 4, + 5 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "UNKNOWN": 5, + "CONTRADICTED": 2 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "rel_seating_0094", + "domain": "relational", + "subdomain": "seating_arrangement", + "logic_type": "propositional", + "premises": [ + "There are 5 people seated at a row of chairs: Jack, Oscar, Rachel, Helena, and Cyrus.", + "Each person occupies exactly one chair and all chairs are distinct.", + "Oscar must not sit directly next to Cyrus.", + "Jack must not sit directly next to Rachel.", + "Rachel must sit directly next to Helena.", + "Rachel must sit directly next to Cyrus." + ], + "formal_representation": "; Seating: 5 people, linear\n; Variables: pos_X in [0, 4] for each person\n; All-different constraint on positions\n; CONSTRAINT: not_adjacent(Oscar, Cyrus)\n; CONSTRAINT: not_adjacent(Jack, Rachel)\n; CONSTRAINT: adjacent(Rachel, Helena)\n; CONSTRAINT: adjacent(Rachel, Cyrus)", + "entities": [ + "Jack", + "Oscar", + "Rachel", + "Helena", + "Cyrus" + ], + "num_entities": 5, + "constraint_type": "linear", + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 6, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Can Oscar sit directly next to Helena?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "The constraints do not fully determine whether Oscar and Helena are adjacent. Some valid arrangements place them together, others do not.", + "query_type": "adj", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Is it possible for Rachel to be in the second seat?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Position 2 is available to Rachel in some arrangements but not others, depending on how other constraints resolve.", + "query_type": "pos", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "In every valid arrangement, is Jack adjacent to Cyrus?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid arrangements have Jack next to Cyrus and others do not. The constraints do not force this adjacency.", + "query_type": "adj_forced", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Can Jack sit directly next to Oscar?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "The constraints do not fully determine whether Jack and Oscar are adjacent. Some valid arrangements place them together, others do not.", + "query_type": "adj", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 2 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Is it possible for Rachel to be in the fifth seat?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "Placing Rachel at position 5 would violate one or more constraints; no valid arrangement allows it.", + "query_type": "pos", + "depends_on": [ + 1 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q5", + "query": "Can Helena and Oscar be separated by exactly 1 seat?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether Helena and Oscar have exactly 1 seat(s) between them depends on how the remaining positions resolve.", + "query_type": "sep", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 3 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "UNKNOWN": 5, + "CONTRADICTED": 1 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "rel_assign_0008", + "domain": "relational", + "subdomain": "shift_assignment", + "logic_type": "propositional", + "premises": [ + "There are 6 workers: Eve, Gavin, Priya, Victor, Alice, and Amara.", + "There are 4 shifts: morning, afternoon, evening, and night.", + "Each worker is assigned to exactly one shift.", + "Victor must be assigned to afternoon.", + "Alice cannot be assigned to night.", + "Eve must be assigned to night." + ], + "formal_representation": "; Assignment: 6 workers -> 4 shifts\n; CONSTRAINT: ('forced', 'Victor', 'afternoon')\n; CONSTRAINT: ('banned', 'Alice', 'night')\n; CONSTRAINT: ('forced', 'Eve', 'night')", + "entities": [ + "Eve", + "Gavin", + "Priya", + "Victor", + "Alice", + "Amara" + ], + "slots": [ + "morning", + "afternoon", + "evening", + "night" + ], + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 6, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Is it possible for Priya and Gavin to share a shift?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid assignments place Priya and Gavin together, while others separate them. The constraints are insufficient to determine this.", + "query_type": "same_slot", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Is Amara's assignment to night guaranteed?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Amara may or may not end up in night\u2014multiple valid assignments exist with different placements.", + "query_type": "forced_slot", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Can Alice and Gavin be in the same shift?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid assignments place Alice and Gavin together, while others separate them. The constraints are insufficient to determine this.", + "query_type": "same_slot", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Can Priya be in evening?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Priya may or may not end up in evening\u2014multiple valid assignments exist with different placements.", + "query_type": "forced_slot", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Is it feasible for Alice to be placed in evening?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Alice may or may not end up in evening\u2014multiple valid assignments exist with different placements.", + "query_type": "slot_possible", + "depends_on": [ + 2, + 3 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q5", + "query": "Is it feasible for Gavin to be placed in night?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Gavin may or may not end up in night\u2014multiple valid assignments exist with different placements.", + "query_type": "slot_possible", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 2 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "UNKNOWN": 6 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "rel_assign_0124", + "domain": "relational", + "subdomain": "team_assignment", + "logic_type": "propositional", + "premises": [ + "There are 4 persons: Kyle, Gavin, Freya, and Karen.", + "There are 4 departments: Sales, Engineering, HR, and Marketing.", + "Each person is assigned to exactly one department.", + "Gavin must be assigned to Sales.", + "Karen must be assigned to Sales.", + "Kyle cannot be assigned to HR.", + "Karen cannot be assigned to HR.", + "Freya and Karen must be assigned to the same department.", + "Karen cannot be assigned to HR.", + "Kyle and Gavin must be assigned to the same department." + ], + "formal_representation": "; Assignment: 4 persons -> 4 departments\n; CONSTRAINT: ('forced', 'Gavin', 'Sales')\n; CONSTRAINT: ('forced', 'Karen', 'Sales')\n; CONSTRAINT: ('banned', 'Kyle', 'HR')\n; CONSTRAINT: ('banned', 'Karen', 'HR')\n; CONSTRAINT: ('same', 'Freya', 'Karen')\n; CONSTRAINT: ('banned', 'Karen', 'HR')\n; CONSTRAINT: ('same', 'Kyle', 'Gavin')", + "entities": [ + "Kyle", + "Gavin", + "Freya", + "Karen" + ], + "slots": [ + "Sales", + "Engineering", + "HR", + "Marketing" + ], + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 7, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Can Kyle be in HR?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "Kyle cannot be placed in HR without violating at least one constraint.", + "query_type": "forced_slot", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Must at least 3 person(s) be assigned to Sales?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "The constraints guarantee at least 3 person(s) in Sales across all valid assignments.", + "query_type": "capacity", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Can Gavin be in HR?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "Gavin cannot be placed in HR without violating at least one constraint.", + "query_type": "forced_slot", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Must at least 1 person(s) be assigned to Sales?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "The constraints guarantee at least 1 person(s) in Sales across all valid assignments.", + "query_type": "capacity", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Must at least 1 person(s) be assigned to HR?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "No valid assignment places 1 or more person(s) in HR, given the constraints.", + "query_type": "capacity", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q5", + "query": "Must at least 2 person(s) be assigned to Engineering?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "No valid assignment places 2 or more person(s) in Engineering, given the constraints.", + "query_type": "capacity", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q6", + "query": "Can Kyle and Freya be in the same department?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "The combined constraints force Kyle and Freya into the same department in every valid assignment.", + "query_type": "same_slot", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "CONTRADICTED": 4, + "ENTAILED": 3 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "rel_assign_0072", + "domain": "relational", + "subdomain": "color_assignment", + "logic_type": "propositional", + "premises": [ + "There are 6 nodes: Iris, Helena, Karen, Bob, Charlie, and Reed.", + "There are 3 colors: orange, white, and yellow.", + "Each node is assigned to exactly one color.", + "Charlie cannot be assigned to orange.", + "Helena and Charlie must be assigned to the same color.", + "Karen cannot be assigned to white.", + "Karen cannot be assigned to orange.", + "Iris must be assigned to orange." + ], + "formal_representation": "; Assignment: 6 nodes -> 3 colors\n; CONSTRAINT: ('banned', 'Charlie', 'orange')\n; CONSTRAINT: ('same', 'Helena', 'Charlie')\n; CONSTRAINT: ('banned', 'Karen', 'white')\n; CONSTRAINT: ('banned', 'Karen', 'orange')\n; CONSTRAINT: ('forced', 'Iris', 'orange')", + "entities": [ + "Iris", + "Helena", + "Karen", + "Bob", + "Charlie", + "Reed" + ], + "slots": [ + "orange", + "white", + "yellow" + ], + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 7, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Is it possible for Reed and Bob to share a color?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid assignments place Reed and Bob together, while others separate them. The constraints are insufficient to determine this.", + "query_type": "same_slot", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Is it feasible for Charlie to be placed in orange?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "Charlie cannot be placed in orange without violating at least one constraint.", + "query_type": "slot_possible", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Must at least 1 node(s) be assigned to orange?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "The constraints guarantee at least 1 node(s) in orange across all valid assignments.", + "query_type": "capacity", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Is it feasible for Iris to be placed in white?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "Iris cannot be placed in white without violating at least one constraint.", + "query_type": "slot_possible", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Must at least 1 node(s) be assigned to white?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid assignments have 1+ node(s) in white and others do not.", + "query_type": "capacity", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q5", + "query": "Can Karen be in white?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "Karen cannot be placed in white without violating at least one constraint.", + "query_type": "forced_slot", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q6", + "query": "Can Charlie and Karen be in the same color?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid assignments place Charlie and Karen together, while others separate them. The constraints are insufficient to determine this.", + "query_type": "same_slot", + "depends_on": [ + 1, + 5 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "UNKNOWN": 3, + "CONTRADICTED": 3, + "ENTAILED": 1 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "rel_assign_0034", + "domain": "relational", + "subdomain": "office_assignment", + "logic_type": "propositional", + "premises": [ + "There are 4 employees: Sasha, Rachel, Ivan, and Kyle.", + "There are 3 offices: Room B, Room C, and Room A.", + "Each employee is assigned to exactly one office.", + "Rachel must be assigned to Room A.", + "Sasha and Ivan must be in different offices.", + "Ivan cannot be assigned to Room C." + ], + "formal_representation": "; Assignment: 4 employees -> 3 offices\n; CONSTRAINT: ('forced', 'Rachel', 'Room A')\n; CONSTRAINT: ('diff', 'Sasha', 'Ivan')\n; CONSTRAINT: ('banned', 'Ivan', 'Room C')", + "entities": [ + "Sasha", + "Rachel", + "Ivan", + "Kyle" + ], + "slots": [ + "Room B", + "Room C", + "Room A" + ], + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 8, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Is Sasha's assignment to Room A guaranteed?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Sasha may or may not end up in Room A\u2014multiple valid assignments exist with different placements.", + "query_type": "forced_slot", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Must at least 1 employee(s) be assigned to Room B?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid assignments have 1+ employee(s) in Room B and others do not.", + "query_type": "capacity", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Can Ivan be in Room A?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Ivan may or may not end up in Room A\u2014multiple valid assignments exist with different placements.", + "query_type": "forced_slot", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Is it possible for Ivan and Rachel to share a office?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid assignments place Ivan and Rachel together, while others separate them. The constraints are insufficient to determine this.", + "query_type": "same_slot", + "depends_on": [ + 2 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Is it feasible for Sasha to be placed in Room B?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Sasha may or may not end up in Room B\u2014multiple valid assignments exist with different placements.", + "query_type": "slot_possible", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q5", + "query": "Is it feasible for Kyle to be placed in Room C?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Kyle may or may not end up in Room C\u2014multiple valid assignments exist with different placements.", + "query_type": "slot_possible", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q6", + "query": "Is it feasible for Rachel to be placed in Room A?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "All constraints together force Rachel into Room A; no other office is feasible.", + "query_type": "slot_possible", + "depends_on": [ + 3 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q7", + "query": "Must at least 3 employee(s) be assigned to Room B?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "No valid assignment places 3 or more employee(s) in Room B, given the constraints.", + "query_type": "capacity", + "depends_on": [] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "UNKNOWN": 6, + "ENTAILED": 1, + "CONTRADICTED": 1 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "rel_seating_0087", + "domain": "relational", + "subdomain": "seating_arrangement", + "logic_type": "propositional", + "premises": [ + "There are 6 people seated at a row of chairs: Jade, Diana, Alice, Willow, Wendy, and Hank.", + "Each person occupies exactly one chair and all chairs are distinct.", + "Willow must not sit directly next to Wendy.", + "Jade must sit directly next to Diana.", + "Jade must sit directly next to Willow." + ], + "formal_representation": "; Seating: 6 people, linear\n; Variables: pos_X in [0, 5] for each person\n; All-different constraint on positions\n; CONSTRAINT: not_adjacent(Willow, Wendy)\n; CONSTRAINT: adjacent(Jade, Diana)\n; CONSTRAINT: adjacent(Jade, Willow)", + "entities": [ + "Jade", + "Diana", + "Alice", + "Willow", + "Wendy", + "Hank" + ], + "num_entities": 6, + "constraint_type": "linear", + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 5, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Is it possible for Diana to be in the second seat?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Position 2 is available to Diana in some arrangements but not others, depending on how other constraints resolve.", + "query_type": "pos", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "In every valid arrangement, is Alice adjacent to Wendy?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid arrangements have Alice next to Wendy and others do not. The constraints do not force this adjacency.", + "query_type": "adj_forced", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Can Hank and Willow be separated by exactly 1 seat?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether Hank and Willow have exactly 1 seat(s) between them depends on how the remaining positions resolve.", + "query_type": "sep", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Can Diana sit directly next to Alice?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "The constraints do not fully determine whether Diana and Alice are adjacent. Some valid arrangements place them together, others do not.", + "query_type": "adj", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Can Willow and Wendy be separated by exactly 2 seats?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether Willow and Wendy have exactly 2 seat(s) between them depends on how the remaining positions resolve.", + "query_type": "sep", + "depends_on": [ + 1, + 2 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "UNKNOWN": 5 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "rel_assign_0108", + "domain": "relational", + "subdomain": "color_assignment", + "logic_type": "propositional", + "premises": [ + "There are 4 nodes: Tina, Nathan, Karen, and Cyrus.", + "There are 3 colors: white, black, and red.", + "Each node is assigned to exactly one color.", + "Tina cannot be assigned to white.", + "Tina must be assigned to black.", + "Karen cannot be assigned to black.", + "Tina and Cyrus must be assigned to the same color.", + "Tina and Nathan must be assigned to the same color." + ], + "formal_representation": "; Assignment: 4 nodes -> 3 colors\n; CONSTRAINT: ('banned', 'Tina', 'white')\n; CONSTRAINT: ('forced', 'Tina', 'black')\n; CONSTRAINT: ('banned', 'Karen', 'black')\n; CONSTRAINT: ('same', 'Tina', 'Cyrus')\n; CONSTRAINT: ('same', 'Tina', 'Nathan')", + "entities": [ + "Tina", + "Nathan", + "Karen", + "Cyrus" + ], + "slots": [ + "white", + "black", + "red" + ], + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 5, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Can Tina and Cyrus be in the same color?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "The combined constraints force Tina and Cyrus into the same color in every valid assignment.", + "query_type": "same_slot", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Is it feasible for Karen to be placed in white?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Karen may or may not end up in white\u2014multiple valid assignments exist with different placements.", + "query_type": "slot_possible", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Can Cyrus be in black?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "All constraints together force Cyrus into black; no other color is feasible.", + "query_type": "forced_slot", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Must at least 1 node(s) be assigned to red?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid assignments have 1+ node(s) in red and others do not.", + "query_type": "capacity", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Must Cyrus and Tina always end up in the same color?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "The combined constraints force Cyrus and Tina into the same color in every valid assignment.", + "query_type": "same_slot", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 2 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "ENTAILED": 3, + "UNKNOWN": 2 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "rel_assign_0093", + "domain": "relational", + "subdomain": "team_assignment", + "logic_type": "propositional", + "premises": [ + "There are 4 persons: Vince, Charlie, Zane, and Hank.", + "There are 4 departments: Operations, Legal, HR, and Marketing.", + "Each person is assigned to exactly one department.", + "Vince cannot be assigned to Marketing.", + "Zane and Hank must be assigned to the same department.", + "Charlie and Hank must be in different departments.", + "Vince and Zane must be in different departments." + ], + "formal_representation": "; Assignment: 4 persons -> 4 departments\n; CONSTRAINT: ('banned', 'Vince', 'Marketing')\n; CONSTRAINT: ('same', 'Zane', 'Hank')\n; CONSTRAINT: ('diff', 'Charlie', 'Hank')\n; CONSTRAINT: ('diff', 'Vince', 'Zane')", + "entities": [ + "Vince", + "Charlie", + "Zane", + "Hank" + ], + "slots": [ + "Operations", + "Legal", + "HR", + "Marketing" + ], + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 8, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Must Vince be assigned to Operations?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Vince may or may not end up in Operations\u2014multiple valid assignments exist with different placements.", + "query_type": "forced_slot", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Must at least 1 person(s) be assigned to Legal?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid assignments have 1+ person(s) in Legal and others do not.", + "query_type": "capacity", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Must at least 1 person(s) be assigned to HR?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid assignments have 1+ person(s) in HR and others do not.", + "query_type": "capacity", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Is it feasible for Vince to be placed in Marketing?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "Vince cannot be placed in Marketing without violating at least one constraint.", + "query_type": "slot_possible", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Is Hank's assignment to HR guaranteed?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Hank may or may not end up in HR\u2014multiple valid assignments exist with different placements.", + "query_type": "forced_slot", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q5", + "query": "Can Charlie and Zane be in the same department?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "The constraints prohibit Charlie and Zane from sharing a department; no valid assignment allows it.", + "query_type": "same_slot", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q6", + "query": "Must Zane be assigned to Operations?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Zane may or may not end up in Operations\u2014multiple valid assignments exist with different placements.", + "query_type": "forced_slot", + "depends_on": [ + 5 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q7", + "query": "Must Zane be assigned to Legal?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Zane may or may not end up in Legal\u2014multiple valid assignments exist with different placements.", + "query_type": "forced_slot", + "depends_on": [ + 5, + 6 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "UNKNOWN": 6, + "CONTRADICTED": 2 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "rel_seating_0132", + "domain": "relational", + "subdomain": "seating_arrangement", + "logic_type": "propositional", + "premises": [ + "There are 6 people seated at a row of chairs: Grace, Marco, Uma, Oscar, Yara, and Iris.", + "Each person occupies exactly one chair and all chairs are distinct.", + "Grace must sit directly next to Oscar.", + "Marco must sit directly next to Oscar.", + "Marco must sit directly next to Iris.", + "Grace must sit directly next to Yara." + ], + "formal_representation": "; Seating: 6 people, linear\n; Variables: pos_X in [0, 5] for each person\n; All-different constraint on positions\n; CONSTRAINT: adjacent(Grace, Oscar)\n; CONSTRAINT: adjacent(Marco, Oscar)\n; CONSTRAINT: adjacent(Marco, Iris)\n; CONSTRAINT: adjacent(Grace, Yara)", + "entities": [ + "Grace", + "Marco", + "Uma", + "Oscar", + "Yara", + "Iris" + ], + "num_entities": 6, + "constraint_type": "linear", + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 6, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Is it possible for Marco to be in the second seat?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Position 2 is available to Marco in some arrangements but not others, depending on how other constraints resolve.", + "query_type": "pos", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "In every valid arrangement, is Oscar adjacent to Yara?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "No valid arrangement exists where Oscar is adjacent to Yara, given the combined constraints.", + "query_type": "adj_forced", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Is it possible for Marco to be in the third seat?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Position 3 is available to Marco in some arrangements but not others, depending on how other constraints resolve.", + "query_type": "pos", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Can Marco sit at position 2?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Position 2 is available to Marco in some arrangements but not others, depending on how other constraints resolve.", + "query_type": "pos", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 2 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Must Grace always be seated next to Uma?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "No valid arrangement exists where Grace is adjacent to Uma, given the combined constraints.", + "query_type": "adj_forced", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q5", + "query": "Could Yara end up adjacent to Iris?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "The combination of constraints on Yara and Iris's required/forbidden neighbors leaves no valid arrangement where they are adjacent.", + "query_type": "adj", + "depends_on": [ + 1 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "UNKNOWN": 3, + "CONTRADICTED": 3 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "rel_seating_0116", + "domain": "relational", + "subdomain": "seating_arrangement", + "logic_type": "propositional", + "premises": [ + "There are 7 people seated at a row of chairs: Freya, Tina, Paul, Nathan, Jade, Diana, and Bob.", + "Each person occupies exactly one chair and all chairs are distinct.", + "Paul must sit directly next to Diana.", + "Diana must sit directly next to Bob.", + "Freya must sit directly next to Tina.", + "Freya must not sit directly next to Diana.", + "Paul must not sit directly next to Bob." + ], + "formal_representation": "; Seating: 7 people, linear\n; Variables: pos_X in [0, 6] for each person\n; All-different constraint on positions\n; CONSTRAINT: adjacent(Paul, Diana)\n; CONSTRAINT: adjacent(Diana, Bob)\n; CONSTRAINT: adjacent(Freya, Tina)\n; CONSTRAINT: not_adjacent(Freya, Diana)\n; CONSTRAINT: not_adjacent(Paul, Bob)", + "entities": [ + "Freya", + "Tina", + "Paul", + "Nathan", + "Jade", + "Diana", + "Bob" + ], + "num_entities": 7, + "constraint_type": "linear", + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 7, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Is it possible for Diana to be in the fourth seat?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Position 4 is available to Diana in some arrangements but not others, depending on how other constraints resolve.", + "query_type": "pos", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Can Paul sit at position 7?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Position 7 is available to Paul in some arrangements but not others, depending on how other constraints resolve.", + "query_type": "pos", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Can Tina sit directly next to Jade?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "The constraints do not fully determine whether Tina and Jade are adjacent. Some valid arrangements place them together, others do not.", + "query_type": "adj", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Can Nathan and Freya be separated by exactly 1 seat?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether Nathan and Freya have exactly 1 seat(s) between them depends on how the remaining positions resolve.", + "query_type": "sep", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Can Paul and Bob be separated by exactly 3 seats?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "No valid arrangement has exactly 3 seat(s) between Paul and Bob, given the linear constraint structure.", + "query_type": "sep", + "depends_on": [ + 1 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q5", + "query": "Can Tina sit directly next to Nathan?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "The constraints do not fully determine whether Tina and Nathan are adjacent. Some valid arrangements place them together, others do not.", + "query_type": "adj", + "depends_on": [ + 2, + 3 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q6", + "query": "Is it possible for Paul to be in the sixth seat?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Position 6 is available to Paul in some arrangements but not others, depending on how other constraints resolve.", + "query_type": "pos", + "depends_on": [ + 1, + 4 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "UNKNOWN": 6, + "CONTRADICTED": 1 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "rel_assign_0104", + "domain": "relational", + "subdomain": "shift_assignment", + "logic_type": "propositional", + "premises": [ + "There are 5 workers: Kyle, Sasha, Freya, Reed, and Jade.", + "There are 3 shifts: night, evening, and morning.", + "Each worker is assigned to exactly one shift.", + "Kyle must be assigned to night.", + "Freya and Jade must be assigned to the same shift.", + "Kyle and Sasha must be in different shifts.", + "Freya must be assigned to morning.", + "Sasha and Jade must be assigned to the same shift." + ], + "formal_representation": "; Assignment: 5 workers -> 3 shifts\n; CONSTRAINT: ('forced', 'Kyle', 'night')\n; CONSTRAINT: ('same', 'Freya', 'Jade')\n; CONSTRAINT: ('diff', 'Kyle', 'Sasha')\n; CONSTRAINT: ('forced', 'Freya', 'morning')\n; CONSTRAINT: ('same', 'Sasha', 'Jade')", + "entities": [ + "Kyle", + "Sasha", + "Freya", + "Reed", + "Jade" + ], + "slots": [ + "night", + "evening", + "morning" + ], + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 5, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Must Reed and Jade always end up in the same shift?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid assignments place Reed and Jade together, while others separate them. The constraints are insufficient to determine this.", + "query_type": "same_slot", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Is it feasible for Reed to be placed in night?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Reed may or may not end up in night\u2014multiple valid assignments exist with different placements.", + "query_type": "slot_possible", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Must at least 2 worker(s) be assigned to evening?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "No valid assignment places 2 or more worker(s) in evening, given the constraints.", + "query_type": "capacity", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Is it feasible for Jade to be placed in night?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "Jade cannot be placed in night without violating at least one constraint.", + "query_type": "slot_possible", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Is it possible for Freya and Kyle to share a shift?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "The constraints prohibit Freya and Kyle from sharing a shift; no valid assignment allows it.", + "query_type": "same_slot", + "depends_on": [] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "UNKNOWN": 2, + "CONTRADICTED": 3 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "rel_assign_0130", + "domain": "relational", + "subdomain": "team_assignment", + "logic_type": "propositional", + "premises": [ + "There are 4 persons: Jack, Cyrus, Eve, and Zane.", + "There are 3 departments: Legal, HR, and Finance.", + "Each person is assigned to exactly one department.", + "Eve cannot be assigned to Finance.", + "Zane must be assigned to Finance.", + "Cyrus and Eve must be in different departments.", + "Cyrus cannot be assigned to Legal.", + "Zane cannot be assigned to HR." + ], + "formal_representation": "; Assignment: 4 persons -> 3 departments\n; CONSTRAINT: ('banned', 'Eve', 'Finance')\n; CONSTRAINT: ('forced', 'Zane', 'Finance')\n; CONSTRAINT: ('diff', 'Cyrus', 'Eve')\n; CONSTRAINT: ('banned', 'Cyrus', 'Legal')\n; CONSTRAINT: ('banned', 'Zane', 'HR')", + "entities": [ + "Jack", + "Cyrus", + "Eve", + "Zane" + ], + "slots": [ + "Legal", + "HR", + "Finance" + ], + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 6, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Can Zane and Jack be in the same department?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid assignments place Zane and Jack together, while others separate them. The constraints are insufficient to determine this.", + "query_type": "same_slot", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Is it feasible for Zane to be placed in HR?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "Zane cannot be placed in HR without violating at least one constraint.", + "query_type": "slot_possible", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Is Jack's assignment to HR guaranteed?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Jack may or may not end up in HR\u2014multiple valid assignments exist with different placements.", + "query_type": "forced_slot", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Can Eve and Jack be in the same department?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid assignments place Eve and Jack together, while others separate them. The constraints are insufficient to determine this.", + "query_type": "same_slot", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 2 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Is it possible for Cyrus and Jack to share a department?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid assignments place Cyrus and Jack together, while others separate them. The constraints are insufficient to determine this.", + "query_type": "same_slot", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 2, + 3 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q5", + "query": "Is it feasible for Jack to be placed in Finance?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Jack may or may not end up in Finance\u2014multiple valid assignments exist with different placements.", + "query_type": "slot_possible", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 2, + 3, + 4 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "UNKNOWN": 5, + "CONTRADICTED": 1 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "rel_assign_0058", + "domain": "relational", + "subdomain": "shift_assignment", + "logic_type": "propositional", + "premises": [ + "There are 4 workers: Daphne, Cyrus, Kyle, and Frank.", + "There are 3 shifts: night, afternoon, and morning.", + "Each worker is assigned to exactly one shift.", + "Cyrus and Kyle must be assigned to the same shift.", + "Daphne and Cyrus must be assigned to the same shift.", + "Cyrus must be assigned to morning." + ], + "formal_representation": "; Assignment: 4 workers -> 3 shifts\n; CONSTRAINT: ('same', 'Cyrus', 'Kyle')\n; CONSTRAINT: ('same', 'Daphne', 'Cyrus')\n; CONSTRAINT: ('forced', 'Cyrus', 'morning')", + "entities": [ + "Daphne", + "Cyrus", + "Kyle", + "Frank" + ], + "slots": [ + "night", + "afternoon", + "morning" + ], + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 7, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Is it feasible for Kyle to be placed in morning?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "All constraints together force Kyle into morning; no other shift is feasible.", + "query_type": "slot_possible", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Is it possible for Cyrus and Frank to share a shift?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid assignments place Cyrus and Frank together, while others separate them. The constraints are insufficient to determine this.", + "query_type": "same_slot", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Is it feasible for Daphne to be placed in night?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "Daphne cannot be placed in night without violating at least one constraint.", + "query_type": "slot_possible", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Is it feasible for Frank to be placed in night?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Frank may or may not end up in night\u2014multiple valid assignments exist with different placements.", + "query_type": "slot_possible", + "depends_on": [ + 1 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Is Frank's assignment to night guaranteed?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Frank may or may not end up in night\u2014multiple valid assignments exist with different placements.", + "query_type": "forced_slot", + "depends_on": [ + 1, + 3 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q5", + "query": "Must at least 3 worker(s) be assigned to morning?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "The constraints guarantee at least 3 worker(s) in morning across all valid assignments.", + "query_type": "capacity", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q6", + "query": "Must at least 2 worker(s) be assigned to afternoon?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "No valid assignment places 2 or more worker(s) in afternoon, given the constraints.", + "query_type": "capacity", + "depends_on": [] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "ENTAILED": 2, + "UNKNOWN": 3, + "CONTRADICTED": 2 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "rel_seating_0016", + "domain": "relational", + "subdomain": "seating_arrangement", + "logic_type": "propositional", + "premises": [ + "There are 4 people seated at a row of chairs: Rachel, Jack, Iris, and Ivan.", + "Each person occupies exactly one chair and all chairs are distinct.", + "Rachel must sit directly next to Ivan.", + "Jack must not sit directly next to Iris.", + "Jack must sit directly next to Ivan.", + "Rachel must sit directly next to Iris." + ], + "formal_representation": "; Seating: 4 people, linear\n; Variables: pos_X in [0, 3] for each person\n; All-different constraint on positions\n; CONSTRAINT: adjacent(Rachel, Ivan)\n; CONSTRAINT: not_adjacent(Jack, Iris)\n; CONSTRAINT: adjacent(Jack, Ivan)\n; CONSTRAINT: adjacent(Rachel, Iris)", + "entities": [ + "Rachel", + "Jack", + "Iris", + "Ivan" + ], + "num_entities": 4, + "constraint_type": "linear", + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 8, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Can Rachel and Iris be separated by exactly 1 seat?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "The constraints force exactly 1 seat(s) between Rachel and Iris in every valid linear arrangement.", + "query_type": "sep", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Is it possible for Iris to be in the fourth seat?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Position 4 is available to Iris in some arrangements but not others, depending on how other constraints resolve.", + "query_type": "pos", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Can Jack sit at position 1?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Position 1 is available to Jack in some arrangements but not others, depending on how other constraints resolve.", + "query_type": "pos", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Can Ivan sit at position 1?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "Placing Ivan at position 1 would violate one or more constraints; no valid arrangement allows it.", + "query_type": "pos", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Can Ivan and Rachel be separated by exactly 1 seat?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "The constraints force exactly 1 seat(s) between Ivan and Rachel in every valid linear arrangement.", + "query_type": "sep", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 3 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q5", + "query": "Can Rachel sit directly next to Jack?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "The combination of constraints on Rachel and Jack's required/forbidden neighbors leaves no valid arrangement where they are adjacent.", + "query_type": "adj", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 2, + 4 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q6", + "query": "Can Jack and Iris be separated by exactly 1 seat?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "No valid arrangement has exactly 1 seat(s) between Jack and Iris, given the linear constraint structure.", + "query_type": "sep", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1, + 2, + 5 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q7", + "query": "Can Ivan and Jack be separated by exactly 1 seat?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "The constraints force exactly 1 seat(s) between Ivan and Jack in every valid linear arrangement.", + "query_type": "sep", + "depends_on": [ + 2, + 3, + 4, + 5, + 6 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "ENTAILED": 3, + "UNKNOWN": 2, + "CONTRADICTED": 3 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "rel_assign_0054", + "domain": "relational", + "subdomain": "shift_assignment", + "logic_type": "propositional", + "premises": [ + "There are 6 workers: Amara, Diana, Jack, Iris, Mia, and Victor.", + "There are 4 shifts: night, morning, afternoon, and evening.", + "Each worker is assigned to exactly one shift.", + "Iris and Mia must be assigned to the same shift.", + "Amara and Jack must be in different shifts.", + "Victor cannot be assigned to evening.", + "Iris cannot be assigned to evening.", + "Amara cannot be assigned to night.", + "Diana and Mia must be in different shifts." + ], + "formal_representation": "; Assignment: 6 workers -> 4 shifts\n; CONSTRAINT: ('same', 'Iris', 'Mia')\n; CONSTRAINT: ('diff', 'Amara', 'Jack')\n; CONSTRAINT: ('banned', 'Victor', 'evening')\n; CONSTRAINT: ('banned', 'Iris', 'evening')\n; CONSTRAINT: ('banned', 'Amara', 'night')\n; CONSTRAINT: ('diff', 'Diana', 'Mia')", + "entities": [ + "Amara", + "Diana", + "Jack", + "Iris", + "Mia", + "Victor" + ], + "slots": [ + "night", + "morning", + "afternoon", + "evening" + ], + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 6, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Is Amara's assignment to evening guaranteed?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Amara may or may not end up in evening\u2014multiple valid assignments exist with different placements.", + "query_type": "forced_slot", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Is it feasible for Iris to be placed in afternoon?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Iris may or may not end up in afternoon\u2014multiple valid assignments exist with different placements.", + "query_type": "slot_possible", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Is it feasible for Diana to be placed in night?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Diana may or may not end up in night\u2014multiple valid assignments exist with different placements.", + "query_type": "slot_possible", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Is it feasible for Amara to be placed in afternoon?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Amara may or may not end up in afternoon\u2014multiple valid assignments exist with different placements.", + "query_type": "slot_possible", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Is Amara's assignment to night guaranteed?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "Amara cannot be placed in night without violating at least one constraint.", + "query_type": "forced_slot", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 3 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q5", + "query": "Is it possible for Jack and Victor to share a shift?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid assignments place Jack and Victor together, while others separate them. The constraints are insufficient to determine this.", + "query_type": "same_slot", + "depends_on": [] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "UNKNOWN": 5, + "CONTRADICTED": 1 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "rel_assign_0021", + "domain": "relational", + "subdomain": "office_assignment", + "logic_type": "propositional", + "premises": [ + "There are 5 employees: Ursula, Elias, Cyrus, Nora, and Alice.", + "There are 3 offices: Room A, Room C, and Room E.", + "Each employee is assigned to exactly one office.", + "Alice cannot be assigned to Room C.", + "Ursula and Nora must be assigned to the same office.", + "Cyrus and Alice must be assigned to the same office.", + "Alice cannot be assigned to Room E." + ], + "formal_representation": "; Assignment: 5 employees -> 3 offices\n; CONSTRAINT: ('banned', 'Alice', 'Room C')\n; CONSTRAINT: ('same', 'Ursula', 'Nora')\n; CONSTRAINT: ('same', 'Cyrus', 'Alice')\n; CONSTRAINT: ('banned', 'Alice', 'Room E')", + "entities": [ + "Ursula", + "Elias", + "Cyrus", + "Nora", + "Alice" + ], + "slots": [ + "Room A", + "Room C", + "Room E" + ], + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 5, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Must Cyrus be assigned to Room C?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "Cyrus cannot be placed in Room C without violating at least one constraint.", + "query_type": "forced_slot", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Is it possible for Cyrus and Ursula to share a office?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid assignments place Cyrus and Ursula together, while others separate them. The constraints are insufficient to determine this.", + "query_type": "same_slot", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Can Alice and Cyrus be in the same office?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "The combined constraints force Alice and Cyrus into the same office in every valid assignment.", + "query_type": "same_slot", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Must at least 3 employee(s) be assigned to Room A?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid assignments have 3+ employee(s) in Room A and others do not.", + "query_type": "capacity", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Must at least 2 employee(s) be assigned to Room C?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid assignments have 2+ employee(s) in Room C and others do not.", + "query_type": "capacity", + "depends_on": [] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "CONTRADICTED": 1, + "UNKNOWN": 3, + "ENTAILED": 1 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "rel_assign_0100", + "domain": "relational", + "subdomain": "office_assignment", + "logic_type": "propositional", + "premises": [ + "There are 5 employees: Sam, Wendy, Tina, Cyrus, and Jade.", + "There are 3 offices: Room B, Room D, and Room C.", + "Each employee is assigned to exactly one office.", + "Wendy and Jade must be in different offices.", + "Cyrus must be assigned to Room C.", + "Sam must be assigned to Room C.", + "Sam cannot be assigned to Room B." + ], + "formal_representation": "; Assignment: 5 employees -> 3 offices\n; CONSTRAINT: ('diff', 'Wendy', 'Jade')\n; CONSTRAINT: ('forced', 'Cyrus', 'Room C')\n; CONSTRAINT: ('forced', 'Sam', 'Room C')\n; CONSTRAINT: ('banned', 'Sam', 'Room B')", + "entities": [ + "Sam", + "Wendy", + "Tina", + "Cyrus", + "Jade" + ], + "slots": [ + "Room B", + "Room D", + "Room C" + ], + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 6, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Can Wendy be in Room B?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Wendy may or may not end up in Room B\u2014multiple valid assignments exist with different placements.", + "query_type": "forced_slot", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Is it feasible for Jade to be placed in Room D?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Jade may or may not end up in Room D\u2014multiple valid assignments exist with different placements.", + "query_type": "slot_possible", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Must at least 2 employee(s) be assigned to Room C?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "The constraints guarantee at least 2 employee(s) in Room C across all valid assignments.", + "query_type": "capacity", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Must at least 3 employee(s) be assigned to Room C?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid assignments have 3+ employee(s) in Room C and others do not.", + "query_type": "capacity", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Is it possible for Tina and Jade to share a office?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid assignments place Tina and Jade together, while others separate them. The constraints are insufficient to determine this.", + "query_type": "same_slot", + "depends_on": [ + 1 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q5", + "query": "Must at least 3 employee(s) be assigned to Room B?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "No valid assignment places 3 or more employee(s) in Room B, given the constraints.", + "query_type": "capacity", + "depends_on": [] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "UNKNOWN": 4, + "ENTAILED": 1, + "CONTRADICTED": 1 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "rel_assign_0101", + "domain": "relational", + "subdomain": "color_assignment", + "logic_type": "propositional", + "premises": [ + "There are 4 nodes: Rachel, Xavier, Amara, and Oscar.", + "There are 3 colors: red, green, and white.", + "Each node is assigned to exactly one color.", + "Xavier and Oscar must be in different colors.", + "Amara must be assigned to white.", + "Amara must be assigned to white." + ], + "formal_representation": "; Assignment: 4 nodes -> 3 colors\n; CONSTRAINT: ('diff', 'Xavier', 'Oscar')\n; CONSTRAINT: ('forced', 'Amara', 'white')\n; CONSTRAINT: ('forced', 'Amara', 'white')", + "entities": [ + "Rachel", + "Xavier", + "Amara", + "Oscar" + ], + "slots": [ + "red", + "green", + "white" + ], + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 5, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Can Amara be in green?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "Amara cannot be placed in green without violating at least one constraint.", + "query_type": "forced_slot", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Can Oscar and Xavier be in the same color?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "The constraints prohibit Oscar and Xavier from sharing a color; no valid assignment allows it.", + "query_type": "same_slot", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Is it possible for Xavier and Rachel to share a color?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid assignments place Xavier and Rachel together, while others separate them. The constraints are insufficient to determine this.", + "query_type": "same_slot", + "depends_on": [ + 1 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Is it feasible for Rachel to be placed in white?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Rachel may or may not end up in white\u2014multiple valid assignments exist with different placements.", + "query_type": "slot_possible", + "depends_on": [ + 2 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Is it feasible for Xavier to be placed in red?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Xavier may or may not end up in red\u2014multiple valid assignments exist with different placements.", + "query_type": "slot_possible", + "depends_on": [ + 1, + 2 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "CONTRADICTED": 2, + "UNKNOWN": 3 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "rel_assign_0032", + "domain": "relational", + "subdomain": "office_assignment", + "logic_type": "propositional", + "premises": [ + "There are 4 employees: Diana, Rachel, Yara, and Sasha.", + "There are 3 offices: Room A, Room B, and Room C.", + "Each employee is assigned to exactly one office.", + "Diana must be assigned to Room A.", + "Yara and Sasha must be in different offices.", + "Rachel and Sasha must be assigned to the same office.", + "Rachel cannot be assigned to Room C.", + "Diana and Yara must be in different offices." + ], + "formal_representation": "; Assignment: 4 employees -> 3 offices\n; CONSTRAINT: ('forced', 'Diana', 'Room A')\n; CONSTRAINT: ('diff', 'Yara', 'Sasha')\n; CONSTRAINT: ('same', 'Rachel', 'Sasha')\n; CONSTRAINT: ('banned', 'Rachel', 'Room C')\n; CONSTRAINT: ('diff', 'Diana', 'Yara')", + "entities": [ + "Diana", + "Rachel", + "Yara", + "Sasha" + ], + "slots": [ + "Room A", + "Room B", + "Room C" + ], + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 5, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Can Rachel and Yara be in the same office?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "The constraints prohibit Rachel and Yara from sharing a office; no valid assignment allows it.", + "query_type": "same_slot", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Is it feasible for Sasha to be placed in Room B?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Sasha may or may not end up in Room B\u2014multiple valid assignments exist with different placements.", + "query_type": "slot_possible", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Must Yara and Sasha always end up in the same office?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "The constraints prohibit Yara and Sasha from sharing a office; no valid assignment allows it.", + "query_type": "same_slot", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Is it feasible for Yara to be placed in Room B?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Yara may or may not end up in Room B\u2014multiple valid assignments exist with different placements.", + "query_type": "slot_possible", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 2 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Must at least 1 employee(s) be assigned to Room B?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid assignments have 1+ employee(s) in Room B and others do not.", + "query_type": "capacity", + "depends_on": [] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "CONTRADICTED": 2, + "UNKNOWN": 3 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "rel_seating_0134", + "domain": "relational", + "subdomain": "seating_arrangement", + "logic_type": "propositional", + "premises": [ + "There are 5 people seated at a row of chairs: Quinn, Yara, Daphne, Tina, and Sam.", + "Each person occupies exactly one chair and all chairs are distinct.", + "Yara must sit directly next to Sam.", + "Daphne must not sit directly next to Tina.", + "Quinn must not sit directly next to Yara.", + "Yara must not sit directly next to Daphne.", + "Tina must not sit directly next to Sam.", + "Quinn must not sit directly next to Sam." + ], + "formal_representation": "; Seating: 5 people, linear\n; Variables: pos_X in [0, 4] for each person\n; All-different constraint on positions\n; CONSTRAINT: adjacent(Yara, Sam)\n; CONSTRAINT: not_adjacent(Daphne, Tina)\n; CONSTRAINT: not_adjacent(Quinn, Yara)\n; CONSTRAINT: not_adjacent(Yara, Daphne)\n; CONSTRAINT: not_adjacent(Tina, Sam)\n; CONSTRAINT: not_adjacent(Quinn, Sam)", + "entities": [ + "Quinn", + "Yara", + "Daphne", + "Tina", + "Sam" + ], + "num_entities": 5, + "constraint_type": "linear", + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 5, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Can Quinn and Daphne be separated by exactly 1 seat?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether Quinn and Daphne have exactly 1 seat(s) between them depends on how the remaining positions resolve.", + "query_type": "sep", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Can Sam and Yara be separated by exactly 1 seat?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "The constraints force exactly 1 seat(s) between Sam and Yara in every valid linear arrangement.", + "query_type": "sep", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Is it possible for Quinn to be in the fourth seat?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Position 4 is available to Quinn in some arrangements but not others, depending on how other constraints resolve.", + "query_type": "pos", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Can Yara sit directly next to Tina?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "The constraints do not fully determine whether Yara and Tina are adjacent. Some valid arrangements place them together, others do not.", + "query_type": "adj", + "depends_on": [ + 1 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Must Quinn always be seated next to Tina?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid arrangements have Quinn next to Tina and others do not. The constraints do not force this adjacency.", + "query_type": "adj_forced", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 2, + 3 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "UNKNOWN": 4, + "ENTAILED": 1 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "rel_assign_0099", + "domain": "relational", + "subdomain": "team_assignment", + "logic_type": "propositional", + "premises": [ + "There are 6 persons: Ivan, Tina, Hank, Bob, Zane, and Freya.", + "There are 3 departments: Operations, Sales, and Marketing.", + "Each person is assigned to exactly one department.", + "Ivan and Tina must be assigned to the same department.", + "Hank and Freya must be in different departments.", + "Tina and Freya must be assigned to the same department.", + "Ivan must be assigned to Sales.", + "Bob and Zane must be in different departments.", + "Hank cannot be assigned to Operations." + ], + "formal_representation": "; Assignment: 6 persons -> 3 departments\n; CONSTRAINT: ('same', 'Ivan', 'Tina')\n; CONSTRAINT: ('diff', 'Hank', 'Freya')\n; CONSTRAINT: ('same', 'Tina', 'Freya')\n; CONSTRAINT: ('forced', 'Ivan', 'Sales')\n; CONSTRAINT: ('diff', 'Bob', 'Zane')\n; CONSTRAINT: ('banned', 'Hank', 'Operations')", + "entities": [ + "Ivan", + "Tina", + "Hank", + "Bob", + "Zane", + "Freya" + ], + "slots": [ + "Operations", + "Sales", + "Marketing" + ], + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 6, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Must at least 3 person(s) be assigned to Sales?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "The constraints guarantee at least 3 person(s) in Sales across all valid assignments.", + "query_type": "capacity", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Is it feasible for Ivan to be placed in Marketing?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "Ivan cannot be placed in Marketing without violating at least one constraint.", + "query_type": "slot_possible", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Can Zane and Bob be in the same department?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "The constraints prohibit Zane and Bob from sharing a department; no valid assignment allows it.", + "query_type": "same_slot", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Must Zane and Bob always end up in the same department?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "The constraints prohibit Zane and Bob from sharing a department; no valid assignment allows it.", + "query_type": "same_slot", + "depends_on": [ + 2 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Is it possible for Freya and Hank to share a department?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "The constraints prohibit Freya and Hank from sharing a department; no valid assignment allows it.", + "query_type": "same_slot", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q5", + "query": "Can Freya be in Sales?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "All constraints together force Freya into Sales; no other department is feasible.", + "query_type": "forced_slot", + "depends_on": [ + 4 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "ENTAILED": 2, + "CONTRADICTED": 4 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "rel_seating_0133", + "domain": "relational", + "subdomain": "seating_arrangement", + "logic_type": "propositional", + "premises": [ + "There are 5 people seated at a row of chairs: Marco, Yara, Helena, Uma, and Leo.", + "Each person occupies exactly one chair and all chairs are distinct.", + "Marco must sit directly next to Leo.", + "Marco must sit directly next to Uma.", + "Yara must sit directly next to Uma." + ], + "formal_representation": "; Seating: 5 people, linear\n; Variables: pos_X in [0, 4] for each person\n; All-different constraint on positions\n; CONSTRAINT: adjacent(Marco, Leo)\n; CONSTRAINT: adjacent(Marco, Uma)\n; CONSTRAINT: adjacent(Yara, Uma)", + "entities": [ + "Marco", + "Yara", + "Helena", + "Uma", + "Leo" + ], + "num_entities": 5, + "constraint_type": "linear", + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 8, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Can Marco and Uma be separated by exactly 2 seats?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "No valid arrangement has exactly 2 seat(s) between Marco and Uma, given the linear constraint structure.", + "query_type": "sep", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Can Leo sit at position 4?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Position 4 is available to Leo in some arrangements but not others, depending on how other constraints resolve.", + "query_type": "pos", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Can Yara and Leo be separated by exactly 2 seats?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "No valid arrangement has exactly 2 seat(s) between Yara and Leo, given the linear constraint structure.", + "query_type": "sep", + "depends_on": [ + 1 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Must Uma always be seated next to Leo?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "No valid arrangement exists where Uma is adjacent to Leo, given the combined constraints.", + "query_type": "adj_forced", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1, + 2 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Is it possible for Uma to be in the first seat?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "Placing Uma at position 1 would violate one or more constraints; no valid arrangement allows it.", + "query_type": "pos", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 3 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q5", + "query": "Is it possible for Yara and Helena to be seated beside each other?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "The constraints do not fully determine whether Yara and Helena are adjacent. Some valid arrangements place them together, others do not.", + "query_type": "adj", + "depends_on": [ + 2 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q6", + "query": "Can Uma and Leo be separated by exactly 1 seat?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "No valid arrangement has exactly 1 seat(s) between Uma and Leo, given the linear constraint structure.", + "query_type": "sep", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1, + 2, + 3, + 4 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q7", + "query": "Can Uma and Yara be separated by exactly 2 seats?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "No valid arrangement has exactly 2 seat(s) between Uma and Yara, given the linear constraint structure.", + "query_type": "sep", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 2, + 3, + 4, + 5, + 6 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "CONTRADICTED": 6, + "UNKNOWN": 2 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "rel_assign_0090", + "domain": "relational", + "subdomain": "color_assignment", + "logic_type": "propositional", + "premises": [ + "There are 6 nodes: Helena, Sasha, Charlie, Grace, Ivan, and Oscar.", + "There are 4 colors: white, purple, orange, and green.", + "Each node is assigned to exactly one color.", + "Ivan must be assigned to white.", + "Sasha and Charlie must be assigned to the same color.", + "Helena and Oscar must be assigned to the same color.", + "Grace and Oscar must be assigned to the same color." + ], + "formal_representation": "; Assignment: 6 nodes -> 4 colors\n; CONSTRAINT: ('forced', 'Ivan', 'white')\n; CONSTRAINT: ('same', 'Sasha', 'Charlie')\n; CONSTRAINT: ('same', 'Helena', 'Oscar')\n; CONSTRAINT: ('same', 'Grace', 'Oscar')", + "entities": [ + "Helena", + "Sasha", + "Charlie", + "Grace", + "Ivan", + "Oscar" + ], + "slots": [ + "white", + "purple", + "orange", + "green" + ], + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 8, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Can Oscar be in orange?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Oscar may or may not end up in orange\u2014multiple valid assignments exist with different placements.", + "query_type": "forced_slot", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Is it possible for Oscar and Grace to share a color?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "The combined constraints force Oscar and Grace into the same color in every valid assignment.", + "query_type": "same_slot", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Can Helena and Ivan be in the same color?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid assignments place Helena and Ivan together, while others separate them. The constraints are insufficient to determine this.", + "query_type": "same_slot", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Must Helena and Ivan always end up in the same color?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid assignments place Helena and Ivan together, while others separate them. The constraints are insufficient to determine this.", + "query_type": "same_slot", + "depends_on": [ + 2 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Is Helena's assignment to white guaranteed?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Helena may or may not end up in white\u2014multiple valid assignments exist with different placements.", + "query_type": "forced_slot", + "depends_on": [ + 2, + 3 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q5", + "query": "Must at least 3 node(s) be assigned to white?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid assignments have 3+ node(s) in white and others do not.", + "query_type": "capacity", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q6", + "query": "Must at least 1 node(s) be assigned to purple?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid assignments have 1+ node(s) in purple and others do not.", + "query_type": "capacity", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q7", + "query": "Is Ivan's assignment to white guaranteed?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "All constraints together force Ivan into white; no other color is feasible.", + "query_type": "forced_slot", + "depends_on": [ + 2, + 3 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "UNKNOWN": 6, + "ENTAILED": 2 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "rel_seating_0103", + "domain": "relational", + "subdomain": "seating_arrangement", + "logic_type": "propositional", + "premises": [ + "There are 7 people seated at a row of chairs: Hank, Olivia, Blake, Freya, Rachel, Luna, and Reed.", + "Each person occupies exactly one chair and all chairs are distinct.", + "Olivia must sit directly next to Luna.", + "Blake must not sit directly next to Reed.", + "Hank must sit directly next to Rachel.", + "Hank must sit directly next to Olivia.", + "Olivia must not sit directly next to Blake.", + "Hank must not sit directly next to Reed." + ], + "formal_representation": "; Seating: 7 people, linear\n; Variables: pos_X in [0, 6] for each person\n; All-different constraint on positions\n; CONSTRAINT: adjacent(Olivia, Luna)\n; CONSTRAINT: not_adjacent(Blake, Reed)\n; CONSTRAINT: adjacent(Hank, Rachel)\n; CONSTRAINT: adjacent(Hank, Olivia)\n; CONSTRAINT: not_adjacent(Olivia, Blake)\n; CONSTRAINT: not_adjacent(Hank, Reed)", + "entities": [ + "Hank", + "Olivia", + "Blake", + "Freya", + "Rachel", + "Luna", + "Reed" + ], + "num_entities": 7, + "constraint_type": "linear", + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 6, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Can Reed sit at position 7?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Position 7 is available to Reed in some arrangements but not others, depending on how other constraints resolve.", + "query_type": "pos", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Can Olivia and Blake be separated by exactly 3 seats?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether Olivia and Blake have exactly 3 seat(s) between them depends on how the remaining positions resolve.", + "query_type": "sep", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Is it possible for Luna to be in the second seat?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Position 2 is available to Luna in some arrangements but not others, depending on how other constraints resolve.", + "query_type": "pos", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Is it possible for Luna and Reed to be seated beside each other?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "The constraints do not fully determine whether Luna and Reed are adjacent. Some valid arrangements place them together, others do not.", + "query_type": "adj", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 2 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Can Hank and Reed be separated by exactly 1 seat?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "No valid arrangement has exactly 1 seat(s) between Hank and Reed, given the linear constraint structure.", + "query_type": "sep", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 3 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q5", + "query": "Can Rachel and Blake be separated by exactly 3 seats?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether Rachel and Blake have exactly 3 seat(s) between them depends on how the remaining positions resolve.", + "query_type": "sep", + "depends_on": [ + 1 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "UNKNOWN": 5, + "CONTRADICTED": 1 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "rel_assign_0059", + "domain": "relational", + "subdomain": "team_assignment", + "logic_type": "propositional", + "premises": [ + "There are 4 persons: Nora, Mia, Hank, and Zane.", + "There are 4 departments: Operations, Research, Marketing, and Sales.", + "Each person is assigned to exactly one department.", + "Mia cannot be assigned to Sales.", + "Nora and Mia must be assigned to the same department.", + "Mia and Hank must be assigned to the same department.", + "Zane cannot be assigned to Research.", + "Hank and Zane must be in different departments.", + "Nora and Zane must be in different departments." + ], + "formal_representation": "; Assignment: 4 persons -> 4 departments\n; CONSTRAINT: ('banned', 'Mia', 'Sales')\n; CONSTRAINT: ('same', 'Nora', 'Mia')\n; CONSTRAINT: ('same', 'Mia', 'Hank')\n; CONSTRAINT: ('banned', 'Zane', 'Research')\n; CONSTRAINT: ('diff', 'Hank', 'Zane')\n; CONSTRAINT: ('diff', 'Nora', 'Zane')", + "entities": [ + "Nora", + "Mia", + "Hank", + "Zane" + ], + "slots": [ + "Operations", + "Research", + "Marketing", + "Sales" + ], + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 6, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Is it feasible for Zane to be placed in Sales?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Zane may or may not end up in Sales\u2014multiple valid assignments exist with different placements.", + "query_type": "slot_possible", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Can Hank be in Sales?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "Hank cannot be placed in Sales without violating at least one constraint.", + "query_type": "forced_slot", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Is Mia's assignment to Marketing guaranteed?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Mia may or may not end up in Marketing\u2014multiple valid assignments exist with different placements.", + "query_type": "forced_slot", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Is it feasible for Mia to be placed in Research?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Mia may or may not end up in Research\u2014multiple valid assignments exist with different placements.", + "query_type": "slot_possible", + "depends_on": [ + 2 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Is it feasible for Zane to be placed in Research?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "Zane cannot be placed in Research without violating at least one constraint.", + "query_type": "slot_possible", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q5", + "query": "Is Zane's assignment to Marketing guaranteed?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Zane may or may not end up in Marketing\u2014multiple valid assignments exist with different placements.", + "query_type": "forced_slot", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 4 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "UNKNOWN": 4, + "CONTRADICTED": 2 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "rel_assign_0083", + "domain": "relational", + "subdomain": "office_assignment", + "logic_type": "propositional", + "premises": [ + "There are 6 employees: Alice, Hank, Sasha, Victor, Theo, and Zane.", + "There are 4 offices: Room B, Room E, Room D, and Room C.", + "Each employee is assigned to exactly one office.", + "Theo must be assigned to Room D.", + "Theo and Zane must be assigned to the same office.", + "Sasha and Theo must be in different offices." + ], + "formal_representation": "; Assignment: 6 employees -> 4 offices\n; CONSTRAINT: ('forced', 'Theo', 'Room D')\n; CONSTRAINT: ('same', 'Theo', 'Zane')\n; CONSTRAINT: ('diff', 'Sasha', 'Theo')", + "entities": [ + "Alice", + "Hank", + "Sasha", + "Victor", + "Theo", + "Zane" + ], + "slots": [ + "Room B", + "Room E", + "Room D", + "Room C" + ], + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 7, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Must at least 2 employee(s) be assigned to Room E?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid assignments have 2+ employee(s) in Room E and others do not.", + "query_type": "capacity", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Can Sasha be in Room B?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Sasha may or may not end up in Room B\u2014multiple valid assignments exist with different placements.", + "query_type": "forced_slot", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Must Sasha and Zane always end up in the same office?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "The constraints prohibit Sasha and Zane from sharing a office; no valid assignment allows it.", + "query_type": "same_slot", + "depends_on": [ + 1 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Is it feasible for Hank to be placed in Room B?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Hank may or may not end up in Room B\u2014multiple valid assignments exist with different placements.", + "query_type": "slot_possible", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Is it feasible for Sasha to be placed in Room B?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Sasha may or may not end up in Room B\u2014multiple valid assignments exist with different placements.", + "query_type": "slot_possible", + "depends_on": [ + 1, + 2 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q5", + "query": "Can Sasha and Victor be in the same office?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid assignments place Sasha and Victor together, while others separate them. The constraints are insufficient to determine this.", + "query_type": "same_slot", + "depends_on": [ + 1, + 2, + 4 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q6", + "query": "Must at least 1 employee(s) be assigned to Room D?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "The constraints guarantee at least 1 employee(s) in Room D across all valid assignments.", + "query_type": "capacity", + "depends_on": [] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "UNKNOWN": 5, + "CONTRADICTED": 1, + "ENTAILED": 1 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "rel_assign_0004", + "domain": "relational", + "subdomain": "color_assignment", + "logic_type": "propositional", + "premises": [ + "There are 5 nodes: Ursula, Victor, Nathan, Sasha, and Oscar.", + "There are 3 colors: black, green, and red.", + "Each node is assigned to exactly one color.", + "Oscar cannot be assigned to red.", + "Oscar cannot be assigned to black.", + "Ursula and Nathan must be assigned to the same color.", + "Victor and Oscar must be assigned to the same color." + ], + "formal_representation": "; Assignment: 5 nodes -> 3 colors\n; CONSTRAINT: ('banned', 'Oscar', 'red')\n; CONSTRAINT: ('banned', 'Oscar', 'black')\n; CONSTRAINT: ('same', 'Ursula', 'Nathan')\n; CONSTRAINT: ('same', 'Victor', 'Oscar')", + "entities": [ + "Ursula", + "Victor", + "Nathan", + "Sasha", + "Oscar" + ], + "slots": [ + "black", + "green", + "red" + ], + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 5, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Is Ursula's assignment to green guaranteed?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Ursula may or may not end up in green\u2014multiple valid assignments exist with different placements.", + "query_type": "forced_slot", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Is it feasible for Victor to be placed in red?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "Victor cannot be placed in red without violating at least one constraint.", + "query_type": "slot_possible", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Can Oscar be in black?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "Oscar cannot be placed in black without violating at least one constraint.", + "query_type": "forced_slot", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Must Sasha be assigned to black?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Sasha may or may not end up in black\u2014multiple valid assignments exist with different placements.", + "query_type": "forced_slot", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Is it feasible for Nathan to be placed in black?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Nathan may or may not end up in black\u2014multiple valid assignments exist with different placements.", + "query_type": "slot_possible", + "depends_on": [] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "UNKNOWN": 3, + "CONTRADICTED": 2 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "rel_assign_0117", + "domain": "relational", + "subdomain": "shift_assignment", + "logic_type": "propositional", + "premises": [ + "There are 6 workers: Jack, Helena, Amara, Olivia, Iris, and Blake.", + "There are 3 shifts: night, afternoon, and evening.", + "Each worker is assigned to exactly one shift.", + "Jack and Helena must be in different shifts.", + "Helena and Iris must be assigned to the same shift.", + "Olivia must be assigned to afternoon." + ], + "formal_representation": "; Assignment: 6 workers -> 3 shifts\n; CONSTRAINT: ('diff', 'Jack', 'Helena')\n; CONSTRAINT: ('same', 'Helena', 'Iris')\n; CONSTRAINT: ('forced', 'Olivia', 'afternoon')", + "entities": [ + "Jack", + "Helena", + "Amara", + "Olivia", + "Iris", + "Blake" + ], + "slots": [ + "night", + "afternoon", + "evening" + ], + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 6, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Must at least 2 worker(s) be assigned to evening?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid assignments have 2+ worker(s) in evening and others do not.", + "query_type": "capacity", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Can Blake be in afternoon?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Blake may or may not end up in afternoon\u2014multiple valid assignments exist with different placements.", + "query_type": "forced_slot", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Is it feasible for Amara to be placed in night?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Amara may or may not end up in night\u2014multiple valid assignments exist with different placements.", + "query_type": "slot_possible", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Is it feasible for Iris to be placed in evening?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Iris may or may not end up in evening\u2014multiple valid assignments exist with different placements.", + "query_type": "slot_possible", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Is Iris's assignment to evening guaranteed?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Iris may or may not end up in evening\u2014multiple valid assignments exist with different placements.", + "query_type": "forced_slot", + "depends_on": [ + 3 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q5", + "query": "Is it possible for Jack and Iris to share a shift?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "The constraints prohibit Jack and Iris from sharing a shift; no valid assignment allows it.", + "query_type": "same_slot", + "depends_on": [ + 3, + 4 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "UNKNOWN": 5, + "CONTRADICTED": 1 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "rel_seating_0068", + "domain": "relational", + "subdomain": "seating_arrangement", + "logic_type": "propositional", + "premises": [ + "There are 5 people seated at a row of chairs: Oscar, Freya, Cyrus, Alice, and Mia.", + "Each person occupies exactly one chair and all chairs are distinct.", + "Freya must sit directly next to Alice.", + "Cyrus must sit directly next to Alice.", + "Freya must not sit directly next to Mia.", + "Oscar must not sit directly next to Alice." + ], + "formal_representation": "; Seating: 5 people, linear\n; Variables: pos_X in [0, 4] for each person\n; All-different constraint on positions\n; CONSTRAINT: adjacent(Freya, Alice)\n; CONSTRAINT: adjacent(Cyrus, Alice)\n; CONSTRAINT: not_adjacent(Freya, Mia)\n; CONSTRAINT: not_adjacent(Oscar, Alice)", + "entities": [ + "Oscar", + "Freya", + "Cyrus", + "Alice", + "Mia" + ], + "num_entities": 5, + "constraint_type": "linear", + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 8, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Is it possible for Mia to be in the fifth seat?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Position 5 is available to Mia in some arrangements but not others, depending on how other constraints resolve.", + "query_type": "pos", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Could Oscar end up adjacent to Freya?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "The constraints do not fully determine whether Oscar and Freya are adjacent. Some valid arrangements place them together, others do not.", + "query_type": "adj", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Could Alice end up adjacent to Mia?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "The combination of constraints on Alice and Mia's required/forbidden neighbors leaves no valid arrangement where they are adjacent.", + "query_type": "adj", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Could Freya end up adjacent to Cyrus?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "The combination of constraints on Freya and Cyrus's required/forbidden neighbors leaves no valid arrangement where they are adjacent.", + "query_type": "adj", + "depends_on": [ + 1 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "In every valid arrangement, is Cyrus adjacent to Mia?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid arrangements have Cyrus next to Mia and others do not. The constraints do not force this adjacency.", + "query_type": "adj_forced", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 2, + 3 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q5", + "query": "Can Oscar sit directly next to Mia?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "The constraints do not fully determine whether Oscar and Mia are adjacent. Some valid arrangements place them together, others do not.", + "query_type": "adj", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1, + 2, + 4 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q6", + "query": "Can Cyrus sit at position 2?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Position 2 is available to Cyrus in some arrangements but not others, depending on how other constraints resolve.", + "query_type": "pos", + "depends_on": [ + 3, + 4 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q7", + "query": "Can Alice and Oscar be separated by exactly 2 seats?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether Alice and Oscar have exactly 2 seat(s) between them depends on how the remaining positions resolve.", + "query_type": "sep", + "depends_on": [ + 1, + 2, + 5 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "UNKNOWN": 6, + "CONTRADICTED": 2 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "rel_seating_0139", + "domain": "relational", + "subdomain": "seating_arrangement", + "logic_type": "propositional", + "premises": [ + "There are 4 people seated at a circular table: Grace, Wendy, Elias, and Leo.", + "Each person occupies exactly one seat and all seats are distinct.", + "Elias must sit directly next to Leo.", + "Grace must sit directly next to Elias.", + "Grace must sit directly next to Wendy." + ], + "formal_representation": "; Seating: 4 people, circular\n; Variables: pos_X in [0, 3] for each person\n; All-different constraint on positions\n; CONSTRAINT: adjacent(Elias, Leo)\n; CONSTRAINT: adjacent(Grace, Elias)\n; CONSTRAINT: adjacent(Grace, Wendy)", + "entities": [ + "Grace", + "Wendy", + "Elias", + "Leo" + ], + "num_entities": 4, + "constraint_type": "circular", + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 6, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Can Grace sit directly next to Leo?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "The combination of constraints on Grace and Leo's required/forbidden neighbors leaves no valid arrangement where they are adjacent.", + "query_type": "adj", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Can Grace and Wendy be separated by exactly 2 seats?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "No valid arrangement has exactly 2 seat(s) between Grace and Wendy, given the circular constraint structure.", + "query_type": "sep", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Can Wendy and Grace be separated by exactly 2 seats?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "No valid arrangement has exactly 2 seat(s) between Wendy and Grace, given the circular constraint structure.", + "query_type": "sep", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Can Elias and Leo be separated by exactly 1 seat?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "The constraints force exactly 1 seat(s) between Elias and Leo in every valid circular arrangement.", + "query_type": "sep", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Can Leo sit at position 3?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Position 3 is available to Leo in some arrangements but not others, depending on how other constraints resolve.", + "query_type": "pos", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 3 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q5", + "query": "Can Leo and Wendy be separated by exactly 1 seat?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "The constraints force exactly 1 seat(s) between Leo and Wendy in every valid circular arrangement.", + "query_type": "sep", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1, + 2, + 3, + 4 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "CONTRADICTED": 3, + "ENTAILED": 2, + "UNKNOWN": 1 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "rel_seating_0131", + "domain": "relational", + "subdomain": "seating_arrangement", + "logic_type": "propositional", + "premises": [ + "There are 5 people seated at a row of chairs: Xavier, Paul, Mia, Frank, and Bob.", + "Each person occupies exactly one chair and all chairs are distinct.", + "Mia must sit directly next to Frank.", + "Xavier must sit directly next to Frank.", + "Paul must not sit directly next to Mia." + ], + "formal_representation": "; Seating: 5 people, linear\n; Variables: pos_X in [0, 4] for each person\n; All-different constraint on positions\n; CONSTRAINT: adjacent(Mia, Frank)\n; CONSTRAINT: adjacent(Xavier, Frank)\n; CONSTRAINT: not_adjacent(Paul, Mia)", + "entities": [ + "Xavier", + "Paul", + "Mia", + "Frank", + "Bob" + ], + "num_entities": 5, + "constraint_type": "linear", + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 6, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Is it possible for Xavier and Mia to be seated beside each other?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "The combination of constraints on Xavier and Mia's required/forbidden neighbors leaves no valid arrangement where they are adjacent.", + "query_type": "adj", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Can Mia and Frank be separated by exactly 1 seat?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "The constraints force exactly 1 seat(s) between Mia and Frank in every valid linear arrangement.", + "query_type": "sep", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Is it possible for Paul to be in the first seat?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Position 1 is available to Paul in some arrangements but not others, depending on how other constraints resolve.", + "query_type": "pos", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Can Xavier sit at position 1?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Position 1 is available to Xavier in some arrangements but not others, depending on how other constraints resolve.", + "query_type": "pos", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Can Paul and Xavier be separated by exactly 2 seats?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether Paul and Xavier have exactly 2 seat(s) between them depends on how the remaining positions resolve.", + "query_type": "sep", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 2, + 3 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q5", + "query": "Can Xavier sit at position 4?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Position 4 is available to Xavier in some arrangements but not others, depending on how other constraints resolve.", + "query_type": "pos", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 3, + 4 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "CONTRADICTED": 1, + "ENTAILED": 1, + "UNKNOWN": 4 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "rel_seating_0078", + "domain": "relational", + "subdomain": "seating_arrangement", + "logic_type": "propositional", + "premises": [ + "There are 4 people seated at a circular table: Yara, Reed, Rachel, and Xavier.", + "Each person occupies exactly one seat and all seats are distinct.", + "Rachel must not sit directly next to Xavier.", + "Yara must not sit directly next to Reed.", + "Reed must sit directly next to Xavier." + ], + "formal_representation": "; Seating: 4 people, circular\n; Variables: pos_X in [0, 3] for each person\n; All-different constraint on positions\n; CONSTRAINT: not_adjacent(Rachel, Xavier)\n; CONSTRAINT: not_adjacent(Yara, Reed)\n; CONSTRAINT: adjacent(Reed, Xavier)", + "entities": [ + "Yara", + "Reed", + "Rachel", + "Xavier" + ], + "num_entities": 4, + "constraint_type": "circular", + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 7, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Can Xavier sit at position 2?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Position 2 is available to Xavier in some arrangements but not others, depending on how other constraints resolve.", + "query_type": "pos", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "In every valid arrangement, is Yara adjacent to Xavier?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "After accounting for all adjacency constraints, every satisfying assignment requires Yara next to Xavier.", + "query_type": "adj_forced", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Is it possible for Rachel to be in the third seat?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Position 3 is available to Rachel in some arrangements but not others, depending on how other constraints resolve.", + "query_type": "pos", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Must Yara always be seated next to Rachel?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "After accounting for all adjacency constraints, every satisfying assignment requires Yara next to Rachel.", + "query_type": "adj_forced", + "depends_on": [ + 1, + 2 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Could Reed end up adjacent to Rachel?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "Given the adjacency constraints on Reed and Rachel's neighbors, all valid seatings force them to be adjacent.", + "query_type": "adj", + "depends_on": [ + 2, + 3 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q5", + "query": "Can Yara and Xavier be separated by exactly 1 seat?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "The constraints force exactly 1 seat(s) between Yara and Xavier in every valid circular arrangement.", + "query_type": "sep", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1, + 3 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q6", + "query": "Is it possible for Rachel to be in the fourth seat?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Position 4 is available to Rachel in some arrangements but not others, depending on how other constraints resolve.", + "query_type": "pos", + "depends_on": [ + 2, + 3, + 4 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "UNKNOWN": 3, + "ENTAILED": 4 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "rel_seating_0037", + "domain": "relational", + "subdomain": "seating_arrangement", + "logic_type": "propositional", + "premises": [ + "There are 6 people seated at a circular table: Bob, Elias, Grace, Sam, Amara, and Frank.", + "Each person occupies exactly one seat and all seats are distinct.", + "Bob must not sit directly next to Sam.", + "Grace must sit directly next to Sam.", + "Bob must sit directly next to Grace.", + "Sam must sit directly next to Frank." + ], + "formal_representation": "; Seating: 6 people, circular\n; Variables: pos_X in [0, 5] for each person\n; All-different constraint on positions\n; CONSTRAINT: not_adjacent(Bob, Sam)\n; CONSTRAINT: adjacent(Grace, Sam)\n; CONSTRAINT: adjacent(Bob, Grace)\n; CONSTRAINT: adjacent(Sam, Frank)", + "entities": [ + "Bob", + "Elias", + "Grace", + "Sam", + "Amara", + "Frank" + ], + "num_entities": 6, + "constraint_type": "circular", + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 6, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "In every valid arrangement, is Sam adjacent to Amara?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "No valid arrangement exists where Sam is adjacent to Amara, given the combined constraints.", + "query_type": "adj_forced", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Can Sam and Bob be separated by exactly 3 seats?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "No valid arrangement has exactly 3 seat(s) between Sam and Bob, given the circular constraint structure.", + "query_type": "sep", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Can Frank sit at position 1?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Position 1 is available to Frank in some arrangements but not others, depending on how other constraints resolve.", + "query_type": "pos", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Can Elias and Sam be separated by exactly 3 seats?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether Elias and Sam have exactly 3 seat(s) between them depends on how the remaining positions resolve.", + "query_type": "sep", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Can Elias sit at position 4?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Position 4 is available to Elias in some arrangements but not others, depending on how other constraints resolve.", + "query_type": "pos", + "depends_on": [ + 3 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q5", + "query": "In every valid arrangement, is Bob adjacent to Elias?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid arrangements have Bob next to Elias and others do not. The constraints do not force this adjacency.", + "query_type": "adj_forced", + "depends_on": [ + 1, + 3, + 4 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "CONTRADICTED": 2, + "UNKNOWN": 4 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "rel_assign_0036", + "domain": "relational", + "subdomain": "office_assignment", + "logic_type": "propositional", + "premises": [ + "There are 4 employees: Luna, Ivan, Leo, and Sasha.", + "There are 3 offices: Room D, Room B, and Room E.", + "Each employee is assigned to exactly one office.", + "Ivan must be assigned to Room B.", + "Luna and Sasha must be in different offices.", + "Sasha cannot be assigned to Room D.", + "Sasha cannot be assigned to Room E." + ], + "formal_representation": "; Assignment: 4 employees -> 3 offices\n; CONSTRAINT: ('forced', 'Ivan', 'Room B')\n; CONSTRAINT: ('diff', 'Luna', 'Sasha')\n; CONSTRAINT: ('banned', 'Sasha', 'Room D')\n; CONSTRAINT: ('banned', 'Sasha', 'Room E')", + "entities": [ + "Luna", + "Ivan", + "Leo", + "Sasha" + ], + "slots": [ + "Room D", + "Room B", + "Room E" + ], + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 7, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Is it possible for Sasha and Ivan to share a office?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "The combined constraints force Sasha and Ivan into the same office in every valid assignment.", + "query_type": "same_slot", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Is Leo's assignment to Room D guaranteed?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Leo may or may not end up in Room D\u2014multiple valid assignments exist with different placements.", + "query_type": "forced_slot", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Can Ivan be in Room B?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "All constraints together force Ivan into Room B; no other office is feasible.", + "query_type": "forced_slot", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Is it feasible for Luna to be placed in Room D?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Luna may or may not end up in Room D\u2014multiple valid assignments exist with different placements.", + "query_type": "slot_possible", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Must at least 1 employee(s) be assigned to Room E?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid assignments have 1+ employee(s) in Room E and others do not.", + "query_type": "capacity", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q5", + "query": "Must at least 3 employee(s) be assigned to Room E?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "No valid assignment places 3 or more employee(s) in Room E, given the constraints.", + "query_type": "capacity", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q6", + "query": "Is it possible for Luna and Sasha to share a office?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "The constraints prohibit Luna and Sasha from sharing a office; no valid assignment allows it.", + "query_type": "same_slot", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 3 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "ENTAILED": 2, + "UNKNOWN": 3, + "CONTRADICTED": 2 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "rel_seating_0066", + "domain": "relational", + "subdomain": "seating_arrangement", + "logic_type": "propositional", + "premises": [ + "There are 5 people seated at a circular table: Quinn, Leo, Helena, Zane, and Marco.", + "Each person occupies exactly one seat and all seats are distinct.", + "Quinn must sit directly next to Zane.", + "Leo must sit directly next to Marco.", + "Quinn must not sit directly next to Leo.", + "Zane must sit directly next to Marco.", + "Leo must not sit directly next to Zane." + ], + "formal_representation": "; Seating: 5 people, circular\n; Variables: pos_X in [0, 4] for each person\n; All-different constraint on positions\n; CONSTRAINT: adjacent(Quinn, Zane)\n; CONSTRAINT: adjacent(Leo, Marco)\n; CONSTRAINT: not_adjacent(Quinn, Leo)\n; CONSTRAINT: adjacent(Zane, Marco)\n; CONSTRAINT: not_adjacent(Leo, Zane)", + "entities": [ + "Quinn", + "Leo", + "Helena", + "Zane", + "Marco" + ], + "num_entities": 5, + "constraint_type": "circular", + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 8, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Could Leo end up adjacent to Helena?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "Given the adjacency constraints on Leo and Helena's neighbors, all valid seatings force them to be adjacent.", + "query_type": "adj", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Can Helena and Quinn be separated by exactly 2 seats?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "No valid arrangement has exactly 2 seat(s) between Helena and Quinn, given the circular constraint structure.", + "query_type": "sep", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "In every valid arrangement, is Quinn adjacent to Helena?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "After accounting for all adjacency constraints, every satisfying assignment requires Quinn next to Helena.", + "query_type": "adj_forced", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Can Leo and Quinn be separated by exactly 2 seats?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "The constraints force exactly 2 seat(s) between Leo and Quinn in every valid circular arrangement.", + "query_type": "sep", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1, + 2 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "In every valid arrangement, is Quinn adjacent to Marco?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "No valid arrangement exists where Quinn is adjacent to Marco, given the combined constraints.", + "query_type": "adj_forced", + "depends_on": [ + 1, + 2, + 3 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q5", + "query": "Must Helena always be seated next to Marco?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "No valid arrangement exists where Helena is adjacent to Marco, given the combined constraints.", + "query_type": "adj_forced", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1, + 2, + 4 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q6", + "query": "Can Leo and Quinn be separated by exactly 1 seat?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "No valid arrangement has exactly 1 seat(s) between Leo and Quinn, given the circular constraint structure.", + "query_type": "sep", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1, + 2, + 3, + 4 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q7", + "query": "Can Helena sit directly next to Zane?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "The combination of constraints on Helena and Zane's required/forbidden neighbors leaves no valid arrangement where they are adjacent.", + "query_type": "adj", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1, + 2, + 5 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "ENTAILED": 3, + "CONTRADICTED": 5 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "rel_assign_0084", + "domain": "relational", + "subdomain": "shift_assignment", + "logic_type": "propositional", + "premises": [ + "There are 4 workers: Frank, Cyrus, Gavin, and Bob.", + "There are 3 shifts: afternoon, morning, and night.", + "Each worker is assigned to exactly one shift.", + "Cyrus and Gavin must be in different shifts.", + "Cyrus and Bob must be in different shifts.", + "Frank and Bob must be assigned to the same shift." + ], + "formal_representation": "; Assignment: 4 workers -> 3 shifts\n; CONSTRAINT: ('diff', 'Cyrus', 'Gavin')\n; CONSTRAINT: ('diff', 'Cyrus', 'Bob')\n; CONSTRAINT: ('same', 'Frank', 'Bob')", + "entities": [ + "Frank", + "Cyrus", + "Gavin", + "Bob" + ], + "slots": [ + "afternoon", + "morning", + "night" + ], + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 7, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Can Gavin and Frank be in the same shift?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid assignments place Gavin and Frank together, while others separate them. The constraints are insufficient to determine this.", + "query_type": "same_slot", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Must Gavin and Frank always end up in the same shift?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid assignments place Gavin and Frank together, while others separate them. The constraints are insufficient to determine this.", + "query_type": "same_slot", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Is it feasible for Cyrus to be placed in morning?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Cyrus may or may not end up in morning\u2014multiple valid assignments exist with different placements.", + "query_type": "slot_possible", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Can Cyrus be in morning?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Cyrus may or may not end up in morning\u2014multiple valid assignments exist with different placements.", + "query_type": "forced_slot", + "depends_on": [ + 2 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Is it feasible for Bob to be placed in night?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Bob may or may not end up in night\u2014multiple valid assignments exist with different placements.", + "query_type": "slot_possible", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q5", + "query": "Can Frank and Cyrus be in the same shift?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "The constraints prohibit Frank and Cyrus from sharing a shift; no valid assignment allows it.", + "query_type": "same_slot", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1, + 2, + 3 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q6", + "query": "Must at least 3 worker(s) be assigned to morning?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid assignments have 3+ worker(s) in morning and others do not.", + "query_type": "capacity", + "depends_on": [] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "UNKNOWN": 6, + "CONTRADICTED": 1 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "rel_assign_0052", + "domain": "relational", + "subdomain": "office_assignment", + "logic_type": "propositional", + "premises": [ + "There are 5 employees: Quinn, Willow, Theo, Frank, and Sam.", + "There are 3 offices: Room D, Room A, and Room E.", + "Each employee is assigned to exactly one office.", + "Frank and Sam must be assigned to the same office.", + "Quinn and Sam must be assigned to the same office.", + "Willow cannot be assigned to Room E.", + "Theo and Sam must be in different offices.", + "Willow and Frank must be assigned to the same office.", + "Quinn and Theo must be in different offices.", + "Sam must be assigned to Room A." + ], + "formal_representation": "; Assignment: 5 employees -> 3 offices\n; CONSTRAINT: ('same', 'Frank', 'Sam')\n; CONSTRAINT: ('same', 'Quinn', 'Sam')\n; CONSTRAINT: ('banned', 'Willow', 'Room E')\n; CONSTRAINT: ('diff', 'Theo', 'Sam')\n; CONSTRAINT: ('same', 'Willow', 'Frank')\n; CONSTRAINT: ('diff', 'Quinn', 'Theo')\n; CONSTRAINT: ('forced', 'Sam', 'Room A')", + "entities": [ + "Quinn", + "Willow", + "Theo", + "Frank", + "Sam" + ], + "slots": [ + "Room D", + "Room A", + "Room E" + ], + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 7, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Is it possible for Frank and Quinn to share a office?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "The combined constraints force Frank and Quinn into the same office in every valid assignment.", + "query_type": "same_slot", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Is it feasible for Theo to be placed in Room D?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Theo may or may not end up in Room D\u2014multiple valid assignments exist with different placements.", + "query_type": "slot_possible", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Must Sam and Theo always end up in the same office?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "The constraints prohibit Sam and Theo from sharing a office; no valid assignment allows it.", + "query_type": "same_slot", + "depends_on": [ + 1 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Must at least 1 employee(s) be assigned to Room E?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid assignments have 1+ employee(s) in Room E and others do not.", + "query_type": "capacity", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Is it feasible for Frank to be placed in Room A?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "All constraints together force Frank into Room A; no other office is feasible.", + "query_type": "slot_possible", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q5", + "query": "Is it feasible for Theo to be placed in Room E?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Theo may or may not end up in Room E\u2014multiple valid assignments exist with different placements.", + "query_type": "slot_possible", + "depends_on": [ + 1, + 2 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q6", + "query": "Is Frank's assignment to Room A guaranteed?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "All constraints together force Frank into Room A; no other office is feasible.", + "query_type": "forced_slot", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 4 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "ENTAILED": 3, + "UNKNOWN": 3, + "CONTRADICTED": 1 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "rel_seating_0001", + "domain": "relational", + "subdomain": "seating_arrangement", + "logic_type": "propositional", + "premises": [ + "There are 4 people seated at a row of chairs: Jack, Oscar, Karen, and Sasha.", + "Each person occupies exactly one chair and all chairs are distinct.", + "Jack must sit directly next to Oscar.", + "Jack must sit directly next to Karen.", + "Jack must not sit directly next to Sasha." + ], + "formal_representation": "; Seating: 4 people, linear\n; Variables: pos_X in [0, 3] for each person\n; All-different constraint on positions\n; CONSTRAINT: adjacent(Jack, Oscar)\n; CONSTRAINT: adjacent(Jack, Karen)\n; CONSTRAINT: not_adjacent(Jack, Sasha)", + "entities": [ + "Jack", + "Oscar", + "Karen", + "Sasha" + ], + "num_entities": 4, + "constraint_type": "linear", + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 7, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Can Oscar sit at position 1?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Position 1 is available to Oscar in some arrangements but not others, depending on how other constraints resolve.", + "query_type": "pos", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Can Oscar and Sasha be separated by exactly 1 seat?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether Oscar and Sasha have exactly 1 seat(s) between them depends on how the remaining positions resolve.", + "query_type": "sep", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Must Karen always be seated next to Sasha?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid arrangements have Karen next to Sasha and others do not. The constraints do not force this adjacency.", + "query_type": "adj_forced", + "depends_on": [ + 1 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Can Jack and Sasha be separated by exactly 2 seats?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "The constraints force exactly 2 seat(s) between Jack and Sasha in every valid linear arrangement.", + "query_type": "sep", + "depends_on": [ + 1, + 2 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Can Oscar sit directly next to Sasha?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "The constraints do not fully determine whether Oscar and Sasha are adjacent. Some valid arrangements place them together, others do not.", + "query_type": "adj", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1, + 2, + 3 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q5", + "query": "Is it possible for Oscar to be in the first seat?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Position 1 is available to Oscar in some arrangements but not others, depending on how other constraints resolve.", + "query_type": "pos", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1, + 4 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q6", + "query": "Can Jack and Karen be separated by exactly 1 seat?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "The constraints force exactly 1 seat(s) between Jack and Karen in every valid linear arrangement.", + "query_type": "sep", + "depends_on": [ + 2, + 3 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "UNKNOWN": 5, + "ENTAILED": 2 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "rel_seating_0081", + "domain": "relational", + "subdomain": "seating_arrangement", + "logic_type": "propositional", + "premises": [ + "There are 5 people seated at a circular table: Daphne, Priya, Cyrus, Frank, and Vince.", + "Each person occupies exactly one seat and all seats are distinct.", + "Daphne must not sit directly next to Cyrus.", + "Priya must sit directly next to Cyrus.", + "Daphne must not sit directly next to Priya.", + "Priya must sit directly next to Frank." + ], + "formal_representation": "; Seating: 5 people, circular\n; Variables: pos_X in [0, 4] for each person\n; All-different constraint on positions\n; CONSTRAINT: not_adjacent(Daphne, Cyrus)\n; CONSTRAINT: adjacent(Priya, Cyrus)\n; CONSTRAINT: not_adjacent(Daphne, Priya)\n; CONSTRAINT: adjacent(Priya, Frank)", + "entities": [ + "Daphne", + "Priya", + "Cyrus", + "Frank", + "Vince" + ], + "num_entities": 5, + "constraint_type": "circular", + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 6, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Can Daphne sit directly next to Vince?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "Given the adjacency constraints on Daphne and Vince's neighbors, all valid seatings force them to be adjacent.", + "query_type": "adj", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Must Priya always be seated next to Vince?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "No valid arrangement exists where Priya is adjacent to Vince, given the combined constraints.", + "query_type": "adj_forced", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Is it possible for Cyrus to be in the fourth seat?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Position 4 is available to Cyrus in some arrangements but not others, depending on how other constraints resolve.", + "query_type": "pos", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Can Daphne and Priya be separated by exactly 2 seats?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "The constraints force exactly 2 seat(s) between Daphne and Priya in every valid circular arrangement.", + "query_type": "sep", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Can Cyrus and Daphne be separated by exactly 2 seats?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "The constraints force exactly 2 seat(s) between Cyrus and Daphne in every valid circular arrangement.", + "query_type": "sep", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 2, + 3 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q5", + "query": "Must Cyrus always be seated next to Vince?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "After accounting for all adjacency constraints, every satisfying assignment requires Cyrus next to Vince.", + "query_type": "adj_forced", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1, + 2, + 4 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "ENTAILED": 4, + "CONTRADICTED": 1, + "UNKNOWN": 1 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "rel_assign_0106", + "domain": "relational", + "subdomain": "shift_assignment", + "logic_type": "propositional", + "premises": [ + "There are 6 workers: Bob, Oscar, Ursula, Helena, Leo, and Kyle.", + "There are 3 shifts: afternoon, evening, and night.", + "Each worker is assigned to exactly one shift.", + "Ursula cannot be assigned to afternoon.", + "Bob and Kyle must be in different shifts.", + "Ursula cannot be assigned to evening.", + "Ursula and Leo must be in different shifts.", + "Kyle must be assigned to night.", + "Oscar and Kyle must be in different shifts." + ], + "formal_representation": "; Assignment: 6 workers -> 3 shifts\n; CONSTRAINT: ('banned', 'Ursula', 'afternoon')\n; CONSTRAINT: ('diff', 'Bob', 'Kyle')\n; CONSTRAINT: ('banned', 'Ursula', 'evening')\n; CONSTRAINT: ('diff', 'Ursula', 'Leo')\n; CONSTRAINT: ('forced', 'Kyle', 'night')\n; CONSTRAINT: ('diff', 'Oscar', 'Kyle')", + "entities": [ + "Bob", + "Oscar", + "Ursula", + "Helena", + "Leo", + "Kyle" + ], + "slots": [ + "afternoon", + "evening", + "night" + ], + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 5, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Is it possible for Oscar and Kyle to share a shift?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "The constraints prohibit Oscar and Kyle from sharing a shift; no valid assignment allows it.", + "query_type": "same_slot", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Can Bob be in evening?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Bob may or may not end up in evening\u2014multiple valid assignments exist with different placements.", + "query_type": "forced_slot", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Must Oscar be assigned to afternoon?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Oscar may or may not end up in afternoon\u2014multiple valid assignments exist with different placements.", + "query_type": "forced_slot", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Must at least 3 worker(s) be assigned to evening?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid assignments have 3+ worker(s) in evening and others do not.", + "query_type": "capacity", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Is it possible for Ursula and Leo to share a shift?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "The constraints prohibit Ursula and Leo from sharing a shift; no valid assignment allows it.", + "query_type": "same_slot", + "depends_on": [] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "CONTRADICTED": 2, + "UNKNOWN": 3 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "rel_assign_0073", + "domain": "relational", + "subdomain": "office_assignment", + "logic_type": "propositional", + "premises": [ + "There are 5 employees: Mia, Xavier, Diana, Reed, and Nathan.", + "There are 4 offices: Room B, Room D, Room E, and Room A.", + "Each employee is assigned to exactly one office.", + "Mia and Reed must be in different offices.", + "Mia must be assigned to Room D.", + "Xavier and Diana must be in different offices.", + "Mia cannot be assigned to Room E.", + "Mia and Diana must be assigned to the same office.", + "Mia and Nathan must be assigned to the same office.", + "Xavier must be assigned to Room B." + ], + "formal_representation": "; Assignment: 5 employees -> 4 offices\n; CONSTRAINT: ('diff', 'Mia', 'Reed')\n; CONSTRAINT: ('forced', 'Mia', 'Room D')\n; CONSTRAINT: ('diff', 'Xavier', 'Diana')\n; CONSTRAINT: ('banned', 'Mia', 'Room E')\n; CONSTRAINT: ('same', 'Mia', 'Diana')\n; CONSTRAINT: ('same', 'Mia', 'Nathan')\n; CONSTRAINT: ('forced', 'Xavier', 'Room B')", + "entities": [ + "Mia", + "Xavier", + "Diana", + "Reed", + "Nathan" + ], + "slots": [ + "Room B", + "Room D", + "Room E", + "Room A" + ], + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 5, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Can Mia be in Room D?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "All constraints together force Mia into Room D; no other office is feasible.", + "query_type": "forced_slot", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Must Reed and Diana always end up in the same office?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "The constraints prohibit Reed and Diana from sharing a office; no valid assignment allows it.", + "query_type": "same_slot", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Can Diana be in Room B?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "Diana cannot be placed in Room B without violating at least one constraint.", + "query_type": "forced_slot", + "depends_on": [ + 1 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Can Nathan be in Room E?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "Nathan cannot be placed in Room E without violating at least one constraint.", + "query_type": "forced_slot", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Must at least 3 employee(s) be assigned to Room E?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "No valid assignment places 3 or more employee(s) in Room E, given the constraints.", + "query_type": "capacity", + "depends_on": [] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "ENTAILED": 1, + "CONTRADICTED": 4 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "rel_seating_0126", + "domain": "relational", + "subdomain": "seating_arrangement", + "logic_type": "propositional", + "premises": [ + "There are 7 people seated at a circular table: Leo, Alice, Xavier, Vince, Eve, Wendy, and Bob.", + "Each person occupies exactly one seat and all seats are distinct.", + "Alice must sit directly next to Bob.", + "Alice must not sit directly next to Eve.", + "Vince must sit directly next to Eve.", + "Alice must sit directly next to Vince." + ], + "formal_representation": "; Seating: 7 people, circular\n; Variables: pos_X in [0, 6] for each person\n; All-different constraint on positions\n; CONSTRAINT: adjacent(Alice, Bob)\n; CONSTRAINT: not_adjacent(Alice, Eve)\n; CONSTRAINT: adjacent(Vince, Eve)\n; CONSTRAINT: adjacent(Alice, Vince)", + "entities": [ + "Leo", + "Alice", + "Xavier", + "Vince", + "Eve", + "Wendy", + "Bob" + ], + "num_entities": 7, + "constraint_type": "circular", + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 8, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "In every valid arrangement, is Leo adjacent to Eve?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid arrangements have Leo next to Eve and others do not. The constraints do not force this adjacency.", + "query_type": "adj_forced", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Can Vince sit directly next to Bob?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "The combination of constraints on Vince and Bob's required/forbidden neighbors leaves no valid arrangement where they are adjacent.", + "query_type": "adj", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Must Leo always be seated next to Xavier?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid arrangements have Leo next to Xavier and others do not. The constraints do not force this adjacency.", + "query_type": "adj_forced", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Is it possible for Xavier to be in the fifth seat?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Position 5 is available to Xavier in some arrangements but not others, depending on how other constraints resolve.", + "query_type": "pos", + "depends_on": [ + 2 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "In every valid arrangement, is Xavier adjacent to Eve?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid arrangements have Xavier next to Eve and others do not. The constraints do not force this adjacency.", + "query_type": "adj_forced", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 2, + 3 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q5", + "query": "Must Leo always be seated next to Bob?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid arrangements have Leo next to Bob and others do not. The constraints do not force this adjacency.", + "query_type": "adj_forced", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1, + 2 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q6", + "query": "Must Xavier always be seated next to Bob?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid arrangements have Xavier next to Bob and others do not. The constraints do not force this adjacency.", + "query_type": "adj_forced", + "depends_on": [ + 1, + 2, + 3, + 4, + 5 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q7", + "query": "In every valid arrangement, is Wendy adjacent to Bob?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid arrangements have Wendy next to Bob and others do not. The constraints do not force this adjacency.", + "query_type": "adj_forced", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1, + 4, + 5, + 6 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "UNKNOWN": 7, + "CONTRADICTED": 1 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "rel_seating_0044", + "domain": "relational", + "subdomain": "seating_arrangement", + "logic_type": "propositional", + "premises": [ + "There are 4 people seated at a row of chairs: Amara, Bob, Olivia, and Ivan.", + "Each person occupies exactly one chair and all chairs are distinct.", + "Bob must sit directly next to Ivan.", + "Amara must sit directly next to Olivia.", + "Olivia must sit directly next to Ivan." + ], + "formal_representation": "; Seating: 4 people, linear\n; Variables: pos_X in [0, 3] for each person\n; All-different constraint on positions\n; CONSTRAINT: adjacent(Bob, Ivan)\n; CONSTRAINT: adjacent(Amara, Olivia)\n; CONSTRAINT: adjacent(Olivia, Ivan)", + "entities": [ + "Amara", + "Bob", + "Olivia", + "Ivan" + ], + "num_entities": 4, + "constraint_type": "linear", + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 8, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Can Amara sit at position 1?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Position 1 is available to Amara in some arrangements but not others, depending on how other constraints resolve.", + "query_type": "pos", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Could Amara end up adjacent to Ivan?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "The combination of constraints on Amara and Ivan's required/forbidden neighbors leaves no valid arrangement where they are adjacent.", + "query_type": "adj", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Can Ivan sit at position 3?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Position 3 is available to Ivan in some arrangements but not others, depending on how other constraints resolve.", + "query_type": "pos", + "depends_on": [ + 1 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "In every valid arrangement, is Bob adjacent to Olivia?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "No valid arrangement exists where Bob is adjacent to Olivia, given the combined constraints.", + "query_type": "adj_forced", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Is it possible for Olivia to be in the fourth seat?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "Placing Olivia at position 4 would violate one or more constraints; no valid arrangement allows it.", + "query_type": "pos", + "depends_on": [ + 3 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q5", + "query": "Can Amara sit directly next to Bob?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "The combination of constraints on Amara and Bob's required/forbidden neighbors leaves no valid arrangement where they are adjacent.", + "query_type": "adj", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1, + 3 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q6", + "query": "Can Olivia and Bob be separated by exactly 1 seat?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "No valid arrangement has exactly 1 seat(s) between Olivia and Bob, given the linear constraint structure.", + "query_type": "sep", + "depends_on": [ + 3, + 4, + 5 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q7", + "query": "Can Bob and Amara be separated by exactly 2 seats?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "No valid arrangement has exactly 2 seat(s) between Bob and Amara, given the linear constraint structure.", + "query_type": "sep", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1, + 3, + 5, + 6 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "UNKNOWN": 2, + "CONTRADICTED": 6 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "rel_seating_0000", + "domain": "relational", + "subdomain": "seating_arrangement", + "logic_type": "propositional", + "premises": [ + "There are 4 people seated at a circular table: Willow, Rachel, Paul, and Olivia.", + "Each person occupies exactly one seat and all seats are distinct.", + "Rachel must sit directly next to Paul.", + "Willow must sit directly next to Paul.", + "Willow must sit directly next to Olivia." + ], + "formal_representation": "; Seating: 4 people, circular\n; Variables: pos_X in [0, 3] for each person\n; All-different constraint on positions\n; CONSTRAINT: adjacent(Rachel, Paul)\n; CONSTRAINT: adjacent(Willow, Paul)\n; CONSTRAINT: adjacent(Willow, Olivia)", + "entities": [ + "Willow", + "Rachel", + "Paul", + "Olivia" + ], + "num_entities": 4, + "constraint_type": "circular", + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 5, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Can Paul sit at position 3?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Position 3 is available to Paul in some arrangements but not others, depending on how other constraints resolve.", + "query_type": "pos", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Is it possible for Willow to be in the first seat?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Position 1 is available to Willow in some arrangements but not others, depending on how other constraints resolve.", + "query_type": "pos", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "In every valid arrangement, is Rachel adjacent to Olivia?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "After accounting for all adjacency constraints, every satisfying assignment requires Rachel next to Olivia.", + "query_type": "adj_forced", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Can Willow and Rachel be separated by exactly 1 seat?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "No valid arrangement has exactly 1 seat(s) between Willow and Rachel, given the circular constraint structure.", + "query_type": "sep", + "depends_on": [ + 1, + 2 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Can Paul sit at position 2?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Position 2 is available to Paul in some arrangements but not others, depending on how other constraints resolve.", + "query_type": "pos", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "UNKNOWN": 3, + "ENTAILED": 1, + "CONTRADICTED": 1 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "rel_assign_0017", + "domain": "relational", + "subdomain": "team_assignment", + "logic_type": "propositional", + "premises": [ + "There are 6 persons: Grace, Theo, Hank, Priya, Vince, and Jade.", + "There are 4 departments: Research, Finance, Marketing, and Operations.", + "Each person is assigned to exactly one department.", + "Theo and Hank must be assigned to the same department.", + "Priya and Jade must be assigned to the same department.", + "Theo and Vince must be assigned to the same department." + ], + "formal_representation": "; Assignment: 6 persons -> 4 departments\n; CONSTRAINT: ('same', 'Theo', 'Hank')\n; CONSTRAINT: ('same', 'Priya', 'Jade')\n; CONSTRAINT: ('same', 'Theo', 'Vince')", + "entities": [ + "Grace", + "Theo", + "Hank", + "Priya", + "Vince", + "Jade" + ], + "slots": [ + "Research", + "Finance", + "Marketing", + "Operations" + ], + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 6, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Must at least 3 person(s) be assigned to Marketing?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid assignments have 3+ person(s) in Marketing and others do not.", + "query_type": "capacity", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Is it feasible for Theo to be placed in Research?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Theo may or may not end up in Research\u2014multiple valid assignments exist with different placements.", + "query_type": "slot_possible", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Must at least 3 person(s) be assigned to Research?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid assignments have 3+ person(s) in Research and others do not.", + "query_type": "capacity", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Must Theo be assigned to Operations?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Theo may or may not end up in Operations\u2014multiple valid assignments exist with different placements.", + "query_type": "forced_slot", + "depends_on": [ + 1 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Must at least 2 person(s) be assigned to Research?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid assignments have 2+ person(s) in Research and others do not.", + "query_type": "capacity", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q5", + "query": "Is it possible for Hank and Vince to share a department?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "The combined constraints force Hank and Vince into the same department in every valid assignment.", + "query_type": "same_slot", + "depends_on": [] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "UNKNOWN": 5, + "ENTAILED": 1 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "rel_assign_0003", + "domain": "relational", + "subdomain": "office_assignment", + "logic_type": "propositional", + "premises": [ + "There are 4 employees: Cyrus, Jade, Grace, and Diana.", + "There are 3 offices: Room A, Room B, and Room E.", + "Each employee is assigned to exactly one office.", + "Jade and Grace must be in different offices.", + "Cyrus cannot be assigned to Room B.", + "Diana must be assigned to Room B." + ], + "formal_representation": "; Assignment: 4 employees -> 3 offices\n; CONSTRAINT: ('diff', 'Jade', 'Grace')\n; CONSTRAINT: ('banned', 'Cyrus', 'Room B')\n; CONSTRAINT: ('forced', 'Diana', 'Room B')", + "entities": [ + "Cyrus", + "Jade", + "Grace", + "Diana" + ], + "slots": [ + "Room A", + "Room B", + "Room E" + ], + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 7, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Is it feasible for Jade to be placed in Room A?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Jade may or may not end up in Room A\u2014multiple valid assignments exist with different placements.", + "query_type": "slot_possible", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Is it feasible for Grace to be placed in Room A?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Grace may or may not end up in Room A\u2014multiple valid assignments exist with different placements.", + "query_type": "slot_possible", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Is it feasible for Jade to be placed in Room B?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Jade may or may not end up in Room B\u2014multiple valid assignments exist with different placements.", + "query_type": "slot_possible", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Must at least 3 employee(s) be assigned to Room E?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "No valid assignment places 3 or more employee(s) in Room E, given the constraints.", + "query_type": "capacity", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Must Cyrus be assigned to Room E?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Cyrus may or may not end up in Room E\u2014multiple valid assignments exist with different placements.", + "query_type": "forced_slot", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q5", + "query": "Is Diana's assignment to Room A guaranteed?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "Diana cannot be placed in Room A without violating at least one constraint.", + "query_type": "forced_slot", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q6", + "query": "Can Grace and Cyrus be in the same office?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid assignments place Grace and Cyrus together, while others separate them. The constraints are insufficient to determine this.", + "query_type": "same_slot", + "depends_on": [ + 1, + 4 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "UNKNOWN": 5, + "CONTRADICTED": 2 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "rel_seating_0098", + "domain": "relational", + "subdomain": "seating_arrangement", + "logic_type": "propositional", + "premises": [ + "There are 7 people seated at a circular table: Jack, Nathan, Helena, Oscar, Bob, Sam, and Amara.", + "Each person occupies exactly one seat and all seats are distinct.", + "Bob must not sit directly next to Amara.", + "Bob must not sit directly next to Sam.", + "Jack must sit directly next to Sam.", + "Sam must not sit directly next to Amara.", + "Jack must sit directly next to Oscar.", + "Nathan must not sit directly next to Amara." + ], + "formal_representation": "; Seating: 7 people, circular\n; Variables: pos_X in [0, 6] for each person\n; All-different constraint on positions\n; CONSTRAINT: not_adjacent(Bob, Amara)\n; CONSTRAINT: not_adjacent(Bob, Sam)\n; CONSTRAINT: adjacent(Jack, Sam)\n; CONSTRAINT: not_adjacent(Sam, Amara)\n; CONSTRAINT: adjacent(Jack, Oscar)\n; CONSTRAINT: not_adjacent(Nathan, Amara)", + "entities": [ + "Jack", + "Nathan", + "Helena", + "Oscar", + "Bob", + "Sam", + "Amara" + ], + "num_entities": 7, + "constraint_type": "circular", + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 5, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Must Jack always be seated next to Bob?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "No valid arrangement exists where Jack is adjacent to Bob, given the combined constraints.", + "query_type": "adj_forced", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Must Oscar always be seated next to Amara?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "After accounting for all adjacency constraints, every satisfying assignment requires Oscar next to Amara.", + "query_type": "adj_forced", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "In every valid arrangement, is Nathan adjacent to Oscar?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "No valid arrangement exists where Nathan is adjacent to Oscar, given the combined constraints.", + "query_type": "adj_forced", + "depends_on": [ + 1 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Can Helena sit at position 2?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Position 2 is available to Helena in some arrangements but not others, depending on how other constraints resolve.", + "query_type": "pos", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Could Oscar end up adjacent to Bob?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "The combination of constraints on Oscar and Bob's required/forbidden neighbors leaves no valid arrangement where they are adjacent.", + "query_type": "adj", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1, + 2 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "CONTRADICTED": 3, + "ENTAILED": 1, + "UNKNOWN": 1 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "rel_seating_0065", + "domain": "relational", + "subdomain": "seating_arrangement", + "logic_type": "propositional", + "premises": [ + "There are 6 people seated at a circular table: Zane, Olivia, Luna, Sam, Iris, and Daphne.", + "Each person occupies exactly one seat and all seats are distinct.", + "Sam must not sit directly next to Iris.", + "Olivia must sit directly next to Sam.", + "Olivia must sit directly next to Iris.", + "Zane must not sit directly next to Daphne.", + "Iris must sit directly next to Daphne.", + "Zane must sit directly next to Luna." + ], + "formal_representation": "; Seating: 6 people, circular\n; Variables: pos_X in [0, 5] for each person\n; All-different constraint on positions\n; CONSTRAINT: not_adjacent(Sam, Iris)\n; CONSTRAINT: adjacent(Olivia, Sam)\n; CONSTRAINT: adjacent(Olivia, Iris)\n; CONSTRAINT: not_adjacent(Zane, Daphne)\n; CONSTRAINT: adjacent(Iris, Daphne)\n; CONSTRAINT: adjacent(Zane, Luna)", + "entities": [ + "Zane", + "Olivia", + "Luna", + "Sam", + "Iris", + "Daphne" + ], + "num_entities": 6, + "constraint_type": "circular", + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 8, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Can Iris sit at position 5?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Position 5 is available to Iris in some arrangements but not others, depending on how other constraints resolve.", + "query_type": "pos", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Could Zane end up adjacent to Iris?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "The combination of constraints on Zane and Iris's required/forbidden neighbors leaves no valid arrangement where they are adjacent.", + "query_type": "adj", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Is it possible for Luna to be in the fourth seat?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Position 4 is available to Luna in some arrangements but not others, depending on how other constraints resolve.", + "query_type": "pos", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Is it possible for Sam to be in the second seat?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Position 2 is available to Sam in some arrangements but not others, depending on how other constraints resolve.", + "query_type": "pos", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Can Zane and Daphne be separated by exactly 3 seats?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "No valid arrangement has exactly 3 seat(s) between Zane and Daphne, given the circular constraint structure.", + "query_type": "sep", + "depends_on": [ + 1 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q5", + "query": "Can Daphne and Sam be separated by exactly 2 seats?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "No valid arrangement has exactly 2 seat(s) between Daphne and Sam, given the circular constraint structure.", + "query_type": "sep", + "depends_on": [ + 3, + 4 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q6", + "query": "Is it possible for Zane to be in the sixth seat?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Position 6 is available to Zane in some arrangements but not others, depending on how other constraints resolve.", + "query_type": "pos", + "depends_on": [ + 1, + 4 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q7", + "query": "Could Luna end up adjacent to Iris?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "The combination of constraints on Luna and Iris's required/forbidden neighbors leaves no valid arrangement where they are adjacent.", + "query_type": "adj", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1, + 2 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "UNKNOWN": 4, + "CONTRADICTED": 4 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "rel_seating_0119", + "domain": "relational", + "subdomain": "seating_arrangement", + "logic_type": "propositional", + "premises": [ + "There are 6 people seated at a row of chairs: Sasha, Helena, Zane, Luna, Jade, and Vince.", + "Each person occupies exactly one chair and all chairs are distinct.", + "Sasha must sit directly next to Helena.", + "Helena must sit directly next to Zane.", + "Jade must sit directly next to Vince.", + "Sasha must not sit directly next to Jade.", + "Helena must not sit directly next to Vince." + ], + "formal_representation": "; Seating: 6 people, linear\n; Variables: pos_X in [0, 5] for each person\n; All-different constraint on positions\n; CONSTRAINT: adjacent(Sasha, Helena)\n; CONSTRAINT: adjacent(Helena, Zane)\n; CONSTRAINT: adjacent(Jade, Vince)\n; CONSTRAINT: not_adjacent(Sasha, Jade)\n; CONSTRAINT: not_adjacent(Helena, Vince)", + "entities": [ + "Sasha", + "Helena", + "Zane", + "Luna", + "Jade", + "Vince" + ], + "num_entities": 6, + "constraint_type": "linear", + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 5, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Is it possible for Sasha to be in the first seat?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Position 1 is available to Sasha in some arrangements but not others, depending on how other constraints resolve.", + "query_type": "pos", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Can Sasha and Zane be separated by exactly 2 seats?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "The constraints force exactly 2 seat(s) between Sasha and Zane in every valid linear arrangement.", + "query_type": "sep", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Can Sasha sit at position 5?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Position 5 is available to Sasha in some arrangements but not others, depending on how other constraints resolve.", + "query_type": "pos", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Can Sasha and Vince be separated by exactly 3 seats?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether Sasha and Vince have exactly 3 seat(s) between them depends on how the remaining positions resolve.", + "query_type": "sep", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1, + 2 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Is it possible for Sasha and Vince to be seated beside each other?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "The constraints do not fully determine whether Sasha and Vince are adjacent. Some valid arrangements place them together, others do not.", + "query_type": "adj", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1, + 2, + 3 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "UNKNOWN": 4, + "ENTAILED": 1 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "rel_seating_0005", + "domain": "relational", + "subdomain": "seating_arrangement", + "logic_type": "propositional", + "premises": [ + "There are 4 people seated at a circular table: Charlie, Paul, Elias, and Nora.", + "Each person occupies exactly one seat and all seats are distinct.", + "Charlie must not sit directly next to Paul.", + "Elias must not sit directly next to Nora.", + "Charlie must sit directly next to Nora.", + "Charlie must sit directly next to Elias.", + "Paul must sit directly next to Nora.", + "Paul must sit directly next to Elias." + ], + "formal_representation": "; Seating: 4 people, circular\n; Variables: pos_X in [0, 3] for each person\n; All-different constraint on positions\n; CONSTRAINT: not_adjacent(Charlie, Paul)\n; CONSTRAINT: not_adjacent(Elias, Nora)\n; CONSTRAINT: adjacent(Charlie, Nora)\n; CONSTRAINT: adjacent(Charlie, Elias)\n; CONSTRAINT: adjacent(Paul, Nora)\n; CONSTRAINT: adjacent(Paul, Elias)", + "entities": [ + "Charlie", + "Paul", + "Elias", + "Nora" + ], + "num_entities": 4, + "constraint_type": "circular", + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 7, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Can Charlie and Elias be separated by exactly 2 seats?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "No valid arrangement has exactly 2 seat(s) between Charlie and Elias, given the circular constraint structure.", + "query_type": "sep", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Can Paul and Nora be separated by exactly 2 seats?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "No valid arrangement has exactly 2 seat(s) between Paul and Nora, given the circular constraint structure.", + "query_type": "sep", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Can Paul and Charlie be separated by exactly 2 seats?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "The constraints force exactly 2 seat(s) between Paul and Charlie in every valid circular arrangement.", + "query_type": "sep", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Can Elias sit at position 3?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Position 3 is available to Elias in some arrangements but not others, depending on how other constraints resolve.", + "query_type": "pos", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Can Nora and Paul be separated by exactly 1 seat?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "The constraints force exactly 1 seat(s) between Nora and Paul in every valid circular arrangement.", + "query_type": "sep", + "depends_on": [ + 1, + 2 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q5", + "query": "Can Nora and Elias be separated by exactly 2 seats?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "The constraints force exactly 2 seat(s) between Nora and Elias in every valid circular arrangement.", + "query_type": "sep", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1, + 3, + 4 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q6", + "query": "Is it possible for Nora to be in the second seat?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Position 2 is available to Nora in some arrangements but not others, depending on how other constraints resolve.", + "query_type": "pos", + "depends_on": [ + 1, + 4, + 5 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "CONTRADICTED": 2, + "ENTAILED": 3, + "UNKNOWN": 2 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "rel_assign_0092", + "domain": "relational", + "subdomain": "shift_assignment", + "logic_type": "propositional", + "premises": [ + "There are 5 workers: Gavin, Ursula, Freya, Elias, and Blake.", + "There are 3 shifts: morning, evening, and night.", + "Each worker is assigned to exactly one shift.", + "Gavin and Ursula must be assigned to the same shift.", + "Ursula and Blake must be assigned to the same shift.", + "Blake must be assigned to evening.", + "Freya and Elias must be assigned to the same shift.", + "Freya cannot be assigned to night.", + "Elias and Blake must be in different shifts." + ], + "formal_representation": "; Assignment: 5 workers -> 3 shifts\n; CONSTRAINT: ('same', 'Gavin', 'Ursula')\n; CONSTRAINT: ('same', 'Ursula', 'Blake')\n; CONSTRAINT: ('forced', 'Blake', 'evening')\n; CONSTRAINT: ('same', 'Freya', 'Elias')\n; CONSTRAINT: ('banned', 'Freya', 'night')\n; CONSTRAINT: ('diff', 'Elias', 'Blake')", + "entities": [ + "Gavin", + "Ursula", + "Freya", + "Elias", + "Blake" + ], + "slots": [ + "morning", + "evening", + "night" + ], + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 5, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Must Elias be assigned to evening?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "Elias cannot be placed in evening without violating at least one constraint.", + "query_type": "forced_slot", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Can Freya be in night?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "Freya cannot be placed in night without violating at least one constraint.", + "query_type": "forced_slot", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Can Freya and Elias be in the same shift?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "The combined constraints force Freya and Elias into the same shift in every valid assignment.", + "query_type": "same_slot", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Must at least 1 worker(s) be assigned to night?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "No valid assignment places 1 or more worker(s) in night, given the constraints.", + "query_type": "capacity", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Must Gavin be assigned to morning?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "Gavin cannot be placed in morning without violating at least one constraint.", + "query_type": "forced_slot", + "depends_on": [] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "CONTRADICTED": 4, + "ENTAILED": 1 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "rel_assign_0062", + "domain": "relational", + "subdomain": "color_assignment", + "logic_type": "propositional", + "premises": [ + "There are 5 nodes: Priya, Nora, Paul, Charlie, and Sasha.", + "There are 3 colors: white, black, and red.", + "Each node is assigned to exactly one color.", + "Nora and Sasha must be in different colors.", + "Sasha must be assigned to white.", + "Nora and Paul must be assigned to the same color.", + "Paul and Sasha must be in different colors.", + "Priya and Nora must be assigned to the same color." + ], + "formal_representation": "; Assignment: 5 nodes -> 3 colors\n; CONSTRAINT: ('diff', 'Nora', 'Sasha')\n; CONSTRAINT: ('forced', 'Sasha', 'white')\n; CONSTRAINT: ('same', 'Nora', 'Paul')\n; CONSTRAINT: ('diff', 'Paul', 'Sasha')\n; CONSTRAINT: ('same', 'Priya', 'Nora')", + "entities": [ + "Priya", + "Nora", + "Paul", + "Charlie", + "Sasha" + ], + "slots": [ + "white", + "black", + "red" + ], + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 8, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Must at least 2 node(s) be assigned to black?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid assignments have 2+ node(s) in black and others do not.", + "query_type": "capacity", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Is it possible for Sasha and Nora to share a color?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "The constraints prohibit Sasha and Nora from sharing a color; no valid assignment allows it.", + "query_type": "same_slot", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Must at least 1 node(s) be assigned to red?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid assignments have 1+ node(s) in red and others do not.", + "query_type": "capacity", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Is it possible for Priya and Nora to share a color?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "The combined constraints force Priya and Nora into the same color in every valid assignment.", + "query_type": "same_slot", + "depends_on": [ + 1 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Must Nora and Sasha always end up in the same color?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "The constraints prohibit Nora and Sasha from sharing a color; no valid assignment allows it.", + "query_type": "same_slot", + "depends_on": [ + 1, + 3 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q5", + "query": "Is Priya's assignment to black guaranteed?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Priya may or may not end up in black\u2014multiple valid assignments exist with different placements.", + "query_type": "forced_slot", + "depends_on": [ + 3 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q6", + "query": "Must at least 1 node(s) be assigned to white?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "The constraints guarantee at least 1 node(s) in white across all valid assignments.", + "query_type": "capacity", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q7", + "query": "Is it feasible for Priya to be placed in white?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "Priya cannot be placed in white without violating at least one constraint.", + "query_type": "slot_possible", + "depends_on": [ + 3, + 5 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "UNKNOWN": 3, + "CONTRADICTED": 3, + "ENTAILED": 2 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "rel_seating_0061", + "domain": "relational", + "subdomain": "seating_arrangement", + "logic_type": "propositional", + "premises": [ + "There are 5 people seated at a row of chairs: Willow, Gavin, Hank, Yara, and Charlie.", + "Each person occupies exactly one chair and all chairs are distinct.", + "Willow must sit directly next to Charlie.", + "Gavin must sit directly next to Yara.", + "Gavin must sit directly next to Charlie.", + "Willow must not sit directly next to Gavin.", + "Hank must sit directly next to Yara." + ], + "formal_representation": "; Seating: 5 people, linear\n; Variables: pos_X in [0, 4] for each person\n; All-different constraint on positions\n; CONSTRAINT: adjacent(Willow, Charlie)\n; CONSTRAINT: adjacent(Gavin, Yara)\n; CONSTRAINT: adjacent(Gavin, Charlie)\n; CONSTRAINT: not_adjacent(Willow, Gavin)\n; CONSTRAINT: adjacent(Hank, Yara)", + "entities": [ + "Willow", + "Gavin", + "Hank", + "Yara", + "Charlie" + ], + "num_entities": 5, + "constraint_type": "linear", + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 6, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "In every valid arrangement, is Willow adjacent to Hank?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "No valid arrangement exists where Willow is adjacent to Hank, given the combined constraints.", + "query_type": "adj_forced", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Can Willow and Hank be separated by exactly 1 seat?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "No valid arrangement has exactly 1 seat(s) between Willow and Hank, given the linear constraint structure.", + "query_type": "sep", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Could Hank end up adjacent to Charlie?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "The combination of constraints on Hank and Charlie's required/forbidden neighbors leaves no valid arrangement where they are adjacent.", + "query_type": "adj", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Can Charlie and Willow be separated by exactly 1 seat?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "The constraints force exactly 1 seat(s) between Charlie and Willow in every valid linear arrangement.", + "query_type": "sep", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1, + 2 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "In every valid arrangement, is Gavin adjacent to Hank?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "No valid arrangement exists where Gavin is adjacent to Hank, given the combined constraints.", + "query_type": "adj_forced", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1, + 2 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q5", + "query": "Can Charlie sit at position 2?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Position 2 is available to Charlie in some arrangements but not others, depending on how other constraints resolve.", + "query_type": "pos", + "depends_on": [ + 2, + 3 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "CONTRADICTED": 4, + "ENTAILED": 1, + "UNKNOWN": 1 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "rel_assign_0077", + "domain": "relational", + "subdomain": "shift_assignment", + "logic_type": "propositional", + "premises": [ + "There are 5 workers: Sasha, Kyle, Frank, Hank, and Reed.", + "There are 4 shifts: night, afternoon, evening, and morning.", + "Each worker is assigned to exactly one shift.", + "Kyle and Hank must be in different shifts.", + "Sasha cannot be assigned to afternoon.", + "Hank and Reed must be in different shifts.", + "Kyle must be assigned to night.", + "Sasha and Kyle must be assigned to the same shift.", + "Kyle and Reed must be assigned to the same shift.", + "Sasha and Hank must be in different shifts." + ], + "formal_representation": "; Assignment: 5 workers -> 4 shifts\n; CONSTRAINT: ('diff', 'Kyle', 'Hank')\n; CONSTRAINT: ('banned', 'Sasha', 'afternoon')\n; CONSTRAINT: ('diff', 'Hank', 'Reed')\n; CONSTRAINT: ('forced', 'Kyle', 'night')\n; CONSTRAINT: ('same', 'Sasha', 'Kyle')\n; CONSTRAINT: ('same', 'Kyle', 'Reed')\n; CONSTRAINT: ('diff', 'Sasha', 'Hank')", + "entities": [ + "Sasha", + "Kyle", + "Frank", + "Hank", + "Reed" + ], + "slots": [ + "night", + "afternoon", + "evening", + "morning" + ], + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 6, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Is it possible for Frank and Hank to share a shift?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid assignments place Frank and Hank together, while others separate them. The constraints are insufficient to determine this.", + "query_type": "same_slot", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Is it feasible for Sasha to be placed in morning?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "Sasha cannot be placed in morning without violating at least one constraint.", + "query_type": "slot_possible", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Must at least 3 worker(s) be assigned to afternoon?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "No valid assignment places 3 or more worker(s) in afternoon, given the constraints.", + "query_type": "capacity", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Must Sasha be assigned to evening?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "Sasha cannot be placed in evening without violating at least one constraint.", + "query_type": "forced_slot", + "depends_on": [ + 1 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Can Frank be in night?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Frank may or may not end up in night\u2014multiple valid assignments exist with different placements.", + "query_type": "forced_slot", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q5", + "query": "Is it possible for Hank and Sasha to share a shift?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "The constraints prohibit Hank and Sasha from sharing a shift; no valid assignment allows it.", + "query_type": "same_slot", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1, + 3 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "UNKNOWN": 2, + "CONTRADICTED": 4 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "rel_seating_0043", + "domain": "relational", + "subdomain": "seating_arrangement", + "logic_type": "propositional", + "premises": [ + "There are 4 people seated at a row of chairs: Paul, Frank, Blake, and Hank.", + "Each person occupies exactly one chair and all chairs are distinct.", + "Frank must sit directly next to Hank.", + "Blake must sit directly next to Hank.", + "Frank must not sit directly next to Blake." + ], + "formal_representation": "; Seating: 4 people, linear\n; Variables: pos_X in [0, 3] for each person\n; All-different constraint on positions\n; CONSTRAINT: adjacent(Frank, Hank)\n; CONSTRAINT: adjacent(Blake, Hank)\n; CONSTRAINT: not_adjacent(Frank, Blake)", + "entities": [ + "Paul", + "Frank", + "Blake", + "Hank" + ], + "num_entities": 4, + "constraint_type": "linear", + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 7, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "In every valid arrangement, is Paul adjacent to Blake?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid arrangements have Paul next to Blake and others do not. The constraints do not force this adjacency.", + "query_type": "adj_forced", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Is it possible for Paul to be in the fourth seat?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Position 4 is available to Paul in some arrangements but not others, depending on how other constraints resolve.", + "query_type": "pos", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Can Paul sit at position 4?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Position 4 is available to Paul in some arrangements but not others, depending on how other constraints resolve.", + "query_type": "pos", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Can Frank sit at position 3?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Position 3 is available to Frank in some arrangements but not others, depending on how other constraints resolve.", + "query_type": "pos", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "In every valid arrangement, is Paul adjacent to Hank?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "No valid arrangement exists where Paul is adjacent to Hank, given the combined constraints.", + "query_type": "adj_forced", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1, + 2 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q5", + "query": "Can Paul sit directly next to Frank?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "The constraints do not fully determine whether Paul and Frank are adjacent. Some valid arrangements place them together, others do not.", + "query_type": "adj", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1, + 2, + 3, + 4 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q6", + "query": "Can Hank sit at position 3?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Position 3 is available to Hank in some arrangements but not others, depending on how other constraints resolve.", + "query_type": "pos", + "depends_on": [ + 4 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "UNKNOWN": 6, + "CONTRADICTED": 1 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "rel_seating_0055", + "domain": "relational", + "subdomain": "seating_arrangement", + "logic_type": "propositional", + "premises": [ + "There are 5 people seated at a circular table: Zane, Bob, Olivia, Vince, and Iris.", + "Each person occupies exactly one seat and all seats are distinct.", + "Bob must sit directly next to Olivia.", + "Zane must sit directly next to Olivia.", + "Bob must sit directly next to Vince." + ], + "formal_representation": "; Seating: 5 people, circular\n; Variables: pos_X in [0, 4] for each person\n; All-different constraint on positions\n; CONSTRAINT: adjacent(Bob, Olivia)\n; CONSTRAINT: adjacent(Zane, Olivia)\n; CONSTRAINT: adjacent(Bob, Vince)", + "entities": [ + "Zane", + "Bob", + "Olivia", + "Vince", + "Iris" + ], + "num_entities": 5, + "constraint_type": "circular", + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 6, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Is it possible for Zane and Iris to be seated beside each other?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "Given the adjacency constraints on Zane and Iris's neighbors, all valid seatings force them to be adjacent.", + "query_type": "adj", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Can Zane and Iris be separated by exactly 2 seats?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "No valid arrangement has exactly 2 seat(s) between Zane and Iris, given the circular constraint structure.", + "query_type": "sep", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Can Zane and Olivia be separated by exactly 2 seats?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "No valid arrangement has exactly 2 seat(s) between Zane and Olivia, given the circular constraint structure.", + "query_type": "sep", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Must Olivia always be seated next to Iris?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "No valid arrangement exists where Olivia is adjacent to Iris, given the combined constraints.", + "query_type": "adj_forced", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1, + 2 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Can Zane and Olivia be separated by exactly 1 seat?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "The constraints force exactly 1 seat(s) between Zane and Olivia in every valid circular arrangement.", + "query_type": "sep", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1, + 2, + 3 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q5", + "query": "Can Bob and Iris be separated by exactly 2 seats?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "The constraints force exactly 2 seat(s) between Bob and Iris in every valid circular arrangement.", + "query_type": "sep", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1, + 3 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "ENTAILED": 3, + "CONTRADICTED": 3 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "rel_assign_0085", + "domain": "relational", + "subdomain": "team_assignment", + "logic_type": "propositional", + "premises": [ + "There are 4 persons: Nora, Jade, Gavin, and Grace.", + "There are 3 departments: Legal, HR, and Sales.", + "Each person is assigned to exactly one department.", + "Nora and Grace must be assigned to the same department.", + "Gavin must be assigned to Sales.", + "Nora cannot be assigned to Legal.", + "Nora and Gavin must be assigned to the same department." + ], + "formal_representation": "; Assignment: 4 persons -> 3 departments\n; CONSTRAINT: ('same', 'Nora', 'Grace')\n; CONSTRAINT: ('forced', 'Gavin', 'Sales')\n; CONSTRAINT: ('banned', 'Nora', 'Legal')\n; CONSTRAINT: ('same', 'Nora', 'Gavin')", + "entities": [ + "Nora", + "Jade", + "Gavin", + "Grace" + ], + "slots": [ + "Legal", + "HR", + "Sales" + ], + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 5, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Must at least 2 person(s) be assigned to Sales?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "The constraints guarantee at least 2 person(s) in Sales across all valid assignments.", + "query_type": "capacity", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Is it feasible for Gavin to be placed in Legal?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "Gavin cannot be placed in Legal without violating at least one constraint.", + "query_type": "slot_possible", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Is it possible for Grace and Nora to share a department?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "The combined constraints force Grace and Nora into the same department in every valid assignment.", + "query_type": "same_slot", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Must at least 1 person(s) be assigned to HR?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid assignments have 1+ person(s) in HR and others do not.", + "query_type": "capacity", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Is it feasible for Grace to be placed in HR?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "Grace cannot be placed in HR without violating at least one constraint.", + "query_type": "slot_possible", + "depends_on": [ + 2 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "ENTAILED": 2, + "CONTRADICTED": 2, + "UNKNOWN": 1 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "rel_assign_0070", + "domain": "relational", + "subdomain": "office_assignment", + "logic_type": "propositional", + "premises": [ + "There are 4 employees: Diana, Helena, Blake, and Elias.", + "There are 3 offices: Room E, Room C, and Room B.", + "Each employee is assigned to exactly one office.", + "Blake and Elias must be assigned to the same office.", + "Diana and Blake must be assigned to the same office.", + "Helena and Blake must be in different offices.", + "Diana cannot be assigned to Room C.", + "Blake must be assigned to Room E." + ], + "formal_representation": "; Assignment: 4 employees -> 3 offices\n; CONSTRAINT: ('same', 'Blake', 'Elias')\n; CONSTRAINT: ('same', 'Diana', 'Blake')\n; CONSTRAINT: ('diff', 'Helena', 'Blake')\n; CONSTRAINT: ('banned', 'Diana', 'Room C')\n; CONSTRAINT: ('forced', 'Blake', 'Room E')", + "entities": [ + "Diana", + "Helena", + "Blake", + "Elias" + ], + "slots": [ + "Room E", + "Room C", + "Room B" + ], + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 8, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Must at least 2 employee(s) be assigned to Room B?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "No valid assignment places 2 or more employee(s) in Room B, given the constraints.", + "query_type": "capacity", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Is it feasible for Helena to be placed in Room B?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Helena may or may not end up in Room B\u2014multiple valid assignments exist with different placements.", + "query_type": "slot_possible", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Is it feasible for Helena to be placed in Room C?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Helena may or may not end up in Room C\u2014multiple valid assignments exist with different placements.", + "query_type": "slot_possible", + "depends_on": [ + 1 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Is it feasible for Blake to be placed in Room C?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "Blake cannot be placed in Room C without violating at least one constraint.", + "query_type": "slot_possible", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Must at least 2 employee(s) be assigned to Room E?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "The constraints guarantee at least 2 employee(s) in Room E across all valid assignments.", + "query_type": "capacity", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q5", + "query": "Must at least 1 employee(s) be assigned to Room C?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid assignments have 1+ employee(s) in Room C and others do not.", + "query_type": "capacity", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q6", + "query": "Is Helena's assignment to Room E guaranteed?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "Helena cannot be placed in Room E without violating at least one constraint.", + "query_type": "forced_slot", + "depends_on": [ + 1, + 2 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q7", + "query": "Is it feasible for Elias to be placed in Room E?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "All constraints together force Elias into Room E; no other office is feasible.", + "query_type": "slot_possible", + "depends_on": [] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "CONTRADICTED": 3, + "UNKNOWN": 3, + "ENTAILED": 2 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "rel_seating_0082", + "domain": "relational", + "subdomain": "seating_arrangement", + "logic_type": "propositional", + "premises": [ + "There are 4 people seated at a row of chairs: Iris, Mia, Alice, and Nora.", + "Each person occupies exactly one chair and all chairs are distinct.", + "Iris must not sit directly next to Alice.", + "Iris must sit directly next to Mia.", + "Iris must sit directly next to Nora." + ], + "formal_representation": "; Seating: 4 people, linear\n; Variables: pos_X in [0, 3] for each person\n; All-different constraint on positions\n; CONSTRAINT: not_adjacent(Iris, Alice)\n; CONSTRAINT: adjacent(Iris, Mia)\n; CONSTRAINT: adjacent(Iris, Nora)", + "entities": [ + "Iris", + "Mia", + "Alice", + "Nora" + ], + "num_entities": 4, + "constraint_type": "linear", + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 7, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Can Mia sit at position 1?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Position 1 is available to Mia in some arrangements but not others, depending on how other constraints resolve.", + "query_type": "pos", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Can Alice sit at position 1?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Position 1 is available to Alice in some arrangements but not others, depending on how other constraints resolve.", + "query_type": "pos", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Can Nora and Mia be separated by exactly 1 seat?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "No valid arrangement has exactly 1 seat(s) between Nora and Mia, given the linear constraint structure.", + "query_type": "sep", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Is it possible for Mia and Nora to be seated beside each other?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "The combination of constraints on Mia and Nora's required/forbidden neighbors leaves no valid arrangement where they are adjacent.", + "query_type": "adj", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 2 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Is it possible for Mia to be in the fourth seat?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Position 4 is available to Mia in some arrangements but not others, depending on how other constraints resolve.", + "query_type": "pos", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 2, + 3 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q5", + "query": "Must Alice always be seated next to Nora?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid arrangements have Alice next to Nora and others do not. The constraints do not force this adjacency.", + "query_type": "adj_forced", + "depends_on": [ + 1, + 2, + 3 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q6", + "query": "Can Iris sit at position 2?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Position 2 is available to Iris in some arrangements but not others, depending on how other constraints resolve.", + "query_type": "pos", + "depends_on": [] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "UNKNOWN": 5, + "CONTRADICTED": 2 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "rel_seating_0067", + "domain": "relational", + "subdomain": "seating_arrangement", + "logic_type": "propositional", + "premises": [ + "There are 7 people seated at a circular table: Yara, Wendy, Luna, Theo, Kyle, Grace, and Blake.", + "Each person occupies exactly one seat and all seats are distinct.", + "Yara must not sit directly next to Blake.", + "Wendy must not sit directly next to Luna.", + "Kyle must sit directly next to Grace.", + "Kyle must sit directly next to Blake.", + "Luna must not sit directly next to Blake." + ], + "formal_representation": "; Seating: 7 people, circular\n; Variables: pos_X in [0, 6] for each person\n; All-different constraint on positions\n; CONSTRAINT: not_adjacent(Yara, Blake)\n; CONSTRAINT: not_adjacent(Wendy, Luna)\n; CONSTRAINT: adjacent(Kyle, Grace)\n; CONSTRAINT: adjacent(Kyle, Blake)\n; CONSTRAINT: not_adjacent(Luna, Blake)", + "entities": [ + "Yara", + "Wendy", + "Luna", + "Theo", + "Kyle", + "Grace", + "Blake" + ], + "num_entities": 7, + "constraint_type": "circular", + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 5, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "In every valid arrangement, is Theo adjacent to Kyle?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "No valid arrangement exists where Theo is adjacent to Kyle, given the combined constraints.", + "query_type": "adj_forced", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Must Yara always be seated next to Wendy?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid arrangements have Yara next to Wendy and others do not. The constraints do not force this adjacency.", + "query_type": "adj_forced", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Can Blake sit at position 5?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Position 5 is available to Blake in some arrangements but not others, depending on how other constraints resolve.", + "query_type": "pos", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "In every valid arrangement, is Theo adjacent to Blake?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid arrangements have Theo next to Blake and others do not. The constraints do not force this adjacency.", + "query_type": "adj_forced", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 2 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Is it possible for Blake to be in the sixth seat?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Position 6 is available to Blake in some arrangements but not others, depending on how other constraints resolve.", + "query_type": "pos", + "depends_on": [ + 2, + 3 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "CONTRADICTED": 1, + "UNKNOWN": 4 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "temp_sched_0010", + "domain": "temporal", + "subdomain": "event_scheduling", + "logic_type": "linear_arithmetic", + "premises": [ + "A day has 8 available hours (slots 0 through 7).", + "There are 4 events to schedule: Security audit, Sprint planning, Keynote, and Architecture review.", + "Security audit takes 2 hour(s).", + "Sprint planning takes 1 hour(s).", + "Keynote takes 3 hour(s).", + "Architecture review takes 3 hour(s).", + "Security audit and Architecture review must not overlap.", + "There must be at least 2 hour(s) between Sprint planning and Architecture review.", + "There must be at least 2 hour(s) between Sprint planning and Keynote.", + "Security audit must finish before Keynote starts.", + "There must be at least 2 hour(s) between Security audit and Sprint planning.", + "Sprint planning must start no later than hour 5." + ], + "formal_representation": "(set-logic QF_LIA)\n(declare-const s_0 Int) ; start of Security audit\n(assert (>= s_0 0))\n(assert (<= (+ s_0 2) 8))\n(declare-const s_1 Int) ; start of Sprint planning\n(assert (>= s_1 0))\n(assert (<= (+ s_1 1) 8))\n(declare-const s_2 Int) ; start of Keynote\n(assert (>= s_2 0))\n(assert (<= (+ s_2 3) 8))\n(declare-const s_3 Int) ; start of Architecture review\n(assert (>= s_3 0))\n(assert (<= (+ s_3 3) 8))\n; ('no_overlap', 'Security audit', 'Architecture review')\n; ('gap', 'Sprint planning', 'Architecture review', 2)\n; ('gap', 'Sprint planning', 'Keynote', 2)\n; ('before', 'Security audit', 'Keynote')\n; ('gap', 'Security audit', 'Sprint planning', 2)\n; ('latest', 'Sprint planning', 5)\n(check-sat)", + "entities": [ + "Security audit", + "Sprint planning", + "Keynote", + "Architecture review" + ], + "durations": { + "Security audit": 2, + "Sprint planning": 1, + "Keynote": 3, + "Architecture review": 3 + }, + "time_horizon": 8, + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 6, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Can Security audit start before Keynote finishes?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "All ordering and duration constraints force Keynote (duration 3h) to complete before Security audit can begin.", + "query_type": "order", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Can Architecture review and Keynote overlap in time?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "The constraints force Architecture review and Keynote to overlap in every valid schedule.", + "query_type": "overlap", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Does Architecture review always start before Security audit?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "No valid schedule has Architecture review starting before Security audit; the reverse is forced.", + "query_type": "before_after", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Can Security audit and Sprint planning overlap in time?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "No valid schedule allows Security audit and Sprint planning to overlap, given the separation constraints.", + "query_type": "overlap", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 2 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Must Sprint planning finish before Keynote begins?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "All ordering and duration constraints force Sprint planning (duration 1h) to complete before Keynote can begin.", + "query_type": "order", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1, + 3 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q5", + "query": "Can Architecture review fit entirely within hours 4 to 8?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "All constraints force Architecture review (3h) into the window [4, 8] in every valid schedule.", + "query_type": "duration_fit", + "depends_on": [ + 1, + 2 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "ENTAILED": 4, + "CONTRADICTED": 2 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "temp_order_0096", + "domain": "temporal", + "subdomain": "event_ordering", + "logic_type": "linear_arithmetic", + "premises": [ + "There are 6 events that happen in sequence: Compliance check, Data migration, Release planning, Workshop, Town hall, and Networking event.", + "Each event occurs at a unique position (1 = first, 6 = last).", + "Workshop happens immediately before Town hall.", + "Data migration happens before Release planning.", + "Release planning happens immediately before Networking event.", + "Data migration and Networking event are not consecutive events." + ], + "formal_representation": "(set-logic QF_LIA)\n(declare-const ord_0 Int) ; position of Compliance check\n(assert (>= ord_0 1))\n(assert (<= ord_0 6))\n(declare-const ord_1 Int) ; position of Data migration\n(assert (>= ord_1 1))\n(assert (<= ord_1 6))\n(declare-const ord_2 Int) ; position of Release planning\n(assert (>= ord_2 1))\n(assert (<= ord_2 6))\n(declare-const ord_3 Int) ; position of Workshop\n(assert (>= ord_3 1))\n(assert (<= ord_3 6))\n(declare-const ord_4 Int) ; position of Town hall\n(assert (>= ord_4 1))\n(assert (<= ord_4 6))\n(declare-const ord_5 Int) ; position of Networking event\n(assert (>= ord_5 1))\n(assert (<= ord_5 6))\n(assert (distinct ord_0 ord_1 ord_2 ord_3 ord_4 ord_5))\n; ('immediately_before', 'Workshop', 'Town hall')\n; ('before', 'Data migration', 'Release planning')\n; ('immediately_before', 'Release planning', 'Networking event')\n; ('not_adjacent', 'Data migration', 'Networking event')\n(check-sat)", + "entities": [ + "Compliance check", + "Data migration", + "Release planning", + "Workshop", + "Town hall", + "Networking event" + ], + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 6, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Must Data migration happen before Town hall?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "The ordering constraints allow sequences where Data migration is before Town hall and vice versa.", + "query_type": "before", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Must Networking event be the last event?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether Networking event is last depends on how the other ordering constraints resolve.", + "query_type": "first_last", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Must Town hall and Compliance check be consecutive events?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some orderings place Town hall and Compliance check consecutively while others separate them.", + "query_type": "adjacent", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Can Data migration occur before Workshop?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "The ordering constraints allow sequences where Workshop is before Data migration and vice versa.", + "query_type": "before", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Must Data migration be the last event?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "No valid ordering has Data migration as the last event.", + "query_type": "first_last", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 3 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q5", + "query": "Can Data migration occur in position 4?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid orderings place Data migration in position 4, others do not.", + "query_type": "position", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 3, + 4 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "UNKNOWN": 5, + "CONTRADICTED": 1 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "temp_order_0011", + "domain": "temporal", + "subdomain": "event_ordering", + "logic_type": "linear_arithmetic", + "premises": [ + "There are 5 events that happen in sequence: Code review, Budget review, Architecture review, Tech talk, and Performance review.", + "Each event occurs at a unique position (1 = first, 5 = last).", + "Budget review happens before Architecture review.", + "Architecture review happens before Tech talk.", + "Tech talk happens immediately before Performance review." + ], + "formal_representation": "(set-logic QF_LIA)\n(declare-const ord_0 Int) ; position of Code review\n(assert (>= ord_0 1))\n(assert (<= ord_0 5))\n(declare-const ord_1 Int) ; position of Budget review\n(assert (>= ord_1 1))\n(assert (<= ord_1 5))\n(declare-const ord_2 Int) ; position of Architecture review\n(assert (>= ord_2 1))\n(assert (<= ord_2 5))\n(declare-const ord_3 Int) ; position of Tech talk\n(assert (>= ord_3 1))\n(assert (<= ord_3 5))\n(declare-const ord_4 Int) ; position of Performance review\n(assert (>= ord_4 1))\n(assert (<= ord_4 5))\n(assert (distinct ord_0 ord_1 ord_2 ord_3 ord_4))\n; ('before', 'Budget review', 'Architecture review')\n; ('before', 'Architecture review', 'Tech talk')\n; ('immediately_before', 'Tech talk', 'Performance review')\n(check-sat)", + "entities": [ + "Code review", + "Budget review", + "Architecture review", + "Tech talk", + "Performance review" + ], + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 7, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Must Code review and Architecture review be consecutive events?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some orderings place Code review and Architecture review consecutively while others separate them.", + "query_type": "adjacent", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Does Code review always precede Budget review?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "The ordering constraints allow sequences where Code review is before Budget review and vice versa.", + "query_type": "before", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Does Performance review always precede Budget review?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "The constraints force Budget review before Performance review; no valid ordering has Performance review first.", + "query_type": "before", + "depends_on": [ + 1 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Must Architecture review happen before Tech talk?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "The chain of ordering constraints forces Architecture review before Tech talk in every valid sequence.", + "query_type": "before", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Must Performance review and Budget review be consecutive events?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "No valid ordering has Performance review and Budget review in consecutive positions.", + "query_type": "adjacent", + "depends_on": [ + 1, + 2 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q5", + "query": "Must Budget review be the last event?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "No valid ordering has Budget review as the last event.", + "query_type": "first_last", + "depends_on": [ + 1, + 2, + 4 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q6", + "query": "Must Tech talk happen before Code review?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "The ordering constraints allow sequences where Tech talk is before Code review and vice versa.", + "query_type": "before", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1, + 3 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "UNKNOWN": 3, + "CONTRADICTED": 3, + "ENTAILED": 1 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "temp_order_0102", + "domain": "temporal", + "subdomain": "event_ordering", + "logic_type": "linear_arithmetic", + "premises": [ + "There are 6 events that happen in sequence: Tech talk, Retrospective, Strategy planning, Mentoring session, Budget review, and Release planning.", + "Each event occurs at a unique position (1 = first, 6 = last).", + "Tech talk and Mentoring session are not consecutive events.", + "Tech talk happens immediately before Retrospective.", + "Mentoring session happens before Budget review.", + "Retrospective happens immediately before Mentoring session." + ], + "formal_representation": "(set-logic QF_LIA)\n(declare-const ord_0 Int) ; position of Tech talk\n(assert (>= ord_0 1))\n(assert (<= ord_0 6))\n(declare-const ord_1 Int) ; position of Retrospective\n(assert (>= ord_1 1))\n(assert (<= ord_1 6))\n(declare-const ord_2 Int) ; position of Strategy planning\n(assert (>= ord_2 1))\n(assert (<= ord_2 6))\n(declare-const ord_3 Int) ; position of Mentoring session\n(assert (>= ord_3 1))\n(assert (<= ord_3 6))\n(declare-const ord_4 Int) ; position of Budget review\n(assert (>= ord_4 1))\n(assert (<= ord_4 6))\n(declare-const ord_5 Int) ; position of Release planning\n(assert (>= ord_5 1))\n(assert (<= ord_5 6))\n(assert (distinct ord_0 ord_1 ord_2 ord_3 ord_4 ord_5))\n; ('not_adjacent', 'Tech talk', 'Mentoring session')\n; ('immediately_before', 'Tech talk', 'Retrospective')\n; ('before', 'Mentoring session', 'Budget review')\n; ('immediately_before', 'Retrospective', 'Mentoring session')\n(check-sat)", + "entities": [ + "Tech talk", + "Retrospective", + "Strategy planning", + "Mentoring session", + "Budget review", + "Release planning" + ], + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 7, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Must Tech talk be the first event?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether Tech talk is first depends on how the other ordering constraints resolve.", + "query_type": "first_last", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Must Release planning be the last event?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether Release planning is last depends on how the other ordering constraints resolve.", + "query_type": "first_last", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Must Tech talk and Strategy planning be consecutive events?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some orderings place Tech talk and Strategy planning consecutively while others separate them.", + "query_type": "adjacent", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Must Retrospective be the last event?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "No valid ordering has Retrospective as the last event.", + "query_type": "first_last", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Must Budget review and Mentoring session be consecutive events?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some orderings place Budget review and Mentoring session consecutively while others separate them.", + "query_type": "adjacent", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q5", + "query": "Does Mentoring session always precede Budget review?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "The chain of ordering constraints forces Mentoring session before Budget review in every valid sequence.", + "query_type": "before", + "depends_on": [ + 4 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q6", + "query": "Must Release planning be the first event?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid orderings place Release planning in position 1, others do not.", + "query_type": "position", + "depends_on": [ + 1 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "UNKNOWN": 5, + "CONTRADICTED": 1, + "ENTAILED": 1 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "temp_order_0027", + "domain": "temporal", + "subdomain": "event_ordering", + "logic_type": "linear_arithmetic", + "premises": [ + "There are 7 events that happen in sequence: Board meeting, Mentoring session, Panel discussion, Release planning, Team standup, Town hall, and Keynote.", + "Each event occurs at a unique position (1 = first, 7 = last).", + "Town hall happens immediately before Keynote.", + "Board meeting happens before Release planning.", + "Release planning happens immediately before Team standup.", + "Release planning and Keynote are not consecutive events.", + "Mentoring session and Panel discussion are not consecutive events.", + "Team standup and Keynote are not consecutive events.", + "Panel discussion and Release planning are not consecutive events." + ], + "formal_representation": "(set-logic QF_LIA)\n(declare-const ord_0 Int) ; position of Board meeting\n(assert (>= ord_0 1))\n(assert (<= ord_0 7))\n(declare-const ord_1 Int) ; position of Mentoring session\n(assert (>= ord_1 1))\n(assert (<= ord_1 7))\n(declare-const ord_2 Int) ; position of Panel discussion\n(assert (>= ord_2 1))\n(assert (<= ord_2 7))\n(declare-const ord_3 Int) ; position of Release planning\n(assert (>= ord_3 1))\n(assert (<= ord_3 7))\n(declare-const ord_4 Int) ; position of Team standup\n(assert (>= ord_4 1))\n(assert (<= ord_4 7))\n(declare-const ord_5 Int) ; position of Town hall\n(assert (>= ord_5 1))\n(assert (<= ord_5 7))\n(declare-const ord_6 Int) ; position of Keynote\n(assert (>= ord_6 1))\n(assert (<= ord_6 7))\n(assert (distinct ord_0 ord_1 ord_2 ord_3 ord_4 ord_5 ord_6))\n; ('immediately_before', 'Town hall', 'Keynote')\n; ('before', 'Board meeting', 'Release planning')\n; ('immediately_before', 'Release planning', 'Team standup')\n; ('not_adjacent', 'Release planning', 'Keynote')\n; ('not_adjacent', 'Mentoring session', 'Panel discussion')\n; ('not_adjacent', 'Team standup', 'Keynote')\n; ('not_adjacent', 'Panel discussion', 'Release planning')\n(check-sat)", + "entities": [ + "Board meeting", + "Mentoring session", + "Panel discussion", + "Release planning", + "Team standup", + "Town hall", + "Keynote" + ], + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 5, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Must Mentoring session happen before Panel discussion?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "The ordering constraints allow sequences where Mentoring session is before Panel discussion and vice versa.", + "query_type": "before", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Must Board meeting and Team standup be consecutive events?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "No valid ordering has Board meeting and Team standup in consecutive positions.", + "query_type": "adjacent", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Must Mentoring session be the first event?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether Mentoring session is first depends on how the other ordering constraints resolve.", + "query_type": "first_last", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Must Panel discussion and Town hall be consecutive events?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some orderings place Panel discussion and Town hall consecutively while others separate them.", + "query_type": "adjacent", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Does Mentoring session always precede Keynote?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "The ordering constraints allow sequences where Mentoring session is before Keynote and vice versa.", + "query_type": "before", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 2 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "UNKNOWN": 4, + "CONTRADICTED": 1 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "temp_sched_0099", + "domain": "temporal", + "subdomain": "event_scheduling", + "logic_type": "linear_arithmetic", + "premises": [ + "A day has 10 available hours (slots 0 through 9).", + "There are 6 events to schedule: Mentoring session, Investor update, Security audit, Lunch break, Retrospective, and Architecture review.", + "Mentoring session takes 1 hour(s).", + "Investor update takes 1 hour(s).", + "Security audit takes 2 hour(s).", + "Lunch break takes 3 hour(s).", + "Retrospective takes 1 hour(s).", + "Architecture review takes 1 hour(s).", + "There must be at least 1 hour(s) between Mentoring session and Lunch break.", + "Investor update must finish before Lunch break starts.", + "Security audit and Architecture review must not overlap.", + "Security audit and Lunch break must not overlap.", + "Investor update and Architecture review must not overlap.", + "Lunch break and Retrospective must start at the same time.", + "Architecture review cannot start before hour 3." + ], + "formal_representation": "(set-logic QF_LIA)\n(declare-const s_0 Int) ; start of Mentoring session\n(assert (>= s_0 0))\n(assert (<= (+ s_0 1) 10))\n(declare-const s_1 Int) ; start of Investor update\n(assert (>= s_1 0))\n(assert (<= (+ s_1 1) 10))\n(declare-const s_2 Int) ; start of Security audit\n(assert (>= s_2 0))\n(assert (<= (+ s_2 2) 10))\n(declare-const s_3 Int) ; start of Lunch break\n(assert (>= s_3 0))\n(assert (<= (+ s_3 3) 10))\n(declare-const s_4 Int) ; start of Retrospective\n(assert (>= s_4 0))\n(assert (<= (+ s_4 1) 10))\n(declare-const s_5 Int) ; start of Architecture review\n(assert (>= s_5 0))\n(assert (<= (+ s_5 1) 10))\n; ('gap', 'Mentoring session', 'Lunch break', 1)\n; ('before', 'Investor update', 'Lunch break')\n; ('no_overlap', 'Security audit', 'Architecture review')\n; ('no_overlap', 'Security audit', 'Lunch break')\n; ('no_overlap', 'Investor update', 'Architecture review')\n; ('same_start', 'Lunch break', 'Retrospective')\n; ('earliest', 'Architecture review', 3)\n(check-sat)", + "entities": [ + "Mentoring session", + "Investor update", + "Security audit", + "Lunch break", + "Retrospective", + "Architecture review" + ], + "durations": { + "Mentoring session": 1, + "Investor update": 1, + "Security audit": 2, + "Lunch break": 3, + "Retrospective": 1, + "Architecture review": 1 + }, + "time_horizon": 10, + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 5, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Is Architecture review running at hour 1?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "No valid schedule has Architecture review running at hour 1, given its duration (1h) and the constraints.", + "query_type": "time_slot", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Can Lunch break fit entirely within hours 2 to 7?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid schedules place Lunch break within [2, 7] and others do not.", + "query_type": "duration_fit", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Is it possible for Investor update and Architecture review to run simultaneously?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "No valid schedule allows Investor update and Architecture review to overlap, given the separation constraints.", + "query_type": "overlap", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Does Retrospective always start before Lunch break?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "No valid schedule has Retrospective starting before Lunch break; the reverse is forced.", + "query_type": "before_after", + "depends_on": [ + 1 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Can Investor update be scheduled to include hour 7?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "No valid schedule has Investor update running at hour 7, given its duration (1h) and the constraints.", + "query_type": "time_slot", + "depends_on": [ + 2 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "CONTRADICTED": 4, + "UNKNOWN": 1 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "temp_order_0095", + "domain": "temporal", + "subdomain": "event_ordering", + "logic_type": "linear_arithmetic", + "premises": [ + "There are 5 events that happen in sequence: Security audit, QA review, Design sprint, Board meeting, and Sprint planning.", + "Each event occurs at a unique position (1 = first, 5 = last).", + "Security audit and QA review are not consecutive events.", + "Security audit and Board meeting are not consecutive events.", + "QA review happens immediately before Board meeting.", + "Security audit and Design sprint are not consecutive events.", + "QA review happens before Sprint planning." + ], + "formal_representation": "(set-logic QF_LIA)\n(declare-const ord_0 Int) ; position of Security audit\n(assert (>= ord_0 1))\n(assert (<= ord_0 5))\n(declare-const ord_1 Int) ; position of QA review\n(assert (>= ord_1 1))\n(assert (<= ord_1 5))\n(declare-const ord_2 Int) ; position of Design sprint\n(assert (>= ord_2 1))\n(assert (<= ord_2 5))\n(declare-const ord_3 Int) ; position of Board meeting\n(assert (>= ord_3 1))\n(assert (<= ord_3 5))\n(declare-const ord_4 Int) ; position of Sprint planning\n(assert (>= ord_4 1))\n(assert (<= ord_4 5))\n(assert (distinct ord_0 ord_1 ord_2 ord_3 ord_4))\n; ('not_adjacent', 'Security audit', 'QA review')\n; ('not_adjacent', 'Security audit', 'Board meeting')\n; ('immediately_before', 'QA review', 'Board meeting')\n; ('not_adjacent', 'Security audit', 'Design sprint')\n; ('before', 'QA review', 'Sprint planning')\n(check-sat)", + "entities": [ + "Security audit", + "QA review", + "Design sprint", + "Board meeting", + "Sprint planning" + ], + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 5, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Must Design sprint and QA review be consecutive events?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some orderings place Design sprint and QA review consecutively while others separate them.", + "query_type": "adjacent", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Must QA review be the last event?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "No valid ordering has QA review as the last event.", + "query_type": "first_last", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Must Security audit be the fourth event?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "No valid ordering places Security audit in position 4; other constraints block it.", + "query_type": "position", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Can Design sprint occur before QA review?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "The ordering constraints allow sequences where QA review is before Design sprint and vice versa.", + "query_type": "before", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Must Design sprint happen before Security audit?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "The chain of ordering constraints forces Design sprint before Security audit in every valid sequence.", + "query_type": "before", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 2, + 3 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "UNKNOWN": 2, + "CONTRADICTED": 2, + "ENTAILED": 1 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "temp_order_0108", + "domain": "temporal", + "subdomain": "event_ordering", + "logic_type": "linear_arithmetic", + "premises": [ + "There are 6 events that happen in sequence: Team standup, Vendor meeting, Performance review, Client call, Investor update, and Product demo.", + "Each event occurs at a unique position (1 = first, 6 = last).", + "Vendor meeting happens before Performance review.", + "Team standup happens before Vendor meeting.", + "Team standup happens immediately before Client call." + ], + "formal_representation": "(set-logic QF_LIA)\n(declare-const ord_0 Int) ; position of Team standup\n(assert (>= ord_0 1))\n(assert (<= ord_0 6))\n(declare-const ord_1 Int) ; position of Vendor meeting\n(assert (>= ord_1 1))\n(assert (<= ord_1 6))\n(declare-const ord_2 Int) ; position of Performance review\n(assert (>= ord_2 1))\n(assert (<= ord_2 6))\n(declare-const ord_3 Int) ; position of Client call\n(assert (>= ord_3 1))\n(assert (<= ord_3 6))\n(declare-const ord_4 Int) ; position of Investor update\n(assert (>= ord_4 1))\n(assert (<= ord_4 6))\n(declare-const ord_5 Int) ; position of Product demo\n(assert (>= ord_5 1))\n(assert (<= ord_5 6))\n(assert (distinct ord_0 ord_1 ord_2 ord_3 ord_4 ord_5))\n; ('before', 'Vendor meeting', 'Performance review')\n; ('before', 'Team standup', 'Vendor meeting')\n; ('immediately_before', 'Team standup', 'Client call')\n(check-sat)", + "entities": [ + "Team standup", + "Vendor meeting", + "Performance review", + "Client call", + "Investor update", + "Product demo" + ], + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 5, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Can Investor update occur before Product demo?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "The ordering constraints allow sequences where Product demo is before Investor update and vice versa.", + "query_type": "before", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Must Team standup be the first event?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether Team standup is first depends on how the other ordering constraints resolve.", + "query_type": "first_last", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Must Performance review and Team standup be consecutive events?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "No valid ordering has Performance review and Team standup in consecutive positions.", + "query_type": "adjacent", + "depends_on": [ + 1 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Must Performance review be the first event?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "No valid ordering has Performance review as the first event.", + "query_type": "first_last", + "depends_on": [ + 2 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Must Performance review be the last event?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether Performance review is last depends on how the other ordering constraints resolve.", + "query_type": "first_last", + "depends_on": [ + 2, + 3 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "UNKNOWN": 3, + "CONTRADICTED": 2 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "temp_sched_0024", + "domain": "temporal", + "subdomain": "event_scheduling", + "logic_type": "linear_arithmetic", + "premises": [ + "A day has 8 available hours (slots 0 through 7).", + "There are 6 events to schedule: Architecture review, Strategy planning, Design sprint, Board meeting, Budget review, and Vendor meeting.", + "Architecture review takes 2 hour(s).", + "Strategy planning takes 2 hour(s).", + "Design sprint takes 3 hour(s).", + "Board meeting takes 1 hour(s).", + "Budget review takes 1 hour(s).", + "Vendor meeting takes 3 hour(s).", + "Architecture review and Design sprint must start at the same time.", + "Design sprint and Vendor meeting must not overlap.", + "Architecture review and Budget review must not overlap.", + "Design sprint and Budget review must not overlap.", + "Architecture review and Strategy planning must not overlap.", + "Strategy planning must start no later than hour 3." + ], + "formal_representation": "(set-logic QF_LIA)\n(declare-const s_0 Int) ; start of Architecture review\n(assert (>= s_0 0))\n(assert (<= (+ s_0 2) 8))\n(declare-const s_1 Int) ; start of Strategy planning\n(assert (>= s_1 0))\n(assert (<= (+ s_1 2) 8))\n(declare-const s_2 Int) ; start of Design sprint\n(assert (>= s_2 0))\n(assert (<= (+ s_2 3) 8))\n(declare-const s_3 Int) ; start of Board meeting\n(assert (>= s_3 0))\n(assert (<= (+ s_3 1) 8))\n(declare-const s_4 Int) ; start of Budget review\n(assert (>= s_4 0))\n(assert (<= (+ s_4 1) 8))\n(declare-const s_5 Int) ; start of Vendor meeting\n(assert (>= s_5 0))\n(assert (<= (+ s_5 3) 8))\n; ('same_start', 'Architecture review', 'Design sprint')\n; ('no_overlap', 'Design sprint', 'Vendor meeting')\n; ('no_overlap', 'Architecture review', 'Budget review')\n; ('no_overlap', 'Design sprint', 'Budget review')\n; ('no_overlap', 'Architecture review', 'Strategy planning')\n; ('latest', 'Strategy planning', 3)\n(check-sat)", + "entities": [ + "Architecture review", + "Strategy planning", + "Design sprint", + "Board meeting", + "Budget review", + "Vendor meeting" + ], + "durations": { + "Architecture review": 2, + "Strategy planning": 2, + "Design sprint": 3, + "Board meeting": 1, + "Budget review": 1, + "Vendor meeting": 3 + }, + "time_horizon": 8, + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 6, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Is it possible for Vendor meeting and Design sprint to run simultaneously?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "No valid schedule allows Vendor meeting and Design sprint to overlap, given the separation constraints.", + "query_type": "overlap", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Does Vendor meeting always start before Budget review?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid schedules have Vendor meeting first, others have Budget review first.", + "query_type": "before_after", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Does Strategy planning always start before Budget review?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid schedules have Strategy planning first, others have Budget review first.", + "query_type": "before_after", + "depends_on": [ + 1 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Must Board meeting be active during hour 6?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether Board meeting is active at hour 6 depends on how the remaining scheduling constraints resolve.", + "query_type": "time_slot", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Is it possible for Architecture review and Board meeting to run simultaneously?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid schedules have Architecture review and Board meeting overlapping, while others keep them separate.", + "query_type": "overlap", + "depends_on": [ + 3 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q5", + "query": "Can Board meeting fit entirely within hours 7 to 8?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid schedules place Board meeting within [7, 8] and others do not.", + "query_type": "duration_fit", + "depends_on": [ + 3, + 4 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "CONTRADICTED": 1, + "UNKNOWN": 5 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "temp_order_0028", + "domain": "temporal", + "subdomain": "event_ordering", + "logic_type": "linear_arithmetic", + "premises": [ + "There are 5 events that happen in sequence: Town hall, Networking event, Onboarding, Budget review, and Data migration.", + "Each event occurs at a unique position (1 = first, 5 = last).", + "Budget review happens before Data migration.", + "Onboarding happens immediately before Data migration.", + "Networking event happens before Data migration.", + "Town hall happens before Networking event.", + "Town hall happens before Onboarding.", + "Networking event and Onboarding are not consecutive events." + ], + "formal_representation": "(set-logic QF_LIA)\n(declare-const ord_0 Int) ; position of Town hall\n(assert (>= ord_0 1))\n(assert (<= ord_0 5))\n(declare-const ord_1 Int) ; position of Networking event\n(assert (>= ord_1 1))\n(assert (<= ord_1 5))\n(declare-const ord_2 Int) ; position of Onboarding\n(assert (>= ord_2 1))\n(assert (<= ord_2 5))\n(declare-const ord_3 Int) ; position of Budget review\n(assert (>= ord_3 1))\n(assert (<= ord_3 5))\n(declare-const ord_4 Int) ; position of Data migration\n(assert (>= ord_4 1))\n(assert (<= ord_4 5))\n(assert (distinct ord_0 ord_1 ord_2 ord_3 ord_4))\n; ('before', 'Budget review', 'Data migration')\n; ('immediately_before', 'Onboarding', 'Data migration')\n; ('before', 'Networking event', 'Data migration')\n; ('before', 'Town hall', 'Networking event')\n; ('before', 'Town hall', 'Onboarding')\n; ('not_adjacent', 'Networking event', 'Onboarding')\n(check-sat)", + "entities": [ + "Town hall", + "Networking event", + "Onboarding", + "Budget review", + "Data migration" + ], + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 7, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Can Town hall occur before Onboarding?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "The chain of ordering constraints forces Onboarding before Town hall in every valid sequence.", + "query_type": "before", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Must Onboarding and Data migration be consecutive events?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "The constraints guarantee Onboarding and Data migration are consecutive in every valid ordering.", + "query_type": "adjacent", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Must Data migration and Budget review be consecutive events?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "No valid ordering has Data migration and Budget review in consecutive positions.", + "query_type": "adjacent", + "depends_on": [ + 1 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Can Data migration occur before Town hall?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "The constraints force Data migration before Town hall; no valid ordering has Town hall first.", + "query_type": "before", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1, + 2 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Can Budget review occur in position 3?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "All ordering constraints force Budget review into the third position.", + "query_type": "position", + "depends_on": [ + 2 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q5", + "query": "Must Town hall and Networking event be consecutive events?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "The constraints guarantee Town hall and Networking event are consecutive in every valid ordering.", + "query_type": "adjacent", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 3 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q6", + "query": "Must Networking event and Onboarding be consecutive events?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "No valid ordering has Networking event and Onboarding in consecutive positions.", + "query_type": "adjacent", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1, + 5 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "ENTAILED": 4, + "CONTRADICTED": 3 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "temp_order_0031", + "domain": "temporal", + "subdomain": "event_ordering", + "logic_type": "linear_arithmetic", + "premises": [ + "There are 7 events that happen in sequence: Performance review, Strategy planning, Data migration, Release planning, QA review, Tech talk, and Hackathon session.", + "Each event occurs at a unique position (1 = first, 7 = last).", + "Data migration happens immediately before Hackathon session.", + "Strategy planning and Hackathon session are not consecutive events.", + "Data migration happens before QA review.", + "QA review happens before Tech talk.", + "Performance review happens immediately before Release planning.", + "Performance review happens before Hackathon session.", + "Strategy planning and Tech talk are not consecutive events." + ], + "formal_representation": "(set-logic QF_LIA)\n(declare-const ord_0 Int) ; position of Performance review\n(assert (>= ord_0 1))\n(assert (<= ord_0 7))\n(declare-const ord_1 Int) ; position of Strategy planning\n(assert (>= ord_1 1))\n(assert (<= ord_1 7))\n(declare-const ord_2 Int) ; position of Data migration\n(assert (>= ord_2 1))\n(assert (<= ord_2 7))\n(declare-const ord_3 Int) ; position of Release planning\n(assert (>= ord_3 1))\n(assert (<= ord_3 7))\n(declare-const ord_4 Int) ; position of QA review\n(assert (>= ord_4 1))\n(assert (<= ord_4 7))\n(declare-const ord_5 Int) ; position of Tech talk\n(assert (>= ord_5 1))\n(assert (<= ord_5 7))\n(declare-const ord_6 Int) ; position of Hackathon session\n(assert (>= ord_6 1))\n(assert (<= ord_6 7))\n(assert (distinct ord_0 ord_1 ord_2 ord_3 ord_4 ord_5 ord_6))\n; ('immediately_before', 'Data migration', 'Hackathon session')\n; ('not_adjacent', 'Strategy planning', 'Hackathon session')\n; ('before', 'Data migration', 'QA review')\n; ('before', 'QA review', 'Tech talk')\n; ('immediately_before', 'Performance review', 'Release planning')\n; ('before', 'Performance review', 'Hackathon session')\n; ('not_adjacent', 'Strategy planning', 'Tech talk')\n(check-sat)", + "entities": [ + "Performance review", + "Strategy planning", + "Data migration", + "Release planning", + "QA review", + "Tech talk", + "Hackathon session" + ], + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 8, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Must Strategy planning be the last event?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "No valid ordering has Strategy planning as the last event.", + "query_type": "first_last", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Does QA review always precede Release planning?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "The constraints force Release planning before QA review; no valid ordering has QA review first.", + "query_type": "before", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Can QA review occur in position 6?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "All ordering constraints force QA review into the sixth position.", + "query_type": "position", + "depends_on": [ + 1 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Must Release planning happen before Strategy planning?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "The ordering constraints allow sequences where Release planning is before Strategy planning and vice versa.", + "query_type": "before", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Does QA review always precede Strategy planning?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "The constraints force Strategy planning before QA review; no valid ordering has QA review first.", + "query_type": "before", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1, + 2, + 3 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q5", + "query": "Must QA review and Performance review be consecutive events?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "No valid ordering has QA review and Performance review in consecutive positions.", + "query_type": "adjacent", + "depends_on": [ + 1, + 2, + 4 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q6", + "query": "Must Performance review be the second event?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid orderings place Performance review in position 2, others do not.", + "query_type": "position", + "depends_on": [ + 5 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q7", + "query": "Must Data migration be the first event?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "No valid ordering has Data migration as the first event.", + "query_type": "first_last", + "depends_on": [] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "CONTRADICTED": 5, + "ENTAILED": 1, + "UNKNOWN": 2 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "temp_sched_0105", + "domain": "temporal", + "subdomain": "event_scheduling", + "logic_type": "linear_arithmetic", + "premises": [ + "A day has 8 available hours (slots 0 through 7).", + "There are 7 events to schedule: Training session, Vendor meeting, Release planning, Sprint planning, Town hall, Retrospective, and Hackathon session.", + "Training session takes 1 hour(s).", + "Vendor meeting takes 1 hour(s).", + "Release planning takes 2 hour(s).", + "Sprint planning takes 3 hour(s).", + "Town hall takes 2 hour(s).", + "Retrospective takes 2 hour(s).", + "Hackathon session takes 3 hour(s).", + "Sprint planning and Hackathon session must start at the same time.", + "Training session must finish before Release planning starts.", + "There must be at least 1 hour(s) between Vendor meeting and Town hall.", + "Training session must start at hour 4.", + "Retrospective must start no later than hour 2." + ], + "formal_representation": "(set-logic QF_LIA)\n(declare-const s_0 Int) ; start of Training session\n(assert (>= s_0 0))\n(assert (<= (+ s_0 1) 8))\n(declare-const s_1 Int) ; start of Vendor meeting\n(assert (>= s_1 0))\n(assert (<= (+ s_1 1) 8))\n(declare-const s_2 Int) ; start of Release planning\n(assert (>= s_2 0))\n(assert (<= (+ s_2 2) 8))\n(declare-const s_3 Int) ; start of Sprint planning\n(assert (>= s_3 0))\n(assert (<= (+ s_3 3) 8))\n(declare-const s_4 Int) ; start of Town hall\n(assert (>= s_4 0))\n(assert (<= (+ s_4 2) 8))\n(declare-const s_5 Int) ; start of Retrospective\n(assert (>= s_5 0))\n(assert (<= (+ s_5 2) 8))\n(declare-const s_6 Int) ; start of Hackathon session\n(assert (>= s_6 0))\n(assert (<= (+ s_6 3) 8))\n; ('same_start', 'Sprint planning', 'Hackathon session')\n; ('before', 'Training session', 'Release planning')\n; ('gap', 'Vendor meeting', 'Town hall', 1)\n; ('exact', 'Training session', 4)\n; ('latest', 'Retrospective', 2)\n(check-sat)", + "entities": [ + "Training session", + "Vendor meeting", + "Release planning", + "Sprint planning", + "Town hall", + "Retrospective", + "Hackathon session" + ], + "durations": { + "Training session": 1, + "Vendor meeting": 1, + "Release planning": 2, + "Sprint planning": 3, + "Town hall": 2, + "Retrospective": 2, + "Hackathon session": 3 + }, + "time_horizon": 8, + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 7, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Does Training session always start before Town hall?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid schedules have Training session first, others have Town hall first.", + "query_type": "before_after", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Can Sprint planning fit entirely within hours 0 to 5?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid schedules place Sprint planning within [0, 5] and others do not.", + "query_type": "duration_fit", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Does Release planning always start before Hackathon session?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "No valid schedule has Release planning starting before Hackathon session; the reverse is forced.", + "query_type": "before_after", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Does Training session always start before Vendor meeting?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid schedules have Training session first, others have Vendor meeting first.", + "query_type": "before_after", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Is it possible for Retrospective and Release planning to run simultaneously?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "No valid schedule allows Retrospective and Release planning to overlap, given the separation constraints.", + "query_type": "overlap", + "depends_on": [ + 2 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q5", + "query": "Is Hackathon session running at hour 0?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether Hackathon session is active at hour 0 depends on how the remaining scheduling constraints resolve.", + "query_type": "time_slot", + "depends_on": [ + 2 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q6", + "query": "Can Vendor meeting be scheduled to include hour 4?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether Vendor meeting is active at hour 4 depends on how the remaining scheduling constraints resolve.", + "query_type": "time_slot", + "depends_on": [ + 3 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "UNKNOWN": 5, + "CONTRADICTED": 2 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "temp_order_0009", + "domain": "temporal", + "subdomain": "event_ordering", + "logic_type": "linear_arithmetic", + "premises": [ + "There are 5 events that happen in sequence: Lunch break, Town hall, Compliance check, Board meeting, and Hackathon session.", + "Each event occurs at a unique position (1 = first, 5 = last).", + "Board meeting and Hackathon session are not consecutive events.", + "Town hall and Board meeting are not consecutive events.", + "Lunch break and Town hall are not consecutive events." + ], + "formal_representation": "(set-logic QF_LIA)\n(declare-const ord_0 Int) ; position of Lunch break\n(assert (>= ord_0 1))\n(assert (<= ord_0 5))\n(declare-const ord_1 Int) ; position of Town hall\n(assert (>= ord_1 1))\n(assert (<= ord_1 5))\n(declare-const ord_2 Int) ; position of Compliance check\n(assert (>= ord_2 1))\n(assert (<= ord_2 5))\n(declare-const ord_3 Int) ; position of Board meeting\n(assert (>= ord_3 1))\n(assert (<= ord_3 5))\n(declare-const ord_4 Int) ; position of Hackathon session\n(assert (>= ord_4 1))\n(assert (<= ord_4 5))\n(assert (distinct ord_0 ord_1 ord_2 ord_3 ord_4))\n; ('not_adjacent', 'Board meeting', 'Hackathon session')\n; ('not_adjacent', 'Town hall', 'Board meeting')\n; ('not_adjacent', 'Lunch break', 'Town hall')\n(check-sat)", + "entities": [ + "Lunch break", + "Town hall", + "Compliance check", + "Board meeting", + "Hackathon session" + ], + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 6, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Must Lunch break be the first event?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether Lunch break is first depends on how the other ordering constraints resolve.", + "query_type": "first_last", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Must Hackathon session be the first event?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether Hackathon session is first depends on how the other ordering constraints resolve.", + "query_type": "first_last", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Must Compliance check be the first event?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether Compliance check is first depends on how the other ordering constraints resolve.", + "query_type": "first_last", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Must Lunch break be the third event?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid orderings place Lunch break in position 3, others do not.", + "query_type": "position", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Must Board meeting and Hackathon session be consecutive events?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "No valid ordering has Board meeting and Hackathon session in consecutive positions.", + "query_type": "adjacent", + "depends_on": [ + 1 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q5", + "query": "Must Compliance check and Lunch break be consecutive events?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some orderings place Compliance check and Lunch break consecutively while others separate them.", + "query_type": "adjacent", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 2, + 3 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "UNKNOWN": 5, + "CONTRADICTED": 1 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "temp_order_0065", + "domain": "temporal", + "subdomain": "event_ordering", + "logic_type": "linear_arithmetic", + "premises": [ + "There are 7 events that happen in sequence: Panel discussion, Code review, Security audit, Retrospective, Data migration, Investor update, and Compliance check.", + "Each event occurs at a unique position (1 = first, 7 = last).", + "Code review and Retrospective are not consecutive events.", + "Security audit and Compliance check are not consecutive events.", + "Panel discussion happens immediately before Investor update.", + "Code review and Investor update are not consecutive events." + ], + "formal_representation": "(set-logic QF_LIA)\n(declare-const ord_0 Int) ; position of Panel discussion\n(assert (>= ord_0 1))\n(assert (<= ord_0 7))\n(declare-const ord_1 Int) ; position of Code review\n(assert (>= ord_1 1))\n(assert (<= ord_1 7))\n(declare-const ord_2 Int) ; position of Security audit\n(assert (>= ord_2 1))\n(assert (<= ord_2 7))\n(declare-const ord_3 Int) ; position of Retrospective\n(assert (>= ord_3 1))\n(assert (<= ord_3 7))\n(declare-const ord_4 Int) ; position of Data migration\n(assert (>= ord_4 1))\n(assert (<= ord_4 7))\n(declare-const ord_5 Int) ; position of Investor update\n(assert (>= ord_5 1))\n(assert (<= ord_5 7))\n(declare-const ord_6 Int) ; position of Compliance check\n(assert (>= ord_6 1))\n(assert (<= ord_6 7))\n(assert (distinct ord_0 ord_1 ord_2 ord_3 ord_4 ord_5 ord_6))\n; ('not_adjacent', 'Code review', 'Retrospective')\n; ('not_adjacent', 'Security audit', 'Compliance check')\n; ('immediately_before', 'Panel discussion', 'Investor update')\n; ('not_adjacent', 'Code review', 'Investor update')\n(check-sat)", + "entities": [ + "Panel discussion", + "Code review", + "Security audit", + "Retrospective", + "Data migration", + "Investor update", + "Compliance check" + ], + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 6, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Must Investor update be the third event?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid orderings place Investor update in position 3, others do not.", + "query_type": "position", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Must Code review be the last event?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether Code review is last depends on how the other ordering constraints resolve.", + "query_type": "first_last", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Must Retrospective and Code review be consecutive events?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "No valid ordering has Retrospective and Code review in consecutive positions.", + "query_type": "adjacent", + "depends_on": [ + 1 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Must Security audit be the first event?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether Security audit is first depends on how the other ordering constraints resolve.", + "query_type": "first_last", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Can Investor update occur before Security audit?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "The ordering constraints allow sequences where Security audit is before Investor update and vice versa.", + "query_type": "before", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 3 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q5", + "query": "Can Investor update occur before Code review?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "The ordering constraints allow sequences where Code review is before Investor update and vice versa.", + "query_type": "before", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1, + 2, + 4 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "UNKNOWN": 5, + "CONTRADICTED": 1 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "temp_sched_0092", + "domain": "temporal", + "subdomain": "event_scheduling", + "logic_type": "linear_arithmetic", + "premises": [ + "A day has 12 available hours (slots 0 through 11).", + "There are 6 events to schedule: Investor update, Sprint planning, Mentoring session, Strategy planning, QA review, and Panel discussion.", + "Investor update takes 3 hour(s).", + "Sprint planning takes 3 hour(s).", + "Mentoring session takes 1 hour(s).", + "Strategy planning takes 1 hour(s).", + "QA review takes 3 hour(s).", + "Panel discussion takes 2 hour(s).", + "Investor update and Mentoring session must start at the same time.", + "Mentoring session and Panel discussion must not overlap.", + "There must be at least 1 hour(s) between Investor update and QA review.", + "Investor update and Panel discussion must not overlap.", + "Investor update must start at hour 2." + ], + "formal_representation": "(set-logic QF_LIA)\n(declare-const s_0 Int) ; start of Investor update\n(assert (>= s_0 0))\n(assert (<= (+ s_0 3) 12))\n(declare-const s_1 Int) ; start of Sprint planning\n(assert (>= s_1 0))\n(assert (<= (+ s_1 3) 12))\n(declare-const s_2 Int) ; start of Mentoring session\n(assert (>= s_2 0))\n(assert (<= (+ s_2 1) 12))\n(declare-const s_3 Int) ; start of Strategy planning\n(assert (>= s_3 0))\n(assert (<= (+ s_3 1) 12))\n(declare-const s_4 Int) ; start of QA review\n(assert (>= s_4 0))\n(assert (<= (+ s_4 3) 12))\n(declare-const s_5 Int) ; start of Panel discussion\n(assert (>= s_5 0))\n(assert (<= (+ s_5 2) 12))\n; ('same_start', 'Investor update', 'Mentoring session')\n; ('no_overlap', 'Mentoring session', 'Panel discussion')\n; ('gap', 'Investor update', 'QA review', 1)\n; ('no_overlap', 'Investor update', 'Panel discussion')\n; ('exact', 'Investor update', 2)\n(check-sat)", + "entities": [ + "Investor update", + "Sprint planning", + "Mentoring session", + "Strategy planning", + "QA review", + "Panel discussion" + ], + "durations": { + "Investor update": 3, + "Sprint planning": 3, + "Mentoring session": 1, + "Strategy planning": 1, + "QA review": 3, + "Panel discussion": 2 + }, + "time_horizon": 12, + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 6, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Is it possible for Sprint planning and Mentoring session to run simultaneously?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid schedules have Sprint planning and Mentoring session overlapping, while others keep them separate.", + "query_type": "overlap", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Does Strategy planning always start before Investor update?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid schedules have Strategy planning first, others have Investor update first.", + "query_type": "before_after", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Must Mentoring session be active during hour 6?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "No valid schedule has Mentoring session running at hour 6, given its duration (1h) and the constraints.", + "query_type": "time_slot", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Is QA review running at hour 4?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "No valid schedule has QA review running at hour 4, given its duration (3h) and the constraints.", + "query_type": "time_slot", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Can Investor update fit entirely within hours 0 to 4?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "No valid schedule fits Investor update (3h) entirely within [0, 4], given other constraints.", + "query_type": "duration_fit", + "depends_on": [ + 1 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q5", + "query": "Does Panel discussion always start before Strategy planning?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid schedules have Panel discussion first, others have Strategy planning first.", + "query_type": "before_after", + "depends_on": [ + 1 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "UNKNOWN": 3, + "CONTRADICTED": 3 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "temp_sched_0039", + "domain": "temporal", + "subdomain": "event_scheduling", + "logic_type": "linear_arithmetic", + "premises": [ + "A day has 10 available hours (slots 0 through 9).", + "There are 5 events to schedule: Code review, Networking event, Compliance check, Onboarding, and Training session.", + "Code review takes 3 hour(s).", + "Networking event takes 1 hour(s).", + "Compliance check takes 2 hour(s).", + "Onboarding takes 3 hour(s).", + "Training session takes 1 hour(s).", + "There must be at least 1 hour(s) between Code review and Onboarding.", + "Onboarding and Training session must start at the same time.", + "Code review and Compliance check must not overlap.", + "There must be at least 1 hour(s) between Networking event and Compliance check." + ], + "formal_representation": "(set-logic QF_LIA)\n(declare-const s_0 Int) ; start of Code review\n(assert (>= s_0 0))\n(assert (<= (+ s_0 3) 10))\n(declare-const s_1 Int) ; start of Networking event\n(assert (>= s_1 0))\n(assert (<= (+ s_1 1) 10))\n(declare-const s_2 Int) ; start of Compliance check\n(assert (>= s_2 0))\n(assert (<= (+ s_2 2) 10))\n(declare-const s_3 Int) ; start of Onboarding\n(assert (>= s_3 0))\n(assert (<= (+ s_3 3) 10))\n(declare-const s_4 Int) ; start of Training session\n(assert (>= s_4 0))\n(assert (<= (+ s_4 1) 10))\n; ('gap', 'Code review', 'Onboarding', 1)\n; ('same_start', 'Onboarding', 'Training session')\n; ('no_overlap', 'Code review', 'Compliance check')\n; ('gap', 'Networking event', 'Compliance check', 1)\n(check-sat)", + "entities": [ + "Code review", + "Networking event", + "Compliance check", + "Onboarding", + "Training session" + ], + "durations": { + "Code review": 3, + "Networking event": 1, + "Compliance check": 2, + "Onboarding": 3, + "Training session": 1 + }, + "time_horizon": 10, + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 6, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Can Onboarding fit entirely within hours 4 to 8?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid schedules place Onboarding within [4, 8] and others do not.", + "query_type": "duration_fit", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Can Compliance check be scheduled to include hour 1?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether Compliance check is active at hour 1 depends on how the remaining scheduling constraints resolve.", + "query_type": "time_slot", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Can Code review fit entirely within hours 0 to 4?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid schedules place Code review within [0, 4] and others do not.", + "query_type": "duration_fit", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Must Training session finish before Onboarding begins?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "The constraints make it impossible for Training session to finish before Onboarding starts; some overlap or reverse ordering is forced.", + "query_type": "order", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Can Onboarding and Code review overlap in time?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "No valid schedule allows Onboarding and Code review to overlap, given the separation constraints.", + "query_type": "overlap", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 2, + 3 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q5", + "query": "Does Training session always start before Compliance check?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid schedules have Training session first, others have Compliance check first.", + "query_type": "before_after", + "depends_on": [ + 1, + 3 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "UNKNOWN": 4, + "CONTRADICTED": 2 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "temp_order_0093", + "domain": "temporal", + "subdomain": "event_ordering", + "logic_type": "linear_arithmetic", + "premises": [ + "There are 6 events that happen in sequence: Strategy planning, Release planning, Tech talk, Budget review, Security audit, and Board meeting.", + "Each event occurs at a unique position (1 = first, 6 = last).", + "Release planning happens before Tech talk.", + "Tech talk happens before Budget review.", + "Budget review happens immediately before Board meeting.", + "Tech talk happens immediately before Security audit.", + "Release planning and Budget review are not consecutive events.", + "Strategy planning happens before Board meeting.", + "Strategy planning happens before Tech talk." + ], + "formal_representation": "(set-logic QF_LIA)\n(declare-const ord_0 Int) ; position of Strategy planning\n(assert (>= ord_0 1))\n(assert (<= ord_0 6))\n(declare-const ord_1 Int) ; position of Release planning\n(assert (>= ord_1 1))\n(assert (<= ord_1 6))\n(declare-const ord_2 Int) ; position of Tech talk\n(assert (>= ord_2 1))\n(assert (<= ord_2 6))\n(declare-const ord_3 Int) ; position of Budget review\n(assert (>= ord_3 1))\n(assert (<= ord_3 6))\n(declare-const ord_4 Int) ; position of Security audit\n(assert (>= ord_4 1))\n(assert (<= ord_4 6))\n(declare-const ord_5 Int) ; position of Board meeting\n(assert (>= ord_5 1))\n(assert (<= ord_5 6))\n(assert (distinct ord_0 ord_1 ord_2 ord_3 ord_4 ord_5))\n; ('before', 'Release planning', 'Tech talk')\n; ('before', 'Tech talk', 'Budget review')\n; ('immediately_before', 'Budget review', 'Board meeting')\n; ('immediately_before', 'Tech talk', 'Security audit')\n; ('not_adjacent', 'Release planning', 'Budget review')\n; ('before', 'Strategy planning', 'Board meeting')\n; ('before', 'Strategy planning', 'Tech talk')\n(check-sat)", + "entities": [ + "Strategy planning", + "Release planning", + "Tech talk", + "Budget review", + "Security audit", + "Board meeting" + ], + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 6, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Can Budget review occur in position 5?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "All ordering constraints force Budget review into the fifth position.", + "query_type": "position", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Does Security audit always precede Tech talk?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "The constraints force Tech talk before Security audit; no valid ordering has Security audit first.", + "query_type": "before", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Must Release planning and Strategy planning be consecutive events?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "The constraints guarantee Release planning and Strategy planning are consecutive in every valid ordering.", + "query_type": "adjacent", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Must Board meeting and Security audit be consecutive events?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "No valid ordering has Board meeting and Security audit in consecutive positions.", + "query_type": "adjacent", + "depends_on": [ + 1 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Must Tech talk be the last event?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "No valid ordering has Tech talk as the last event.", + "query_type": "first_last", + "depends_on": [ + 1 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q5", + "query": "Can Budget review occur in position 4?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "No valid ordering places Budget review in position 4; other constraints block it.", + "query_type": "position", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "ENTAILED": 2, + "CONTRADICTED": 4 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "temp_order_0037", + "domain": "temporal", + "subdomain": "event_ordering", + "logic_type": "linear_arithmetic", + "premises": [ + "There are 5 events that happen in sequence: Performance review, Lunch break, Board meeting, Budget review, and Sprint planning.", + "Each event occurs at a unique position (1 = first, 5 = last).", + "Lunch break and Sprint planning are not consecutive events.", + "Performance review happens before Lunch break.", + "Performance review happens before Board meeting." + ], + "formal_representation": "(set-logic QF_LIA)\n(declare-const ord_0 Int) ; position of Performance review\n(assert (>= ord_0 1))\n(assert (<= ord_0 5))\n(declare-const ord_1 Int) ; position of Lunch break\n(assert (>= ord_1 1))\n(assert (<= ord_1 5))\n(declare-const ord_2 Int) ; position of Board meeting\n(assert (>= ord_2 1))\n(assert (<= ord_2 5))\n(declare-const ord_3 Int) ; position of Budget review\n(assert (>= ord_3 1))\n(assert (<= ord_3 5))\n(declare-const ord_4 Int) ; position of Sprint planning\n(assert (>= ord_4 1))\n(assert (<= ord_4 5))\n(assert (distinct ord_0 ord_1 ord_2 ord_3 ord_4))\n; ('not_adjacent', 'Lunch break', 'Sprint planning')\n; ('before', 'Performance review', 'Lunch break')\n; ('before', 'Performance review', 'Board meeting')\n(check-sat)", + "entities": [ + "Performance review", + "Lunch break", + "Board meeting", + "Budget review", + "Sprint planning" + ], + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 7, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Must Budget review be the last event?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether Budget review is last depends on how the other ordering constraints resolve.", + "query_type": "first_last", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Can Sprint planning occur before Lunch break?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "The ordering constraints allow sequences where Lunch break is before Sprint planning and vice versa.", + "query_type": "before", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Must Board meeting and Sprint planning be consecutive events?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some orderings place Board meeting and Sprint planning consecutively while others separate them.", + "query_type": "adjacent", + "depends_on": [ + 1 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Must Budget review be the fifth event?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid orderings place Budget review in position 5, others do not.", + "query_type": "position", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Must Sprint planning and Lunch break be consecutive events?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "No valid ordering has Sprint planning and Lunch break in consecutive positions.", + "query_type": "adjacent", + "depends_on": [ + 1, + 2 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q5", + "query": "Must Performance review be the first event?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether Performance review is first depends on how the other ordering constraints resolve.", + "query_type": "first_last", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q6", + "query": "Must Sprint planning be the fifth event?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid orderings place Sprint planning in position 5, others do not.", + "query_type": "position", + "depends_on": [ + 1, + 2, + 4 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "UNKNOWN": 6, + "CONTRADICTED": 1 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "temp_sched_0023", + "domain": "temporal", + "subdomain": "event_scheduling", + "logic_type": "linear_arithmetic", + "premises": [ + "A day has 10 available hours (slots 0 through 9).", + "There are 6 events to schedule: Tech talk, Security audit, Investor update, Lunch break, Board meeting, and Design sprint.", + "Tech talk takes 3 hour(s).", + "Security audit takes 1 hour(s).", + "Investor update takes 3 hour(s).", + "Lunch break takes 2 hour(s).", + "Board meeting takes 2 hour(s).", + "Design sprint takes 3 hour(s).", + "Tech talk and Security audit must start at the same time.", + "Investor update and Design sprint must start at the same time.", + "Security audit and Lunch break must start at the same time.", + "Tech talk and Board meeting must not overlap.", + "There must be at least 1 hour(s) between Investor update and Lunch break." + ], + "formal_representation": "(set-logic QF_LIA)\n(declare-const s_0 Int) ; start of Tech talk\n(assert (>= s_0 0))\n(assert (<= (+ s_0 3) 10))\n(declare-const s_1 Int) ; start of Security audit\n(assert (>= s_1 0))\n(assert (<= (+ s_1 1) 10))\n(declare-const s_2 Int) ; start of Investor update\n(assert (>= s_2 0))\n(assert (<= (+ s_2 3) 10))\n(declare-const s_3 Int) ; start of Lunch break\n(assert (>= s_3 0))\n(assert (<= (+ s_3 2) 10))\n(declare-const s_4 Int) ; start of Board meeting\n(assert (>= s_4 0))\n(assert (<= (+ s_4 2) 10))\n(declare-const s_5 Int) ; start of Design sprint\n(assert (>= s_5 0))\n(assert (<= (+ s_5 3) 10))\n; ('same_start', 'Tech talk', 'Security audit')\n; ('same_start', 'Investor update', 'Design sprint')\n; ('same_start', 'Security audit', 'Lunch break')\n; ('no_overlap', 'Tech talk', 'Board meeting')\n; ('gap', 'Investor update', 'Lunch break', 1)\n(check-sat)", + "entities": [ + "Tech talk", + "Security audit", + "Investor update", + "Lunch break", + "Board meeting", + "Design sprint" + ], + "durations": { + "Tech talk": 3, + "Security audit": 1, + "Investor update": 3, + "Lunch break": 2, + "Board meeting": 2, + "Design sprint": 3 + }, + "time_horizon": 10, + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 7, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Can Tech talk fit entirely within hours 3 to 8?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid schedules place Tech talk within [3, 8] and others do not.", + "query_type": "duration_fit", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Must Design sprint finish before Board meeting begins?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "The constraints allow schedules where Design sprint precedes Board meeting and others where it does not.", + "query_type": "order", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Can Investor update fit entirely within hours 0 to 5?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid schedules place Investor update within [0, 5] and others do not.", + "query_type": "duration_fit", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Is Investor update running at hour 9?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether Investor update is active at hour 9 depends on how the remaining scheduling constraints resolve.", + "query_type": "time_slot", + "depends_on": [ + 2 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Does Board meeting always start before Design sprint?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid schedules have Board meeting first, others have Design sprint first.", + "query_type": "before_after", + "depends_on": [ + 1 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q5", + "query": "Is it possible for Design sprint and Investor update to run simultaneously?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "The constraints force Design sprint and Investor update to overlap in every valid schedule.", + "query_type": "overlap", + "depends_on": [ + 1, + 2, + 3, + 4 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q6", + "query": "Can Board meeting fit entirely within hours 1 to 5?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid schedules place Board meeting within [1, 5] and others do not.", + "query_type": "duration_fit", + "depends_on": [ + 1, + 4 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "UNKNOWN": 6, + "ENTAILED": 1 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "temp_sched_0106", + "domain": "temporal", + "subdomain": "event_scheduling", + "logic_type": "linear_arithmetic", + "premises": [ + "A day has 8 available hours (slots 0 through 7).", + "There are 4 events to schedule: Strategy planning, Board meeting, Retrospective, and QA review.", + "Strategy planning takes 1 hour(s).", + "Board meeting takes 2 hour(s).", + "Retrospective takes 2 hour(s).", + "QA review takes 2 hour(s).", + "Strategy planning and QA review must not overlap.", + "Retrospective and QA review must not overlap.", + "There must be at least 2 hour(s) between Board meeting and QA review.", + "Strategy planning and Retrospective must start at the same time.", + "Board meeting must finish before Retrospective starts.", + "Strategy planning and Board meeting must not overlap." + ], + "formal_representation": "(set-logic QF_LIA)\n(declare-const s_0 Int) ; start of Strategy planning\n(assert (>= s_0 0))\n(assert (<= (+ s_0 1) 8))\n(declare-const s_1 Int) ; start of Board meeting\n(assert (>= s_1 0))\n(assert (<= (+ s_1 2) 8))\n(declare-const s_2 Int) ; start of Retrospective\n(assert (>= s_2 0))\n(assert (<= (+ s_2 2) 8))\n(declare-const s_3 Int) ; start of QA review\n(assert (>= s_3 0))\n(assert (<= (+ s_3 2) 8))\n; ('no_overlap', 'Strategy planning', 'QA review')\n; ('no_overlap', 'Retrospective', 'QA review')\n; ('gap', 'Board meeting', 'QA review', 2)\n; ('same_start', 'Strategy planning', 'Retrospective')\n; ('before', 'Board meeting', 'Retrospective')\n; ('no_overlap', 'Strategy planning', 'Board meeting')\n(check-sat)", + "entities": [ + "Strategy planning", + "Board meeting", + "Retrospective", + "QA review" + ], + "durations": { + "Strategy planning": 1, + "Board meeting": 2, + "Retrospective": 2, + "QA review": 2 + }, + "time_horizon": 8, + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 6, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Can Strategy planning be scheduled to include hour 6?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether Strategy planning is active at hour 6 depends on how the remaining scheduling constraints resolve.", + "query_type": "time_slot", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Does Strategy planning always start before Board meeting?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "No valid schedule has Strategy planning starting before Board meeting; the reverse is forced.", + "query_type": "before_after", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Does Retrospective always start before Board meeting?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "No valid schedule has Retrospective starting before Board meeting; the reverse is forced.", + "query_type": "before_after", + "depends_on": [ + 1 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Can Strategy planning fit entirely within hours 0 to 1?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "No valid schedule fits Strategy planning (1h) entirely within [0, 1], given other constraints.", + "query_type": "duration_fit", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Can Retrospective fit entirely within hours 5 to 8?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid schedules place Retrospective within [5, 8] and others do not.", + "query_type": "duration_fit", + "depends_on": [ + 2 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q5", + "query": "Can Board meeting and Retrospective overlap in time?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "No valid schedule allows Board meeting and Retrospective to overlap, given the separation constraints.", + "query_type": "overlap", + "depends_on": [ + 1, + 2, + 4 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "UNKNOWN": 2, + "CONTRADICTED": 4 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "temp_sched_0100", + "domain": "temporal", + "subdomain": "event_scheduling", + "logic_type": "linear_arithmetic", + "premises": [ + "A day has 12 available hours (slots 0 through 11).", + "There are 7 events to schedule: Design sprint, Client call, Workshop, Town hall, Code review, Release planning, and Investor update.", + "Design sprint takes 1 hour(s).", + "Client call takes 2 hour(s).", + "Workshop takes 1 hour(s).", + "Town hall takes 2 hour(s).", + "Code review takes 3 hour(s).", + "Release planning takes 1 hour(s).", + "Investor update takes 3 hour(s).", + "Design sprint must finish before Investor update starts.", + "Design sprint must finish before Client call starts.", + "Workshop and Town hall must not overlap.", + "Release planning must start no later than hour 4.", + "Investor update must start at hour 8." + ], + "formal_representation": "(set-logic QF_LIA)\n(declare-const s_0 Int) ; start of Design sprint\n(assert (>= s_0 0))\n(assert (<= (+ s_0 1) 12))\n(declare-const s_1 Int) ; start of Client call\n(assert (>= s_1 0))\n(assert (<= (+ s_1 2) 12))\n(declare-const s_2 Int) ; start of Workshop\n(assert (>= s_2 0))\n(assert (<= (+ s_2 1) 12))\n(declare-const s_3 Int) ; start of Town hall\n(assert (>= s_3 0))\n(assert (<= (+ s_3 2) 12))\n(declare-const s_4 Int) ; start of Code review\n(assert (>= s_4 0))\n(assert (<= (+ s_4 3) 12))\n(declare-const s_5 Int) ; start of Release planning\n(assert (>= s_5 0))\n(assert (<= (+ s_5 1) 12))\n(declare-const s_6 Int) ; start of Investor update\n(assert (>= s_6 0))\n(assert (<= (+ s_6 3) 12))\n; ('before', 'Design sprint', 'Investor update')\n; ('before', 'Design sprint', 'Client call')\n; ('no_overlap', 'Workshop', 'Town hall')\n; ('latest', 'Release planning', 4)\n; ('exact', 'Investor update', 8)\n(check-sat)", + "entities": [ + "Design sprint", + "Client call", + "Workshop", + "Town hall", + "Code review", + "Release planning", + "Investor update" + ], + "durations": { + "Design sprint": 1, + "Client call": 2, + "Workshop": 1, + "Town hall": 2, + "Code review": 3, + "Release planning": 1, + "Investor update": 3 + }, + "time_horizon": 12, + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 8, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Can Code review and Workshop overlap in time?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid schedules have Code review and Workshop overlapping, while others keep them separate.", + "query_type": "overlap", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Can Workshop and Release planning overlap in time?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid schedules have Workshop and Release planning overlapping, while others keep them separate.", + "query_type": "overlap", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Does Release planning always start before Design sprint?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid schedules have Release planning first, others have Design sprint first.", + "query_type": "before_after", + "depends_on": [ + 1 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Can Investor update and Town hall overlap in time?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid schedules have Investor update and Town hall overlapping, while others keep them separate.", + "query_type": "overlap", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Is it possible for Workshop and Town hall to run simultaneously?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "No valid schedule allows Workshop and Town hall to overlap, given the separation constraints.", + "query_type": "overlap", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1, + 3 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q5", + "query": "Is Design sprint running at hour 1?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether Design sprint is active at hour 1 depends on how the remaining scheduling constraints resolve.", + "query_type": "time_slot", + "depends_on": [ + 2 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q6", + "query": "Is Design sprint running at hour 3?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether Design sprint is active at hour 3 depends on how the remaining scheduling constraints resolve.", + "query_type": "time_slot", + "depends_on": [ + 2, + 5 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q7", + "query": "Can Release planning start before Client call finishes?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "The constraints allow schedules where Client call precedes Release planning and others where it does not.", + "query_type": "order", + "depends_on": [ + 1, + 2 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "UNKNOWN": 7, + "CONTRADICTED": 1 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "temp_order_0067", + "domain": "temporal", + "subdomain": "event_ordering", + "logic_type": "linear_arithmetic", + "premises": [ + "There are 7 events that happen in sequence: Release planning, Code review, Mentoring session, QA review, Tech talk, Lunch break, and Retrospective.", + "Each event occurs at a unique position (1 = first, 7 = last).", + "Release planning happens immediately before Tech talk.", + "Release planning and Lunch break are not consecutive events.", + "Code review happens before Mentoring session." + ], + "formal_representation": "(set-logic QF_LIA)\n(declare-const ord_0 Int) ; position of Release planning\n(assert (>= ord_0 1))\n(assert (<= ord_0 7))\n(declare-const ord_1 Int) ; position of Code review\n(assert (>= ord_1 1))\n(assert (<= ord_1 7))\n(declare-const ord_2 Int) ; position of Mentoring session\n(assert (>= ord_2 1))\n(assert (<= ord_2 7))\n(declare-const ord_3 Int) ; position of QA review\n(assert (>= ord_3 1))\n(assert (<= ord_3 7))\n(declare-const ord_4 Int) ; position of Tech talk\n(assert (>= ord_4 1))\n(assert (<= ord_4 7))\n(declare-const ord_5 Int) ; position of Lunch break\n(assert (>= ord_5 1))\n(assert (<= ord_5 7))\n(declare-const ord_6 Int) ; position of Retrospective\n(assert (>= ord_6 1))\n(assert (<= ord_6 7))\n(assert (distinct ord_0 ord_1 ord_2 ord_3 ord_4 ord_5 ord_6))\n; ('immediately_before', 'Release planning', 'Tech talk')\n; ('not_adjacent', 'Release planning', 'Lunch break')\n; ('before', 'Code review', 'Mentoring session')\n(check-sat)", + "entities": [ + "Release planning", + "Code review", + "Mentoring session", + "QA review", + "Tech talk", + "Lunch break", + "Retrospective" + ], + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 8, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Must Release planning be the first event?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether Release planning is first depends on how the other ordering constraints resolve.", + "query_type": "first_last", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Does Tech talk always precede Release planning?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "The constraints force Release planning before Tech talk; no valid ordering has Tech talk first.", + "query_type": "before", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Must Lunch break be the sixth event?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid orderings place Lunch break in position 6, others do not.", + "query_type": "position", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Must Tech talk be the second event?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid orderings place Tech talk in position 2, others do not.", + "query_type": "position", + "depends_on": [ + 1 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Must Lunch break and Mentoring session be consecutive events?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some orderings place Lunch break and Mentoring session consecutively while others separate them.", + "query_type": "adjacent", + "depends_on": [ + 2 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q5", + "query": "Must Tech talk be the first event?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "No valid ordering has Tech talk as the first event.", + "query_type": "first_last", + "depends_on": [ + 1, + 3 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q6", + "query": "Must Tech talk and Retrospective be consecutive events?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some orderings place Tech talk and Retrospective consecutively while others separate them.", + "query_type": "adjacent", + "depends_on": [ + 1, + 3, + 5 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q7", + "query": "Can QA review occur in position 3?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid orderings place QA review in position 3, others do not.", + "query_type": "position", + "depends_on": [] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "UNKNOWN": 6, + "CONTRADICTED": 2 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "temp_order_0074", + "domain": "temporal", + "subdomain": "event_ordering", + "logic_type": "linear_arithmetic", + "premises": [ + "There are 5 events that happen in sequence: Lunch break, Tech talk, Board meeting, Compliance check, and Design sprint.", + "Each event occurs at a unique position (1 = first, 5 = last).", + "Lunch break and Tech talk are not consecutive events.", + "Tech talk and Board meeting are not consecutive events.", + "Lunch break and Board meeting are not consecutive events.", + "Compliance check happens before Design sprint." + ], + "formal_representation": "(set-logic QF_LIA)\n(declare-const ord_0 Int) ; position of Lunch break\n(assert (>= ord_0 1))\n(assert (<= ord_0 5))\n(declare-const ord_1 Int) ; position of Tech talk\n(assert (>= ord_1 1))\n(assert (<= ord_1 5))\n(declare-const ord_2 Int) ; position of Board meeting\n(assert (>= ord_2 1))\n(assert (<= ord_2 5))\n(declare-const ord_3 Int) ; position of Compliance check\n(assert (>= ord_3 1))\n(assert (<= ord_3 5))\n(declare-const ord_4 Int) ; position of Design sprint\n(assert (>= ord_4 1))\n(assert (<= ord_4 5))\n(assert (distinct ord_0 ord_1 ord_2 ord_3 ord_4))\n; ('not_adjacent', 'Lunch break', 'Tech talk')\n; ('not_adjacent', 'Tech talk', 'Board meeting')\n; ('not_adjacent', 'Lunch break', 'Board meeting')\n; ('before', 'Compliance check', 'Design sprint')\n(check-sat)", + "entities": [ + "Lunch break", + "Tech talk", + "Board meeting", + "Compliance check", + "Design sprint" + ], + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 6, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Must Compliance check and Design sprint be consecutive events?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "No valid ordering has Compliance check and Design sprint in consecutive positions.", + "query_type": "adjacent", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Must Board meeting happen before Tech talk?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "The ordering constraints allow sequences where Board meeting is before Tech talk and vice versa.", + "query_type": "before", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Must Tech talk and Lunch break be consecutive events?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "No valid ordering has Tech talk and Lunch break in consecutive positions.", + "query_type": "adjacent", + "depends_on": [ + 1 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Must Lunch break be the first event?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether Lunch break is first depends on how the other ordering constraints resolve.", + "query_type": "first_last", + "depends_on": [ + 2 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Must Tech talk be the fifth event?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid orderings place Tech talk in position 5, others do not.", + "query_type": "position", + "depends_on": [ + 1, + 2 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q5", + "query": "Must Lunch break and Compliance check be consecutive events?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some orderings place Lunch break and Compliance check consecutively while others separate them.", + "query_type": "adjacent", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 2, + 3 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "CONTRADICTED": 2, + "UNKNOWN": 4 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "temp_order_0017", + "domain": "temporal", + "subdomain": "event_ordering", + "logic_type": "linear_arithmetic", + "premises": [ + "There are 7 events that happen in sequence: Mentoring session, Performance review, Board meeting, Vendor meeting, Product demo, Sprint planning, and Investor update.", + "Each event occurs at a unique position (1 = first, 7 = last).", + "Vendor meeting happens before Investor update.", + "Mentoring session happens immediately before Sprint planning.", + "Mentoring session and Investor update are not consecutive events.", + "Board meeting happens immediately before Product demo.", + "Vendor meeting and Product demo are not consecutive events.", + "Performance review happens before Investor update." + ], + "formal_representation": "(set-logic QF_LIA)\n(declare-const ord_0 Int) ; position of Mentoring session\n(assert (>= ord_0 1))\n(assert (<= ord_0 7))\n(declare-const ord_1 Int) ; position of Performance review\n(assert (>= ord_1 1))\n(assert (<= ord_1 7))\n(declare-const ord_2 Int) ; position of Board meeting\n(assert (>= ord_2 1))\n(assert (<= ord_2 7))\n(declare-const ord_3 Int) ; position of Vendor meeting\n(assert (>= ord_3 1))\n(assert (<= ord_3 7))\n(declare-const ord_4 Int) ; position of Product demo\n(assert (>= ord_4 1))\n(assert (<= ord_4 7))\n(declare-const ord_5 Int) ; position of Sprint planning\n(assert (>= ord_5 1))\n(assert (<= ord_5 7))\n(declare-const ord_6 Int) ; position of Investor update\n(assert (>= ord_6 1))\n(assert (<= ord_6 7))\n(assert (distinct ord_0 ord_1 ord_2 ord_3 ord_4 ord_5 ord_6))\n; ('before', 'Vendor meeting', 'Investor update')\n; ('immediately_before', 'Mentoring session', 'Sprint planning')\n; ('not_adjacent', 'Mentoring session', 'Investor update')\n; ('immediately_before', 'Board meeting', 'Product demo')\n; ('not_adjacent', 'Vendor meeting', 'Product demo')\n; ('before', 'Performance review', 'Investor update')\n(check-sat)", + "entities": [ + "Mentoring session", + "Performance review", + "Board meeting", + "Vendor meeting", + "Product demo", + "Sprint planning", + "Investor update" + ], + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 6, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Must Mentoring session be the first event?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether Mentoring session is first depends on how the other ordering constraints resolve.", + "query_type": "first_last", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Must Vendor meeting and Investor update be consecutive events?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some orderings place Vendor meeting and Investor update consecutively while others separate them.", + "query_type": "adjacent", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Must Product demo and Sprint planning be consecutive events?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "No valid ordering has Product demo and Sprint planning in consecutive positions.", + "query_type": "adjacent", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Must Board meeting happen before Investor update?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "The ordering constraints allow sequences where Board meeting is before Investor update and vice versa.", + "query_type": "before", + "depends_on": [ + 1 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Must Board meeting be the seventh event?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "No valid ordering places Board meeting in position 7; other constraints block it.", + "query_type": "position", + "depends_on": [ + 3 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q5", + "query": "Must Board meeting be the first event?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether Board meeting is first depends on how the other ordering constraints resolve.", + "query_type": "first_last", + "depends_on": [ + 3, + 4 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "UNKNOWN": 4, + "CONTRADICTED": 2 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "temp_order_0088", + "domain": "temporal", + "subdomain": "event_ordering", + "logic_type": "linear_arithmetic", + "premises": [ + "There are 8 events that happen in sequence: Code review, Hackathon session, Team standup, Retrospective, Workshop, Mentoring session, Product demo, and Compliance check.", + "Each event occurs at a unique position (1 = first, 8 = last).", + "Hackathon session happens before Workshop.", + "Hackathon session and Retrospective are not consecutive events.", + "Retrospective happens immediately before Workshop.", + "Mentoring session and Product demo are not consecutive events.", + "Code review happens before Product demo.", + "Mentoring session happens before Compliance check.", + "Workshop happens immediately before Compliance check." + ], + "formal_representation": "(set-logic QF_LIA)\n(declare-const ord_0 Int) ; position of Code review\n(assert (>= ord_0 1))\n(assert (<= ord_0 8))\n(declare-const ord_1 Int) ; position of Hackathon session\n(assert (>= ord_1 1))\n(assert (<= ord_1 8))\n(declare-const ord_2 Int) ; position of Team standup\n(assert (>= ord_2 1))\n(assert (<= ord_2 8))\n(declare-const ord_3 Int) ; position of Retrospective\n(assert (>= ord_3 1))\n(assert (<= ord_3 8))\n(declare-const ord_4 Int) ; position of Workshop\n(assert (>= ord_4 1))\n(assert (<= ord_4 8))\n(declare-const ord_5 Int) ; position of Mentoring session\n(assert (>= ord_5 1))\n(assert (<= ord_5 8))\n(declare-const ord_6 Int) ; position of Product demo\n(assert (>= ord_6 1))\n(assert (<= ord_6 8))\n(declare-const ord_7 Int) ; position of Compliance check\n(assert (>= ord_7 1))\n(assert (<= ord_7 8))\n(assert (distinct ord_0 ord_1 ord_2 ord_3 ord_4 ord_5 ord_6 ord_7))\n; ('before', 'Hackathon session', 'Workshop')\n; ('not_adjacent', 'Hackathon session', 'Retrospective')\n; ('immediately_before', 'Retrospective', 'Workshop')\n; ('not_adjacent', 'Mentoring session', 'Product demo')\n; ('before', 'Code review', 'Product demo')\n; ('before', 'Mentoring session', 'Compliance check')\n; ('immediately_before', 'Workshop', 'Compliance check')\n(check-sat)", + "entities": [ + "Code review", + "Hackathon session", + "Team standup", + "Retrospective", + "Workshop", + "Mentoring session", + "Product demo", + "Compliance check" + ], + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 5, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Must Retrospective and Mentoring session be consecutive events?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some orderings place Retrospective and Mentoring session consecutively while others separate them.", + "query_type": "adjacent", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Can Product demo occur in position 7?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid orderings place Product demo in position 7, others do not.", + "query_type": "position", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Can Workshop occur in position 8?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "No valid ordering places Workshop in position 8; other constraints block it.", + "query_type": "position", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Must Mentoring session be the first event?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether Mentoring session is first depends on how the other ordering constraints resolve.", + "query_type": "first_last", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Must Team standup and Compliance check be consecutive events?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some orderings place Team standup and Compliance check consecutively while others separate them.", + "query_type": "adjacent", + "depends_on": [] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "UNKNOWN": 4, + "CONTRADICTED": 1 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "temp_order_0118", + "domain": "temporal", + "subdomain": "event_ordering", + "logic_type": "linear_arithmetic", + "premises": [ + "There are 8 events that happen in sequence: Product demo, Hackathon session, Keynote, Security audit, Data migration, Retrospective, Mentoring session, and Budget review.", + "Each event occurs at a unique position (1 = first, 8 = last).", + "Hackathon session happens before Retrospective.", + "Mentoring session happens before Budget review.", + "Keynote and Security audit are not consecutive events.", + "Keynote happens immediately before Budget review." + ], + "formal_representation": "(set-logic QF_LIA)\n(declare-const ord_0 Int) ; position of Product demo\n(assert (>= ord_0 1))\n(assert (<= ord_0 8))\n(declare-const ord_1 Int) ; position of Hackathon session\n(assert (>= ord_1 1))\n(assert (<= ord_1 8))\n(declare-const ord_2 Int) ; position of Keynote\n(assert (>= ord_2 1))\n(assert (<= ord_2 8))\n(declare-const ord_3 Int) ; position of Security audit\n(assert (>= ord_3 1))\n(assert (<= ord_3 8))\n(declare-const ord_4 Int) ; position of Data migration\n(assert (>= ord_4 1))\n(assert (<= ord_4 8))\n(declare-const ord_5 Int) ; position of Retrospective\n(assert (>= ord_5 1))\n(assert (<= ord_5 8))\n(declare-const ord_6 Int) ; position of Mentoring session\n(assert (>= ord_6 1))\n(assert (<= ord_6 8))\n(declare-const ord_7 Int) ; position of Budget review\n(assert (>= ord_7 1))\n(assert (<= ord_7 8))\n(assert (distinct ord_0 ord_1 ord_2 ord_3 ord_4 ord_5 ord_6 ord_7))\n; ('before', 'Hackathon session', 'Retrospective')\n; ('before', 'Mentoring session', 'Budget review')\n; ('not_adjacent', 'Keynote', 'Security audit')\n; ('immediately_before', 'Keynote', 'Budget review')\n(check-sat)", + "entities": [ + "Product demo", + "Hackathon session", + "Keynote", + "Security audit", + "Data migration", + "Retrospective", + "Mentoring session", + "Budget review" + ], + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 7, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Must Retrospective be the last event?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether Retrospective is last depends on how the other ordering constraints resolve.", + "query_type": "first_last", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Can Data migration occur before Product demo?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "The ordering constraints allow sequences where Product demo is before Data migration and vice versa.", + "query_type": "before", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Must Budget review be the first event?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "No valid ordering has Budget review as the first event.", + "query_type": "first_last", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Must Retrospective and Hackathon session be consecutive events?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some orderings place Retrospective and Hackathon session consecutively while others separate them.", + "query_type": "adjacent", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Must Data migration happen before Retrospective?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "The ordering constraints allow sequences where Data migration is before Retrospective and vice versa.", + "query_type": "before", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1, + 3 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q5", + "query": "Must Product demo be the first event?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether Product demo is first depends on how the other ordering constraints resolve.", + "query_type": "first_last", + "depends_on": [ + 1 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q6", + "query": "Can Retrospective occur in position 3?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid orderings place Retrospective in position 3, others do not.", + "query_type": "position", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 3, + 4 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "UNKNOWN": 6, + "CONTRADICTED": 1 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "temp_sched_0103", + "domain": "temporal", + "subdomain": "event_scheduling", + "logic_type": "linear_arithmetic", + "premises": [ + "A day has 8 available hours (slots 0 through 7).", + "There are 4 events to schedule: Workshop, QA review, Networking event, and Code review.", + "Workshop takes 2 hour(s).", + "QA review takes 1 hour(s).", + "Networking event takes 3 hour(s).", + "Code review takes 2 hour(s).", + "Networking event and Code review must not overlap.", + "Workshop and QA review must not overlap.", + "Workshop and Code review must start at the same time.", + "Workshop must finish before Networking event starts.", + "QA review and Code review must not overlap.", + "QA review and Networking event must start at the same time." + ], + "formal_representation": "(set-logic QF_LIA)\n(declare-const s_0 Int) ; start of Workshop\n(assert (>= s_0 0))\n(assert (<= (+ s_0 2) 8))\n(declare-const s_1 Int) ; start of QA review\n(assert (>= s_1 0))\n(assert (<= (+ s_1 1) 8))\n(declare-const s_2 Int) ; start of Networking event\n(assert (>= s_2 0))\n(assert (<= (+ s_2 3) 8))\n(declare-const s_3 Int) ; start of Code review\n(assert (>= s_3 0))\n(assert (<= (+ s_3 2) 8))\n; ('no_overlap', 'Networking event', 'Code review')\n; ('no_overlap', 'Workshop', 'QA review')\n; ('same_start', 'Workshop', 'Code review')\n; ('before', 'Workshop', 'Networking event')\n; ('no_overlap', 'QA review', 'Code review')\n; ('same_start', 'QA review', 'Networking event')\n(check-sat)", + "entities": [ + "Workshop", + "QA review", + "Networking event", + "Code review" + ], + "durations": { + "Workshop": 2, + "QA review": 1, + "Networking event": 3, + "Code review": 2 + }, + "time_horizon": 8, + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 7, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Must Code review finish before QA review begins?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "All ordering and duration constraints force Code review (duration 2h) to complete before QA review can begin.", + "query_type": "order", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Does Code review always start before Networking event?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "The combined constraints guarantee Code review starts before Networking event in all valid schedules.", + "query_type": "before_after", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Is Code review running at hour 0?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether Code review is active at hour 0 depends on how the remaining scheduling constraints resolve.", + "query_type": "time_slot", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Does Workshop always start before Networking event?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "The combined constraints guarantee Workshop starts before Networking event in all valid schedules.", + "query_type": "before_after", + "depends_on": [ + 1 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Can QA review fit entirely within hours 7 to 8?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "No valid schedule fits QA review (1h) entirely within [7, 8], given other constraints.", + "query_type": "duration_fit", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q5", + "query": "Can Code review fit entirely within hours 2 to 6?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid schedules place Code review within [2, 6] and others do not.", + "query_type": "duration_fit", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1, + 2 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q6", + "query": "Is it possible for Workshop and QA review to run simultaneously?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "No valid schedule allows Workshop and QA review to overlap, given the separation constraints.", + "query_type": "overlap", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 3, + 4 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "ENTAILED": 3, + "UNKNOWN": 2, + "CONTRADICTED": 2 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "temp_sched_0087", + "domain": "temporal", + "subdomain": "event_scheduling", + "logic_type": "linear_arithmetic", + "premises": [ + "A day has 12 available hours (slots 0 through 11).", + "There are 5 events to schedule: Compliance check, Retrospective, Mentoring session, Performance review, and Networking event.", + "Compliance check takes 2 hour(s).", + "Retrospective takes 1 hour(s).", + "Mentoring session takes 1 hour(s).", + "Performance review takes 1 hour(s).", + "Networking event takes 2 hour(s).", + "Compliance check and Performance review must not overlap.", + "Mentoring session must finish before Networking event starts.", + "There must be at least 1 hour(s) between Compliance check and Retrospective.", + "Compliance check and Mentoring session must not overlap.", + "Compliance check and Networking event must start at the same time.", + "Networking event must start no later than hour 1." + ], + "formal_representation": "(set-logic QF_LIA)\n(declare-const s_0 Int) ; start of Compliance check\n(assert (>= s_0 0))\n(assert (<= (+ s_0 2) 12))\n(declare-const s_1 Int) ; start of Retrospective\n(assert (>= s_1 0))\n(assert (<= (+ s_1 1) 12))\n(declare-const s_2 Int) ; start of Mentoring session\n(assert (>= s_2 0))\n(assert (<= (+ s_2 1) 12))\n(declare-const s_3 Int) ; start of Performance review\n(assert (>= s_3 0))\n(assert (<= (+ s_3 1) 12))\n(declare-const s_4 Int) ; start of Networking event\n(assert (>= s_4 0))\n(assert (<= (+ s_4 2) 12))\n; ('no_overlap', 'Compliance check', 'Performance review')\n; ('before', 'Mentoring session', 'Networking event')\n; ('gap', 'Compliance check', 'Retrospective', 1)\n; ('no_overlap', 'Compliance check', 'Mentoring session')\n; ('same_start', 'Compliance check', 'Networking event')\n; ('latest', 'Networking event', 1)\n(check-sat)", + "entities": [ + "Compliance check", + "Retrospective", + "Mentoring session", + "Performance review", + "Networking event" + ], + "durations": { + "Compliance check": 2, + "Retrospective": 1, + "Mentoring session": 1, + "Performance review": 1, + "Networking event": 2 + }, + "time_horizon": 12, + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 8, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Can Mentoring session fit entirely within hours 6 to 7?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "No valid schedule fits Mentoring session (1h) entirely within [6, 7], given other constraints.", + "query_type": "duration_fit", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Is it possible for Performance review and Networking event to run simultaneously?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "No valid schedule allows Performance review and Networking event to overlap, given the separation constraints.", + "query_type": "overlap", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Can Mentoring session be scheduled to include hour 3?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "No valid schedule has Mentoring session running at hour 3, given its duration (1h) and the constraints.", + "query_type": "time_slot", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Can Performance review fit entirely within hours 7 to 8?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid schedules place Performance review within [7, 8] and others do not.", + "query_type": "duration_fit", + "depends_on": [ + 1 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Can Performance review fit entirely within hours 0 to 1?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid schedules place Performance review within [0, 1] and others do not.", + "query_type": "duration_fit", + "depends_on": [ + 1, + 3 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q5", + "query": "Is Compliance check running at hour 0?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "No valid schedule has Compliance check running at hour 0, given its duration (2h) and the constraints.", + "query_type": "time_slot", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q6", + "query": "Can Compliance check fit entirely within hours 2 to 6?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "No valid schedule fits Compliance check (2h) entirely within [2, 6], given other constraints.", + "query_type": "duration_fit", + "depends_on": [ + 5 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q7", + "query": "Can Compliance check be scheduled to include hour 8?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "No valid schedule has Compliance check running at hour 8, given its duration (2h) and the constraints.", + "query_type": "time_slot", + "depends_on": [ + 5, + 6 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "CONTRADICTED": 6, + "UNKNOWN": 2 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "temp_order_0115", + "domain": "temporal", + "subdomain": "event_ordering", + "logic_type": "linear_arithmetic", + "premises": [ + "There are 7 events that happen in sequence: Architecture review, Hackathon session, Tech talk, Investor update, Sprint planning, QA review, and Lunch break.", + "Each event occurs at a unique position (1 = first, 7 = last).", + "Sprint planning happens immediately before QA review.", + "Tech talk happens immediately before Investor update.", + "Hackathon session and Tech talk are not consecutive events." + ], + "formal_representation": "(set-logic QF_LIA)\n(declare-const ord_0 Int) ; position of Architecture review\n(assert (>= ord_0 1))\n(assert (<= ord_0 7))\n(declare-const ord_1 Int) ; position of Hackathon session\n(assert (>= ord_1 1))\n(assert (<= ord_1 7))\n(declare-const ord_2 Int) ; position of Tech talk\n(assert (>= ord_2 1))\n(assert (<= ord_2 7))\n(declare-const ord_3 Int) ; position of Investor update\n(assert (>= ord_3 1))\n(assert (<= ord_3 7))\n(declare-const ord_4 Int) ; position of Sprint planning\n(assert (>= ord_4 1))\n(assert (<= ord_4 7))\n(declare-const ord_5 Int) ; position of QA review\n(assert (>= ord_5 1))\n(assert (<= ord_5 7))\n(declare-const ord_6 Int) ; position of Lunch break\n(assert (>= ord_6 1))\n(assert (<= ord_6 7))\n(assert (distinct ord_0 ord_1 ord_2 ord_3 ord_4 ord_5 ord_6))\n; ('immediately_before', 'Sprint planning', 'QA review')\n; ('immediately_before', 'Tech talk', 'Investor update')\n; ('not_adjacent', 'Hackathon session', 'Tech talk')\n(check-sat)", + "entities": [ + "Architecture review", + "Hackathon session", + "Tech talk", + "Investor update", + "Sprint planning", + "QA review", + "Lunch break" + ], + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 6, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Can Tech talk occur in position 4?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid orderings place Tech talk in position 4, others do not.", + "query_type": "position", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Must Lunch break be the last event?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether Lunch break is last depends on how the other ordering constraints resolve.", + "query_type": "first_last", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Must Hackathon session and QA review be consecutive events?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some orderings place Hackathon session and QA review consecutively while others separate them.", + "query_type": "adjacent", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Does Lunch break always precede Architecture review?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "The ordering constraints allow sequences where Lunch break is before Architecture review and vice versa.", + "query_type": "before", + "depends_on": [ + 1 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Must Lunch break and Architecture review be consecutive events?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some orderings place Lunch break and Architecture review consecutively while others separate them.", + "query_type": "adjacent", + "depends_on": [ + 1, + 3 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q5", + "query": "Must Hackathon session be the last event?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether Hackathon session is last depends on how the other ordering constraints resolve.", + "query_type": "first_last", + "depends_on": [ + 2 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "UNKNOWN": 6 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "temp_order_0049", + "domain": "temporal", + "subdomain": "event_ordering", + "logic_type": "linear_arithmetic", + "premises": [ + "There are 6 events that happen in sequence: Board meeting, Client call, Design sprint, Security audit, Compliance check, and Hackathon session.", + "Each event occurs at a unique position (1 = first, 6 = last).", + "Compliance check and Hackathon session are not consecutive events.", + "Security audit happens immediately before Hackathon session.", + "Board meeting happens before Client call.", + "Design sprint happens before Security audit." + ], + "formal_representation": "(set-logic QF_LIA)\n(declare-const ord_0 Int) ; position of Board meeting\n(assert (>= ord_0 1))\n(assert (<= ord_0 6))\n(declare-const ord_1 Int) ; position of Client call\n(assert (>= ord_1 1))\n(assert (<= ord_1 6))\n(declare-const ord_2 Int) ; position of Design sprint\n(assert (>= ord_2 1))\n(assert (<= ord_2 6))\n(declare-const ord_3 Int) ; position of Security audit\n(assert (>= ord_3 1))\n(assert (<= ord_3 6))\n(declare-const ord_4 Int) ; position of Compliance check\n(assert (>= ord_4 1))\n(assert (<= ord_4 6))\n(declare-const ord_5 Int) ; position of Hackathon session\n(assert (>= ord_5 1))\n(assert (<= ord_5 6))\n(assert (distinct ord_0 ord_1 ord_2 ord_3 ord_4 ord_5))\n; ('not_adjacent', 'Compliance check', 'Hackathon session')\n; ('immediately_before', 'Security audit', 'Hackathon session')\n; ('before', 'Board meeting', 'Client call')\n; ('before', 'Design sprint', 'Security audit')\n(check-sat)", + "entities": [ + "Board meeting", + "Client call", + "Design sprint", + "Security audit", + "Compliance check", + "Hackathon session" + ], + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 7, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Must Compliance check and Client call be consecutive events?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some orderings place Compliance check and Client call consecutively while others separate them.", + "query_type": "adjacent", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Must Board meeting and Design sprint be consecutive events?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some orderings place Board meeting and Design sprint consecutively while others separate them.", + "query_type": "adjacent", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Must Hackathon session happen before Client call?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "The ordering constraints allow sequences where Hackathon session is before Client call and vice versa.", + "query_type": "before", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Must Compliance check and Design sprint be consecutive events?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some orderings place Compliance check and Design sprint consecutively while others separate them.", + "query_type": "adjacent", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Must Design sprint happen before Compliance check?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "The ordering constraints allow sequences where Design sprint is before Compliance check and vice versa.", + "query_type": "before", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1, + 3 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q5", + "query": "Can Compliance check occur before Design sprint?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "The ordering constraints allow sequences where Design sprint is before Compliance check and vice versa.", + "query_type": "before", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1, + 3, + 4 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q6", + "query": "Must Hackathon session be the last event?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether Hackathon session is last depends on how the other ordering constraints resolve.", + "query_type": "first_last", + "depends_on": [ + 2 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "UNKNOWN": 7 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "temp_sched_0020", + "domain": "temporal", + "subdomain": "event_scheduling", + "logic_type": "linear_arithmetic", + "premises": [ + "A day has 8 available hours (slots 0 through 7).", + "There are 4 events to schedule: Tech talk, Client call, Product demo, and Sprint planning.", + "Tech talk takes 1 hour(s).", + "Client call takes 1 hour(s).", + "Product demo takes 1 hour(s).", + "Sprint planning takes 2 hour(s).", + "Product demo must finish before Sprint planning starts.", + "Client call and Product demo must not overlap.", + "Client call and Sprint planning must start at the same time.", + "There must be at least 1 hour(s) between Tech talk and Product demo.", + "Tech talk must finish before Sprint planning starts.", + "Client call must start no later than hour 7.", + "Client call must start no later than hour 6." + ], + "formal_representation": "(set-logic QF_LIA)\n(declare-const s_0 Int) ; start of Tech talk\n(assert (>= s_0 0))\n(assert (<= (+ s_0 1) 8))\n(declare-const s_1 Int) ; start of Client call\n(assert (>= s_1 0))\n(assert (<= (+ s_1 1) 8))\n(declare-const s_2 Int) ; start of Product demo\n(assert (>= s_2 0))\n(assert (<= (+ s_2 1) 8))\n(declare-const s_3 Int) ; start of Sprint planning\n(assert (>= s_3 0))\n(assert (<= (+ s_3 2) 8))\n; ('before', 'Product demo', 'Sprint planning')\n; ('no_overlap', 'Client call', 'Product demo')\n; ('same_start', 'Client call', 'Sprint planning')\n; ('gap', 'Tech talk', 'Product demo', 1)\n; ('before', 'Tech talk', 'Sprint planning')\n; ('latest', 'Client call', 7)\n; ('latest', 'Client call', 6)\n(check-sat)", + "entities": [ + "Tech talk", + "Client call", + "Product demo", + "Sprint planning" + ], + "durations": { + "Tech talk": 1, + "Client call": 1, + "Product demo": 1, + "Sprint planning": 2 + }, + "time_horizon": 8, + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 5, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Does Sprint planning always start before Client call?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "No valid schedule has Sprint planning starting before Client call; the reverse is forced.", + "query_type": "before_after", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Does Client call always start before Sprint planning?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "No valid schedule has Client call starting before Sprint planning; the reverse is forced.", + "query_type": "before_after", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Can Client call start before Sprint planning finishes?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "All ordering and duration constraints force Sprint planning (duration 2h) to complete before Client call can begin.", + "query_type": "order", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Can Sprint planning fit entirely within hours 5 to 8?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid schedules place Sprint planning within [5, 8] and others do not.", + "query_type": "duration_fit", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1, + 2 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Must Sprint planning be active during hour 4?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether Sprint planning is active at hour 4 depends on how the remaining scheduling constraints resolve.", + "query_type": "time_slot", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1, + 2, + 3 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "CONTRADICTED": 2, + "ENTAILED": 1, + "UNKNOWN": 2 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "temp_sched_0069", + "domain": "temporal", + "subdomain": "event_scheduling", + "logic_type": "linear_arithmetic", + "premises": [ + "A day has 12 available hours (slots 0 through 11).", + "There are 4 events to schedule: Town hall, Retrospective, Board meeting, and Data migration.", + "Town hall takes 1 hour(s).", + "Retrospective takes 2 hour(s).", + "Board meeting takes 1 hour(s).", + "Data migration takes 3 hour(s).", + "Retrospective and Data migration must not overlap.", + "There must be at least 1 hour(s) between Town hall and Retrospective.", + "Town hall must finish before Board meeting starts.", + "Town hall and Data migration must start at the same time.", + "Retrospective must start at hour 5." + ], + "formal_representation": "(set-logic QF_LIA)\n(declare-const s_0 Int) ; start of Town hall\n(assert (>= s_0 0))\n(assert (<= (+ s_0 1) 12))\n(declare-const s_1 Int) ; start of Retrospective\n(assert (>= s_1 0))\n(assert (<= (+ s_1 2) 12))\n(declare-const s_2 Int) ; start of Board meeting\n(assert (>= s_2 0))\n(assert (<= (+ s_2 1) 12))\n(declare-const s_3 Int) ; start of Data migration\n(assert (>= s_3 0))\n(assert (<= (+ s_3 3) 12))\n; ('no_overlap', 'Retrospective', 'Data migration')\n; ('gap', 'Town hall', 'Retrospective', 1)\n; ('before', 'Town hall', 'Board meeting')\n; ('same_start', 'Town hall', 'Data migration')\n; ('exact', 'Retrospective', 5)\n(check-sat)", + "entities": [ + "Town hall", + "Retrospective", + "Board meeting", + "Data migration" + ], + "durations": { + "Town hall": 1, + "Retrospective": 2, + "Board meeting": 1, + "Data migration": 3 + }, + "time_horizon": 12, + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 8, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Must Town hall finish before Board meeting begins?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "All ordering and duration constraints force Town hall (duration 1h) to complete before Board meeting can begin.", + "query_type": "order", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Is it possible for Town hall and Data migration to run simultaneously?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "The constraints force Town hall and Data migration to overlap in every valid schedule.", + "query_type": "overlap", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Can Town hall fit entirely within hours 10 to 12?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "No valid schedule fits Town hall (1h) entirely within [10, 12], given other constraints.", + "query_type": "duration_fit", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Is Board meeting running at hour 10?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether Board meeting is active at hour 10 depends on how the remaining scheduling constraints resolve.", + "query_type": "time_slot", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Must Board meeting finish before Town hall begins?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "The constraints make it impossible for Board meeting to finish before Town hall starts; some overlap or reverse ordering is forced.", + "query_type": "order", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1, + 2, + 3 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q5", + "query": "Can Retrospective fit entirely within hours 0 to 3?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "No valid schedule fits Retrospective (2h) entirely within [0, 3], given other constraints.", + "query_type": "duration_fit", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q6", + "query": "Does Data migration always start before Town hall?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "No valid schedule has Data migration starting before Town hall; the reverse is forced.", + "query_type": "before_after", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1, + 2, + 4 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q7", + "query": "Must Data migration finish before Board meeting begins?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "The constraints allow schedules where Data migration precedes Board meeting and others where it does not.", + "query_type": "order", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1, + 3, + 4, + 6 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "ENTAILED": 2, + "CONTRADICTED": 4, + "UNKNOWN": 2 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "temp_order_0084", + "domain": "temporal", + "subdomain": "event_ordering", + "logic_type": "linear_arithmetic", + "premises": [ + "There are 8 events that happen in sequence: Panel discussion, Security audit, Compliance check, Performance review, Data migration, Mentoring session, Code review, and Workshop.", + "Each event occurs at a unique position (1 = first, 8 = last).", + "Security audit happens before Mentoring session.", + "Compliance check and Data migration are not consecutive events.", + "Security audit and Compliance check are not consecutive events.", + "Mentoring session and Code review are not consecutive events.", + "Performance review happens before Data migration." + ], + "formal_representation": "(set-logic QF_LIA)\n(declare-const ord_0 Int) ; position of Panel discussion\n(assert (>= ord_0 1))\n(assert (<= ord_0 8))\n(declare-const ord_1 Int) ; position of Security audit\n(assert (>= ord_1 1))\n(assert (<= ord_1 8))\n(declare-const ord_2 Int) ; position of Compliance check\n(assert (>= ord_2 1))\n(assert (<= ord_2 8))\n(declare-const ord_3 Int) ; position of Performance review\n(assert (>= ord_3 1))\n(assert (<= ord_3 8))\n(declare-const ord_4 Int) ; position of Data migration\n(assert (>= ord_4 1))\n(assert (<= ord_4 8))\n(declare-const ord_5 Int) ; position of Mentoring session\n(assert (>= ord_5 1))\n(assert (<= ord_5 8))\n(declare-const ord_6 Int) ; position of Code review\n(assert (>= ord_6 1))\n(assert (<= ord_6 8))\n(declare-const ord_7 Int) ; position of Workshop\n(assert (>= ord_7 1))\n(assert (<= ord_7 8))\n(assert (distinct ord_0 ord_1 ord_2 ord_3 ord_4 ord_5 ord_6 ord_7))\n; ('before', 'Security audit', 'Mentoring session')\n; ('not_adjacent', 'Compliance check', 'Data migration')\n; ('not_adjacent', 'Security audit', 'Compliance check')\n; ('not_adjacent', 'Mentoring session', 'Code review')\n; ('before', 'Performance review', 'Data migration')\n(check-sat)", + "entities": [ + "Panel discussion", + "Security audit", + "Compliance check", + "Performance review", + "Data migration", + "Mentoring session", + "Code review", + "Workshop" + ], + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 7, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Must Performance review be the last event?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "No valid ordering has Performance review as the last event.", + "query_type": "first_last", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Must Workshop be the fifth event?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid orderings place Workshop in position 5, others do not.", + "query_type": "position", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Must Data migration and Mentoring session be consecutive events?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some orderings place Data migration and Mentoring session consecutively while others separate them.", + "query_type": "adjacent", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Must Security audit and Code review be consecutive events?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some orderings place Security audit and Code review consecutively while others separate them.", + "query_type": "adjacent", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Can Workshop occur in position 3?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid orderings place Workshop in position 3, others do not.", + "query_type": "position", + "depends_on": [ + 1 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q5", + "query": "Must Panel discussion and Compliance check be consecutive events?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some orderings place Panel discussion and Compliance check consecutively while others separate them.", + "query_type": "adjacent", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q6", + "query": "Must Code review and Security audit be consecutive events?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some orderings place Code review and Security audit consecutively while others separate them.", + "query_type": "adjacent", + "depends_on": [ + 3 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "CONTRADICTED": 1, + "UNKNOWN": 6 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "temp_sched_0061", + "domain": "temporal", + "subdomain": "event_scheduling", + "logic_type": "linear_arithmetic", + "premises": [ + "A day has 8 available hours (slots 0 through 7).", + "There are 4 events to schedule: Client call, Retrospective, Training session, and Town hall.", + "Client call takes 1 hour(s).", + "Retrospective takes 2 hour(s).", + "Training session takes 3 hour(s).", + "Town hall takes 3 hour(s).", + "Training session and Town hall must start at the same time.", + "There must be at least 1 hour(s) between Retrospective and Training session.", + "Client call must finish before Training session starts.", + "Training session cannot start before hour 1.", + "Client call must start at hour 3." + ], + "formal_representation": "(set-logic QF_LIA)\n(declare-const s_0 Int) ; start of Client call\n(assert (>= s_0 0))\n(assert (<= (+ s_0 1) 8))\n(declare-const s_1 Int) ; start of Retrospective\n(assert (>= s_1 0))\n(assert (<= (+ s_1 2) 8))\n(declare-const s_2 Int) ; start of Training session\n(assert (>= s_2 0))\n(assert (<= (+ s_2 3) 8))\n(declare-const s_3 Int) ; start of Town hall\n(assert (>= s_3 0))\n(assert (<= (+ s_3 3) 8))\n; ('same_start', 'Training session', 'Town hall')\n; ('gap', 'Retrospective', 'Training session', 1)\n; ('before', 'Client call', 'Training session')\n; ('earliest', 'Training session', 1)\n; ('exact', 'Client call', 3)\n(check-sat)", + "entities": [ + "Client call", + "Retrospective", + "Training session", + "Town hall" + ], + "durations": { + "Client call": 1, + "Retrospective": 2, + "Training session": 3, + "Town hall": 3 + }, + "time_horizon": 8, + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 8, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Can Training session and Town hall overlap in time?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "The constraints force Training session and Town hall to overlap in every valid schedule.", + "query_type": "overlap", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Can Retrospective fit entirely within hours 4 to 7?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "No valid schedule fits Retrospective (2h) entirely within [4, 7], given other constraints.", + "query_type": "duration_fit", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Can Retrospective fit entirely within hours 4 to 6?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "No valid schedule fits Retrospective (2h) entirely within [4, 6], given other constraints.", + "query_type": "duration_fit", + "depends_on": [ + 1 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Can Training session fit entirely within hours 0 to 4?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "No valid schedule fits Training session (3h) entirely within [0, 4], given other constraints.", + "query_type": "duration_fit", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Can Retrospective fit entirely within hours 6 to 8?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "No valid schedule fits Retrospective (2h) entirely within [6, 8], given other constraints.", + "query_type": "duration_fit", + "depends_on": [ + 1, + 2 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q5", + "query": "Can Client call be scheduled to include hour 5?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "No valid schedule has Client call running at hour 5, given its duration (1h) and the constraints.", + "query_type": "time_slot", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q6", + "query": "Can Town hall fit entirely within hours 1 to 6?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "No valid schedule fits Town hall (3h) entirely within [1, 6], given other constraints.", + "query_type": "duration_fit", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q7", + "query": "Can Retrospective start before Client call finishes?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "All ordering and duration constraints force Client call (duration 1h) to complete before Retrospective can begin.", + "query_type": "order", + "depends_on": [ + 1, + 2, + 4, + 5 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "ENTAILED": 2, + "CONTRADICTED": 6 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "temp_sched_0116", + "domain": "temporal", + "subdomain": "event_scheduling", + "logic_type": "linear_arithmetic", + "premises": [ + "A day has 10 available hours (slots 0 through 9).", + "There are 4 events to schedule: Security audit, Retrospective, Performance review, and Onboarding.", + "Security audit takes 1 hour(s).", + "Retrospective takes 3 hour(s).", + "Performance review takes 3 hour(s).", + "Onboarding takes 3 hour(s).", + "Security audit and Onboarding must start at the same time.", + "Performance review and Onboarding must not overlap.", + "Security audit must finish before Retrospective starts.", + "Security audit must finish before Performance review starts.", + "Onboarding must start no later than hour 5." + ], + "formal_representation": "(set-logic QF_LIA)\n(declare-const s_0 Int) ; start of Security audit\n(assert (>= s_0 0))\n(assert (<= (+ s_0 1) 10))\n(declare-const s_1 Int) ; start of Retrospective\n(assert (>= s_1 0))\n(assert (<= (+ s_1 3) 10))\n(declare-const s_2 Int) ; start of Performance review\n(assert (>= s_2 0))\n(assert (<= (+ s_2 3) 10))\n(declare-const s_3 Int) ; start of Onboarding\n(assert (>= s_3 0))\n(assert (<= (+ s_3 3) 10))\n; ('same_start', 'Security audit', 'Onboarding')\n; ('no_overlap', 'Performance review', 'Onboarding')\n; ('before', 'Security audit', 'Retrospective')\n; ('before', 'Security audit', 'Performance review')\n; ('latest', 'Onboarding', 5)\n(check-sat)", + "entities": [ + "Security audit", + "Retrospective", + "Performance review", + "Onboarding" + ], + "durations": { + "Security audit": 1, + "Retrospective": 3, + "Performance review": 3, + "Onboarding": 3 + }, + "time_horizon": 10, + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 5, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Can Security audit start before Retrospective finishes?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "All ordering and duration constraints force Retrospective (duration 3h) to complete before Security audit can begin.", + "query_type": "order", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Is Onboarding guaranteed to end before Security audit starts?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "The constraints make it impossible for Onboarding to finish before Security audit starts; some overlap or reverse ordering is forced.", + "query_type": "order", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Does Security audit always start before Performance review?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "The combined constraints guarantee Security audit starts before Performance review in all valid schedules.", + "query_type": "before_after", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Does Performance review always start before Onboarding?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "No valid schedule has Performance review starting before Onboarding; the reverse is forced.", + "query_type": "before_after", + "depends_on": [ + 1, + 2 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Can Onboarding fit entirely within hours 5 to 8?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "No valid schedule fits Onboarding (3h) entirely within [5, 8], given other constraints.", + "query_type": "duration_fit", + "depends_on": [ + 1, + 3 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "ENTAILED": 2, + "CONTRADICTED": 3 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "temp_order_0019", + "domain": "temporal", + "subdomain": "event_ordering", + "logic_type": "linear_arithmetic", + "premises": [ + "There are 7 events that happen in sequence: Security audit, Lunch break, Hackathon session, Keynote, Compliance check, Budget review, and Performance review.", + "Each event occurs at a unique position (1 = first, 7 = last).", + "Hackathon session happens before Compliance check.", + "Compliance check happens before Budget review.", + "Budget review and Performance review are not consecutive events.", + "Compliance check happens before Performance review.", + "Security audit happens immediately before Hackathon session.", + "Lunch break and Keynote are not consecutive events." + ], + "formal_representation": "(set-logic QF_LIA)\n(declare-const ord_0 Int) ; position of Security audit\n(assert (>= ord_0 1))\n(assert (<= ord_0 7))\n(declare-const ord_1 Int) ; position of Lunch break\n(assert (>= ord_1 1))\n(assert (<= ord_1 7))\n(declare-const ord_2 Int) ; position of Hackathon session\n(assert (>= ord_2 1))\n(assert (<= ord_2 7))\n(declare-const ord_3 Int) ; position of Keynote\n(assert (>= ord_3 1))\n(assert (<= ord_3 7))\n(declare-const ord_4 Int) ; position of Compliance check\n(assert (>= ord_4 1))\n(assert (<= ord_4 7))\n(declare-const ord_5 Int) ; position of Budget review\n(assert (>= ord_5 1))\n(assert (<= ord_5 7))\n(declare-const ord_6 Int) ; position of Performance review\n(assert (>= ord_6 1))\n(assert (<= ord_6 7))\n(assert (distinct ord_0 ord_1 ord_2 ord_3 ord_4 ord_5 ord_6))\n; ('before', 'Hackathon session', 'Compliance check')\n; ('before', 'Compliance check', 'Budget review')\n; ('not_adjacent', 'Budget review', 'Performance review')\n; ('before', 'Compliance check', 'Performance review')\n; ('immediately_before', 'Security audit', 'Hackathon session')\n; ('not_adjacent', 'Lunch break', 'Keynote')\n(check-sat)", + "entities": [ + "Security audit", + "Lunch break", + "Hackathon session", + "Keynote", + "Compliance check", + "Budget review", + "Performance review" + ], + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 8, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Must Keynote and Hackathon session be consecutive events?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some orderings place Keynote and Hackathon session consecutively while others separate them.", + "query_type": "adjacent", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Must Budget review and Performance review be consecutive events?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "No valid ordering has Budget review and Performance review in consecutive positions.", + "query_type": "adjacent", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Must Security audit and Lunch break be consecutive events?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some orderings place Security audit and Lunch break consecutively while others separate them.", + "query_type": "adjacent", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Must Compliance check and Hackathon session be consecutive events?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some orderings place Compliance check and Hackathon session consecutively while others separate them.", + "query_type": "adjacent", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Must Budget review be the first event?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "No valid ordering has Budget review as the first event.", + "query_type": "first_last", + "depends_on": [ + 1 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q5", + "query": "Can Compliance check occur before Keynote?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "The ordering constraints allow sequences where Keynote is before Compliance check and vice versa.", + "query_type": "before", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 3 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q6", + "query": "Must Budget review and Lunch break be consecutive events?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some orderings place Budget review and Lunch break consecutively while others separate them.", + "query_type": "adjacent", + "depends_on": [ + 1, + 2, + 4 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q7", + "query": "Must Security audit and Performance review be consecutive events?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "No valid ordering has Security audit and Performance review in consecutive positions.", + "query_type": "adjacent", + "depends_on": [ + 1, + 2 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "UNKNOWN": 5, + "CONTRADICTED": 3 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "temp_sched_0054", + "domain": "temporal", + "subdomain": "event_scheduling", + "logic_type": "linear_arithmetic", + "premises": [ + "A day has 12 available hours (slots 0 through 11).", + "There are 4 events to schedule: Architecture review, Retrospective, Town hall, and Team standup.", + "Architecture review takes 1 hour(s).", + "Retrospective takes 2 hour(s).", + "Town hall takes 1 hour(s).", + "Team standup takes 2 hour(s).", + "Architecture review must finish before Town hall starts.", + "There must be at least 1 hour(s) between Architecture review and Team standup.", + "There must be at least 1 hour(s) between Retrospective and Team standup.", + "Architecture review and Retrospective must not overlap.", + "Town hall and Team standup must start at the same time." + ], + "formal_representation": "(set-logic QF_LIA)\n(declare-const s_0 Int) ; start of Architecture review\n(assert (>= s_0 0))\n(assert (<= (+ s_0 1) 12))\n(declare-const s_1 Int) ; start of Retrospective\n(assert (>= s_1 0))\n(assert (<= (+ s_1 2) 12))\n(declare-const s_2 Int) ; start of Town hall\n(assert (>= s_2 0))\n(assert (<= (+ s_2 1) 12))\n(declare-const s_3 Int) ; start of Team standup\n(assert (>= s_3 0))\n(assert (<= (+ s_3 2) 12))\n; ('before', 'Architecture review', 'Town hall')\n; ('gap', 'Architecture review', 'Team standup', 1)\n; ('gap', 'Retrospective', 'Team standup', 1)\n; ('no_overlap', 'Architecture review', 'Retrospective')\n; ('same_start', 'Town hall', 'Team standup')\n(check-sat)", + "entities": [ + "Architecture review", + "Retrospective", + "Town hall", + "Team standup" + ], + "durations": { + "Architecture review": 1, + "Retrospective": 2, + "Town hall": 1, + "Team standup": 2 + }, + "time_horizon": 12, + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 6, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Can Retrospective and Architecture review overlap in time?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "No valid schedule allows Retrospective and Architecture review to overlap, given the separation constraints.", + "query_type": "overlap", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Can Retrospective be scheduled to include hour 9?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether Retrospective is active at hour 9 depends on how the remaining scheduling constraints resolve.", + "query_type": "time_slot", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Can Team standup be scheduled to include hour 8?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether Team standup is active at hour 8 depends on how the remaining scheduling constraints resolve.", + "query_type": "time_slot", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Can Town hall be scheduled to include hour 4?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether Town hall is active at hour 4 depends on how the remaining scheduling constraints resolve.", + "query_type": "time_slot", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Does Town hall always start before Architecture review?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "No valid schedule has Town hall starting before Architecture review; the reverse is forced.", + "query_type": "before_after", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 3 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q5", + "query": "Does Town hall always start before Team standup?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "No valid schedule has Town hall starting before Team standup; the reverse is forced.", + "query_type": "before_after", + "depends_on": [ + 2, + 3, + 4 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "CONTRADICTED": 3, + "UNKNOWN": 3 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "temp_order_0002", + "domain": "temporal", + "subdomain": "event_ordering", + "logic_type": "linear_arithmetic", + "premises": [ + "There are 8 events that happen in sequence: Tech talk, Sprint planning, Onboarding, Lunch break, Retrospective, Board meeting, Budget review, and Investor update.", + "Each event occurs at a unique position (1 = first, 8 = last).", + "Tech talk happens before Budget review.", + "Board meeting happens before Budget review.", + "Tech talk happens immediately before Investor update.", + "Retrospective happens immediately before Board meeting.", + "Retrospective happens before Budget review." + ], + "formal_representation": "(set-logic QF_LIA)\n(declare-const ord_0 Int) ; position of Tech talk\n(assert (>= ord_0 1))\n(assert (<= ord_0 8))\n(declare-const ord_1 Int) ; position of Sprint planning\n(assert (>= ord_1 1))\n(assert (<= ord_1 8))\n(declare-const ord_2 Int) ; position of Onboarding\n(assert (>= ord_2 1))\n(assert (<= ord_2 8))\n(declare-const ord_3 Int) ; position of Lunch break\n(assert (>= ord_3 1))\n(assert (<= ord_3 8))\n(declare-const ord_4 Int) ; position of Retrospective\n(assert (>= ord_4 1))\n(assert (<= ord_4 8))\n(declare-const ord_5 Int) ; position of Board meeting\n(assert (>= ord_5 1))\n(assert (<= ord_5 8))\n(declare-const ord_6 Int) ; position of Budget review\n(assert (>= ord_6 1))\n(assert (<= ord_6 8))\n(declare-const ord_7 Int) ; position of Investor update\n(assert (>= ord_7 1))\n(assert (<= ord_7 8))\n(assert (distinct ord_0 ord_1 ord_2 ord_3 ord_4 ord_5 ord_6 ord_7))\n; ('before', 'Tech talk', 'Budget review')\n; ('before', 'Board meeting', 'Budget review')\n; ('immediately_before', 'Tech talk', 'Investor update')\n; ('immediately_before', 'Retrospective', 'Board meeting')\n; ('before', 'Retrospective', 'Budget review')\n(check-sat)", + "entities": [ + "Tech talk", + "Sprint planning", + "Onboarding", + "Lunch break", + "Retrospective", + "Board meeting", + "Budget review", + "Investor update" + ], + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 5, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Must Tech talk be the second event?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid orderings place Tech talk in position 2, others do not.", + "query_type": "position", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Can Tech talk occur in position 2?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid orderings place Tech talk in position 2, others do not.", + "query_type": "position", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Does Budget review always precede Sprint planning?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "The ordering constraints allow sequences where Budget review is before Sprint planning and vice versa.", + "query_type": "before", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Must Retrospective and Investor update be consecutive events?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some orderings place Retrospective and Investor update consecutively while others separate them.", + "query_type": "adjacent", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Can Budget review occur in position 2?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "No valid ordering places Budget review in position 2; other constraints block it.", + "query_type": "position", + "depends_on": [ + 2 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "UNKNOWN": 4, + "CONTRADICTED": 1 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "temp_order_0036", + "domain": "temporal", + "subdomain": "event_ordering", + "logic_type": "linear_arithmetic", + "premises": [ + "There are 5 events that happen in sequence: Investor update, Networking event, Product demo, Hackathon session, and Code review.", + "Each event occurs at a unique position (1 = first, 5 = last).", + "Networking event happens before Product demo.", + "Networking event and Hackathon session are not consecutive events.", + "Networking event happens before Code review.", + "Hackathon session happens before Code review.", + "Investor update happens before Code review." + ], + "formal_representation": "(set-logic QF_LIA)\n(declare-const ord_0 Int) ; position of Investor update\n(assert (>= ord_0 1))\n(assert (<= ord_0 5))\n(declare-const ord_1 Int) ; position of Networking event\n(assert (>= ord_1 1))\n(assert (<= ord_1 5))\n(declare-const ord_2 Int) ; position of Product demo\n(assert (>= ord_2 1))\n(assert (<= ord_2 5))\n(declare-const ord_3 Int) ; position of Hackathon session\n(assert (>= ord_3 1))\n(assert (<= ord_3 5))\n(declare-const ord_4 Int) ; position of Code review\n(assert (>= ord_4 1))\n(assert (<= ord_4 5))\n(assert (distinct ord_0 ord_1 ord_2 ord_3 ord_4))\n; ('before', 'Networking event', 'Product demo')\n; ('not_adjacent', 'Networking event', 'Hackathon session')\n; ('before', 'Networking event', 'Code review')\n; ('before', 'Hackathon session', 'Code review')\n; ('before', 'Investor update', 'Code review')\n(check-sat)", + "entities": [ + "Investor update", + "Networking event", + "Product demo", + "Hackathon session", + "Code review" + ], + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 7, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Does Hackathon session always precede Code review?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "The chain of ordering constraints forces Hackathon session before Code review in every valid sequence.", + "query_type": "before", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Must Networking event be the fifth event?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "No valid ordering places Networking event in position 5; other constraints block it.", + "query_type": "position", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Can Networking event occur in position 1?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid orderings place Networking event in position 1, others do not.", + "query_type": "position", + "depends_on": [ + 1 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Must Product demo and Code review be consecutive events?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some orderings place Product demo and Code review consecutively while others separate them.", + "query_type": "adjacent", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Can Hackathon session occur before Product demo?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "The ordering constraints allow sequences where Product demo is before Hackathon session and vice versa.", + "query_type": "before", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 3 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q5", + "query": "Must Hackathon session be the last event?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "No valid ordering has Hackathon session as the last event.", + "query_type": "first_last", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 4 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q6", + "query": "Must Hackathon session and Networking event be consecutive events?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "No valid ordering has Hackathon session and Networking event in consecutive positions.", + "query_type": "adjacent", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1, + 2, + 4, + 5 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "ENTAILED": 1, + "CONTRADICTED": 3, + "UNKNOWN": 3 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "temp_order_0098", + "domain": "temporal", + "subdomain": "event_ordering", + "logic_type": "linear_arithmetic", + "premises": [ + "There are 7 events that happen in sequence: Compliance check, Onboarding, Vendor meeting, QA review, Release planning, Training session, and Strategy planning.", + "Each event occurs at a unique position (1 = first, 7 = last).", + "Vendor meeting and Release planning are not consecutive events.", + "Release planning and Training session are not consecutive events.", + "QA review happens immediately before Strategy planning.", + "Compliance check happens before Strategy planning." + ], + "formal_representation": "(set-logic QF_LIA)\n(declare-const ord_0 Int) ; position of Compliance check\n(assert (>= ord_0 1))\n(assert (<= ord_0 7))\n(declare-const ord_1 Int) ; position of Onboarding\n(assert (>= ord_1 1))\n(assert (<= ord_1 7))\n(declare-const ord_2 Int) ; position of Vendor meeting\n(assert (>= ord_2 1))\n(assert (<= ord_2 7))\n(declare-const ord_3 Int) ; position of QA review\n(assert (>= ord_3 1))\n(assert (<= ord_3 7))\n(declare-const ord_4 Int) ; position of Release planning\n(assert (>= ord_4 1))\n(assert (<= ord_4 7))\n(declare-const ord_5 Int) ; position of Training session\n(assert (>= ord_5 1))\n(assert (<= ord_5 7))\n(declare-const ord_6 Int) ; position of Strategy planning\n(assert (>= ord_6 1))\n(assert (<= ord_6 7))\n(assert (distinct ord_0 ord_1 ord_2 ord_3 ord_4 ord_5 ord_6))\n; ('not_adjacent', 'Vendor meeting', 'Release planning')\n; ('not_adjacent', 'Release planning', 'Training session')\n; ('immediately_before', 'QA review', 'Strategy planning')\n; ('before', 'Compliance check', 'Strategy planning')\n(check-sat)", + "entities": [ + "Compliance check", + "Onboarding", + "Vendor meeting", + "QA review", + "Release planning", + "Training session", + "Strategy planning" + ], + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 5, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Must Strategy planning be the first event?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "No valid ordering places Strategy planning in position 1; other constraints block it.", + "query_type": "position", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Does Training session always precede Onboarding?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "The ordering constraints allow sequences where Training session is before Onboarding and vice versa.", + "query_type": "before", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Does Vendor meeting always precede Strategy planning?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "The ordering constraints allow sequences where Vendor meeting is before Strategy planning and vice versa.", + "query_type": "before", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Can Vendor meeting occur before Training session?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "The ordering constraints allow sequences where Training session is before Vendor meeting and vice versa.", + "query_type": "before", + "depends_on": [ + 1, + 2 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Must Vendor meeting be the first event?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether Vendor meeting is first depends on how the other ordering constraints resolve.", + "query_type": "first_last", + "depends_on": [ + 2, + 3 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "CONTRADICTED": 1, + "UNKNOWN": 4 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "temp_order_0070", + "domain": "temporal", + "subdomain": "event_ordering", + "logic_type": "linear_arithmetic", + "premises": [ + "There are 6 events that happen in sequence: Architecture review, Mentoring session, Release planning, Code review, Data migration, and Product demo.", + "Each event occurs at a unique position (1 = first, 6 = last).", + "Data migration and Product demo are not consecutive events.", + "Release planning happens before Code review.", + "Release planning happens immediately before Data migration." + ], + "formal_representation": "(set-logic QF_LIA)\n(declare-const ord_0 Int) ; position of Architecture review\n(assert (>= ord_0 1))\n(assert (<= ord_0 6))\n(declare-const ord_1 Int) ; position of Mentoring session\n(assert (>= ord_1 1))\n(assert (<= ord_1 6))\n(declare-const ord_2 Int) ; position of Release planning\n(assert (>= ord_2 1))\n(assert (<= ord_2 6))\n(declare-const ord_3 Int) ; position of Code review\n(assert (>= ord_3 1))\n(assert (<= ord_3 6))\n(declare-const ord_4 Int) ; position of Data migration\n(assert (>= ord_4 1))\n(assert (<= ord_4 6))\n(declare-const ord_5 Int) ; position of Product demo\n(assert (>= ord_5 1))\n(assert (<= ord_5 6))\n(assert (distinct ord_0 ord_1 ord_2 ord_3 ord_4 ord_5))\n; ('not_adjacent', 'Data migration', 'Product demo')\n; ('before', 'Release planning', 'Code review')\n; ('immediately_before', 'Release planning', 'Data migration')\n(check-sat)", + "entities": [ + "Architecture review", + "Mentoring session", + "Release planning", + "Code review", + "Data migration", + "Product demo" + ], + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 6, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Must Mentoring session and Release planning be consecutive events?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some orderings place Mentoring session and Release planning consecutively while others separate them.", + "query_type": "adjacent", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Must Data migration and Product demo be consecutive events?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "No valid ordering has Data migration and Product demo in consecutive positions.", + "query_type": "adjacent", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Must Code review be the fifth event?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid orderings place Code review in position 5, others do not.", + "query_type": "position", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Must Product demo be the first event?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether Product demo is first depends on how the other ordering constraints resolve.", + "query_type": "first_last", + "depends_on": [ + 1 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Must Code review be the fourth event?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid orderings place Code review in position 4, others do not.", + "query_type": "position", + "depends_on": [ + 2 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q5", + "query": "Must Data migration be the last event?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "No valid ordering has Data migration as the last event.", + "query_type": "first_last", + "depends_on": [ + 1 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "UNKNOWN": 4, + "CONTRADICTED": 2 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "temp_order_0063", + "domain": "temporal", + "subdomain": "event_ordering", + "logic_type": "linear_arithmetic", + "premises": [ + "There are 7 events that happen in sequence: Workshop, Town hall, Client call, Team standup, Board meeting, Product demo, and QA review.", + "Each event occurs at a unique position (1 = first, 7 = last).", + "Team standup happens before QA review.", + "Town hall and Board meeting are not consecutive events.", + "Board meeting happens immediately before Product demo.", + "Board meeting and QA review are not consecutive events." + ], + "formal_representation": "(set-logic QF_LIA)\n(declare-const ord_0 Int) ; position of Workshop\n(assert (>= ord_0 1))\n(assert (<= ord_0 7))\n(declare-const ord_1 Int) ; position of Town hall\n(assert (>= ord_1 1))\n(assert (<= ord_1 7))\n(declare-const ord_2 Int) ; position of Client call\n(assert (>= ord_2 1))\n(assert (<= ord_2 7))\n(declare-const ord_3 Int) ; position of Team standup\n(assert (>= ord_3 1))\n(assert (<= ord_3 7))\n(declare-const ord_4 Int) ; position of Board meeting\n(assert (>= ord_4 1))\n(assert (<= ord_4 7))\n(declare-const ord_5 Int) ; position of Product demo\n(assert (>= ord_5 1))\n(assert (<= ord_5 7))\n(declare-const ord_6 Int) ; position of QA review\n(assert (>= ord_6 1))\n(assert (<= ord_6 7))\n(assert (distinct ord_0 ord_1 ord_2 ord_3 ord_4 ord_5 ord_6))\n; ('before', 'Team standup', 'QA review')\n; ('not_adjacent', 'Town hall', 'Board meeting')\n; ('immediately_before', 'Board meeting', 'Product demo')\n; ('not_adjacent', 'Board meeting', 'QA review')\n(check-sat)", + "entities": [ + "Workshop", + "Town hall", + "Client call", + "Team standup", + "Board meeting", + "Product demo", + "QA review" + ], + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 7, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Does Team standup always precede QA review?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "The chain of ordering constraints forces Team standup before QA review in every valid sequence.", + "query_type": "before", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Must Product demo be the first event?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "No valid ordering has Product demo as the first event.", + "query_type": "first_last", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Can Team standup occur in position 4?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid orderings place Team standup in position 4, others do not.", + "query_type": "position", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Must Team standup be the first event?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether Team standup is first depends on how the other ordering constraints resolve.", + "query_type": "first_last", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 2 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Must Client call be the first event?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether Client call is first depends on how the other ordering constraints resolve.", + "query_type": "first_last", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q5", + "query": "Can Client call occur in position 4?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid orderings place Client call in position 4, others do not.", + "query_type": "position", + "depends_on": [ + 4 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q6", + "query": "Does Client call always precede Workshop?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "The ordering constraints allow sequences where Client call is before Workshop and vice versa.", + "query_type": "before", + "depends_on": [ + 4, + 5 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "ENTAILED": 1, + "CONTRADICTED": 1, + "UNKNOWN": 5 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "temp_order_0035", + "domain": "temporal", + "subdomain": "event_ordering", + "logic_type": "linear_arithmetic", + "premises": [ + "There are 6 events that happen in sequence: Networking event, Hackathon session, Tech talk, Sprint planning, QA review, and Budget review.", + "Each event occurs at a unique position (1 = first, 6 = last).", + "Hackathon session happens immediately before Budget review.", + "Sprint planning happens before QA review.", + "Networking event happens before Tech talk.", + "Networking event and Sprint planning are not consecutive events." + ], + "formal_representation": "(set-logic QF_LIA)\n(declare-const ord_0 Int) ; position of Networking event\n(assert (>= ord_0 1))\n(assert (<= ord_0 6))\n(declare-const ord_1 Int) ; position of Hackathon session\n(assert (>= ord_1 1))\n(assert (<= ord_1 6))\n(declare-const ord_2 Int) ; position of Tech talk\n(assert (>= ord_2 1))\n(assert (<= ord_2 6))\n(declare-const ord_3 Int) ; position of Sprint planning\n(assert (>= ord_3 1))\n(assert (<= ord_3 6))\n(declare-const ord_4 Int) ; position of QA review\n(assert (>= ord_4 1))\n(assert (<= ord_4 6))\n(declare-const ord_5 Int) ; position of Budget review\n(assert (>= ord_5 1))\n(assert (<= ord_5 6))\n(assert (distinct ord_0 ord_1 ord_2 ord_3 ord_4 ord_5))\n; ('immediately_before', 'Hackathon session', 'Budget review')\n; ('before', 'Sprint planning', 'QA review')\n; ('before', 'Networking event', 'Tech talk')\n; ('not_adjacent', 'Networking event', 'Sprint planning')\n(check-sat)", + "entities": [ + "Networking event", + "Hackathon session", + "Tech talk", + "Sprint planning", + "QA review", + "Budget review" + ], + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 8, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Must Networking event be the fifth event?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid orderings place Networking event in position 5, others do not.", + "query_type": "position", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Must Sprint planning be the fourth event?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid orderings place Sprint planning in position 4, others do not.", + "query_type": "position", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Does QA review always precede Tech talk?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "The ordering constraints allow sequences where QA review is before Tech talk and vice versa.", + "query_type": "before", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Can Budget review occur in position 5?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid orderings place Budget review in position 5, others do not.", + "query_type": "position", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Does Tech talk always precede Hackathon session?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "The ordering constraints allow sequences where Tech talk is before Hackathon session and vice versa.", + "query_type": "before", + "depends_on": [ + 2 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q5", + "query": "Must Sprint planning and Networking event be consecutive events?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "No valid ordering has Sprint planning and Networking event in consecutive positions.", + "query_type": "adjacent", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q6", + "query": "Must QA review and Sprint planning be consecutive events?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some orderings place QA review and Sprint planning consecutively while others separate them.", + "query_type": "adjacent", + "depends_on": [ + 1, + 2, + 5 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q7", + "query": "Can Networking event occur in position 3?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid orderings place Networking event in position 3, others do not.", + "query_type": "position", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 5 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "UNKNOWN": 7, + "CONTRADICTED": 1 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "temp_sched_0015", + "domain": "temporal", + "subdomain": "event_scheduling", + "logic_type": "linear_arithmetic", + "premises": [ + "A day has 10 available hours (slots 0 through 9).", + "There are 4 events to schedule: Investor update, Data migration, Budget review, and Board meeting.", + "Investor update takes 3 hour(s).", + "Data migration takes 1 hour(s).", + "Budget review takes 2 hour(s).", + "Board meeting takes 3 hour(s).", + "There must be at least 1 hour(s) between Data migration and Board meeting.", + "Investor update and Board meeting must not overlap.", + "Investor update and Budget review must start at the same time.", + "Investor update and Data migration must start at the same time." + ], + "formal_representation": "(set-logic QF_LIA)\n(declare-const s_0 Int) ; start of Investor update\n(assert (>= s_0 0))\n(assert (<= (+ s_0 3) 10))\n(declare-const s_1 Int) ; start of Data migration\n(assert (>= s_1 0))\n(assert (<= (+ s_1 1) 10))\n(declare-const s_2 Int) ; start of Budget review\n(assert (>= s_2 0))\n(assert (<= (+ s_2 2) 10))\n(declare-const s_3 Int) ; start of Board meeting\n(assert (>= s_3 0))\n(assert (<= (+ s_3 3) 10))\n; ('gap', 'Data migration', 'Board meeting', 1)\n; ('no_overlap', 'Investor update', 'Board meeting')\n; ('same_start', 'Investor update', 'Budget review')\n; ('same_start', 'Investor update', 'Data migration')\n(check-sat)", + "entities": [ + "Investor update", + "Data migration", + "Budget review", + "Board meeting" + ], + "durations": { + "Investor update": 3, + "Data migration": 1, + "Budget review": 2, + "Board meeting": 3 + }, + "time_horizon": 10, + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 6, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Must Board meeting finish before Data migration begins?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "The constraints allow schedules where Board meeting precedes Data migration and others where it does not.", + "query_type": "order", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Can Budget review be scheduled to include hour 7?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether Budget review is active at hour 7 depends on how the remaining scheduling constraints resolve.", + "query_type": "time_slot", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Is Investor update guaranteed to end before Data migration starts?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "The constraints make it impossible for Investor update to finish before Data migration starts; some overlap or reverse ordering is forced.", + "query_type": "order", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Must Budget review be active during hour 3?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether Budget review is active at hour 3 depends on how the remaining scheduling constraints resolve.", + "query_type": "time_slot", + "depends_on": [ + 1 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Can Investor update be scheduled to include hour 7?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether Investor update is active at hour 7 depends on how the remaining scheduling constraints resolve.", + "query_type": "time_slot", + "depends_on": [ + 2 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q5", + "query": "Can Budget review fit entirely within hours 4 to 6?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid schedules place Budget review within [4, 6] and others do not.", + "query_type": "duration_fit", + "depends_on": [ + 1, + 3 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "UNKNOWN": 5, + "CONTRADICTED": 1 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "temp_sched_0018", + "domain": "temporal", + "subdomain": "event_scheduling", + "logic_type": "linear_arithmetic", + "premises": [ + "A day has 8 available hours (slots 0 through 7).", + "There are 5 events to schedule: Panel discussion, Onboarding, Hackathon session, Vendor meeting, and Sprint planning.", + "Panel discussion takes 1 hour(s).", + "Onboarding takes 3 hour(s).", + "Hackathon session takes 1 hour(s).", + "Vendor meeting takes 1 hour(s).", + "Sprint planning takes 2 hour(s).", + "There must be at least 2 hour(s) between Onboarding and Vendor meeting.", + "Panel discussion and Sprint planning must not overlap.", + "Panel discussion and Hackathon session must start at the same time.", + "Panel discussion and Onboarding must start at the same time.", + "Vendor meeting and Sprint planning must not overlap.", + "There must be at least 2 hour(s) between Hackathon session and Vendor meeting.", + "Sprint planning must start no later than hour 5." + ], + "formal_representation": "(set-logic QF_LIA)\n(declare-const s_0 Int) ; start of Panel discussion\n(assert (>= s_0 0))\n(assert (<= (+ s_0 1) 8))\n(declare-const s_1 Int) ; start of Onboarding\n(assert (>= s_1 0))\n(assert (<= (+ s_1 3) 8))\n(declare-const s_2 Int) ; start of Hackathon session\n(assert (>= s_2 0))\n(assert (<= (+ s_2 1) 8))\n(declare-const s_3 Int) ; start of Vendor meeting\n(assert (>= s_3 0))\n(assert (<= (+ s_3 1) 8))\n(declare-const s_4 Int) ; start of Sprint planning\n(assert (>= s_4 0))\n(assert (<= (+ s_4 2) 8))\n; ('gap', 'Onboarding', 'Vendor meeting', 2)\n; ('no_overlap', 'Panel discussion', 'Sprint planning')\n; ('same_start', 'Panel discussion', 'Hackathon session')\n; ('same_start', 'Panel discussion', 'Onboarding')\n; ('no_overlap', 'Vendor meeting', 'Sprint planning')\n; ('gap', 'Hackathon session', 'Vendor meeting', 2)\n; ('latest', 'Sprint planning', 5)\n(check-sat)", + "entities": [ + "Panel discussion", + "Onboarding", + "Hackathon session", + "Vendor meeting", + "Sprint planning" + ], + "durations": { + "Panel discussion": 1, + "Onboarding": 3, + "Hackathon session": 1, + "Vendor meeting": 1, + "Sprint planning": 2 + }, + "time_horizon": 8, + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 7, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Can Vendor meeting fit entirely within hours 7 to 8?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid schedules place Vendor meeting within [7, 8] and others do not.", + "query_type": "duration_fit", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Must Vendor meeting finish before Sprint planning begins?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "The constraints allow schedules where Vendor meeting precedes Sprint planning and others where it does not.", + "query_type": "order", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Is Onboarding running at hour 2?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether Onboarding is active at hour 2 depends on how the remaining scheduling constraints resolve.", + "query_type": "time_slot", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Can Panel discussion be scheduled to include hour 6?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "No valid schedule has Panel discussion running at hour 6, given its duration (1h) and the constraints.", + "query_type": "time_slot", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Can Sprint planning fit entirely within hours 6 to 8?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "No valid schedule fits Sprint planning (2h) entirely within [6, 8], given other constraints.", + "query_type": "duration_fit", + "depends_on": [ + 1 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q5", + "query": "Can Panel discussion fit entirely within hours 5 to 7?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid schedules place Panel discussion within [5, 7] and others do not.", + "query_type": "duration_fit", + "depends_on": [ + 3 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q6", + "query": "Is Hackathon session running at hour 6?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "No valid schedule has Hackathon session running at hour 6, given its duration (1h) and the constraints.", + "query_type": "time_slot", + "depends_on": [] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "UNKNOWN": 4, + "CONTRADICTED": 3 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "temp_sched_0080", + "domain": "temporal", + "subdomain": "event_scheduling", + "logic_type": "linear_arithmetic", + "premises": [ + "A day has 10 available hours (slots 0 through 9).", + "There are 5 events to schedule: Performance review, Budget review, Networking event, Sprint planning, and Design sprint.", + "Performance review takes 2 hour(s).", + "Budget review takes 3 hour(s).", + "Networking event takes 1 hour(s).", + "Sprint planning takes 2 hour(s).", + "Design sprint takes 3 hour(s).", + "Performance review must finish before Sprint planning starts.", + "Networking event must finish before Sprint planning starts.", + "Performance review must finish before Budget review starts.", + "There must be at least 2 hour(s) between Performance review and Networking event.", + "Budget review must finish before Sprint planning starts.", + "Budget review and Networking event must not overlap." + ], + "formal_representation": "(set-logic QF_LIA)\n(declare-const s_0 Int) ; start of Performance review\n(assert (>= s_0 0))\n(assert (<= (+ s_0 2) 10))\n(declare-const s_1 Int) ; start of Budget review\n(assert (>= s_1 0))\n(assert (<= (+ s_1 3) 10))\n(declare-const s_2 Int) ; start of Networking event\n(assert (>= s_2 0))\n(assert (<= (+ s_2 1) 10))\n(declare-const s_3 Int) ; start of Sprint planning\n(assert (>= s_3 0))\n(assert (<= (+ s_3 2) 10))\n(declare-const s_4 Int) ; start of Design sprint\n(assert (>= s_4 0))\n(assert (<= (+ s_4 3) 10))\n; ('before', 'Performance review', 'Sprint planning')\n; ('before', 'Networking event', 'Sprint planning')\n; ('before', 'Performance review', 'Budget review')\n; ('gap', 'Performance review', 'Networking event', 2)\n; ('before', 'Budget review', 'Sprint planning')\n; ('no_overlap', 'Budget review', 'Networking event')\n(check-sat)", + "entities": [ + "Performance review", + "Budget review", + "Networking event", + "Sprint planning", + "Design sprint" + ], + "durations": { + "Performance review": 2, + "Budget review": 3, + "Networking event": 1, + "Sprint planning": 2, + "Design sprint": 3 + }, + "time_horizon": 10, + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 5, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Must Performance review be active during hour 5?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "No valid schedule has Performance review running at hour 5, given its duration (2h) and the constraints.", + "query_type": "time_slot", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Can Sprint planning fit entirely within hours 3 to 6?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "No valid schedule fits Sprint planning (2h) entirely within [3, 6], given other constraints.", + "query_type": "duration_fit", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Is it possible for Performance review and Budget review to run simultaneously?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "No valid schedule allows Performance review and Budget review to overlap, given the separation constraints.", + "query_type": "overlap", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Can Budget review fit entirely within hours 5 to 8?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid schedules place Budget review within [5, 8] and others do not.", + "query_type": "duration_fit", + "depends_on": [ + 2 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Is Sprint planning guaranteed to end before Performance review starts?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "The constraints make it impossible for Sprint planning to finish before Performance review starts; some overlap or reverse ordering is forced.", + "query_type": "order", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1, + 2 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "CONTRADICTED": 4, + "UNKNOWN": 1 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "temp_order_0022", + "domain": "temporal", + "subdomain": "event_ordering", + "logic_type": "linear_arithmetic", + "premises": [ + "There are 6 events that happen in sequence: Data migration, Design sprint, Workshop, Onboarding, Release planning, and Tech talk.", + "Each event occurs at a unique position (1 = first, 6 = last).", + "Onboarding happens before Tech talk.", + "Release planning happens before Tech talk.", + "Design sprint happens before Workshop.", + "Design sprint happens immediately before Onboarding." + ], + "formal_representation": "(set-logic QF_LIA)\n(declare-const ord_0 Int) ; position of Data migration\n(assert (>= ord_0 1))\n(assert (<= ord_0 6))\n(declare-const ord_1 Int) ; position of Design sprint\n(assert (>= ord_1 1))\n(assert (<= ord_1 6))\n(declare-const ord_2 Int) ; position of Workshop\n(assert (>= ord_2 1))\n(assert (<= ord_2 6))\n(declare-const ord_3 Int) ; position of Onboarding\n(assert (>= ord_3 1))\n(assert (<= ord_3 6))\n(declare-const ord_4 Int) ; position of Release planning\n(assert (>= ord_4 1))\n(assert (<= ord_4 6))\n(declare-const ord_5 Int) ; position of Tech talk\n(assert (>= ord_5 1))\n(assert (<= ord_5 6))\n(assert (distinct ord_0 ord_1 ord_2 ord_3 ord_4 ord_5))\n; ('before', 'Onboarding', 'Tech talk')\n; ('before', 'Release planning', 'Tech talk')\n; ('before', 'Design sprint', 'Workshop')\n; ('immediately_before', 'Design sprint', 'Onboarding')\n(check-sat)", + "entities": [ + "Data migration", + "Design sprint", + "Workshop", + "Onboarding", + "Release planning", + "Tech talk" + ], + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 7, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Does Workshop always precede Onboarding?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "The constraints force Onboarding before Workshop; no valid ordering has Workshop first.", + "query_type": "before", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Must Workshop and Data migration be consecutive events?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some orderings place Workshop and Data migration consecutively while others separate them.", + "query_type": "adjacent", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Must Data migration happen before Onboarding?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "The ordering constraints allow sequences where Data migration is before Onboarding and vice versa.", + "query_type": "before", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Must Design sprint be the last event?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "No valid ordering has Design sprint as the last event.", + "query_type": "first_last", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Must Design sprint and Onboarding be consecutive events?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "The constraints guarantee Design sprint and Onboarding are consecutive in every valid ordering.", + "query_type": "adjacent", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 2, + 3 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q5", + "query": "Does Data migration always precede Onboarding?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "The ordering constraints allow sequences where Data migration is before Onboarding and vice versa.", + "query_type": "before", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1, + 2, + 4 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q6", + "query": "Must Design sprint happen before Data migration?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "The ordering constraints allow sequences where Design sprint is before Data migration and vice versa.", + "query_type": "before", + "depends_on": [ + 1, + 2, + 3, + 4, + 5 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "CONTRADICTED": 2, + "UNKNOWN": 4, + "ENTAILED": 1 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "temp_sched_0038", + "domain": "temporal", + "subdomain": "event_scheduling", + "logic_type": "linear_arithmetic", + "premises": [ + "A day has 8 available hours (slots 0 through 7).", + "There are 7 events to schedule: Code review, Strategy planning, Design sprint, Architecture review, Workshop, Tech talk, and Retrospective.", + "Code review takes 3 hour(s).", + "Strategy planning takes 3 hour(s).", + "Design sprint takes 2 hour(s).", + "Architecture review takes 2 hour(s).", + "Workshop takes 2 hour(s).", + "Tech talk takes 3 hour(s).", + "Retrospective takes 2 hour(s).", + "Design sprint and Retrospective must not overlap.", + "Code review and Strategy planning must not overlap.", + "There must be at least 1 hour(s) between Strategy planning and Tech talk.", + "Design sprint and Architecture review must not overlap.", + "Workshop must start at hour 4." + ], + "formal_representation": "(set-logic QF_LIA)\n(declare-const s_0 Int) ; start of Code review\n(assert (>= s_0 0))\n(assert (<= (+ s_0 3) 8))\n(declare-const s_1 Int) ; start of Strategy planning\n(assert (>= s_1 0))\n(assert (<= (+ s_1 3) 8))\n(declare-const s_2 Int) ; start of Design sprint\n(assert (>= s_2 0))\n(assert (<= (+ s_2 2) 8))\n(declare-const s_3 Int) ; start of Architecture review\n(assert (>= s_3 0))\n(assert (<= (+ s_3 2) 8))\n(declare-const s_4 Int) ; start of Workshop\n(assert (>= s_4 0))\n(assert (<= (+ s_4 2) 8))\n(declare-const s_5 Int) ; start of Tech talk\n(assert (>= s_5 0))\n(assert (<= (+ s_5 3) 8))\n(declare-const s_6 Int) ; start of Retrospective\n(assert (>= s_6 0))\n(assert (<= (+ s_6 2) 8))\n; ('no_overlap', 'Design sprint', 'Retrospective')\n; ('no_overlap', 'Code review', 'Strategy planning')\n; ('gap', 'Strategy planning', 'Tech talk', 1)\n; ('no_overlap', 'Design sprint', 'Architecture review')\n; ('exact', 'Workshop', 4)\n(check-sat)", + "entities": [ + "Code review", + "Strategy planning", + "Design sprint", + "Architecture review", + "Workshop", + "Tech talk", + "Retrospective" + ], + "durations": { + "Code review": 3, + "Strategy planning": 3, + "Design sprint": 2, + "Architecture review": 2, + "Workshop": 2, + "Tech talk": 3, + "Retrospective": 2 + }, + "time_horizon": 8, + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 6, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Does Workshop always start before Strategy planning?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid schedules have Workshop first, others have Strategy planning first.", + "query_type": "before_after", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Can Tech talk and Design sprint overlap in time?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid schedules have Tech talk and Design sprint overlapping, while others keep them separate.", + "query_type": "overlap", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Does Architecture review always start before Strategy planning?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid schedules have Architecture review first, others have Strategy planning first.", + "query_type": "before_after", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Can Architecture review start before Workshop finishes?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "The constraints allow schedules where Workshop precedes Architecture review and others where it does not.", + "query_type": "order", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 2 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Must Retrospective be active during hour 5?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether Retrospective is active at hour 5 depends on how the remaining scheduling constraints resolve.", + "query_type": "time_slot", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q5", + "query": "Can Design sprint fit entirely within hours 1 to 3?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid schedules place Design sprint within [1, 3] and others do not.", + "query_type": "duration_fit", + "depends_on": [ + 1 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "UNKNOWN": 6 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "temp_sched_0026", + "domain": "temporal", + "subdomain": "event_scheduling", + "logic_type": "linear_arithmetic", + "premises": [ + "A day has 10 available hours (slots 0 through 9).", + "There are 6 events to schedule: Budget review, Code review, Lunch break, Workshop, Tech talk, and Product demo.", + "Budget review takes 3 hour(s).", + "Code review takes 2 hour(s).", + "Lunch break takes 2 hour(s).", + "Workshop takes 1 hour(s).", + "Tech talk takes 3 hour(s).", + "Product demo takes 1 hour(s).", + "Tech talk and Product demo must not overlap.", + "There must be at least 1 hour(s) between Code review and Lunch break.", + "There must be at least 2 hour(s) between Workshop and Product demo.", + "Budget review cannot start before hour 3.", + "Product demo must start no later than hour 0." + ], + "formal_representation": "(set-logic QF_LIA)\n(declare-const s_0 Int) ; start of Budget review\n(assert (>= s_0 0))\n(assert (<= (+ s_0 3) 10))\n(declare-const s_1 Int) ; start of Code review\n(assert (>= s_1 0))\n(assert (<= (+ s_1 2) 10))\n(declare-const s_2 Int) ; start of Lunch break\n(assert (>= s_2 0))\n(assert (<= (+ s_2 2) 10))\n(declare-const s_3 Int) ; start of Workshop\n(assert (>= s_3 0))\n(assert (<= (+ s_3 1) 10))\n(declare-const s_4 Int) ; start of Tech talk\n(assert (>= s_4 0))\n(assert (<= (+ s_4 3) 10))\n(declare-const s_5 Int) ; start of Product demo\n(assert (>= s_5 0))\n(assert (<= (+ s_5 1) 10))\n; ('no_overlap', 'Tech talk', 'Product demo')\n; ('gap', 'Code review', 'Lunch break', 1)\n; ('gap', 'Workshop', 'Product demo', 2)\n; ('earliest', 'Budget review', 3)\n; ('latest', 'Product demo', 0)\n(check-sat)", + "entities": [ + "Budget review", + "Code review", + "Lunch break", + "Workshop", + "Tech talk", + "Product demo" + ], + "durations": { + "Budget review": 3, + "Code review": 2, + "Lunch break": 2, + "Workshop": 1, + "Tech talk": 3, + "Product demo": 1 + }, + "time_horizon": 10, + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 8, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Is it possible for Product demo and Lunch break to run simultaneously?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid schedules have Product demo and Lunch break overlapping, while others keep them separate.", + "query_type": "overlap", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Must Code review be active during hour 8?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether Code review is active at hour 8 depends on how the remaining scheduling constraints resolve.", + "query_type": "time_slot", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Does Code review always start before Workshop?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid schedules have Code review first, others have Workshop first.", + "query_type": "before_after", + "depends_on": [ + 1 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Does Budget review always start before Workshop?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid schedules have Budget review first, others have Workshop first.", + "query_type": "before_after", + "depends_on": [ + 2 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Can Budget review and Lunch break overlap in time?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid schedules have Budget review and Lunch break overlapping, while others keep them separate.", + "query_type": "overlap", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 3 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q5", + "query": "Is it possible for Product demo and Workshop to run simultaneously?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "No valid schedule allows Product demo and Workshop to overlap, given the separation constraints.", + "query_type": "overlap", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 2, + 3 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q6", + "query": "Must Product demo finish before Tech talk begins?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "All ordering and duration constraints force Product demo (duration 1h) to complete before Tech talk can begin.", + "query_type": "order", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 5 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q7", + "query": "Does Budget review always start before Lunch break?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid schedules have Budget review first, others have Lunch break first.", + "query_type": "before_after", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 3, + 4 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "UNKNOWN": 6, + "CONTRADICTED": 1, + "ENTAILED": 1 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "temp_sched_0007", + "domain": "temporal", + "subdomain": "event_scheduling", + "logic_type": "linear_arithmetic", + "premises": [ + "A day has 10 available hours (slots 0 through 9).", + "There are 7 events to schedule: QA review, Investor update, Data migration, Hackathon session, Strategy planning, Tech talk, and Panel discussion.", + "QA review takes 2 hour(s).", + "Investor update takes 1 hour(s).", + "Data migration takes 1 hour(s).", + "Hackathon session takes 3 hour(s).", + "Strategy planning takes 1 hour(s).", + "Tech talk takes 1 hour(s).", + "Panel discussion takes 2 hour(s).", + "Investor update must finish before Data migration starts.", + "Data migration and Hackathon session must start at the same time.", + "There must be at least 2 hour(s) between Investor update and Panel discussion.", + "QA review and Tech talk must not overlap.", + "Investor update must start no later than hour 0.", + "Panel discussion cannot start before hour 1." + ], + "formal_representation": "(set-logic QF_LIA)\n(declare-const s_0 Int) ; start of QA review\n(assert (>= s_0 0))\n(assert (<= (+ s_0 2) 10))\n(declare-const s_1 Int) ; start of Investor update\n(assert (>= s_1 0))\n(assert (<= (+ s_1 1) 10))\n(declare-const s_2 Int) ; start of Data migration\n(assert (>= s_2 0))\n(assert (<= (+ s_2 1) 10))\n(declare-const s_3 Int) ; start of Hackathon session\n(assert (>= s_3 0))\n(assert (<= (+ s_3 3) 10))\n(declare-const s_4 Int) ; start of Strategy planning\n(assert (>= s_4 0))\n(assert (<= (+ s_4 1) 10))\n(declare-const s_5 Int) ; start of Tech talk\n(assert (>= s_5 0))\n(assert (<= (+ s_5 1) 10))\n(declare-const s_6 Int) ; start of Panel discussion\n(assert (>= s_6 0))\n(assert (<= (+ s_6 2) 10))\n; ('before', 'Investor update', 'Data migration')\n; ('same_start', 'Data migration', 'Hackathon session')\n; ('gap', 'Investor update', 'Panel discussion', 2)\n; ('no_overlap', 'QA review', 'Tech talk')\n; ('latest', 'Investor update', 0)\n; ('earliest', 'Panel discussion', 1)\n(check-sat)", + "entities": [ + "QA review", + "Investor update", + "Data migration", + "Hackathon session", + "Strategy planning", + "Tech talk", + "Panel discussion" + ], + "durations": { + "QA review": 2, + "Investor update": 1, + "Data migration": 1, + "Hackathon session": 3, + "Strategy planning": 1, + "Tech talk": 1, + "Panel discussion": 2 + }, + "time_horizon": 10, + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 7, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Does Panel discussion always start before QA review?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid schedules have Panel discussion first, others have QA review first.", + "query_type": "before_after", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Does Hackathon session always start before Tech talk?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid schedules have Hackathon session first, others have Tech talk first.", + "query_type": "before_after", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Must Panel discussion be active during hour 1?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "No valid schedule has Panel discussion running at hour 1, given its duration (2h) and the constraints.", + "query_type": "time_slot", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Can Panel discussion be scheduled to include hour 1?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "No valid schedule has Panel discussion running at hour 1, given its duration (2h) and the constraints.", + "query_type": "time_slot", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 2 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Does Investor update always start before Strategy planning?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid schedules have Investor update first, others have Strategy planning first.", + "query_type": "before_after", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q5", + "query": "Is it possible for QA review and Hackathon session to run simultaneously?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid schedules have QA review and Hackathon session overlapping, while others keep them separate.", + "query_type": "overlap", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q6", + "query": "Does Tech talk always start before Panel discussion?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid schedules have Tech talk first, others have Panel discussion first.", + "query_type": "before_after", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1, + 2, + 3 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "UNKNOWN": 5, + "CONTRADICTED": 2 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "temp_order_0114", + "domain": "temporal", + "subdomain": "event_ordering", + "logic_type": "linear_arithmetic", + "premises": [ + "There are 6 events that happen in sequence: Networking event, Data migration, Training session, Code review, Compliance check, and Workshop.", + "Each event occurs at a unique position (1 = first, 6 = last).", + "Data migration happens before Training session.", + "Networking event and Compliance check are not consecutive events.", + "Networking event happens before Code review.", + "Training session happens immediately before Workshop." + ], + "formal_representation": "(set-logic QF_LIA)\n(declare-const ord_0 Int) ; position of Networking event\n(assert (>= ord_0 1))\n(assert (<= ord_0 6))\n(declare-const ord_1 Int) ; position of Data migration\n(assert (>= ord_1 1))\n(assert (<= ord_1 6))\n(declare-const ord_2 Int) ; position of Training session\n(assert (>= ord_2 1))\n(assert (<= ord_2 6))\n(declare-const ord_3 Int) ; position of Code review\n(assert (>= ord_3 1))\n(assert (<= ord_3 6))\n(declare-const ord_4 Int) ; position of Compliance check\n(assert (>= ord_4 1))\n(assert (<= ord_4 6))\n(declare-const ord_5 Int) ; position of Workshop\n(assert (>= ord_5 1))\n(assert (<= ord_5 6))\n(assert (distinct ord_0 ord_1 ord_2 ord_3 ord_4 ord_5))\n; ('before', 'Data migration', 'Training session')\n; ('not_adjacent', 'Networking event', 'Compliance check')\n; ('before', 'Networking event', 'Code review')\n; ('immediately_before', 'Training session', 'Workshop')\n(check-sat)", + "entities": [ + "Networking event", + "Data migration", + "Training session", + "Code review", + "Compliance check", + "Workshop" + ], + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 7, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Must Training session and Workshop be consecutive events?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "The constraints guarantee Training session and Workshop are consecutive in every valid ordering.", + "query_type": "adjacent", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Must Workshop and Training session be consecutive events?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "The constraints guarantee Workshop and Training session are consecutive in every valid ordering.", + "query_type": "adjacent", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Can Workshop occur before Data migration?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "The constraints force Workshop before Data migration; no valid ordering has Data migration first.", + "query_type": "before", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Can Networking event occur in position 2?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid orderings place Networking event in position 2, others do not.", + "query_type": "position", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Does Compliance check always precede Networking event?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "The ordering constraints allow sequences where Compliance check is before Networking event and vice versa.", + "query_type": "before", + "depends_on": [ + 3 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q5", + "query": "Must Code review happen before Training session?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "The ordering constraints allow sequences where Code review is before Training session and vice versa.", + "query_type": "before", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q6", + "query": "Must Code review and Compliance check be consecutive events?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some orderings place Code review and Compliance check consecutively while others separate them.", + "query_type": "adjacent", + "depends_on": [ + 4, + 5 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "ENTAILED": 2, + "CONTRADICTED": 1, + "UNKNOWN": 4 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "temp_sched_0097", + "domain": "temporal", + "subdomain": "event_scheduling", + "logic_type": "linear_arithmetic", + "premises": [ + "A day has 12 available hours (slots 0 through 11).", + "There are 6 events to schedule: Security audit, Sprint planning, Hackathon session, Training session, Client call, and Retrospective.", + "Security audit takes 1 hour(s).", + "Sprint planning takes 2 hour(s).", + "Hackathon session takes 2 hour(s).", + "Training session takes 2 hour(s).", + "Client call takes 2 hour(s).", + "Retrospective takes 1 hour(s).", + "Client call must finish before Retrospective starts.", + "Security audit must finish before Sprint planning starts.", + "Security audit and Hackathon session must not overlap.", + "Sprint planning and Retrospective must not overlap.", + "Hackathon session must finish before Retrospective starts.", + "Client call must start no later than hour 2." + ], + "formal_representation": "(set-logic QF_LIA)\n(declare-const s_0 Int) ; start of Security audit\n(assert (>= s_0 0))\n(assert (<= (+ s_0 1) 12))\n(declare-const s_1 Int) ; start of Sprint planning\n(assert (>= s_1 0))\n(assert (<= (+ s_1 2) 12))\n(declare-const s_2 Int) ; start of Hackathon session\n(assert (>= s_2 0))\n(assert (<= (+ s_2 2) 12))\n(declare-const s_3 Int) ; start of Training session\n(assert (>= s_3 0))\n(assert (<= (+ s_3 2) 12))\n(declare-const s_4 Int) ; start of Client call\n(assert (>= s_4 0))\n(assert (<= (+ s_4 2) 12))\n(declare-const s_5 Int) ; start of Retrospective\n(assert (>= s_5 0))\n(assert (<= (+ s_5 1) 12))\n; ('before', 'Client call', 'Retrospective')\n; ('before', 'Security audit', 'Sprint planning')\n; ('no_overlap', 'Security audit', 'Hackathon session')\n; ('no_overlap', 'Sprint planning', 'Retrospective')\n; ('before', 'Hackathon session', 'Retrospective')\n; ('latest', 'Client call', 2)\n(check-sat)", + "entities": [ + "Security audit", + "Sprint planning", + "Hackathon session", + "Training session", + "Client call", + "Retrospective" + ], + "durations": { + "Security audit": 1, + "Sprint planning": 2, + "Hackathon session": 2, + "Training session": 2, + "Client call": 2, + "Retrospective": 1 + }, + "time_horizon": 12, + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 5, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Is it possible for Training session and Client call to run simultaneously?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid schedules have Training session and Client call overlapping, while others keep them separate.", + "query_type": "overlap", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Must Retrospective be active during hour 4?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether Retrospective is active at hour 4 depends on how the remaining scheduling constraints resolve.", + "query_type": "time_slot", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Can Retrospective fit entirely within hours 3 to 4?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid schedules place Retrospective within [3, 4] and others do not.", + "query_type": "duration_fit", + "depends_on": [ + 1 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Can Security audit and Hackathon session overlap in time?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "No valid schedule allows Security audit and Hackathon session to overlap, given the separation constraints.", + "query_type": "overlap", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Must Training session be active during hour 0?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether Training session is active at hour 0 depends on how the remaining scheduling constraints resolve.", + "query_type": "time_slot", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "UNKNOWN": 4, + "CONTRADICTED": 1 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "temp_sched_0101", + "domain": "temporal", + "subdomain": "event_scheduling", + "logic_type": "linear_arithmetic", + "premises": [ + "A day has 12 available hours (slots 0 through 11).", + "There are 4 events to schedule: Release planning, Lunch break, Product demo, and Investor update.", + "Release planning takes 3 hour(s).", + "Lunch break takes 2 hour(s).", + "Product demo takes 2 hour(s).", + "Investor update takes 1 hour(s).", + "There must be at least 2 hour(s) between Product demo and Investor update.", + "There must be at least 2 hour(s) between Release planning and Lunch break.", + "Release planning must finish before Investor update starts.", + "There must be at least 2 hour(s) between Release planning and Product demo.", + "Lunch break and Product demo must start at the same time.", + "Lunch break cannot start before hour 10.", + "Product demo cannot start before hour 0." + ], + "formal_representation": "(set-logic QF_LIA)\n(declare-const s_0 Int) ; start of Release planning\n(assert (>= s_0 0))\n(assert (<= (+ s_0 3) 12))\n(declare-const s_1 Int) ; start of Lunch break\n(assert (>= s_1 0))\n(assert (<= (+ s_1 2) 12))\n(declare-const s_2 Int) ; start of Product demo\n(assert (>= s_2 0))\n(assert (<= (+ s_2 2) 12))\n(declare-const s_3 Int) ; start of Investor update\n(assert (>= s_3 0))\n(assert (<= (+ s_3 1) 12))\n; ('gap', 'Product demo', 'Investor update', 2)\n; ('gap', 'Release planning', 'Lunch break', 2)\n; ('before', 'Release planning', 'Investor update')\n; ('gap', 'Release planning', 'Product demo', 2)\n; ('same_start', 'Lunch break', 'Product demo')\n; ('earliest', 'Lunch break', 10)\n; ('earliest', 'Product demo', 0)\n(check-sat)", + "entities": [ + "Release planning", + "Lunch break", + "Product demo", + "Investor update" + ], + "durations": { + "Release planning": 3, + "Lunch break": 2, + "Product demo": 2, + "Investor update": 1 + }, + "time_horizon": 12, + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 5, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Can Investor update fit entirely within hours 1 to 2?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "No valid schedule fits Investor update (1h) entirely within [1, 2], given other constraints.", + "query_type": "duration_fit", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Does Product demo always start before Lunch break?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "No valid schedule has Product demo starting before Lunch break; the reverse is forced.", + "query_type": "before_after", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Is Investor update running at hour 2?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "No valid schedule has Investor update running at hour 2, given its duration (1h) and the constraints.", + "query_type": "time_slot", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Is it possible for Product demo and Release planning to run simultaneously?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "No valid schedule allows Product demo and Release planning to overlap, given the separation constraints.", + "query_type": "overlap", + "depends_on": [ + 1 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Does Investor update always start before Lunch break?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "The combined constraints guarantee Investor update starts before Lunch break in all valid schedules.", + "query_type": "before_after", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1, + 2 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "CONTRADICTED": 4, + "ENTAILED": 1 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "temp_sched_0021", + "domain": "temporal", + "subdomain": "event_scheduling", + "logic_type": "linear_arithmetic", + "premises": [ + "A day has 12 available hours (slots 0 through 11).", + "There are 6 events to schedule: Compliance check, Town hall, Workshop, Vendor meeting, Mentoring session, and Investor update.", + "Compliance check takes 2 hour(s).", + "Town hall takes 2 hour(s).", + "Workshop takes 2 hour(s).", + "Vendor meeting takes 2 hour(s).", + "Mentoring session takes 2 hour(s).", + "Investor update takes 1 hour(s).", + "Compliance check and Investor update must start at the same time.", + "Town hall and Vendor meeting must not overlap.", + "Town hall and Mentoring session must start at the same time.", + "Town hall cannot start before hour 5.", + "Town hall cannot start before hour 6." + ], + "formal_representation": "(set-logic QF_LIA)\n(declare-const s_0 Int) ; start of Compliance check\n(assert (>= s_0 0))\n(assert (<= (+ s_0 2) 12))\n(declare-const s_1 Int) ; start of Town hall\n(assert (>= s_1 0))\n(assert (<= (+ s_1 2) 12))\n(declare-const s_2 Int) ; start of Workshop\n(assert (>= s_2 0))\n(assert (<= (+ s_2 2) 12))\n(declare-const s_3 Int) ; start of Vendor meeting\n(assert (>= s_3 0))\n(assert (<= (+ s_3 2) 12))\n(declare-const s_4 Int) ; start of Mentoring session\n(assert (>= s_4 0))\n(assert (<= (+ s_4 2) 12))\n(declare-const s_5 Int) ; start of Investor update\n(assert (>= s_5 0))\n(assert (<= (+ s_5 1) 12))\n; ('same_start', 'Compliance check', 'Investor update')\n; ('no_overlap', 'Town hall', 'Vendor meeting')\n; ('same_start', 'Town hall', 'Mentoring session')\n; ('earliest', 'Town hall', 5)\n; ('earliest', 'Town hall', 6)\n(check-sat)", + "entities": [ + "Compliance check", + "Town hall", + "Workshop", + "Vendor meeting", + "Mentoring session", + "Investor update" + ], + "durations": { + "Compliance check": 2, + "Town hall": 2, + "Workshop": 2, + "Vendor meeting": 2, + "Mentoring session": 2, + "Investor update": 1 + }, + "time_horizon": 12, + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 7, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Can Mentoring session and Workshop overlap in time?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid schedules have Mentoring session and Workshop overlapping, while others keep them separate.", + "query_type": "overlap", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Is Town hall guaranteed to end before Investor update starts?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "The constraints allow schedules where Town hall precedes Investor update and others where it does not.", + "query_type": "order", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Is it possible for Vendor meeting and Mentoring session to run simultaneously?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "No valid schedule allows Vendor meeting and Mentoring session to overlap, given the separation constraints.", + "query_type": "overlap", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Does Vendor meeting always start before Investor update?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid schedules have Vendor meeting first, others have Investor update first.", + "query_type": "before_after", + "depends_on": [ + 1, + 2 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Must Vendor meeting be active during hour 4?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether Vendor meeting is active at hour 4 depends on how the remaining scheduling constraints resolve.", + "query_type": "time_slot", + "depends_on": [ + 2, + 3 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q5", + "query": "Is it possible for Workshop and Vendor meeting to run simultaneously?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid schedules have Workshop and Vendor meeting overlapping, while others keep them separate.", + "query_type": "overlap", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 2, + 3, + 4 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q6", + "query": "Is Vendor meeting running at hour 4?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether Vendor meeting is active at hour 4 depends on how the remaining scheduling constraints resolve.", + "query_type": "time_slot", + "depends_on": [ + 2, + 3, + 4, + 5 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "UNKNOWN": 6, + "CONTRADICTED": 1 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "temp_order_0045", + "domain": "temporal", + "subdomain": "event_ordering", + "logic_type": "linear_arithmetic", + "premises": [ + "There are 7 events that happen in sequence: Hackathon session, Sprint planning, Strategy planning, Investor update, Architecture review, QA review, and Vendor meeting.", + "Each event occurs at a unique position (1 = first, 7 = last).", + "Investor update happens before QA review.", + "Investor update happens immediately before Architecture review.", + "Hackathon session happens before Sprint planning.", + "Strategy planning and Vendor meeting are not consecutive events." + ], + "formal_representation": "(set-logic QF_LIA)\n(declare-const ord_0 Int) ; position of Hackathon session\n(assert (>= ord_0 1))\n(assert (<= ord_0 7))\n(declare-const ord_1 Int) ; position of Sprint planning\n(assert (>= ord_1 1))\n(assert (<= ord_1 7))\n(declare-const ord_2 Int) ; position of Strategy planning\n(assert (>= ord_2 1))\n(assert (<= ord_2 7))\n(declare-const ord_3 Int) ; position of Investor update\n(assert (>= ord_3 1))\n(assert (<= ord_3 7))\n(declare-const ord_4 Int) ; position of Architecture review\n(assert (>= ord_4 1))\n(assert (<= ord_4 7))\n(declare-const ord_5 Int) ; position of QA review\n(assert (>= ord_5 1))\n(assert (<= ord_5 7))\n(declare-const ord_6 Int) ; position of Vendor meeting\n(assert (>= ord_6 1))\n(assert (<= ord_6 7))\n(assert (distinct ord_0 ord_1 ord_2 ord_3 ord_4 ord_5 ord_6))\n; ('before', 'Investor update', 'QA review')\n; ('immediately_before', 'Investor update', 'Architecture review')\n; ('before', 'Hackathon session', 'Sprint planning')\n; ('not_adjacent', 'Strategy planning', 'Vendor meeting')\n(check-sat)", + "entities": [ + "Hackathon session", + "Sprint planning", + "Strategy planning", + "Investor update", + "Architecture review", + "QA review", + "Vendor meeting" + ], + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 6, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Must Vendor meeting be the fourth event?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid orderings place Vendor meeting in position 4, others do not.", + "query_type": "position", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Must Hackathon session and Architecture review be consecutive events?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some orderings place Hackathon session and Architecture review consecutively while others separate them.", + "query_type": "adjacent", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Must Hackathon session be the first event?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether Hackathon session is first depends on how the other ordering constraints resolve.", + "query_type": "first_last", + "depends_on": [ + 1 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Can Sprint planning occur in position 3?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid orderings place Sprint planning in position 3, others do not.", + "query_type": "position", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Can Investor update occur before Architecture review?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "The chain of ordering constraints forces Architecture review before Investor update in every valid sequence.", + "query_type": "before", + "depends_on": [ + 1 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q5", + "query": "Must Architecture review be the fourth event?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid orderings place Architecture review in position 4, others do not.", + "query_type": "position", + "depends_on": [ + 1, + 4 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "UNKNOWN": 5, + "ENTAILED": 1 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "temp_sched_0014", + "domain": "temporal", + "subdomain": "event_scheduling", + "logic_type": "linear_arithmetic", + "premises": [ + "A day has 10 available hours (slots 0 through 9).", + "There are 4 events to schedule: Mentoring session, Budget review, Data migration, and Retrospective.", + "Mentoring session takes 1 hour(s).", + "Budget review takes 3 hour(s).", + "Data migration takes 3 hour(s).", + "Retrospective takes 1 hour(s).", + "Data migration and Retrospective must not overlap.", + "There must be at least 1 hour(s) between Mentoring session and Retrospective.", + "Mentoring session must finish before Budget review starts.", + "Budget review must start no later than hour 2." + ], + "formal_representation": "(set-logic QF_LIA)\n(declare-const s_0 Int) ; start of Mentoring session\n(assert (>= s_0 0))\n(assert (<= (+ s_0 1) 10))\n(declare-const s_1 Int) ; start of Budget review\n(assert (>= s_1 0))\n(assert (<= (+ s_1 3) 10))\n(declare-const s_2 Int) ; start of Data migration\n(assert (>= s_2 0))\n(assert (<= (+ s_2 3) 10))\n(declare-const s_3 Int) ; start of Retrospective\n(assert (>= s_3 0))\n(assert (<= (+ s_3 1) 10))\n; ('no_overlap', 'Data migration', 'Retrospective')\n; ('gap', 'Mentoring session', 'Retrospective', 1)\n; ('before', 'Mentoring session', 'Budget review')\n; ('latest', 'Budget review', 2)\n(check-sat)", + "entities": [ + "Mentoring session", + "Budget review", + "Data migration", + "Retrospective" + ], + "durations": { + "Mentoring session": 1, + "Budget review": 3, + "Data migration": 3, + "Retrospective": 1 + }, + "time_horizon": 10, + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 8, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Can Budget review fit entirely within hours 4 to 7?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "No valid schedule fits Budget review (3h) entirely within [4, 7], given other constraints.", + "query_type": "duration_fit", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Does Budget review always start before Mentoring session?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "No valid schedule has Budget review starting before Mentoring session; the reverse is forced.", + "query_type": "before_after", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Can Data migration start before Mentoring session finishes?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "The constraints allow schedules where Mentoring session precedes Data migration and others where it does not.", + "query_type": "order", + "depends_on": [ + 1 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Does Retrospective always start before Budget review?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "No valid schedule has Retrospective starting before Budget review; the reverse is forced.", + "query_type": "before_after", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Can Budget review fit entirely within hours 1 to 6?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "All constraints force Budget review (3h) into the window [1, 6] in every valid schedule.", + "query_type": "duration_fit", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1, + 3 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q5", + "query": "Is Data migration running at hour 8?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether Data migration is active at hour 8 depends on how the remaining scheduling constraints resolve.", + "query_type": "time_slot", + "depends_on": [ + 2 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q6", + "query": "Must Mentoring session finish before Budget review begins?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "All ordering and duration constraints force Mentoring session (duration 1h) to complete before Budget review can begin.", + "query_type": "order", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1, + 2, + 3, + 4 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q7", + "query": "Can Mentoring session and Retrospective overlap in time?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "No valid schedule allows Mentoring session and Retrospective to overlap, given the separation constraints.", + "query_type": "overlap", + "depends_on": [ + 1, + 2, + 3, + 6 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "CONTRADICTED": 4, + "UNKNOWN": 2, + "ENTAILED": 2 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "temp_sched_0117", + "domain": "temporal", + "subdomain": "event_scheduling", + "logic_type": "linear_arithmetic", + "premises": [ + "A day has 12 available hours (slots 0 through 11).", + "There are 7 events to schedule: Investor update, Keynote, Performance review, Release planning, Panel discussion, Town hall, and Security audit.", + "Investor update takes 3 hour(s).", + "Keynote takes 1 hour(s).", + "Performance review takes 1 hour(s).", + "Release planning takes 3 hour(s).", + "Panel discussion takes 2 hour(s).", + "Town hall takes 1 hour(s).", + "Security audit takes 2 hour(s).", + "Keynote and Security audit must start at the same time.", + "Performance review must finish before Panel discussion starts.", + "Keynote and Panel discussion must start at the same time.", + "Panel discussion must start at hour 9." + ], + "formal_representation": "(set-logic QF_LIA)\n(declare-const s_0 Int) ; start of Investor update\n(assert (>= s_0 0))\n(assert (<= (+ s_0 3) 12))\n(declare-const s_1 Int) ; start of Keynote\n(assert (>= s_1 0))\n(assert (<= (+ s_1 1) 12))\n(declare-const s_2 Int) ; start of Performance review\n(assert (>= s_2 0))\n(assert (<= (+ s_2 1) 12))\n(declare-const s_3 Int) ; start of Release planning\n(assert (>= s_3 0))\n(assert (<= (+ s_3 3) 12))\n(declare-const s_4 Int) ; start of Panel discussion\n(assert (>= s_4 0))\n(assert (<= (+ s_4 2) 12))\n(declare-const s_5 Int) ; start of Town hall\n(assert (>= s_5 0))\n(assert (<= (+ s_5 1) 12))\n(declare-const s_6 Int) ; start of Security audit\n(assert (>= s_6 0))\n(assert (<= (+ s_6 2) 12))\n; ('same_start', 'Keynote', 'Security audit')\n; ('before', 'Performance review', 'Panel discussion')\n; ('same_start', 'Keynote', 'Panel discussion')\n; ('exact', 'Panel discussion', 9)\n(check-sat)", + "entities": [ + "Investor update", + "Keynote", + "Performance review", + "Release planning", + "Panel discussion", + "Town hall", + "Security audit" + ], + "durations": { + "Investor update": 3, + "Keynote": 1, + "Performance review": 1, + "Release planning": 3, + "Panel discussion": 2, + "Town hall": 1, + "Security audit": 2 + }, + "time_horizon": 12, + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 8, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Does Keynote always start before Investor update?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "No valid schedule has Keynote starting before Investor update; the reverse is forced.", + "query_type": "before_after", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Can Performance review fit entirely within hours 7 to 9?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid schedules place Performance review within [7, 9] and others do not.", + "query_type": "duration_fit", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Does Performance review always start before Keynote?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "The combined constraints guarantee Performance review starts before Keynote in all valid schedules.", + "query_type": "before_after", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Must Release planning finish before Panel discussion begins?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "The constraints allow schedules where Release planning precedes Panel discussion and others where it does not.", + "query_type": "order", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Must Investor update finish before Keynote begins?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "The constraints allow schedules where Investor update precedes Keynote and others where it does not.", + "query_type": "order", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 2 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q5", + "query": "Is it possible for Investor update and Performance review to run simultaneously?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid schedules have Investor update and Performance review overlapping, while others keep them separate.", + "query_type": "overlap", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1, + 2, + 4 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q6", + "query": "Can Release planning be scheduled to include hour 11?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether Release planning is active at hour 11 depends on how the remaining scheduling constraints resolve.", + "query_type": "time_slot", + "depends_on": [ + 3 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q7", + "query": "Can Panel discussion fit entirely within hours 10 to 12?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "No valid schedule fits Panel discussion (2h) entirely within [10, 12], given other constraints.", + "query_type": "duration_fit", + "depends_on": [ + 3 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "CONTRADICTED": 2, + "UNKNOWN": 5, + "ENTAILED": 1 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "temp_sched_0042", + "domain": "temporal", + "subdomain": "event_scheduling", + "logic_type": "linear_arithmetic", + "premises": [ + "A day has 12 available hours (slots 0 through 11).", + "There are 6 events to schedule: Tech talk, Client call, Investor update, Workshop, Vendor meeting, and Board meeting.", + "Tech talk takes 2 hour(s).", + "Client call takes 3 hour(s).", + "Investor update takes 1 hour(s).", + "Workshop takes 1 hour(s).", + "Vendor meeting takes 3 hour(s).", + "Board meeting takes 2 hour(s).", + "Client call and Investor update must start at the same time.", + "Vendor meeting and Board meeting must not overlap.", + "There must be at least 1 hour(s) between Tech talk and Client call.", + "Tech talk must finish before Vendor meeting starts.", + "Client call and Board meeting must start at the same time.", + "Investor update and Workshop must start at the same time.", + "Vendor meeting cannot start before hour 0.", + "Client call must start no later than hour 6." + ], + "formal_representation": "(set-logic QF_LIA)\n(declare-const s_0 Int) ; start of Tech talk\n(assert (>= s_0 0))\n(assert (<= (+ s_0 2) 12))\n(declare-const s_1 Int) ; start of Client call\n(assert (>= s_1 0))\n(assert (<= (+ s_1 3) 12))\n(declare-const s_2 Int) ; start of Investor update\n(assert (>= s_2 0))\n(assert (<= (+ s_2 1) 12))\n(declare-const s_3 Int) ; start of Workshop\n(assert (>= s_3 0))\n(assert (<= (+ s_3 1) 12))\n(declare-const s_4 Int) ; start of Vendor meeting\n(assert (>= s_4 0))\n(assert (<= (+ s_4 3) 12))\n(declare-const s_5 Int) ; start of Board meeting\n(assert (>= s_5 0))\n(assert (<= (+ s_5 2) 12))\n; ('same_start', 'Client call', 'Investor update')\n; ('no_overlap', 'Vendor meeting', 'Board meeting')\n; ('gap', 'Tech talk', 'Client call', 1)\n; ('before', 'Tech talk', 'Vendor meeting')\n; ('same_start', 'Client call', 'Board meeting')\n; ('same_start', 'Investor update', 'Workshop')\n; ('earliest', 'Vendor meeting', 0)\n; ('latest', 'Client call', 6)\n(check-sat)", + "entities": [ + "Tech talk", + "Client call", + "Investor update", + "Workshop", + "Vendor meeting", + "Board meeting" + ], + "durations": { + "Tech talk": 2, + "Client call": 3, + "Investor update": 1, + "Workshop": 1, + "Vendor meeting": 3, + "Board meeting": 2 + }, + "time_horizon": 12, + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 5, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Is it possible for Board meeting and Vendor meeting to run simultaneously?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "No valid schedule allows Board meeting and Vendor meeting to overlap, given the separation constraints.", + "query_type": "overlap", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Must Vendor meeting finish before Tech talk begins?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "The constraints make it impossible for Vendor meeting to finish before Tech talk starts; some overlap or reverse ordering is forced.", + "query_type": "order", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Can Board meeting be scheduled to include hour 6?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether Board meeting is active at hour 6 depends on how the remaining scheduling constraints resolve.", + "query_type": "time_slot", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Can Board meeting and Vendor meeting overlap in time?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "No valid schedule allows Board meeting and Vendor meeting to overlap, given the separation constraints.", + "query_type": "overlap", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1, + 2 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Does Workshop always start before Tech talk?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid schedules have Workshop first, others have Tech talk first.", + "query_type": "before_after", + "depends_on": [ + 1 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "CONTRADICTED": 3, + "UNKNOWN": 2 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "temp_sched_0006", + "domain": "temporal", + "subdomain": "event_scheduling", + "logic_type": "linear_arithmetic", + "premises": [ + "A day has 12 available hours (slots 0 through 11).", + "There are 6 events to schedule: Networking event, Mentoring session, Town hall, Onboarding, Retrospective, and Performance review.", + "Networking event takes 2 hour(s).", + "Mentoring session takes 3 hour(s).", + "Town hall takes 1 hour(s).", + "Onboarding takes 2 hour(s).", + "Retrospective takes 3 hour(s).", + "Performance review takes 3 hour(s).", + "Networking event must finish before Town hall starts.", + "Networking event must finish before Mentoring session starts.", + "Town hall and Onboarding must start at the same time.", + "There must be at least 2 hour(s) between Onboarding and Performance review.", + "There must be at least 1 hour(s) between Town hall and Performance review.", + "Networking event must start no later than hour 3." + ], + "formal_representation": "(set-logic QF_LIA)\n(declare-const s_0 Int) ; start of Networking event\n(assert (>= s_0 0))\n(assert (<= (+ s_0 2) 12))\n(declare-const s_1 Int) ; start of Mentoring session\n(assert (>= s_1 0))\n(assert (<= (+ s_1 3) 12))\n(declare-const s_2 Int) ; start of Town hall\n(assert (>= s_2 0))\n(assert (<= (+ s_2 1) 12))\n(declare-const s_3 Int) ; start of Onboarding\n(assert (>= s_3 0))\n(assert (<= (+ s_3 2) 12))\n(declare-const s_4 Int) ; start of Retrospective\n(assert (>= s_4 0))\n(assert (<= (+ s_4 3) 12))\n(declare-const s_5 Int) ; start of Performance review\n(assert (>= s_5 0))\n(assert (<= (+ s_5 3) 12))\n; ('before', 'Networking event', 'Town hall')\n; ('before', 'Networking event', 'Mentoring session')\n; ('same_start', 'Town hall', 'Onboarding')\n; ('gap', 'Onboarding', 'Performance review', 2)\n; ('gap', 'Town hall', 'Performance review', 1)\n; ('latest', 'Networking event', 3)\n(check-sat)", + "entities": [ + "Networking event", + "Mentoring session", + "Town hall", + "Onboarding", + "Retrospective", + "Performance review" + ], + "durations": { + "Networking event": 2, + "Mentoring session": 3, + "Town hall": 1, + "Onboarding": 2, + "Retrospective": 3, + "Performance review": 3 + }, + "time_horizon": 12, + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 5, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Does Onboarding always start before Town hall?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "No valid schedule has Onboarding starting before Town hall; the reverse is forced.", + "query_type": "before_after", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Does Performance review always start before Town hall?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid schedules have Performance review first, others have Town hall first.", + "query_type": "before_after", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Is Town hall guaranteed to end before Performance review starts?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "The constraints allow schedules where Town hall precedes Performance review and others where it does not.", + "query_type": "order", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Is Onboarding guaranteed to end before Town hall starts?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "The constraints make it impossible for Onboarding to finish before Town hall starts; some overlap or reverse ordering is forced.", + "query_type": "order", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1, + 2 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Must Onboarding be active during hour 10?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether Onboarding is active at hour 10 depends on how the remaining scheduling constraints resolve.", + "query_type": "time_slot", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 3 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "CONTRADICTED": 2, + "UNKNOWN": 3 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "temp_order_0073", + "domain": "temporal", + "subdomain": "event_ordering", + "logic_type": "linear_arithmetic", + "premises": [ + "There are 6 events that happen in sequence: Retrospective, Tech talk, Town hall, Team standup, Security audit, and Compliance check.", + "Each event occurs at a unique position (1 = first, 6 = last).", + "Retrospective happens immediately before Town hall.", + "Team standup happens immediately before Security audit.", + "Retrospective and Team standup are not consecutive events." + ], + "formal_representation": "(set-logic QF_LIA)\n(declare-const ord_0 Int) ; position of Retrospective\n(assert (>= ord_0 1))\n(assert (<= ord_0 6))\n(declare-const ord_1 Int) ; position of Tech talk\n(assert (>= ord_1 1))\n(assert (<= ord_1 6))\n(declare-const ord_2 Int) ; position of Town hall\n(assert (>= ord_2 1))\n(assert (<= ord_2 6))\n(declare-const ord_3 Int) ; position of Team standup\n(assert (>= ord_3 1))\n(assert (<= ord_3 6))\n(declare-const ord_4 Int) ; position of Security audit\n(assert (>= ord_4 1))\n(assert (<= ord_4 6))\n(declare-const ord_5 Int) ; position of Compliance check\n(assert (>= ord_5 1))\n(assert (<= ord_5 6))\n(assert (distinct ord_0 ord_1 ord_2 ord_3 ord_4 ord_5))\n; ('immediately_before', 'Retrospective', 'Town hall')\n; ('immediately_before', 'Team standup', 'Security audit')\n; ('not_adjacent', 'Retrospective', 'Team standup')\n(check-sat)", + "entities": [ + "Retrospective", + "Tech talk", + "Town hall", + "Team standup", + "Security audit", + "Compliance check" + ], + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 8, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Must Security audit and Town hall be consecutive events?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "No valid ordering has Security audit and Town hall in consecutive positions.", + "query_type": "adjacent", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Must Team standup be the first event?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether Team standup is first depends on how the other ordering constraints resolve.", + "query_type": "first_last", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Can Tech talk occur in position 4?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid orderings place Tech talk in position 4, others do not.", + "query_type": "position", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Must Town hall and Security audit be consecutive events?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "No valid ordering has Town hall and Security audit in consecutive positions.", + "query_type": "adjacent", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Must Security audit be the second event?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid orderings place Security audit in position 2, others do not.", + "query_type": "position", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 3 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q5", + "query": "Must Tech talk be the first event?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether Tech talk is first depends on how the other ordering constraints resolve.", + "query_type": "first_last", + "depends_on": [ + 2 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q6", + "query": "Does Town hall always precede Tech talk?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "The ordering constraints allow sequences where Town hall is before Tech talk and vice versa.", + "query_type": "before", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 2, + 3, + 5 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q7", + "query": "Does Compliance check always precede Town hall?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "The ordering constraints allow sequences where Compliance check is before Town hall and vice versa.", + "query_type": "before", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 3, + 6 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "CONTRADICTED": 2, + "UNKNOWN": 6 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "temp_sched_0055", + "domain": "temporal", + "subdomain": "event_scheduling", + "logic_type": "linear_arithmetic", + "premises": [ + "A day has 8 available hours (slots 0 through 7).", + "There are 7 events to schedule: Budget review, Mentoring session, Sprint planning, Onboarding, Security audit, Town hall, and QA review.", + "Budget review takes 1 hour(s).", + "Mentoring session takes 2 hour(s).", + "Sprint planning takes 1 hour(s).", + "Onboarding takes 2 hour(s).", + "Security audit takes 1 hour(s).", + "Town hall takes 1 hour(s).", + "QA review takes 1 hour(s).", + "There must be at least 2 hour(s) between Mentoring session and Town hall.", + "Budget review and Security audit must start at the same time.", + "Budget review must finish before Town hall starts.", + "There must be at least 2 hour(s) between Sprint planning and QA review.", + "Mentoring session and Security audit must start at the same time.", + "There must be at least 2 hour(s) between Security audit and QA review.", + "Sprint planning must start no later than hour 7." + ], + "formal_representation": "(set-logic QF_LIA)\n(declare-const s_0 Int) ; start of Budget review\n(assert (>= s_0 0))\n(assert (<= (+ s_0 1) 8))\n(declare-const s_1 Int) ; start of Mentoring session\n(assert (>= s_1 0))\n(assert (<= (+ s_1 2) 8))\n(declare-const s_2 Int) ; start of Sprint planning\n(assert (>= s_2 0))\n(assert (<= (+ s_2 1) 8))\n(declare-const s_3 Int) ; start of Onboarding\n(assert (>= s_3 0))\n(assert (<= (+ s_3 2) 8))\n(declare-const s_4 Int) ; start of Security audit\n(assert (>= s_4 0))\n(assert (<= (+ s_4 1) 8))\n(declare-const s_5 Int) ; start of Town hall\n(assert (>= s_5 0))\n(assert (<= (+ s_5 1) 8))\n(declare-const s_6 Int) ; start of QA review\n(assert (>= s_6 0))\n(assert (<= (+ s_6 1) 8))\n; ('gap', 'Mentoring session', 'Town hall', 2)\n; ('same_start', 'Budget review', 'Security audit')\n; ('before', 'Budget review', 'Town hall')\n; ('gap', 'Sprint planning', 'QA review', 2)\n; ('same_start', 'Mentoring session', 'Security audit')\n; ('gap', 'Security audit', 'QA review', 2)\n; ('latest', 'Sprint planning', 7)\n(check-sat)", + "entities": [ + "Budget review", + "Mentoring session", + "Sprint planning", + "Onboarding", + "Security audit", + "Town hall", + "QA review" + ], + "durations": { + "Budget review": 1, + "Mentoring session": 2, + "Sprint planning": 1, + "Onboarding": 2, + "Security audit": 1, + "Town hall": 1, + "QA review": 1 + }, + "time_horizon": 8, + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 8, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Is it possible for Onboarding and Mentoring session to run simultaneously?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid schedules have Onboarding and Mentoring session overlapping, while others keep them separate.", + "query_type": "overlap", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Is Budget review guaranteed to end before Town hall starts?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "All ordering and duration constraints force Budget review (duration 1h) to complete before Town hall can begin.", + "query_type": "order", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Can Sprint planning fit entirely within hours 2 to 5?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid schedules place Sprint planning within [2, 5] and others do not.", + "query_type": "duration_fit", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Must Security audit finish before Onboarding begins?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "The constraints allow schedules where Security audit precedes Onboarding and others where it does not.", + "query_type": "order", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Can QA review fit entirely within hours 6 to 8?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid schedules place QA review within [6, 8] and others do not.", + "query_type": "duration_fit", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q5", + "query": "Can Onboarding fit entirely within hours 3 to 5?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid schedules place Onboarding within [3, 5] and others do not.", + "query_type": "duration_fit", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 3 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q6", + "query": "Can Security audit be scheduled to include hour 2?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether Security audit is active at hour 2 depends on how the remaining scheduling constraints resolve.", + "query_type": "time_slot", + "depends_on": [ + 3 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q7", + "query": "Is it possible for Onboarding and Town hall to run simultaneously?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid schedules have Onboarding and Town hall overlapping, while others keep them separate.", + "query_type": "overlap", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1, + 3, + 5 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "UNKNOWN": 7, + "ENTAILED": 1 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "temp_order_0034", + "domain": "temporal", + "subdomain": "event_ordering", + "logic_type": "linear_arithmetic", + "premises": [ + "There are 6 events that happen in sequence: Town hall, Sprint planning, Lunch break, Strategy planning, Vendor meeting, and Client call.", + "Each event occurs at a unique position (1 = first, 6 = last).", + "Lunch break and Strategy planning are not consecutive events.", + "Lunch break and Client call are not consecutive events.", + "Town hall and Sprint planning are not consecutive events." + ], + "formal_representation": "(set-logic QF_LIA)\n(declare-const ord_0 Int) ; position of Town hall\n(assert (>= ord_0 1))\n(assert (<= ord_0 6))\n(declare-const ord_1 Int) ; position of Sprint planning\n(assert (>= ord_1 1))\n(assert (<= ord_1 6))\n(declare-const ord_2 Int) ; position of Lunch break\n(assert (>= ord_2 1))\n(assert (<= ord_2 6))\n(declare-const ord_3 Int) ; position of Strategy planning\n(assert (>= ord_3 1))\n(assert (<= ord_3 6))\n(declare-const ord_4 Int) ; position of Vendor meeting\n(assert (>= ord_4 1))\n(assert (<= ord_4 6))\n(declare-const ord_5 Int) ; position of Client call\n(assert (>= ord_5 1))\n(assert (<= ord_5 6))\n(assert (distinct ord_0 ord_1 ord_2 ord_3 ord_4 ord_5))\n; ('not_adjacent', 'Lunch break', 'Strategy planning')\n; ('not_adjacent', 'Lunch break', 'Client call')\n; ('not_adjacent', 'Town hall', 'Sprint planning')\n(check-sat)", + "entities": [ + "Town hall", + "Sprint planning", + "Lunch break", + "Strategy planning", + "Vendor meeting", + "Client call" + ], + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 5, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Must Client call be the last event?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether Client call is last depends on how the other ordering constraints resolve.", + "query_type": "first_last", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Can Vendor meeting occur before Lunch break?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "The ordering constraints allow sequences where Lunch break is before Vendor meeting and vice versa.", + "query_type": "before", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Can Sprint planning occur in position 6?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid orderings place Sprint planning in position 6, others do not.", + "query_type": "position", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Can Lunch break occur in position 2?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid orderings place Lunch break in position 2, others do not.", + "query_type": "position", + "depends_on": [ + 1 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Must Sprint planning and Town hall be consecutive events?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "No valid ordering has Sprint planning and Town hall in consecutive positions.", + "query_type": "adjacent", + "depends_on": [ + 2 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "UNKNOWN": 4, + "CONTRADICTED": 1 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "temp_order_0112", + "domain": "temporal", + "subdomain": "event_ordering", + "logic_type": "linear_arithmetic", + "premises": [ + "There are 6 events that happen in sequence: Networking event, QA review, Tech talk, Security audit, Release planning, and Retrospective.", + "Each event occurs at a unique position (1 = first, 6 = last).", + "QA review happens before Tech talk.", + "Networking event and Retrospective are not consecutive events.", + "Networking event happens immediately before QA review.", + "QA review and Security audit are not consecutive events.", + "Security audit and Release planning are not consecutive events." + ], + "formal_representation": "(set-logic QF_LIA)\n(declare-const ord_0 Int) ; position of Networking event\n(assert (>= ord_0 1))\n(assert (<= ord_0 6))\n(declare-const ord_1 Int) ; position of QA review\n(assert (>= ord_1 1))\n(assert (<= ord_1 6))\n(declare-const ord_2 Int) ; position of Tech talk\n(assert (>= ord_2 1))\n(assert (<= ord_2 6))\n(declare-const ord_3 Int) ; position of Security audit\n(assert (>= ord_3 1))\n(assert (<= ord_3 6))\n(declare-const ord_4 Int) ; position of Release planning\n(assert (>= ord_4 1))\n(assert (<= ord_4 6))\n(declare-const ord_5 Int) ; position of Retrospective\n(assert (>= ord_5 1))\n(assert (<= ord_5 6))\n(assert (distinct ord_0 ord_1 ord_2 ord_3 ord_4 ord_5))\n; ('before', 'QA review', 'Tech talk')\n; ('not_adjacent', 'Networking event', 'Retrospective')\n; ('immediately_before', 'Networking event', 'QA review')\n; ('not_adjacent', 'QA review', 'Security audit')\n; ('not_adjacent', 'Security audit', 'Release planning')\n(check-sat)", + "entities": [ + "Networking event", + "QA review", + "Tech talk", + "Security audit", + "Release planning", + "Retrospective" + ], + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 8, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Must QA review happen before Security audit?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "The ordering constraints allow sequences where QA review is before Security audit and vice versa.", + "query_type": "before", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Can Networking event occur in position 1?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid orderings place Networking event in position 1, others do not.", + "query_type": "position", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Must Networking event and Tech talk be consecutive events?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "No valid ordering has Networking event and Tech talk in consecutive positions.", + "query_type": "adjacent", + "depends_on": [ + 1 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Must Release planning be the first event?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether Release planning is first depends on how the other ordering constraints resolve.", + "query_type": "first_last", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Can Networking event occur in position 2?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid orderings place Networking event in position 2, others do not.", + "query_type": "position", + "depends_on": [ + 1, + 2 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q5", + "query": "Can QA review occur in position 6?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "No valid ordering places QA review in position 6; other constraints block it.", + "query_type": "position", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q6", + "query": "Must QA review be the fifth event?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid orderings place QA review in position 5, others do not.", + "query_type": "position", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 5 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q7", + "query": "Must Retrospective and QA review be consecutive events?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some orderings place Retrospective and QA review consecutively while others separate them.", + "query_type": "adjacent", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 5, + 6 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "UNKNOWN": 6, + "CONTRADICTED": 2 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "temp_order_0109", + "domain": "temporal", + "subdomain": "event_ordering", + "logic_type": "linear_arithmetic", + "premises": [ + "There are 6 events that happen in sequence: Performance review, Networking event, Lunch break, Investor update, Vendor meeting, and Design sprint.", + "Each event occurs at a unique position (1 = first, 6 = last).", + "Lunch break happens before Vendor meeting.", + "Networking event happens before Investor update.", + "Performance review and Vendor meeting are not consecutive events." + ], + "formal_representation": "(set-logic QF_LIA)\n(declare-const ord_0 Int) ; position of Performance review\n(assert (>= ord_0 1))\n(assert (<= ord_0 6))\n(declare-const ord_1 Int) ; position of Networking event\n(assert (>= ord_1 1))\n(assert (<= ord_1 6))\n(declare-const ord_2 Int) ; position of Lunch break\n(assert (>= ord_2 1))\n(assert (<= ord_2 6))\n(declare-const ord_3 Int) ; position of Investor update\n(assert (>= ord_3 1))\n(assert (<= ord_3 6))\n(declare-const ord_4 Int) ; position of Vendor meeting\n(assert (>= ord_4 1))\n(assert (<= ord_4 6))\n(declare-const ord_5 Int) ; position of Design sprint\n(assert (>= ord_5 1))\n(assert (<= ord_5 6))\n(assert (distinct ord_0 ord_1 ord_2 ord_3 ord_4 ord_5))\n; ('before', 'Lunch break', 'Vendor meeting')\n; ('before', 'Networking event', 'Investor update')\n; ('not_adjacent', 'Performance review', 'Vendor meeting')\n(check-sat)", + "entities": [ + "Performance review", + "Networking event", + "Lunch break", + "Investor update", + "Vendor meeting", + "Design sprint" + ], + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 8, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Must Networking event be the last event?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "No valid ordering has Networking event as the last event.", + "query_type": "first_last", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Must Lunch break be the second event?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid orderings place Lunch break in position 2, others do not.", + "query_type": "position", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Can Design sprint occur in position 5?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid orderings place Design sprint in position 5, others do not.", + "query_type": "position", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Does Performance review always precede Vendor meeting?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "The ordering constraints allow sequences where Performance review is before Vendor meeting and vice versa.", + "query_type": "before", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Can Vendor meeting occur before Investor update?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "The ordering constraints allow sequences where Investor update is before Vendor meeting and vice versa.", + "query_type": "before", + "depends_on": [ + 3 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q5", + "query": "Can Networking event occur before Investor update?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "The chain of ordering constraints forces Investor update before Networking event in every valid sequence.", + "query_type": "before", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 4 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q6", + "query": "Must Vendor meeting and Networking event be consecutive events?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some orderings place Vendor meeting and Networking event consecutively while others separate them.", + "query_type": "adjacent", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 3, + 4, + 5 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q7", + "query": "Can Performance review occur in position 5?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid orderings place Performance review in position 5, others do not.", + "query_type": "position", + "depends_on": [ + 3 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "CONTRADICTED": 1, + "UNKNOWN": 6, + "ENTAILED": 1 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "temp_sched_0047", + "domain": "temporal", + "subdomain": "event_scheduling", + "logic_type": "linear_arithmetic", + "premises": [ + "A day has 12 available hours (slots 0 through 11).", + "There are 4 events to schedule: Workshop, Performance review, Budget review, and Product demo.", + "Workshop takes 3 hour(s).", + "Performance review takes 2 hour(s).", + "Budget review takes 3 hour(s).", + "Product demo takes 1 hour(s).", + "Workshop must finish before Budget review starts.", + "Budget review and Product demo must start at the same time.", + "Performance review must finish before Budget review starts.", + "There must be at least 2 hour(s) between Workshop and Performance review." + ], + "formal_representation": "(set-logic QF_LIA)\n(declare-const s_0 Int) ; start of Workshop\n(assert (>= s_0 0))\n(assert (<= (+ s_0 3) 12))\n(declare-const s_1 Int) ; start of Performance review\n(assert (>= s_1 0))\n(assert (<= (+ s_1 2) 12))\n(declare-const s_2 Int) ; start of Budget review\n(assert (>= s_2 0))\n(assert (<= (+ s_2 3) 12))\n(declare-const s_3 Int) ; start of Product demo\n(assert (>= s_3 0))\n(assert (<= (+ s_3 1) 12))\n; ('before', 'Workshop', 'Budget review')\n; ('same_start', 'Budget review', 'Product demo')\n; ('before', 'Performance review', 'Budget review')\n; ('gap', 'Workshop', 'Performance review', 2)\n(check-sat)", + "entities": [ + "Workshop", + "Performance review", + "Budget review", + "Product demo" + ], + "durations": { + "Workshop": 3, + "Performance review": 2, + "Budget review": 3, + "Product demo": 1 + }, + "time_horizon": 12, + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 7, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Is Product demo guaranteed to end before Workshop starts?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "The constraints make it impossible for Product demo to finish before Workshop starts; some overlap or reverse ordering is forced.", + "query_type": "order", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Can Performance review fit entirely within hours 4 to 6?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "No valid schedule fits Performance review (2h) entirely within [4, 6], given other constraints.", + "query_type": "duration_fit", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Can Budget review and Product demo overlap in time?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "The constraints force Budget review and Product demo to overlap in every valid schedule.", + "query_type": "overlap", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Does Budget review always start before Performance review?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "No valid schedule has Budget review starting before Performance review; the reverse is forced.", + "query_type": "before_after", + "depends_on": [ + 1, + 2 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Does Workshop always start before Budget review?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "The combined constraints guarantee Workshop starts before Budget review in all valid schedules.", + "query_type": "before_after", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 2, + 3 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q5", + "query": "Can Product demo start before Budget review finishes?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "All ordering and duration constraints force Budget review (duration 3h) to complete before Product demo can begin.", + "query_type": "order", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 2, + 3, + 4 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q6", + "query": "Can Performance review be scheduled to include hour 7?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether Performance review is active at hour 7 depends on how the remaining scheduling constraints resolve.", + "query_type": "time_slot", + "depends_on": [ + 1, + 3 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "CONTRADICTED": 3, + "ENTAILED": 3, + "UNKNOWN": 1 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "temp_order_0012", + "domain": "temporal", + "subdomain": "event_ordering", + "logic_type": "linear_arithmetic", + "premises": [ + "There are 5 events that happen in sequence: Compliance check, Performance review, Security audit, Strategy planning, and Vendor meeting.", + "Each event occurs at a unique position (1 = first, 5 = last).", + "Compliance check happens before Security audit.", + "Strategy planning and Vendor meeting are not consecutive events.", + "Compliance check happens before Performance review.", + "Compliance check and Vendor meeting are not consecutive events.", + "Performance review and Vendor meeting are not consecutive events.", + "Compliance check and Strategy planning are not consecutive events." + ], + "formal_representation": "(set-logic QF_LIA)\n(declare-const ord_0 Int) ; position of Compliance check\n(assert (>= ord_0 1))\n(assert (<= ord_0 5))\n(declare-const ord_1 Int) ; position of Performance review\n(assert (>= ord_1 1))\n(assert (<= ord_1 5))\n(declare-const ord_2 Int) ; position of Security audit\n(assert (>= ord_2 1))\n(assert (<= ord_2 5))\n(declare-const ord_3 Int) ; position of Strategy planning\n(assert (>= ord_3 1))\n(assert (<= ord_3 5))\n(declare-const ord_4 Int) ; position of Vendor meeting\n(assert (>= ord_4 1))\n(assert (<= ord_4 5))\n(assert (distinct ord_0 ord_1 ord_2 ord_3 ord_4))\n; ('before', 'Compliance check', 'Security audit')\n; ('not_adjacent', 'Strategy planning', 'Vendor meeting')\n; ('before', 'Compliance check', 'Performance review')\n; ('not_adjacent', 'Compliance check', 'Vendor meeting')\n; ('not_adjacent', 'Performance review', 'Vendor meeting')\n; ('not_adjacent', 'Compliance check', 'Strategy planning')\n(check-sat)", + "entities": [ + "Compliance check", + "Performance review", + "Security audit", + "Strategy planning", + "Vendor meeting" + ], + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 5, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Must Strategy planning and Security audit be consecutive events?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "The constraints guarantee Strategy planning and Security audit are consecutive in every valid ordering.", + "query_type": "adjacent", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Must Compliance check be the first event?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "All constraints force Compliance check to be the first event in the sequence.", + "query_type": "first_last", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Must Performance review be the third event?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "No valid ordering places Performance review in position 3; other constraints block it.", + "query_type": "position", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Must Compliance check be the second event?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "No valid ordering places Compliance check in position 2; other constraints block it.", + "query_type": "position", + "depends_on": [ + 1 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Must Strategy planning and Compliance check be consecutive events?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "No valid ordering has Strategy planning and Compliance check in consecutive positions.", + "query_type": "adjacent", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1, + 3 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "ENTAILED": 2, + "CONTRADICTED": 3 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "temp_order_0043", + "domain": "temporal", + "subdomain": "event_ordering", + "logic_type": "linear_arithmetic", + "premises": [ + "There are 5 events that happen in sequence: Town hall, Strategy planning, Keynote, Design sprint, and Hackathon session.", + "Each event occurs at a unique position (1 = first, 5 = last).", + "Town hall and Keynote are not consecutive events.", + "Strategy planning happens before Keynote.", + "Town hall happens immediately before Strategy planning.", + "Town hall happens before Design sprint.", + "Strategy planning and Hackathon session are not consecutive events." + ], + "formal_representation": "(set-logic QF_LIA)\n(declare-const ord_0 Int) ; position of Town hall\n(assert (>= ord_0 1))\n(assert (<= ord_0 5))\n(declare-const ord_1 Int) ; position of Strategy planning\n(assert (>= ord_1 1))\n(assert (<= ord_1 5))\n(declare-const ord_2 Int) ; position of Keynote\n(assert (>= ord_2 1))\n(assert (<= ord_2 5))\n(declare-const ord_3 Int) ; position of Design sprint\n(assert (>= ord_3 1))\n(assert (<= ord_3 5))\n(declare-const ord_4 Int) ; position of Hackathon session\n(assert (>= ord_4 1))\n(assert (<= ord_4 5))\n(assert (distinct ord_0 ord_1 ord_2 ord_3 ord_4))\n; ('not_adjacent', 'Town hall', 'Keynote')\n; ('before', 'Strategy planning', 'Keynote')\n; ('immediately_before', 'Town hall', 'Strategy planning')\n; ('before', 'Town hall', 'Design sprint')\n; ('not_adjacent', 'Strategy planning', 'Hackathon session')\n(check-sat)", + "entities": [ + "Town hall", + "Strategy planning", + "Keynote", + "Design sprint", + "Hackathon session" + ], + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 6, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Must Keynote be the first event?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "No valid ordering has Keynote as the first event.", + "query_type": "first_last", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Must Hackathon session be the last event?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether Hackathon session is last depends on how the other ordering constraints resolve.", + "query_type": "first_last", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Does Town hall always precede Design sprint?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "The chain of ordering constraints forces Town hall before Design sprint in every valid sequence.", + "query_type": "before", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Must Strategy planning and Keynote be consecutive events?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some orderings place Strategy planning and Keynote consecutively while others separate them.", + "query_type": "adjacent", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Must Design sprint be the last event?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether Design sprint is last depends on how the other ordering constraints resolve.", + "query_type": "first_last", + "depends_on": [ + 2 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q5", + "query": "Can Hackathon session occur before Keynote?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "The ordering constraints allow sequences where Keynote is before Hackathon session and vice versa.", + "query_type": "before", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1, + 3 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "CONTRADICTED": 1, + "UNKNOWN": 4, + "ENTAILED": 1 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "temp_sched_0016", + "domain": "temporal", + "subdomain": "event_scheduling", + "logic_type": "linear_arithmetic", + "premises": [ + "A day has 10 available hours (slots 0 through 9).", + "There are 6 events to schedule: Town hall, QA review, Keynote, Investor update, Board meeting, and Onboarding.", + "Town hall takes 3 hour(s).", + "QA review takes 2 hour(s).", + "Keynote takes 3 hour(s).", + "Investor update takes 1 hour(s).", + "Board meeting takes 1 hour(s).", + "Onboarding takes 3 hour(s).", + "Town hall and Investor update must not overlap.", + "Town hall and QA review must start at the same time.", + "Keynote must finish before Investor update starts.", + "Investor update must start at hour 3." + ], + "formal_representation": "(set-logic QF_LIA)\n(declare-const s_0 Int) ; start of Town hall\n(assert (>= s_0 0))\n(assert (<= (+ s_0 3) 10))\n(declare-const s_1 Int) ; start of QA review\n(assert (>= s_1 0))\n(assert (<= (+ s_1 2) 10))\n(declare-const s_2 Int) ; start of Keynote\n(assert (>= s_2 0))\n(assert (<= (+ s_2 3) 10))\n(declare-const s_3 Int) ; start of Investor update\n(assert (>= s_3 0))\n(assert (<= (+ s_3 1) 10))\n(declare-const s_4 Int) ; start of Board meeting\n(assert (>= s_4 0))\n(assert (<= (+ s_4 1) 10))\n(declare-const s_5 Int) ; start of Onboarding\n(assert (>= s_5 0))\n(assert (<= (+ s_5 3) 10))\n; ('no_overlap', 'Town hall', 'Investor update')\n; ('same_start', 'Town hall', 'QA review')\n; ('before', 'Keynote', 'Investor update')\n; ('exact', 'Investor update', 3)\n(check-sat)", + "entities": [ + "Town hall", + "QA review", + "Keynote", + "Investor update", + "Board meeting", + "Onboarding" + ], + "durations": { + "Town hall": 3, + "QA review": 2, + "Keynote": 3, + "Investor update": 1, + "Board meeting": 1, + "Onboarding": 3 + }, + "time_horizon": 10, + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 7, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Is Town hall running at hour 3?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "No valid schedule has Town hall running at hour 3, given its duration (3h) and the constraints.", + "query_type": "time_slot", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Is it possible for Onboarding and Investor update to run simultaneously?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid schedules have Onboarding and Investor update overlapping, while others keep them separate.", + "query_type": "overlap", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Must Board meeting be active during hour 1?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether Board meeting is active at hour 1 depends on how the remaining scheduling constraints resolve.", + "query_type": "time_slot", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Must Keynote be active during hour 5?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "No valid schedule has Keynote running at hour 5, given its duration (3h) and the constraints.", + "query_type": "time_slot", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Does Keynote always start before Onboarding?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid schedules have Keynote first, others have Onboarding first.", + "query_type": "before_after", + "depends_on": [ + 1, + 3 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q5", + "query": "Can Town hall fit entirely within hours 4 to 7?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid schedules place Town hall within [4, 7] and others do not.", + "query_type": "duration_fit", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q6", + "query": "Can Keynote fit entirely within hours 0 to 4?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "All constraints force Keynote (3h) into the window [0, 4] in every valid schedule.", + "query_type": "duration_fit", + "depends_on": [ + 3, + 4 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "CONTRADICTED": 2, + "UNKNOWN": 4, + "ENTAILED": 1 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "temp_sched_0081", + "domain": "temporal", + "subdomain": "event_scheduling", + "logic_type": "linear_arithmetic", + "premises": [ + "A day has 10 available hours (slots 0 through 9).", + "There are 7 events to schedule: Keynote, Panel discussion, Training session, Mentoring session, Architecture review, Lunch break, and Performance review.", + "Keynote takes 3 hour(s).", + "Panel discussion takes 1 hour(s).", + "Training session takes 2 hour(s).", + "Mentoring session takes 3 hour(s).", + "Architecture review takes 1 hour(s).", + "Lunch break takes 3 hour(s).", + "Performance review takes 2 hour(s).", + "Architecture review must finish before Performance review starts.", + "Mentoring session and Performance review must not overlap.", + "Panel discussion and Lunch break must start at the same time.", + "There must be at least 1 hour(s) between Training session and Lunch break.", + "There must be at least 2 hour(s) between Keynote and Mentoring session.", + "Keynote must start at hour 5.", + "Training session must start at hour 4." + ], + "formal_representation": "(set-logic QF_LIA)\n(declare-const s_0 Int) ; start of Keynote\n(assert (>= s_0 0))\n(assert (<= (+ s_0 3) 10))\n(declare-const s_1 Int) ; start of Panel discussion\n(assert (>= s_1 0))\n(assert (<= (+ s_1 1) 10))\n(declare-const s_2 Int) ; start of Training session\n(assert (>= s_2 0))\n(assert (<= (+ s_2 2) 10))\n(declare-const s_3 Int) ; start of Mentoring session\n(assert (>= s_3 0))\n(assert (<= (+ s_3 3) 10))\n(declare-const s_4 Int) ; start of Architecture review\n(assert (>= s_4 0))\n(assert (<= (+ s_4 1) 10))\n(declare-const s_5 Int) ; start of Lunch break\n(assert (>= s_5 0))\n(assert (<= (+ s_5 3) 10))\n(declare-const s_6 Int) ; start of Performance review\n(assert (>= s_6 0))\n(assert (<= (+ s_6 2) 10))\n; ('before', 'Architecture review', 'Performance review')\n; ('no_overlap', 'Mentoring session', 'Performance review')\n; ('same_start', 'Panel discussion', 'Lunch break')\n; ('gap', 'Training session', 'Lunch break', 1)\n; ('gap', 'Keynote', 'Mentoring session', 2)\n; ('exact', 'Keynote', 5)\n; ('exact', 'Training session', 4)\n(check-sat)", + "entities": [ + "Keynote", + "Panel discussion", + "Training session", + "Mentoring session", + "Architecture review", + "Lunch break", + "Performance review" + ], + "durations": { + "Keynote": 3, + "Panel discussion": 1, + "Training session": 2, + "Mentoring session": 3, + "Architecture review": 1, + "Lunch break": 3, + "Performance review": 2 + }, + "time_horizon": 10, + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 5, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Can Mentoring session fit entirely within hours 4 to 9?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "No valid schedule fits Mentoring session (3h) entirely within [4, 9], given other constraints.", + "query_type": "duration_fit", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Does Keynote always start before Architecture review?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid schedules have Keynote first, others have Architecture review first.", + "query_type": "before_after", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Can Lunch break and Mentoring session overlap in time?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid schedules have Lunch break and Mentoring session overlapping, while others keep them separate.", + "query_type": "overlap", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Does Keynote always start before Mentoring session?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "No valid schedule has Keynote starting before Mentoring session; the reverse is forced.", + "query_type": "before_after", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1, + 2 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Can Training session start before Lunch break finishes?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "The constraints allow schedules where Lunch break precedes Training session and others where it does not.", + "query_type": "order", + "depends_on": [ + 2 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "CONTRADICTED": 2, + "UNKNOWN": 3 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "temp_order_0082", + "domain": "temporal", + "subdomain": "event_ordering", + "logic_type": "linear_arithmetic", + "premises": [ + "There are 8 events that happen in sequence: QA review, Tech talk, Sprint planning, Vendor meeting, Keynote, Architecture review, Hackathon session, and Compliance check.", + "Each event occurs at a unique position (1 = first, 8 = last).", + "Sprint planning and Architecture review are not consecutive events.", + "QA review happens before Vendor meeting.", + "QA review happens immediately before Tech talk.", + "Vendor meeting and Keynote are not consecutive events.", + "Tech talk and Keynote are not consecutive events.", + "Sprint planning happens before Hackathon session.", + "QA review happens before Hackathon session." + ], + "formal_representation": "(set-logic QF_LIA)\n(declare-const ord_0 Int) ; position of QA review\n(assert (>= ord_0 1))\n(assert (<= ord_0 8))\n(declare-const ord_1 Int) ; position of Tech talk\n(assert (>= ord_1 1))\n(assert (<= ord_1 8))\n(declare-const ord_2 Int) ; position of Sprint planning\n(assert (>= ord_2 1))\n(assert (<= ord_2 8))\n(declare-const ord_3 Int) ; position of Vendor meeting\n(assert (>= ord_3 1))\n(assert (<= ord_3 8))\n(declare-const ord_4 Int) ; position of Keynote\n(assert (>= ord_4 1))\n(assert (<= ord_4 8))\n(declare-const ord_5 Int) ; position of Architecture review\n(assert (>= ord_5 1))\n(assert (<= ord_5 8))\n(declare-const ord_6 Int) ; position of Hackathon session\n(assert (>= ord_6 1))\n(assert (<= ord_6 8))\n(declare-const ord_7 Int) ; position of Compliance check\n(assert (>= ord_7 1))\n(assert (<= ord_7 8))\n(assert (distinct ord_0 ord_1 ord_2 ord_3 ord_4 ord_5 ord_6 ord_7))\n; ('not_adjacent', 'Sprint planning', 'Architecture review')\n; ('before', 'QA review', 'Vendor meeting')\n; ('immediately_before', 'QA review', 'Tech talk')\n; ('not_adjacent', 'Vendor meeting', 'Keynote')\n; ('not_adjacent', 'Tech talk', 'Keynote')\n; ('before', 'Sprint planning', 'Hackathon session')\n; ('before', 'QA review', 'Hackathon session')\n(check-sat)", + "entities": [ + "QA review", + "Tech talk", + "Sprint planning", + "Vendor meeting", + "Keynote", + "Architecture review", + "Hackathon session", + "Compliance check" + ], + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 6, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Must QA review be the last event?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "No valid ordering has QA review as the last event.", + "query_type": "first_last", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Does QA review always precede Vendor meeting?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "The chain of ordering constraints forces QA review before Vendor meeting in every valid sequence.", + "query_type": "before", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Must Architecture review be the last event?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether Architecture review is last depends on how the other ordering constraints resolve.", + "query_type": "first_last", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Must Hackathon session and Keynote be consecutive events?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some orderings place Hackathon session and Keynote consecutively while others separate them.", + "query_type": "adjacent", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Must Sprint planning be the first event?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether Sprint planning is first depends on how the other ordering constraints resolve.", + "query_type": "first_last", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q5", + "query": "Must Keynote and Hackathon session be consecutive events?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some orderings place Keynote and Hackathon session consecutively while others separate them.", + "query_type": "adjacent", + "depends_on": [ + 3 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "CONTRADICTED": 1, + "ENTAILED": 1, + "UNKNOWN": 4 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "temp_sched_0025", + "domain": "temporal", + "subdomain": "event_scheduling", + "logic_type": "linear_arithmetic", + "premises": [ + "A day has 8 available hours (slots 0 through 7).", + "There are 6 events to schedule: Training session, Data migration, Design sprint, Keynote, Product demo, and Compliance check.", + "Training session takes 1 hour(s).", + "Data migration takes 3 hour(s).", + "Design sprint takes 2 hour(s).", + "Keynote takes 1 hour(s).", + "Product demo takes 1 hour(s).", + "Compliance check takes 1 hour(s).", + "Data migration and Keynote must start at the same time.", + "Training session and Product demo must not overlap.", + "There must be at least 1 hour(s) between Product demo and Compliance check.", + "Data migration cannot start before hour 5." + ], + "formal_representation": "(set-logic QF_LIA)\n(declare-const s_0 Int) ; start of Training session\n(assert (>= s_0 0))\n(assert (<= (+ s_0 1) 8))\n(declare-const s_1 Int) ; start of Data migration\n(assert (>= s_1 0))\n(assert (<= (+ s_1 3) 8))\n(declare-const s_2 Int) ; start of Design sprint\n(assert (>= s_2 0))\n(assert (<= (+ s_2 2) 8))\n(declare-const s_3 Int) ; start of Keynote\n(assert (>= s_3 0))\n(assert (<= (+ s_3 1) 8))\n(declare-const s_4 Int) ; start of Product demo\n(assert (>= s_4 0))\n(assert (<= (+ s_4 1) 8))\n(declare-const s_5 Int) ; start of Compliance check\n(assert (>= s_5 0))\n(assert (<= (+ s_5 1) 8))\n; ('same_start', 'Data migration', 'Keynote')\n; ('no_overlap', 'Training session', 'Product demo')\n; ('gap', 'Product demo', 'Compliance check', 1)\n; ('earliest', 'Data migration', 5)\n(check-sat)", + "entities": [ + "Training session", + "Data migration", + "Design sprint", + "Keynote", + "Product demo", + "Compliance check" + ], + "durations": { + "Training session": 1, + "Data migration": 3, + "Design sprint": 2, + "Keynote": 1, + "Product demo": 1, + "Compliance check": 1 + }, + "time_horizon": 8, + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 7, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Is it possible for Training session and Design sprint to run simultaneously?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid schedules have Training session and Design sprint overlapping, while others keep them separate.", + "query_type": "overlap", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Must Training session finish before Keynote begins?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "The constraints allow schedules where Training session precedes Keynote and others where it does not.", + "query_type": "order", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Does Product demo always start before Design sprint?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid schedules have Product demo first, others have Design sprint first.", + "query_type": "before_after", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Is Keynote running at hour 2?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "No valid schedule has Keynote running at hour 2, given its duration (1h) and the constraints.", + "query_type": "time_slot", + "depends_on": [ + 1 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Does Product demo always start before Keynote?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid schedules have Product demo first, others have Keynote first.", + "query_type": "before_after", + "depends_on": [ + 1, + 2, + 3 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q5", + "query": "Is it possible for Data migration and Compliance check to run simultaneously?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid schedules have Data migration and Compliance check overlapping, while others keep them separate.", + "query_type": "overlap", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q6", + "query": "Can Design sprint start before Compliance check finishes?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "The constraints allow schedules where Compliance check precedes Design sprint and others where it does not.", + "query_type": "order", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 2, + 5 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "UNKNOWN": 6, + "CONTRADICTED": 1 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "temp_order_0113", + "domain": "temporal", + "subdomain": "event_ordering", + "logic_type": "linear_arithmetic", + "premises": [ + "There are 6 events that happen in sequence: Lunch break, Data migration, Team standup, Budget review, Training session, and Retrospective.", + "Each event occurs at a unique position (1 = first, 6 = last).", + "Budget review and Retrospective are not consecutive events.", + "Team standup and Retrospective are not consecutive events.", + "Training session happens immediately before Retrospective.", + "Team standup and Budget review are not consecutive events." + ], + "formal_representation": "(set-logic QF_LIA)\n(declare-const ord_0 Int) ; position of Lunch break\n(assert (>= ord_0 1))\n(assert (<= ord_0 6))\n(declare-const ord_1 Int) ; position of Data migration\n(assert (>= ord_1 1))\n(assert (<= ord_1 6))\n(declare-const ord_2 Int) ; position of Team standup\n(assert (>= ord_2 1))\n(assert (<= ord_2 6))\n(declare-const ord_3 Int) ; position of Budget review\n(assert (>= ord_3 1))\n(assert (<= ord_3 6))\n(declare-const ord_4 Int) ; position of Training session\n(assert (>= ord_4 1))\n(assert (<= ord_4 6))\n(declare-const ord_5 Int) ; position of Retrospective\n(assert (>= ord_5 1))\n(assert (<= ord_5 6))\n(assert (distinct ord_0 ord_1 ord_2 ord_3 ord_4 ord_5))\n; ('not_adjacent', 'Budget review', 'Retrospective')\n; ('not_adjacent', 'Team standup', 'Retrospective')\n; ('immediately_before', 'Training session', 'Retrospective')\n; ('not_adjacent', 'Team standup', 'Budget review')\n(check-sat)", + "entities": [ + "Lunch break", + "Data migration", + "Team standup", + "Budget review", + "Training session", + "Retrospective" + ], + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 6, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Must Budget review be the first event?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether Budget review is first depends on how the other ordering constraints resolve.", + "query_type": "first_last", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Must Team standup be the last event?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether Team standup is last depends on how the other ordering constraints resolve.", + "query_type": "first_last", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Must Retrospective be the fourth event?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid orderings place Retrospective in position 4, others do not.", + "query_type": "position", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Must Budget review happen before Lunch break?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "The ordering constraints allow sequences where Budget review is before Lunch break and vice versa.", + "query_type": "before", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Can Data migration occur before Lunch break?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "The ordering constraints allow sequences where Lunch break is before Data migration and vice versa.", + "query_type": "before", + "depends_on": [ + 3 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q5", + "query": "Must Team standup happen before Budget review?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "The ordering constraints allow sequences where Team standup is before Budget review and vice versa.", + "query_type": "before", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1, + 3 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "UNKNOWN": 6 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "temp_sched_0107", + "domain": "temporal", + "subdomain": "event_scheduling", + "logic_type": "linear_arithmetic", + "premises": [ + "A day has 10 available hours (slots 0 through 9).", + "There are 4 events to schedule: Workshop, Board meeting, Strategy planning, and Budget review.", + "Workshop takes 1 hour(s).", + "Board meeting takes 1 hour(s).", + "Strategy planning takes 3 hour(s).", + "Budget review takes 1 hour(s).", + "Board meeting must finish before Strategy planning starts.", + "Board meeting and Budget review must start at the same time.", + "Workshop and Board meeting must start at the same time.", + "Board meeting must start no later than hour 7." + ], + "formal_representation": "(set-logic QF_LIA)\n(declare-const s_0 Int) ; start of Workshop\n(assert (>= s_0 0))\n(assert (<= (+ s_0 1) 10))\n(declare-const s_1 Int) ; start of Board meeting\n(assert (>= s_1 0))\n(assert (<= (+ s_1 1) 10))\n(declare-const s_2 Int) ; start of Strategy planning\n(assert (>= s_2 0))\n(assert (<= (+ s_2 3) 10))\n(declare-const s_3 Int) ; start of Budget review\n(assert (>= s_3 0))\n(assert (<= (+ s_3 1) 10))\n; ('before', 'Board meeting', 'Strategy planning')\n; ('same_start', 'Board meeting', 'Budget review')\n; ('same_start', 'Workshop', 'Board meeting')\n; ('latest', 'Board meeting', 7)\n(check-sat)", + "entities": [ + "Workshop", + "Board meeting", + "Strategy planning", + "Budget review" + ], + "durations": { + "Workshop": 1, + "Board meeting": 1, + "Strategy planning": 3, + "Budget review": 1 + }, + "time_horizon": 10, + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 6, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Does Board meeting always start before Strategy planning?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "The combined constraints guarantee Board meeting starts before Strategy planning in all valid schedules.", + "query_type": "before_after", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Is it possible for Workshop and Board meeting to run simultaneously?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "The constraints force Workshop and Board meeting to overlap in every valid schedule.", + "query_type": "overlap", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Can Board meeting and Strategy planning overlap in time?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "No valid schedule allows Board meeting and Strategy planning to overlap, given the separation constraints.", + "query_type": "overlap", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Is Board meeting guaranteed to end before Workshop starts?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "The constraints make it impossible for Board meeting to finish before Workshop starts; some overlap or reverse ordering is forced.", + "query_type": "order", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1, + 2 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Is Board meeting guaranteed to end before Budget review starts?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "The constraints make it impossible for Board meeting to finish before Budget review starts; some overlap or reverse ordering is forced.", + "query_type": "order", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1, + 2, + 3 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q5", + "query": "Can Workshop start before Budget review finishes?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "All ordering and duration constraints force Budget review (duration 1h) to complete before Workshop can begin.", + "query_type": "order", + "depends_on": [ + 1, + 3, + 4 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "ENTAILED": 3, + "CONTRADICTED": 3 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "temp_order_0048", + "domain": "temporal", + "subdomain": "event_ordering", + "logic_type": "linear_arithmetic", + "premises": [ + "There are 7 events that happen in sequence: Investor update, Mentoring session, Retrospective, Budget review, Compliance check, Strategy planning, and Client call.", + "Each event occurs at a unique position (1 = first, 7 = last).", + "Mentoring session happens immediately before Strategy planning.", + "Investor update and Strategy planning are not consecutive events.", + "Investor update happens immediately before Retrospective.", + "Strategy planning happens immediately before Client call.", + "Compliance check and Client call are not consecutive events.", + "Retrospective and Compliance check are not consecutive events.", + "Investor update happens before Compliance check." + ], + "formal_representation": "(set-logic QF_LIA)\n(declare-const ord_0 Int) ; position of Investor update\n(assert (>= ord_0 1))\n(assert (<= ord_0 7))\n(declare-const ord_1 Int) ; position of Mentoring session\n(assert (>= ord_1 1))\n(assert (<= ord_1 7))\n(declare-const ord_2 Int) ; position of Retrospective\n(assert (>= ord_2 1))\n(assert (<= ord_2 7))\n(declare-const ord_3 Int) ; position of Budget review\n(assert (>= ord_3 1))\n(assert (<= ord_3 7))\n(declare-const ord_4 Int) ; position of Compliance check\n(assert (>= ord_4 1))\n(assert (<= ord_4 7))\n(declare-const ord_5 Int) ; position of Strategy planning\n(assert (>= ord_5 1))\n(assert (<= ord_5 7))\n(declare-const ord_6 Int) ; position of Client call\n(assert (>= ord_6 1))\n(assert (<= ord_6 7))\n(assert (distinct ord_0 ord_1 ord_2 ord_3 ord_4 ord_5 ord_6))\n; ('immediately_before', 'Mentoring session', 'Strategy planning')\n; ('not_adjacent', 'Investor update', 'Strategy planning')\n; ('immediately_before', 'Investor update', 'Retrospective')\n; ('immediately_before', 'Strategy planning', 'Client call')\n; ('not_adjacent', 'Compliance check', 'Client call')\n; ('not_adjacent', 'Retrospective', 'Compliance check')\n; ('before', 'Investor update', 'Compliance check')\n(check-sat)", + "entities": [ + "Investor update", + "Mentoring session", + "Retrospective", + "Budget review", + "Compliance check", + "Strategy planning", + "Client call" + ], + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 7, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Can Budget review occur in position 6?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid orderings place Budget review in position 6, others do not.", + "query_type": "position", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Can Retrospective occur in position 5?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid orderings place Retrospective in position 5, others do not.", + "query_type": "position", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Can Investor update occur before Budget review?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "The chain of ordering constraints forces Budget review before Investor update in every valid sequence.", + "query_type": "before", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Must Retrospective be the first event?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "No valid ordering has Retrospective as the first event.", + "query_type": "first_last", + "depends_on": [ + 1 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Must Retrospective and Budget review be consecutive events?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some orderings place Retrospective and Budget review consecutively while others separate them.", + "query_type": "adjacent", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1, + 2, + 3 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q5", + "query": "Can Compliance check occur before Strategy planning?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "The ordering constraints allow sequences where Strategy planning is before Compliance check and vice versa.", + "query_type": "before", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q6", + "query": "Must Budget review happen before Mentoring session?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "The ordering constraints allow sequences where Budget review is before Mentoring session and vice versa.", + "query_type": "before", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 2, + 4 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "UNKNOWN": 5, + "ENTAILED": 1, + "CONTRADICTED": 1 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "temp_order_0077", + "domain": "temporal", + "subdomain": "event_ordering", + "logic_type": "linear_arithmetic", + "premises": [ + "There are 7 events that happen in sequence: Vendor meeting, Onboarding, Client call, Workshop, Release planning, Panel discussion, and Investor update.", + "Each event occurs at a unique position (1 = first, 7 = last).", + "Panel discussion and Investor update are not consecutive events.", + "Vendor meeting and Client call are not consecutive events.", + "Client call and Investor update are not consecutive events.", + "Vendor meeting happens before Investor update.", + "Client call happens immediately before Workshop." + ], + "formal_representation": "(set-logic QF_LIA)\n(declare-const ord_0 Int) ; position of Vendor meeting\n(assert (>= ord_0 1))\n(assert (<= ord_0 7))\n(declare-const ord_1 Int) ; position of Onboarding\n(assert (>= ord_1 1))\n(assert (<= ord_1 7))\n(declare-const ord_2 Int) ; position of Client call\n(assert (>= ord_2 1))\n(assert (<= ord_2 7))\n(declare-const ord_3 Int) ; position of Workshop\n(assert (>= ord_3 1))\n(assert (<= ord_3 7))\n(declare-const ord_4 Int) ; position of Release planning\n(assert (>= ord_4 1))\n(assert (<= ord_4 7))\n(declare-const ord_5 Int) ; position of Panel discussion\n(assert (>= ord_5 1))\n(assert (<= ord_5 7))\n(declare-const ord_6 Int) ; position of Investor update\n(assert (>= ord_6 1))\n(assert (<= ord_6 7))\n(assert (distinct ord_0 ord_1 ord_2 ord_3 ord_4 ord_5 ord_6))\n; ('not_adjacent', 'Panel discussion', 'Investor update')\n; ('not_adjacent', 'Vendor meeting', 'Client call')\n; ('not_adjacent', 'Client call', 'Investor update')\n; ('before', 'Vendor meeting', 'Investor update')\n; ('immediately_before', 'Client call', 'Workshop')\n(check-sat)", + "entities": [ + "Vendor meeting", + "Onboarding", + "Client call", + "Workshop", + "Release planning", + "Panel discussion", + "Investor update" + ], + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 6, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Can Release planning occur before Investor update?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "The ordering constraints allow sequences where Investor update is before Release planning and vice versa.", + "query_type": "before", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Must Release planning and Workshop be consecutive events?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some orderings place Release planning and Workshop consecutively while others separate them.", + "query_type": "adjacent", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Can Workshop occur in position 1?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "No valid ordering places Workshop in position 1; other constraints block it.", + "query_type": "position", + "depends_on": [ + 1 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Must Onboarding happen before Panel discussion?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "The ordering constraints allow sequences where Onboarding is before Panel discussion and vice versa.", + "query_type": "before", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Can Release planning occur in position 6?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid orderings place Release planning in position 6, others do not.", + "query_type": "position", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q5", + "query": "Must Investor update be the first event?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "No valid ordering has Investor update as the first event.", + "query_type": "first_last", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "UNKNOWN": 4, + "CONTRADICTED": 2 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "temp_sched_0004", + "domain": "temporal", + "subdomain": "event_scheduling", + "logic_type": "linear_arithmetic", + "premises": [ + "A day has 10 available hours (slots 0 through 9).", + "There are 5 events to schedule: Town hall, Networking event, Release planning, Lunch break, and Board meeting.", + "Town hall takes 3 hour(s).", + "Networking event takes 2 hour(s).", + "Release planning takes 3 hour(s).", + "Lunch break takes 2 hour(s).", + "Board meeting takes 3 hour(s).", + "Release planning and Lunch break must not overlap.", + "Release planning and Board meeting must start at the same time.", + "Town hall must finish before Release planning starts.", + "Board meeting cannot start before hour 6.", + "Networking event cannot start before hour 2." + ], + "formal_representation": "(set-logic QF_LIA)\n(declare-const s_0 Int) ; start of Town hall\n(assert (>= s_0 0))\n(assert (<= (+ s_0 3) 10))\n(declare-const s_1 Int) ; start of Networking event\n(assert (>= s_1 0))\n(assert (<= (+ s_1 2) 10))\n(declare-const s_2 Int) ; start of Release planning\n(assert (>= s_2 0))\n(assert (<= (+ s_2 3) 10))\n(declare-const s_3 Int) ; start of Lunch break\n(assert (>= s_3 0))\n(assert (<= (+ s_3 2) 10))\n(declare-const s_4 Int) ; start of Board meeting\n(assert (>= s_4 0))\n(assert (<= (+ s_4 3) 10))\n; ('no_overlap', 'Release planning', 'Lunch break')\n; ('same_start', 'Release planning', 'Board meeting')\n; ('before', 'Town hall', 'Release planning')\n; ('earliest', 'Board meeting', 6)\n; ('earliest', 'Networking event', 2)\n(check-sat)", + "entities": [ + "Town hall", + "Networking event", + "Release planning", + "Lunch break", + "Board meeting" + ], + "durations": { + "Town hall": 3, + "Networking event": 2, + "Release planning": 3, + "Lunch break": 2, + "Board meeting": 3 + }, + "time_horizon": 10, + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 6, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Must Town hall finish before Release planning begins?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "All ordering and duration constraints force Town hall (duration 3h) to complete before Release planning can begin.", + "query_type": "order", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Must Town hall finish before Networking event begins?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "The constraints allow schedules where Town hall precedes Networking event and others where it does not.", + "query_type": "order", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Is Town hall guaranteed to end before Release planning starts?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "All ordering and duration constraints force Town hall (duration 3h) to complete before Release planning can begin.", + "query_type": "order", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Must Release planning finish before Town hall begins?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "The constraints make it impossible for Release planning to finish before Town hall starts; some overlap or reverse ordering is forced.", + "query_type": "order", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1, + 2 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Can Board meeting and Networking event overlap in time?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid schedules have Board meeting and Networking event overlapping, while others keep them separate.", + "query_type": "overlap", + "depends_on": [ + 1 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q5", + "query": "Must Lunch break finish before Board meeting begins?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "All ordering and duration constraints force Lunch break (duration 2h) to complete before Board meeting can begin.", + "query_type": "order", + "depends_on": [ + 4 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "ENTAILED": 3, + "UNKNOWN": 2, + "CONTRADICTED": 1 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "temp_sched_0089", + "domain": "temporal", + "subdomain": "event_scheduling", + "logic_type": "linear_arithmetic", + "premises": [ + "A day has 8 available hours (slots 0 through 7).", + "There are 6 events to schedule: Panel discussion, Strategy planning, Release planning, Sprint planning, Code review, and Town hall.", + "Panel discussion takes 1 hour(s).", + "Strategy planning takes 1 hour(s).", + "Release planning takes 2 hour(s).", + "Sprint planning takes 2 hour(s).", + "Code review takes 2 hour(s).", + "Town hall takes 2 hour(s).", + "Strategy planning and Town hall must start at the same time.", + "There must be at least 1 hour(s) between Panel discussion and Code review.", + "Panel discussion and Release planning must start at the same time.", + "There must be at least 1 hour(s) between Release planning and Sprint planning." + ], + "formal_representation": "(set-logic QF_LIA)\n(declare-const s_0 Int) ; start of Panel discussion\n(assert (>= s_0 0))\n(assert (<= (+ s_0 1) 8))\n(declare-const s_1 Int) ; start of Strategy planning\n(assert (>= s_1 0))\n(assert (<= (+ s_1 1) 8))\n(declare-const s_2 Int) ; start of Release planning\n(assert (>= s_2 0))\n(assert (<= (+ s_2 2) 8))\n(declare-const s_3 Int) ; start of Sprint planning\n(assert (>= s_3 0))\n(assert (<= (+ s_3 2) 8))\n(declare-const s_4 Int) ; start of Code review\n(assert (>= s_4 0))\n(assert (<= (+ s_4 2) 8))\n(declare-const s_5 Int) ; start of Town hall\n(assert (>= s_5 0))\n(assert (<= (+ s_5 2) 8))\n; ('same_start', 'Strategy planning', 'Town hall')\n; ('gap', 'Panel discussion', 'Code review', 1)\n; ('same_start', 'Panel discussion', 'Release planning')\n; ('gap', 'Release planning', 'Sprint planning', 1)\n(check-sat)", + "entities": [ + "Panel discussion", + "Strategy planning", + "Release planning", + "Sprint planning", + "Code review", + "Town hall" + ], + "durations": { + "Panel discussion": 1, + "Strategy planning": 1, + "Release planning": 2, + "Sprint planning": 2, + "Code review": 2, + "Town hall": 2 + }, + "time_horizon": 8, + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 8, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Must Panel discussion be active during hour 5?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether Panel discussion is active at hour 5 depends on how the remaining scheduling constraints resolve.", + "query_type": "time_slot", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Does Panel discussion always start before Release planning?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "No valid schedule has Panel discussion starting before Release planning; the reverse is forced.", + "query_type": "before_after", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Can Strategy planning fit entirely within hours 4 to 6?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid schedules place Strategy planning within [4, 6] and others do not.", + "query_type": "duration_fit", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Does Release planning always start before Code review?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid schedules have Release planning first, others have Code review first.", + "query_type": "before_after", + "depends_on": [ + 1 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Is Sprint planning guaranteed to end before Town hall starts?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "The constraints allow schedules where Sprint planning precedes Town hall and others where it does not.", + "query_type": "order", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q5", + "query": "Does Town hall always start before Panel discussion?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid schedules have Town hall first, others have Panel discussion first.", + "query_type": "before_after", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1, + 4 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q6", + "query": "Can Release planning and Sprint planning overlap in time?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "No valid schedule allows Release planning and Sprint planning to overlap, given the separation constraints.", + "query_type": "overlap", + "depends_on": [ + 1, + 3, + 4 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q7", + "query": "Does Strategy planning always start before Town hall?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "No valid schedule has Strategy planning starting before Town hall; the reverse is forced.", + "query_type": "before_after", + "depends_on": [ + 2, + 4, + 5 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "UNKNOWN": 5, + "CONTRADICTED": 3 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "temp_sched_0060", + "domain": "temporal", + "subdomain": "event_scheduling", + "logic_type": "linear_arithmetic", + "premises": [ + "A day has 12 available hours (slots 0 through 11).", + "There are 7 events to schedule: Mentoring session, Security audit, Board meeting, Client call, Town hall, Keynote, and Retrospective.", + "Mentoring session takes 3 hour(s).", + "Security audit takes 1 hour(s).", + "Board meeting takes 1 hour(s).", + "Client call takes 1 hour(s).", + "Town hall takes 3 hour(s).", + "Keynote takes 2 hour(s).", + "Retrospective takes 3 hour(s).", + "There must be at least 2 hour(s) between Mentoring session and Retrospective.", + "Mentoring session and Client call must not overlap.", + "Security audit and Board meeting must start at the same time.", + "Mentoring session and Keynote must not overlap.", + "Town hall cannot start before hour 4." + ], + "formal_representation": "(set-logic QF_LIA)\n(declare-const s_0 Int) ; start of Mentoring session\n(assert (>= s_0 0))\n(assert (<= (+ s_0 3) 12))\n(declare-const s_1 Int) ; start of Security audit\n(assert (>= s_1 0))\n(assert (<= (+ s_1 1) 12))\n(declare-const s_2 Int) ; start of Board meeting\n(assert (>= s_2 0))\n(assert (<= (+ s_2 1) 12))\n(declare-const s_3 Int) ; start of Client call\n(assert (>= s_3 0))\n(assert (<= (+ s_3 1) 12))\n(declare-const s_4 Int) ; start of Town hall\n(assert (>= s_4 0))\n(assert (<= (+ s_4 3) 12))\n(declare-const s_5 Int) ; start of Keynote\n(assert (>= s_5 0))\n(assert (<= (+ s_5 2) 12))\n(declare-const s_6 Int) ; start of Retrospective\n(assert (>= s_6 0))\n(assert (<= (+ s_6 3) 12))\n; ('gap', 'Mentoring session', 'Retrospective', 2)\n; ('no_overlap', 'Mentoring session', 'Client call')\n; ('same_start', 'Security audit', 'Board meeting')\n; ('no_overlap', 'Mentoring session', 'Keynote')\n; ('earliest', 'Town hall', 4)\n(check-sat)", + "entities": [ + "Mentoring session", + "Security audit", + "Board meeting", + "Client call", + "Town hall", + "Keynote", + "Retrospective" + ], + "durations": { + "Mentoring session": 3, + "Security audit": 1, + "Board meeting": 1, + "Client call": 1, + "Town hall": 3, + "Keynote": 2, + "Retrospective": 3 + }, + "time_horizon": 12, + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 6, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Is Security audit guaranteed to end before Board meeting starts?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "The constraints make it impossible for Security audit to finish before Board meeting starts; some overlap or reverse ordering is forced.", + "query_type": "order", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Can Retrospective and Security audit overlap in time?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid schedules have Retrospective and Security audit overlapping, while others keep them separate.", + "query_type": "overlap", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Does Board meeting always start before Security audit?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "No valid schedule has Board meeting starting before Security audit; the reverse is forced.", + "query_type": "before_after", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Must Client call finish before Board meeting begins?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "The constraints allow schedules where Client call precedes Board meeting and others where it does not.", + "query_type": "order", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 2 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Is it possible for Client call and Security audit to run simultaneously?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid schedules have Client call and Security audit overlapping, while others keep them separate.", + "query_type": "overlap", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1, + 2, + 3 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q5", + "query": "Can Town hall start before Client call finishes?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "The constraints allow schedules where Client call precedes Town hall and others where it does not.", + "query_type": "order", + "depends_on": [ + 3, + 4 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "CONTRADICTED": 2, + "UNKNOWN": 4 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "temp_order_0119", + "domain": "temporal", + "subdomain": "event_ordering", + "logic_type": "linear_arithmetic", + "premises": [ + "There are 8 events that happen in sequence: Performance review, Sprint planning, Keynote, Team standup, Workshop, Investor update, Vendor meeting, and Code review.", + "Each event occurs at a unique position (1 = first, 8 = last).", + "Investor update happens before Code review.", + "Keynote happens immediately before Investor update.", + "Team standup and Code review are not consecutive events.", + "Sprint planning happens immediately before Team standup." + ], + "formal_representation": "(set-logic QF_LIA)\n(declare-const ord_0 Int) ; position of Performance review\n(assert (>= ord_0 1))\n(assert (<= ord_0 8))\n(declare-const ord_1 Int) ; position of Sprint planning\n(assert (>= ord_1 1))\n(assert (<= ord_1 8))\n(declare-const ord_2 Int) ; position of Keynote\n(assert (>= ord_2 1))\n(assert (<= ord_2 8))\n(declare-const ord_3 Int) ; position of Team standup\n(assert (>= ord_3 1))\n(assert (<= ord_3 8))\n(declare-const ord_4 Int) ; position of Workshop\n(assert (>= ord_4 1))\n(assert (<= ord_4 8))\n(declare-const ord_5 Int) ; position of Investor update\n(assert (>= ord_5 1))\n(assert (<= ord_5 8))\n(declare-const ord_6 Int) ; position of Vendor meeting\n(assert (>= ord_6 1))\n(assert (<= ord_6 8))\n(declare-const ord_7 Int) ; position of Code review\n(assert (>= ord_7 1))\n(assert (<= ord_7 8))\n(assert (distinct ord_0 ord_1 ord_2 ord_3 ord_4 ord_5 ord_6 ord_7))\n; ('before', 'Investor update', 'Code review')\n; ('immediately_before', 'Keynote', 'Investor update')\n; ('not_adjacent', 'Team standup', 'Code review')\n; ('immediately_before', 'Sprint planning', 'Team standup')\n(check-sat)", + "entities": [ + "Performance review", + "Sprint planning", + "Keynote", + "Team standup", + "Workshop", + "Investor update", + "Vendor meeting", + "Code review" + ], + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 5, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Must Vendor meeting be the last event?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether Vendor meeting is last depends on how the other ordering constraints resolve.", + "query_type": "first_last", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Can Code review occur before Workshop?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "The ordering constraints allow sequences where Workshop is before Code review and vice versa.", + "query_type": "before", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Must Keynote be the last event?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "No valid ordering has Keynote as the last event.", + "query_type": "first_last", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Must Team standup and Performance review be consecutive events?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some orderings place Team standup and Performance review consecutively while others separate them.", + "query_type": "adjacent", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Must Performance review be the first event?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether Performance review is first depends on how the other ordering constraints resolve.", + "query_type": "first_last", + "depends_on": [ + 3 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "UNKNOWN": 4, + "CONTRADICTED": 1 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "temp_sched_0111", + "domain": "temporal", + "subdomain": "event_scheduling", + "logic_type": "linear_arithmetic", + "premises": [ + "A day has 10 available hours (slots 0 through 9).", + "There are 4 events to schedule: Architecture review, Tech talk, Performance review, and Client call.", + "Architecture review takes 2 hour(s).", + "Tech talk takes 2 hour(s).", + "Performance review takes 3 hour(s).", + "Client call takes 1 hour(s).", + "Architecture review must finish before Client call starts.", + "Performance review and Client call must start at the same time.", + "Tech talk must finish before Performance review starts.", + "Tech talk must start no later than hour 2." + ], + "formal_representation": "(set-logic QF_LIA)\n(declare-const s_0 Int) ; start of Architecture review\n(assert (>= s_0 0))\n(assert (<= (+ s_0 2) 10))\n(declare-const s_1 Int) ; start of Tech talk\n(assert (>= s_1 0))\n(assert (<= (+ s_1 2) 10))\n(declare-const s_2 Int) ; start of Performance review\n(assert (>= s_2 0))\n(assert (<= (+ s_2 3) 10))\n(declare-const s_3 Int) ; start of Client call\n(assert (>= s_3 0))\n(assert (<= (+ s_3 1) 10))\n; ('before', 'Architecture review', 'Client call')\n; ('same_start', 'Performance review', 'Client call')\n; ('before', 'Tech talk', 'Performance review')\n; ('latest', 'Tech talk', 2)\n(check-sat)", + "entities": [ + "Architecture review", + "Tech talk", + "Performance review", + "Client call" + ], + "durations": { + "Architecture review": 2, + "Tech talk": 2, + "Performance review": 3, + "Client call": 1 + }, + "time_horizon": 10, + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 8, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Does Architecture review always start before Tech talk?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid schedules have Architecture review first, others have Tech talk first.", + "query_type": "before_after", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Is it possible for Tech talk and Architecture review to run simultaneously?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid schedules have Tech talk and Architecture review overlapping, while others keep them separate.", + "query_type": "overlap", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Can Client call fit entirely within hours 3 to 6?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid schedules place Client call within [3, 6] and others do not.", + "query_type": "duration_fit", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Must Performance review be active during hour 9?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether Performance review is active at hour 9 depends on how the remaining scheduling constraints resolve.", + "query_type": "time_slot", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Must Tech talk finish before Performance review begins?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "All ordering and duration constraints force Tech talk (duration 2h) to complete before Performance review can begin.", + "query_type": "order", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1, + 3 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q5", + "query": "Is Architecture review guaranteed to end before Performance review starts?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "All ordering and duration constraints force Architecture review (duration 2h) to complete before Performance review can begin.", + "query_type": "order", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1, + 3, + 4 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q6", + "query": "Does Performance review always start before Architecture review?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "No valid schedule has Performance review starting before Architecture review; the reverse is forced.", + "query_type": "before_after", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1, + 3, + 4, + 5 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q7", + "query": "Can Architecture review and Client call overlap in time?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "No valid schedule allows Architecture review and Client call to overlap, given the separation constraints.", + "query_type": "overlap", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1, + 2, + 5, + 6 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "UNKNOWN": 4, + "ENTAILED": 2, + "CONTRADICTED": 2 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "temp_order_0072", + "domain": "temporal", + "subdomain": "event_ordering", + "logic_type": "linear_arithmetic", + "premises": [ + "There are 7 events that happen in sequence: Investor update, Compliance check, Architecture review, Board meeting, Data migration, Sprint planning, and Client call.", + "Each event occurs at a unique position (1 = first, 7 = last).", + "Board meeting and Client call are not consecutive events.", + "Architecture review happens before Sprint planning.", + "Investor update happens before Data migration.", + "Investor update happens before Compliance check." + ], + "formal_representation": "(set-logic QF_LIA)\n(declare-const ord_0 Int) ; position of Investor update\n(assert (>= ord_0 1))\n(assert (<= ord_0 7))\n(declare-const ord_1 Int) ; position of Compliance check\n(assert (>= ord_1 1))\n(assert (<= ord_1 7))\n(declare-const ord_2 Int) ; position of Architecture review\n(assert (>= ord_2 1))\n(assert (<= ord_2 7))\n(declare-const ord_3 Int) ; position of Board meeting\n(assert (>= ord_3 1))\n(assert (<= ord_3 7))\n(declare-const ord_4 Int) ; position of Data migration\n(assert (>= ord_4 1))\n(assert (<= ord_4 7))\n(declare-const ord_5 Int) ; position of Sprint planning\n(assert (>= ord_5 1))\n(assert (<= ord_5 7))\n(declare-const ord_6 Int) ; position of Client call\n(assert (>= ord_6 1))\n(assert (<= ord_6 7))\n(assert (distinct ord_0 ord_1 ord_2 ord_3 ord_4 ord_5 ord_6))\n; ('not_adjacent', 'Board meeting', 'Client call')\n; ('before', 'Architecture review', 'Sprint planning')\n; ('before', 'Investor update', 'Data migration')\n; ('before', 'Investor update', 'Compliance check')\n(check-sat)", + "entities": [ + "Investor update", + "Compliance check", + "Architecture review", + "Board meeting", + "Data migration", + "Sprint planning", + "Client call" + ], + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 6, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Can Client call occur before Architecture review?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "The ordering constraints allow sequences where Architecture review is before Client call and vice versa.", + "query_type": "before", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Must Data migration be the sixth event?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid orderings place Data migration in position 6, others do not.", + "query_type": "position", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Must Investor update and Data migration be consecutive events?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some orderings place Investor update and Data migration consecutively while others separate them.", + "query_type": "adjacent", + "depends_on": [ + 1 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Can Board meeting occur in position 7?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid orderings place Board meeting in position 7, others do not.", + "query_type": "position", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Must Data migration be the first event?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "No valid ordering has Data migration as the first event.", + "query_type": "first_last", + "depends_on": [ + 1, + 2 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q5", + "query": "Can Client call occur in position 7?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid orderings place Client call in position 7, others do not.", + "query_type": "position", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "UNKNOWN": 5, + "CONTRADICTED": 1 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "temp_order_0030", + "domain": "temporal", + "subdomain": "event_ordering", + "logic_type": "linear_arithmetic", + "premises": [ + "There are 6 events that happen in sequence: Workshop, Hackathon session, Compliance check, Data migration, Product demo, and Keynote.", + "Each event occurs at a unique position (1 = first, 6 = last).", + "Product demo happens immediately before Keynote.", + "Hackathon session and Data migration are not consecutive events.", + "Workshop happens immediately before Compliance check.", + "Workshop happens before Hackathon session.", + "Data migration happens before Keynote.", + "Compliance check happens immediately before Product demo.", + "Workshop and Keynote are not consecutive events." + ], + "formal_representation": "(set-logic QF_LIA)\n(declare-const ord_0 Int) ; position of Workshop\n(assert (>= ord_0 1))\n(assert (<= ord_0 6))\n(declare-const ord_1 Int) ; position of Hackathon session\n(assert (>= ord_1 1))\n(assert (<= ord_1 6))\n(declare-const ord_2 Int) ; position of Compliance check\n(assert (>= ord_2 1))\n(assert (<= ord_2 6))\n(declare-const ord_3 Int) ; position of Data migration\n(assert (>= ord_3 1))\n(assert (<= ord_3 6))\n(declare-const ord_4 Int) ; position of Product demo\n(assert (>= ord_4 1))\n(assert (<= ord_4 6))\n(declare-const ord_5 Int) ; position of Keynote\n(assert (>= ord_5 1))\n(assert (<= ord_5 6))\n(assert (distinct ord_0 ord_1 ord_2 ord_3 ord_4 ord_5))\n; ('immediately_before', 'Product demo', 'Keynote')\n; ('not_adjacent', 'Hackathon session', 'Data migration')\n; ('immediately_before', 'Workshop', 'Compliance check')\n; ('before', 'Workshop', 'Hackathon session')\n; ('before', 'Data migration', 'Keynote')\n; ('immediately_before', 'Compliance check', 'Product demo')\n; ('not_adjacent', 'Workshop', 'Keynote')\n(check-sat)", + "entities": [ + "Workshop", + "Hackathon session", + "Compliance check", + "Data migration", + "Product demo", + "Keynote" + ], + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 5, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Can Data migration occur before Compliance check?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "The chain of ordering constraints forces Compliance check before Data migration in every valid sequence.", + "query_type": "before", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Can Keynote occur before Compliance check?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "The constraints force Keynote before Compliance check; no valid ordering has Compliance check first.", + "query_type": "before", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Must Compliance check and Product demo be consecutive events?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "The constraints guarantee Compliance check and Product demo are consecutive in every valid ordering.", + "query_type": "adjacent", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Can Hackathon session occur in position 3?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "No valid ordering places Hackathon session in position 3; other constraints block it.", + "query_type": "position", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Must Data migration be the sixth event?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "No valid ordering places Data migration in position 6; other constraints block it.", + "query_type": "position", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "ENTAILED": 2, + "CONTRADICTED": 3 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "temp_sched_0029", + "domain": "temporal", + "subdomain": "event_scheduling", + "logic_type": "linear_arithmetic", + "premises": [ + "A day has 12 available hours (slots 0 through 11).", + "There are 4 events to schedule: Training session, Architecture review, Town hall, and Client call.", + "Training session takes 3 hour(s).", + "Architecture review takes 3 hour(s).", + "Town hall takes 1 hour(s).", + "Client call takes 3 hour(s).", + "Architecture review and Client call must not overlap.", + "Training session and Architecture review must not overlap.", + "Training session and Town hall must start at the same time.", + "Client call must start at hour 8." + ], + "formal_representation": "(set-logic QF_LIA)\n(declare-const s_0 Int) ; start of Training session\n(assert (>= s_0 0))\n(assert (<= (+ s_0 3) 12))\n(declare-const s_1 Int) ; start of Architecture review\n(assert (>= s_1 0))\n(assert (<= (+ s_1 3) 12))\n(declare-const s_2 Int) ; start of Town hall\n(assert (>= s_2 0))\n(assert (<= (+ s_2 1) 12))\n(declare-const s_3 Int) ; start of Client call\n(assert (>= s_3 0))\n(assert (<= (+ s_3 3) 12))\n; ('no_overlap', 'Architecture review', 'Client call')\n; ('no_overlap', 'Training session', 'Architecture review')\n; ('same_start', 'Training session', 'Town hall')\n; ('exact', 'Client call', 8)\n(check-sat)", + "entities": [ + "Training session", + "Architecture review", + "Town hall", + "Client call" + ], + "durations": { + "Training session": 3, + "Architecture review": 3, + "Town hall": 1, + "Client call": 3 + }, + "time_horizon": 12, + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 7, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Can Architecture review fit entirely within hours 7 to 12?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "No valid schedule fits Architecture review (3h) entirely within [7, 12], given other constraints.", + "query_type": "duration_fit", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Can Training session be scheduled to include hour 5?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether Training session is active at hour 5 depends on how the remaining scheduling constraints resolve.", + "query_type": "time_slot", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Can Architecture review and Training session overlap in time?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "No valid schedule allows Architecture review and Training session to overlap, given the separation constraints.", + "query_type": "overlap", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Is it possible for Architecture review and Training session to run simultaneously?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "No valid schedule allows Architecture review and Training session to overlap, given the separation constraints.", + "query_type": "overlap", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1, + 2 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Does Training session always start before Architecture review?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid schedules have Training session first, others have Architecture review first.", + "query_type": "before_after", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1, + 2, + 3 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q5", + "query": "Does Town hall always start before Training session?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "No valid schedule has Town hall starting before Training session; the reverse is forced.", + "query_type": "before_after", + "depends_on": [ + 1, + 2, + 3, + 4 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q6", + "query": "Must Client call be active during hour 9?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "Given all constraints, Client call must be active during hour 9 in every valid schedule.", + "query_type": "time_slot", + "depends_on": [] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "CONTRADICTED": 4, + "UNKNOWN": 2, + "ENTAILED": 1 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "temp_sched_0057", + "domain": "temporal", + "subdomain": "event_scheduling", + "logic_type": "linear_arithmetic", + "premises": [ + "A day has 8 available hours (slots 0 through 7).", + "There are 7 events to schedule: Investor update, Architecture review, Workshop, Board meeting, Performance review, QA review, and Budget review.", + "Investor update takes 1 hour(s).", + "Architecture review takes 2 hour(s).", + "Workshop takes 3 hour(s).", + "Board meeting takes 1 hour(s).", + "Performance review takes 3 hour(s).", + "QA review takes 2 hour(s).", + "Budget review takes 3 hour(s).", + "Workshop must finish before Performance review starts.", + "Performance review and QA review must not overlap.", + "There must be at least 2 hour(s) between Board meeting and Performance review.", + "There must be at least 1 hour(s) between Workshop and Board meeting.", + "Budget review must start at hour 5.", + "Architecture review cannot start before hour 1." + ], + "formal_representation": "(set-logic QF_LIA)\n(declare-const s_0 Int) ; start of Investor update\n(assert (>= s_0 0))\n(assert (<= (+ s_0 1) 8))\n(declare-const s_1 Int) ; start of Architecture review\n(assert (>= s_1 0))\n(assert (<= (+ s_1 2) 8))\n(declare-const s_2 Int) ; start of Workshop\n(assert (>= s_2 0))\n(assert (<= (+ s_2 3) 8))\n(declare-const s_3 Int) ; start of Board meeting\n(assert (>= s_3 0))\n(assert (<= (+ s_3 1) 8))\n(declare-const s_4 Int) ; start of Performance review\n(assert (>= s_4 0))\n(assert (<= (+ s_4 3) 8))\n(declare-const s_5 Int) ; start of QA review\n(assert (>= s_5 0))\n(assert (<= (+ s_5 2) 8))\n(declare-const s_6 Int) ; start of Budget review\n(assert (>= s_6 0))\n(assert (<= (+ s_6 3) 8))\n; ('before', 'Workshop', 'Performance review')\n; ('no_overlap', 'Performance review', 'QA review')\n; ('gap', 'Board meeting', 'Performance review', 2)\n; ('gap', 'Workshop', 'Board meeting', 1)\n; ('exact', 'Budget review', 5)\n; ('earliest', 'Architecture review', 1)\n(check-sat)", + "entities": [ + "Investor update", + "Architecture review", + "Workshop", + "Board meeting", + "Performance review", + "QA review", + "Budget review" + ], + "durations": { + "Investor update": 1, + "Architecture review": 2, + "Workshop": 3, + "Board meeting": 1, + "Performance review": 3, + "QA review": 2, + "Budget review": 3 + }, + "time_horizon": 8, + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 6, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Does QA review always start before Budget review?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "The combined constraints guarantee QA review starts before Budget review in all valid schedules.", + "query_type": "before_after", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Is it possible for Architecture review and Board meeting to run simultaneously?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "No valid schedule allows Architecture review and Board meeting to overlap, given the separation constraints.", + "query_type": "overlap", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Can Investor update fit entirely within hours 1 to 4?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid schedules place Investor update within [1, 4] and others do not.", + "query_type": "duration_fit", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Can Board meeting fit entirely within hours 7 to 8?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "No valid schedule fits Board meeting (1h) entirely within [7, 8], given other constraints.", + "query_type": "duration_fit", + "depends_on": [ + 1 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Must QA review finish before Performance review begins?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "All ordering and duration constraints force QA review (duration 2h) to complete before Performance review can begin.", + "query_type": "order", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q5", + "query": "Can Budget review fit entirely within hours 5 to 8?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "All constraints force Budget review (3h) into the window [5, 8] in every valid schedule.", + "query_type": "duration_fit", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "ENTAILED": 3, + "CONTRADICTED": 2, + "UNKNOWN": 1 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "temp_order_0078", + "domain": "temporal", + "subdomain": "event_ordering", + "logic_type": "linear_arithmetic", + "premises": [ + "There are 8 events that happen in sequence: Panel discussion, Keynote, Hackathon session, Tech talk, Data migration, Town hall, Mentoring session, and Onboarding.", + "Each event occurs at a unique position (1 = first, 8 = last).", + "Hackathon session and Data migration are not consecutive events.", + "Panel discussion and Mentoring session are not consecutive events.", + "Tech talk and Data migration are not consecutive events.", + "Keynote and Onboarding are not consecutive events.", + "Data migration happens immediately before Onboarding.", + "Mentoring session happens before Onboarding." + ], + "formal_representation": "(set-logic QF_LIA)\n(declare-const ord_0 Int) ; position of Panel discussion\n(assert (>= ord_0 1))\n(assert (<= ord_0 8))\n(declare-const ord_1 Int) ; position of Keynote\n(assert (>= ord_1 1))\n(assert (<= ord_1 8))\n(declare-const ord_2 Int) ; position of Hackathon session\n(assert (>= ord_2 1))\n(assert (<= ord_2 8))\n(declare-const ord_3 Int) ; position of Tech talk\n(assert (>= ord_3 1))\n(assert (<= ord_3 8))\n(declare-const ord_4 Int) ; position of Data migration\n(assert (>= ord_4 1))\n(assert (<= ord_4 8))\n(declare-const ord_5 Int) ; position of Town hall\n(assert (>= ord_5 1))\n(assert (<= ord_5 8))\n(declare-const ord_6 Int) ; position of Mentoring session\n(assert (>= ord_6 1))\n(assert (<= ord_6 8))\n(declare-const ord_7 Int) ; position of Onboarding\n(assert (>= ord_7 1))\n(assert (<= ord_7 8))\n(assert (distinct ord_0 ord_1 ord_2 ord_3 ord_4 ord_5 ord_6 ord_7))\n; ('not_adjacent', 'Hackathon session', 'Data migration')\n; ('not_adjacent', 'Panel discussion', 'Mentoring session')\n; ('not_adjacent', 'Tech talk', 'Data migration')\n; ('not_adjacent', 'Keynote', 'Onboarding')\n; ('immediately_before', 'Data migration', 'Onboarding')\n; ('before', 'Mentoring session', 'Onboarding')\n(check-sat)", + "entities": [ + "Panel discussion", + "Keynote", + "Hackathon session", + "Tech talk", + "Data migration", + "Town hall", + "Mentoring session", + "Onboarding" + ], + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 6, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Does Data migration always precede Hackathon session?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "The ordering constraints allow sequences where Data migration is before Hackathon session and vice versa.", + "query_type": "before", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Must Panel discussion and Onboarding be consecutive events?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some orderings place Panel discussion and Onboarding consecutively while others separate them.", + "query_type": "adjacent", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Can Onboarding occur before Panel discussion?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "The ordering constraints allow sequences where Panel discussion is before Onboarding and vice versa.", + "query_type": "before", + "depends_on": [ + 1 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Must Panel discussion and Town hall be consecutive events?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some orderings place Panel discussion and Town hall consecutively while others separate them.", + "query_type": "adjacent", + "depends_on": [ + 1, + 2 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Must Keynote be the first event?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether Keynote is first depends on how the other ordering constraints resolve.", + "query_type": "first_last", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q5", + "query": "Must Mentoring session be the last event?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "No valid ordering has Mentoring session as the last event.", + "query_type": "first_last", + "depends_on": [] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "UNKNOWN": 5, + "CONTRADICTED": 1 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "temp_order_0041", + "domain": "temporal", + "subdomain": "event_ordering", + "logic_type": "linear_arithmetic", + "premises": [ + "There are 8 events that happen in sequence: Security audit, QA review, Product demo, Release planning, Workshop, Lunch break, Code review, and Retrospective.", + "Each event occurs at a unique position (1 = first, 8 = last).", + "Product demo happens before Release planning.", + "Security audit happens immediately before Lunch break.", + "QA review happens immediately before Workshop." + ], + "formal_representation": "(set-logic QF_LIA)\n(declare-const ord_0 Int) ; position of Security audit\n(assert (>= ord_0 1))\n(assert (<= ord_0 8))\n(declare-const ord_1 Int) ; position of QA review\n(assert (>= ord_1 1))\n(assert (<= ord_1 8))\n(declare-const ord_2 Int) ; position of Product demo\n(assert (>= ord_2 1))\n(assert (<= ord_2 8))\n(declare-const ord_3 Int) ; position of Release planning\n(assert (>= ord_3 1))\n(assert (<= ord_3 8))\n(declare-const ord_4 Int) ; position of Workshop\n(assert (>= ord_4 1))\n(assert (<= ord_4 8))\n(declare-const ord_5 Int) ; position of Lunch break\n(assert (>= ord_5 1))\n(assert (<= ord_5 8))\n(declare-const ord_6 Int) ; position of Code review\n(assert (>= ord_6 1))\n(assert (<= ord_6 8))\n(declare-const ord_7 Int) ; position of Retrospective\n(assert (>= ord_7 1))\n(assert (<= ord_7 8))\n(assert (distinct ord_0 ord_1 ord_2 ord_3 ord_4 ord_5 ord_6 ord_7))\n; ('before', 'Product demo', 'Release planning')\n; ('immediately_before', 'Security audit', 'Lunch break')\n; ('immediately_before', 'QA review', 'Workshop')\n(check-sat)", + "entities": [ + "Security audit", + "QA review", + "Product demo", + "Release planning", + "Workshop", + "Lunch break", + "Code review", + "Retrospective" + ], + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 6, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Must Product demo happen before Workshop?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "The ordering constraints allow sequences where Product demo is before Workshop and vice versa.", + "query_type": "before", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Must Lunch break be the first event?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "No valid ordering has Lunch break as the first event.", + "query_type": "first_last", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Must Workshop be the last event?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether Workshop is last depends on how the other ordering constraints resolve.", + "query_type": "first_last", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Must Retrospective be the first event?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether Retrospective is first depends on how the other ordering constraints resolve.", + "query_type": "first_last", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Can Workshop occur before Product demo?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "The ordering constraints allow sequences where Product demo is before Workshop and vice versa.", + "query_type": "before", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 2 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q5", + "query": "Must Release planning and Retrospective be consecutive events?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some orderings place Release planning and Retrospective consecutively while others separate them.", + "query_type": "adjacent", + "depends_on": [ + 3 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "UNKNOWN": 5, + "CONTRADICTED": 1 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "temp_order_0001", + "domain": "temporal", + "subdomain": "event_ordering", + "logic_type": "linear_arithmetic", + "premises": [ + "There are 5 events that happen in sequence: Mentoring session, Town hall, Strategy planning, Retrospective, and Hackathon session.", + "Each event occurs at a unique position (1 = first, 5 = last).", + "Mentoring session and Retrospective are not consecutive events.", + "Mentoring session happens before Strategy planning.", + "Strategy planning happens immediately before Hackathon session.", + "Retrospective happens before Hackathon session.", + "Mentoring session and Hackathon session are not consecutive events.", + "Town hall happens before Hackathon session." + ], + "formal_representation": "(set-logic QF_LIA)\n(declare-const ord_0 Int) ; position of Mentoring session\n(assert (>= ord_0 1))\n(assert (<= ord_0 5))\n(declare-const ord_1 Int) ; position of Town hall\n(assert (>= ord_1 1))\n(assert (<= ord_1 5))\n(declare-const ord_2 Int) ; position of Strategy planning\n(assert (>= ord_2 1))\n(assert (<= ord_2 5))\n(declare-const ord_3 Int) ; position of Retrospective\n(assert (>= ord_3 1))\n(assert (<= ord_3 5))\n(declare-const ord_4 Int) ; position of Hackathon session\n(assert (>= ord_4 1))\n(assert (<= ord_4 5))\n(assert (distinct ord_0 ord_1 ord_2 ord_3 ord_4))\n; ('not_adjacent', 'Mentoring session', 'Retrospective')\n; ('before', 'Mentoring session', 'Strategy planning')\n; ('immediately_before', 'Strategy planning', 'Hackathon session')\n; ('before', 'Retrospective', 'Hackathon session')\n; ('not_adjacent', 'Mentoring session', 'Hackathon session')\n; ('before', 'Town hall', 'Hackathon session')\n(check-sat)", + "entities": [ + "Mentoring session", + "Town hall", + "Strategy planning", + "Retrospective", + "Hackathon session" + ], + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 8, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Must Hackathon session be the third event?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "No valid ordering places Hackathon session in position 3; other constraints block it.", + "query_type": "position", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Must Mentoring session be the first event?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid orderings place Mentoring session in position 1, others do not.", + "query_type": "position", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Must Retrospective be the first event?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether Retrospective is first depends on how the other ordering constraints resolve.", + "query_type": "first_last", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Can Town hall occur before Mentoring session?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "The ordering constraints allow sequences where Mentoring session is before Town hall and vice versa.", + "query_type": "before", + "depends_on": [ + 1 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Must Retrospective and Mentoring session be consecutive events?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "No valid ordering has Retrospective and Mentoring session in consecutive positions.", + "query_type": "adjacent", + "depends_on": [ + 1, + 2, + 3 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q5", + "query": "Must Town hall be the last event?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "No valid ordering has Town hall as the last event.", + "query_type": "first_last", + "depends_on": [ + 3 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q6", + "query": "Must Mentoring session be the third event?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid orderings place Mentoring session in position 3, others do not.", + "query_type": "position", + "depends_on": [ + 1, + 3, + 4 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q7", + "query": "Must Strategy planning be the last event?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "No valid ordering has Strategy planning as the last event.", + "query_type": "first_last", + "depends_on": [] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "CONTRADICTED": 4, + "UNKNOWN": 4 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "temp_order_0075", + "domain": "temporal", + "subdomain": "event_ordering", + "logic_type": "linear_arithmetic", + "premises": [ + "There are 8 events that happen in sequence: Town hall, Training session, Vendor meeting, Release planning, Onboarding, Mentoring session, Workshop, and Investor update.", + "Each event occurs at a unique position (1 = first, 8 = last).", + "Onboarding and Workshop are not consecutive events.", + "Vendor meeting and Onboarding are not consecutive events.", + "Training session happens immediately before Workshop.", + "Release planning and Workshop are not consecutive events.", + "Vendor meeting happens immediately before Investor update." + ], + "formal_representation": "(set-logic QF_LIA)\n(declare-const ord_0 Int) ; position of Town hall\n(assert (>= ord_0 1))\n(assert (<= ord_0 8))\n(declare-const ord_1 Int) ; position of Training session\n(assert (>= ord_1 1))\n(assert (<= ord_1 8))\n(declare-const ord_2 Int) ; position of Vendor meeting\n(assert (>= ord_2 1))\n(assert (<= ord_2 8))\n(declare-const ord_3 Int) ; position of Release planning\n(assert (>= ord_3 1))\n(assert (<= ord_3 8))\n(declare-const ord_4 Int) ; position of Onboarding\n(assert (>= ord_4 1))\n(assert (<= ord_4 8))\n(declare-const ord_5 Int) ; position of Mentoring session\n(assert (>= ord_5 1))\n(assert (<= ord_5 8))\n(declare-const ord_6 Int) ; position of Workshop\n(assert (>= ord_6 1))\n(assert (<= ord_6 8))\n(declare-const ord_7 Int) ; position of Investor update\n(assert (>= ord_7 1))\n(assert (<= ord_7 8))\n(assert (distinct ord_0 ord_1 ord_2 ord_3 ord_4 ord_5 ord_6 ord_7))\n; ('not_adjacent', 'Onboarding', 'Workshop')\n; ('not_adjacent', 'Vendor meeting', 'Onboarding')\n; ('immediately_before', 'Training session', 'Workshop')\n; ('not_adjacent', 'Release planning', 'Workshop')\n; ('immediately_before', 'Vendor meeting', 'Investor update')\n(check-sat)", + "entities": [ + "Town hall", + "Training session", + "Vendor meeting", + "Release planning", + "Onboarding", + "Mentoring session", + "Workshop", + "Investor update" + ], + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 8, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Must Town hall be the first event?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether Town hall is first depends on how the other ordering constraints resolve.", + "query_type": "first_last", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Must Investor update and Vendor meeting be consecutive events?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "The constraints guarantee Investor update and Vendor meeting are consecutive in every valid ordering.", + "query_type": "adjacent", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Can Onboarding occur in position 6?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid orderings place Onboarding in position 6, others do not.", + "query_type": "position", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Must Release planning happen before Workshop?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "The ordering constraints allow sequences where Release planning is before Workshop and vice versa.", + "query_type": "before", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Must Workshop be the sixth event?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid orderings place Workshop in position 6, others do not.", + "query_type": "position", + "depends_on": [ + 3 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q5", + "query": "Must Town hall and Training session be consecutive events?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some orderings place Town hall and Training session consecutively while others separate them.", + "query_type": "adjacent", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q6", + "query": "Must Town hall and Onboarding be consecutive events?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some orderings place Town hall and Onboarding consecutively while others separate them.", + "query_type": "adjacent", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 2, + 5 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q7", + "query": "Can Mentoring session occur in position 7?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid orderings place Mentoring session in position 7, others do not.", + "query_type": "position", + "depends_on": [] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "UNKNOWN": 7, + "ENTAILED": 1 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "temp_order_0066", + "domain": "temporal", + "subdomain": "event_ordering", + "logic_type": "linear_arithmetic", + "premises": [ + "There are 8 events that happen in sequence: Tech talk, Security audit, Budget review, Onboarding, Training session, Retrospective, Panel discussion, and Compliance check.", + "Each event occurs at a unique position (1 = first, 8 = last).", + "Budget review happens immediately before Training session.", + "Training session happens before Compliance check.", + "Tech talk happens immediately before Retrospective.", + "Onboarding and Compliance check are not consecutive events." + ], + "formal_representation": "(set-logic QF_LIA)\n(declare-const ord_0 Int) ; position of Tech talk\n(assert (>= ord_0 1))\n(assert (<= ord_0 8))\n(declare-const ord_1 Int) ; position of Security audit\n(assert (>= ord_1 1))\n(assert (<= ord_1 8))\n(declare-const ord_2 Int) ; position of Budget review\n(assert (>= ord_2 1))\n(assert (<= ord_2 8))\n(declare-const ord_3 Int) ; position of Onboarding\n(assert (>= ord_3 1))\n(assert (<= ord_3 8))\n(declare-const ord_4 Int) ; position of Training session\n(assert (>= ord_4 1))\n(assert (<= ord_4 8))\n(declare-const ord_5 Int) ; position of Retrospective\n(assert (>= ord_5 1))\n(assert (<= ord_5 8))\n(declare-const ord_6 Int) ; position of Panel discussion\n(assert (>= ord_6 1))\n(assert (<= ord_6 8))\n(declare-const ord_7 Int) ; position of Compliance check\n(assert (>= ord_7 1))\n(assert (<= ord_7 8))\n(assert (distinct ord_0 ord_1 ord_2 ord_3 ord_4 ord_5 ord_6 ord_7))\n; ('immediately_before', 'Budget review', 'Training session')\n; ('before', 'Training session', 'Compliance check')\n; ('immediately_before', 'Tech talk', 'Retrospective')\n; ('not_adjacent', 'Onboarding', 'Compliance check')\n(check-sat)", + "entities": [ + "Tech talk", + "Security audit", + "Budget review", + "Onboarding", + "Training session", + "Retrospective", + "Panel discussion", + "Compliance check" + ], + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 5, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Can Tech talk occur before Compliance check?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "The ordering constraints allow sequences where Compliance check is before Tech talk and vice versa.", + "query_type": "before", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Must Panel discussion be the second event?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid orderings place Panel discussion in position 2, others do not.", + "query_type": "position", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Must Tech talk and Security audit be consecutive events?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some orderings place Tech talk and Security audit consecutively while others separate them.", + "query_type": "adjacent", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Must Training session be the last event?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "No valid ordering has Training session as the last event.", + "query_type": "first_last", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Does Panel discussion always precede Compliance check?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "The ordering constraints allow sequences where Panel discussion is before Compliance check and vice versa.", + "query_type": "before", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "UNKNOWN": 4, + "CONTRADICTED": 1 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "temp_order_0033", + "domain": "temporal", + "subdomain": "event_ordering", + "logic_type": "linear_arithmetic", + "premises": [ + "There are 5 events that happen in sequence: Retrospective, Vendor meeting, Panel discussion, QA review, and Hackathon session.", + "Each event occurs at a unique position (1 = first, 5 = last).", + "Panel discussion happens before Hackathon session.", + "Vendor meeting happens before Hackathon session.", + "Retrospective happens before Panel discussion.", + "Vendor meeting and QA review are not consecutive events.", + "Vendor meeting happens immediately before Panel discussion." + ], + "formal_representation": "(set-logic QF_LIA)\n(declare-const ord_0 Int) ; position of Retrospective\n(assert (>= ord_0 1))\n(assert (<= ord_0 5))\n(declare-const ord_1 Int) ; position of Vendor meeting\n(assert (>= ord_1 1))\n(assert (<= ord_1 5))\n(declare-const ord_2 Int) ; position of Panel discussion\n(assert (>= ord_2 1))\n(assert (<= ord_2 5))\n(declare-const ord_3 Int) ; position of QA review\n(assert (>= ord_3 1))\n(assert (<= ord_3 5))\n(declare-const ord_4 Int) ; position of Hackathon session\n(assert (>= ord_4 1))\n(assert (<= ord_4 5))\n(assert (distinct ord_0 ord_1 ord_2 ord_3 ord_4))\n; ('before', 'Panel discussion', 'Hackathon session')\n; ('before', 'Vendor meeting', 'Hackathon session')\n; ('before', 'Retrospective', 'Panel discussion')\n; ('not_adjacent', 'Vendor meeting', 'QA review')\n; ('immediately_before', 'Vendor meeting', 'Panel discussion')\n(check-sat)", + "entities": [ + "Retrospective", + "Vendor meeting", + "Panel discussion", + "QA review", + "Hackathon session" + ], + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 5, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Must Vendor meeting be the last event?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "No valid ordering has Vendor meeting as the last event.", + "query_type": "first_last", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Must Panel discussion be the last event?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "No valid ordering has Panel discussion as the last event.", + "query_type": "first_last", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Must Hackathon session be the second event?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "No valid ordering places Hackathon session in position 2; other constraints block it.", + "query_type": "position", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Must QA review and Panel discussion be consecutive events?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some orderings place QA review and Panel discussion consecutively while others separate them.", + "query_type": "adjacent", + "depends_on": [ + 1 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Can Retrospective occur in position 5?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "No valid ordering places Retrospective in position 5; other constraints block it.", + "query_type": "position", + "depends_on": [] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "CONTRADICTED": 4, + "UNKNOWN": 1 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "temp_sched_0000", + "domain": "temporal", + "subdomain": "event_scheduling", + "logic_type": "linear_arithmetic", + "premises": [ + "A day has 12 available hours (slots 0 through 11).", + "There are 6 events to schedule: Networking event, QA review, Design sprint, Security audit, Retrospective, and Panel discussion.", + "Networking event takes 1 hour(s).", + "QA review takes 2 hour(s).", + "Design sprint takes 3 hour(s).", + "Security audit takes 2 hour(s).", + "Retrospective takes 3 hour(s).", + "Panel discussion takes 1 hour(s).", + "QA review and Panel discussion must not overlap.", + "QA review and Security audit must start at the same time.", + "Design sprint and Security audit must not overlap.", + "Retrospective cannot start before hour 8." + ], + "formal_representation": "(set-logic QF_LIA)\n(declare-const s_0 Int) ; start of Networking event\n(assert (>= s_0 0))\n(assert (<= (+ s_0 1) 12))\n(declare-const s_1 Int) ; start of QA review\n(assert (>= s_1 0))\n(assert (<= (+ s_1 2) 12))\n(declare-const s_2 Int) ; start of Design sprint\n(assert (>= s_2 0))\n(assert (<= (+ s_2 3) 12))\n(declare-const s_3 Int) ; start of Security audit\n(assert (>= s_3 0))\n(assert (<= (+ s_3 2) 12))\n(declare-const s_4 Int) ; start of Retrospective\n(assert (>= s_4 0))\n(assert (<= (+ s_4 3) 12))\n(declare-const s_5 Int) ; start of Panel discussion\n(assert (>= s_5 0))\n(assert (<= (+ s_5 1) 12))\n; ('no_overlap', 'QA review', 'Panel discussion')\n; ('same_start', 'QA review', 'Security audit')\n; ('no_overlap', 'Design sprint', 'Security audit')\n; ('earliest', 'Retrospective', 8)\n(check-sat)", + "entities": [ + "Networking event", + "QA review", + "Design sprint", + "Security audit", + "Retrospective", + "Panel discussion" + ], + "durations": { + "Networking event": 1, + "QA review": 2, + "Design sprint": 3, + "Security audit": 2, + "Retrospective": 3, + "Panel discussion": 1 + }, + "time_horizon": 12, + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 5, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Can Networking event be scheduled to include hour 8?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether Networking event is active at hour 8 depends on how the remaining scheduling constraints resolve.", + "query_type": "time_slot", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Does Security audit always start before Design sprint?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid schedules have Security audit first, others have Design sprint first.", + "query_type": "before_after", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Does QA review always start before Security audit?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "No valid schedule has QA review starting before Security audit; the reverse is forced.", + "query_type": "before_after", + "depends_on": [ + 1 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Must Retrospective finish before Networking event begins?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "The constraints allow schedules where Retrospective precedes Networking event and others where it does not.", + "query_type": "order", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Can Retrospective be scheduled to include hour 10?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "Given all constraints, Retrospective must be active during hour 10 in every valid schedule.", + "query_type": "time_slot", + "depends_on": [ + 3 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "UNKNOWN": 3, + "CONTRADICTED": 1, + "ENTAILED": 1 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "temp_sched_0013", + "domain": "temporal", + "subdomain": "event_scheduling", + "logic_type": "linear_arithmetic", + "premises": [ + "A day has 12 available hours (slots 0 through 11).", + "There are 6 events to schedule: Training session, Town hall, Panel discussion, Tech talk, Security audit, and Onboarding.", + "Training session takes 3 hour(s).", + "Town hall takes 1 hour(s).", + "Panel discussion takes 3 hour(s).", + "Tech talk takes 1 hour(s).", + "Security audit takes 3 hour(s).", + "Onboarding takes 2 hour(s).", + "Panel discussion and Onboarding must start at the same time.", + "Town hall must finish before Onboarding starts.", + "Training session must finish before Panel discussion starts.", + "Tech talk and Onboarding must start at the same time.", + "Town hall must finish before Tech talk starts.", + "Town hall and Security audit must not overlap.", + "Tech talk must start no later than hour 4." + ], + "formal_representation": "(set-logic QF_LIA)\n(declare-const s_0 Int) ; start of Training session\n(assert (>= s_0 0))\n(assert (<= (+ s_0 3) 12))\n(declare-const s_1 Int) ; start of Town hall\n(assert (>= s_1 0))\n(assert (<= (+ s_1 1) 12))\n(declare-const s_2 Int) ; start of Panel discussion\n(assert (>= s_2 0))\n(assert (<= (+ s_2 3) 12))\n(declare-const s_3 Int) ; start of Tech talk\n(assert (>= s_3 0))\n(assert (<= (+ s_3 1) 12))\n(declare-const s_4 Int) ; start of Security audit\n(assert (>= s_4 0))\n(assert (<= (+ s_4 3) 12))\n(declare-const s_5 Int) ; start of Onboarding\n(assert (>= s_5 0))\n(assert (<= (+ s_5 2) 12))\n; ('same_start', 'Panel discussion', 'Onboarding')\n; ('before', 'Town hall', 'Onboarding')\n; ('before', 'Training session', 'Panel discussion')\n; ('same_start', 'Tech talk', 'Onboarding')\n; ('before', 'Town hall', 'Tech talk')\n; ('no_overlap', 'Town hall', 'Security audit')\n; ('latest', 'Tech talk', 4)\n(check-sat)", + "entities": [ + "Training session", + "Town hall", + "Panel discussion", + "Tech talk", + "Security audit", + "Onboarding" + ], + "durations": { + "Training session": 3, + "Town hall": 1, + "Panel discussion": 3, + "Tech talk": 1, + "Security audit": 3, + "Onboarding": 2 + }, + "time_horizon": 12, + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 8, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Can Onboarding fit entirely within hours 0 to 4?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "No valid schedule fits Onboarding (2h) entirely within [0, 4], given other constraints.", + "query_type": "duration_fit", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Can Panel discussion fit entirely within hours 8 to 11?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "No valid schedule fits Panel discussion (3h) entirely within [8, 11], given other constraints.", + "query_type": "duration_fit", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Can Security audit fit entirely within hours 9 to 12?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid schedules place Security audit within [9, 12] and others do not.", + "query_type": "duration_fit", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Is Training session guaranteed to end before Town hall starts?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "The constraints allow schedules where Training session precedes Town hall and others where it does not.", + "query_type": "order", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Can Panel discussion fit entirely within hours 0 to 5?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "No valid schedule fits Panel discussion (3h) entirely within [0, 5], given other constraints.", + "query_type": "duration_fit", + "depends_on": [ + 1 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q5", + "query": "Is it possible for Training session and Security audit to run simultaneously?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid schedules have Training session and Security audit overlapping, while others keep them separate.", + "query_type": "overlap", + "depends_on": [ + 2, + 3 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q6", + "query": "Can Training session be scheduled to include hour 10?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "No valid schedule has Training session running at hour 10, given its duration (3h) and the constraints.", + "query_type": "time_slot", + "depends_on": [ + 3, + 5 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q7", + "query": "Can Tech talk be scheduled to include hour 6?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "No valid schedule has Tech talk running at hour 6, given its duration (1h) and the constraints.", + "query_type": "time_slot", + "depends_on": [] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "CONTRADICTED": 5, + "UNKNOWN": 3 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "temp_order_0003", + "domain": "temporal", + "subdomain": "event_ordering", + "logic_type": "linear_arithmetic", + "premises": [ + "There are 7 events that happen in sequence: Design sprint, Onboarding, Product demo, Team standup, Hackathon session, Training session, and Data migration.", + "Each event occurs at a unique position (1 = first, 7 = last).", + "Training session and Data migration are not consecutive events.", + "Design sprint happens before Training session.", + "Onboarding and Training session are not consecutive events.", + "Product demo happens before Data migration.", + "Hackathon session and Training session are not consecutive events.", + "Team standup and Hackathon session are not consecutive events.", + "Onboarding happens before Team standup." + ], + "formal_representation": "(set-logic QF_LIA)\n(declare-const ord_0 Int) ; position of Design sprint\n(assert (>= ord_0 1))\n(assert (<= ord_0 7))\n(declare-const ord_1 Int) ; position of Onboarding\n(assert (>= ord_1 1))\n(assert (<= ord_1 7))\n(declare-const ord_2 Int) ; position of Product demo\n(assert (>= ord_2 1))\n(assert (<= ord_2 7))\n(declare-const ord_3 Int) ; position of Team standup\n(assert (>= ord_3 1))\n(assert (<= ord_3 7))\n(declare-const ord_4 Int) ; position of Hackathon session\n(assert (>= ord_4 1))\n(assert (<= ord_4 7))\n(declare-const ord_5 Int) ; position of Training session\n(assert (>= ord_5 1))\n(assert (<= ord_5 7))\n(declare-const ord_6 Int) ; position of Data migration\n(assert (>= ord_6 1))\n(assert (<= ord_6 7))\n(assert (distinct ord_0 ord_1 ord_2 ord_3 ord_4 ord_5 ord_6))\n; ('not_adjacent', 'Training session', 'Data migration')\n; ('before', 'Design sprint', 'Training session')\n; ('not_adjacent', 'Onboarding', 'Training session')\n; ('before', 'Product demo', 'Data migration')\n; ('not_adjacent', 'Hackathon session', 'Training session')\n; ('not_adjacent', 'Team standup', 'Hackathon session')\n; ('before', 'Onboarding', 'Team standup')\n(check-sat)", + "entities": [ + "Design sprint", + "Onboarding", + "Product demo", + "Team standup", + "Hackathon session", + "Training session", + "Data migration" + ], + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 6, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Must Product demo and Design sprint be consecutive events?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some orderings place Product demo and Design sprint consecutively while others separate them.", + "query_type": "adjacent", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Does Product demo always precede Team standup?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "The ordering constraints allow sequences where Product demo is before Team standup and vice versa.", + "query_type": "before", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Must Onboarding and Team standup be consecutive events?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some orderings place Onboarding and Team standup consecutively while others separate them.", + "query_type": "adjacent", + "depends_on": [ + 1 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Must Team standup and Onboarding be consecutive events?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some orderings place Team standup and Onboarding consecutively while others separate them.", + "query_type": "adjacent", + "depends_on": [ + 1, + 2 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Does Data migration always precede Product demo?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "The constraints force Product demo before Data migration; no valid ordering has Data migration first.", + "query_type": "before", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q5", + "query": "Must Team standup be the last event?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether Team standup is last depends on how the other ordering constraints resolve.", + "query_type": "first_last", + "depends_on": [ + 1, + 2, + 3 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "UNKNOWN": 5, + "CONTRADICTED": 1 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "temp_order_0094", + "domain": "temporal", + "subdomain": "event_ordering", + "logic_type": "linear_arithmetic", + "premises": [ + "There are 6 events that happen in sequence: Sprint planning, Training session, QA review, Keynote, Panel discussion, and Security audit.", + "Each event occurs at a unique position (1 = first, 6 = last).", + "Training session and Security audit are not consecutive events.", + "QA review and Panel discussion are not consecutive events.", + "Training session happens immediately before QA review.", + "Panel discussion happens before Security audit.", + "Sprint planning happens immediately before Keynote.", + "Keynote and Security audit are not consecutive events.", + "QA review and Security audit are not consecutive events." + ], + "formal_representation": "(set-logic QF_LIA)\n(declare-const ord_0 Int) ; position of Sprint planning\n(assert (>= ord_0 1))\n(assert (<= ord_0 6))\n(declare-const ord_1 Int) ; position of Training session\n(assert (>= ord_1 1))\n(assert (<= ord_1 6))\n(declare-const ord_2 Int) ; position of QA review\n(assert (>= ord_2 1))\n(assert (<= ord_2 6))\n(declare-const ord_3 Int) ; position of Keynote\n(assert (>= ord_3 1))\n(assert (<= ord_3 6))\n(declare-const ord_4 Int) ; position of Panel discussion\n(assert (>= ord_4 1))\n(assert (<= ord_4 6))\n(declare-const ord_5 Int) ; position of Security audit\n(assert (>= ord_5 1))\n(assert (<= ord_5 6))\n(assert (distinct ord_0 ord_1 ord_2 ord_3 ord_4 ord_5))\n; ('not_adjacent', 'Training session', 'Security audit')\n; ('not_adjacent', 'QA review', 'Panel discussion')\n; ('immediately_before', 'Training session', 'QA review')\n; ('before', 'Panel discussion', 'Security audit')\n; ('immediately_before', 'Sprint planning', 'Keynote')\n; ('not_adjacent', 'Keynote', 'Security audit')\n; ('not_adjacent', 'QA review', 'Security audit')\n(check-sat)", + "entities": [ + "Sprint planning", + "Training session", + "QA review", + "Keynote", + "Panel discussion", + "Security audit" + ], + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 6, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Must Training session be the second event?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "No valid ordering places Training session in position 2; other constraints block it.", + "query_type": "position", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Must Keynote and QA review be consecutive events?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "No valid ordering has Keynote and QA review in consecutive positions.", + "query_type": "adjacent", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Must Security audit and Training session be consecutive events?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "No valid ordering has Security audit and Training session in consecutive positions.", + "query_type": "adjacent", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Must Training session be the last event?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "No valid ordering has Training session as the last event.", + "query_type": "first_last", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 2 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Must Panel discussion be the first event?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether Panel discussion is first depends on how the other ordering constraints resolve.", + "query_type": "first_last", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q5", + "query": "Must Security audit and Keynote be consecutive events?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "No valid ordering has Security audit and Keynote in consecutive positions.", + "query_type": "adjacent", + "depends_on": [ + 1, + 2 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "CONTRADICTED": 5, + "UNKNOWN": 1 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "temp_order_0056", + "domain": "temporal", + "subdomain": "event_ordering", + "logic_type": "linear_arithmetic", + "premises": [ + "There are 5 events that happen in sequence: Lunch break, Hackathon session, Retrospective, Compliance check, and Data migration.", + "Each event occurs at a unique position (1 = first, 5 = last).", + "Retrospective and Data migration are not consecutive events.", + "Hackathon session happens before Compliance check.", + "Hackathon session happens immediately before Data migration.", + "Retrospective happens before Compliance check.", + "Lunch break and Retrospective are not consecutive events.", + "Lunch break happens immediately before Compliance check." + ], + "formal_representation": "(set-logic QF_LIA)\n(declare-const ord_0 Int) ; position of Lunch break\n(assert (>= ord_0 1))\n(assert (<= ord_0 5))\n(declare-const ord_1 Int) ; position of Hackathon session\n(assert (>= ord_1 1))\n(assert (<= ord_1 5))\n(declare-const ord_2 Int) ; position of Retrospective\n(assert (>= ord_2 1))\n(assert (<= ord_2 5))\n(declare-const ord_3 Int) ; position of Compliance check\n(assert (>= ord_3 1))\n(assert (<= ord_3 5))\n(declare-const ord_4 Int) ; position of Data migration\n(assert (>= ord_4 1))\n(assert (<= ord_4 5))\n(assert (distinct ord_0 ord_1 ord_2 ord_3 ord_4))\n; ('not_adjacent', 'Retrospective', 'Data migration')\n; ('before', 'Hackathon session', 'Compliance check')\n; ('immediately_before', 'Hackathon session', 'Data migration')\n; ('before', 'Retrospective', 'Compliance check')\n; ('not_adjacent', 'Lunch break', 'Retrospective')\n; ('immediately_before', 'Lunch break', 'Compliance check')\n(check-sat)", + "entities": [ + "Lunch break", + "Hackathon session", + "Retrospective", + "Compliance check", + "Data migration" + ], + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 5, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Must Retrospective and Hackathon session be consecutive events?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "The constraints guarantee Retrospective and Hackathon session are consecutive in every valid ordering.", + "query_type": "adjacent", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Must Data migration and Compliance check be consecutive events?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "No valid ordering has Data migration and Compliance check in consecutive positions.", + "query_type": "adjacent", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Must Lunch break and Hackathon session be consecutive events?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "No valid ordering has Lunch break and Hackathon session in consecutive positions.", + "query_type": "adjacent", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Can Retrospective occur in position 1?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "All ordering constraints force Retrospective into the first position.", + "query_type": "position", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Can Hackathon session occur in position 3?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "No valid ordering places Hackathon session in position 3; other constraints block it.", + "query_type": "position", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 2 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "ENTAILED": 2, + "CONTRADICTED": 3 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "temp_sched_0005", + "domain": "temporal", + "subdomain": "event_scheduling", + "logic_type": "linear_arithmetic", + "premises": [ + "A day has 12 available hours (slots 0 through 11).", + "There are 6 events to schedule: Strategy planning, Lunch break, Workshop, Budget review, Sprint planning, and Architecture review.", + "Strategy planning takes 3 hour(s).", + "Lunch break takes 2 hour(s).", + "Workshop takes 2 hour(s).", + "Budget review takes 3 hour(s).", + "Sprint planning takes 2 hour(s).", + "Architecture review takes 3 hour(s).", + "Workshop must finish before Architecture review starts.", + "Budget review and Architecture review must not overlap.", + "Lunch break must finish before Budget review starts.", + "Workshop must finish before Sprint planning starts.", + "Lunch break and Workshop must start at the same time.", + "Lunch break must finish before Sprint planning starts.", + "Strategy planning must start at hour 1." + ], + "formal_representation": "(set-logic QF_LIA)\n(declare-const s_0 Int) ; start of Strategy planning\n(assert (>= s_0 0))\n(assert (<= (+ s_0 3) 12))\n(declare-const s_1 Int) ; start of Lunch break\n(assert (>= s_1 0))\n(assert (<= (+ s_1 2) 12))\n(declare-const s_2 Int) ; start of Workshop\n(assert (>= s_2 0))\n(assert (<= (+ s_2 2) 12))\n(declare-const s_3 Int) ; start of Budget review\n(assert (>= s_3 0))\n(assert (<= (+ s_3 3) 12))\n(declare-const s_4 Int) ; start of Sprint planning\n(assert (>= s_4 0))\n(assert (<= (+ s_4 2) 12))\n(declare-const s_5 Int) ; start of Architecture review\n(assert (>= s_5 0))\n(assert (<= (+ s_5 3) 12))\n; ('before', 'Workshop', 'Architecture review')\n; ('no_overlap', 'Budget review', 'Architecture review')\n; ('before', 'Lunch break', 'Budget review')\n; ('before', 'Workshop', 'Sprint planning')\n; ('same_start', 'Lunch break', 'Workshop')\n; ('before', 'Lunch break', 'Sprint planning')\n; ('exact', 'Strategy planning', 1)\n(check-sat)", + "entities": [ + "Strategy planning", + "Lunch break", + "Workshop", + "Budget review", + "Sprint planning", + "Architecture review" + ], + "durations": { + "Strategy planning": 3, + "Lunch break": 2, + "Workshop": 2, + "Budget review": 3, + "Sprint planning": 2, + "Architecture review": 3 + }, + "time_horizon": 12, + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 6, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Can Strategy planning fit entirely within hours 3 to 7?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "No valid schedule fits Strategy planning (3h) entirely within [3, 7], given other constraints.", + "query_type": "duration_fit", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Can Strategy planning start before Lunch break finishes?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "All ordering and duration constraints force Lunch break (duration 2h) to complete before Strategy planning can begin.", + "query_type": "order", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Can Strategy planning start before Budget review finishes?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "All ordering and duration constraints force Budget review (duration 3h) to complete before Strategy planning can begin.", + "query_type": "order", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Can Architecture review be scheduled to include hour 10?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether Architecture review is active at hour 10 depends on how the remaining scheduling constraints resolve.", + "query_type": "time_slot", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Does Budget review always start before Sprint planning?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid schedules have Budget review first, others have Sprint planning first.", + "query_type": "before_after", + "depends_on": [ + 2 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q5", + "query": "Can Strategy planning and Sprint planning overlap in time?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid schedules have Strategy planning and Sprint planning overlapping, while others keep them separate.", + "query_type": "overlap", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1, + 2, + 4 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "CONTRADICTED": 1, + "ENTAILED": 2, + "UNKNOWN": 3 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "temp_order_0085", + "domain": "temporal", + "subdomain": "event_ordering", + "logic_type": "linear_arithmetic", + "premises": [ + "There are 6 events that happen in sequence: Mentoring session, Product demo, Performance review, Training session, Workshop, and Security audit.", + "Each event occurs at a unique position (1 = first, 6 = last).", + "Product demo happens before Security audit.", + "Training session happens immediately before Security audit.", + "Performance review and Security audit are not consecutive events.", + "Mentoring session happens before Workshop.", + "Mentoring session happens before Product demo." + ], + "formal_representation": "(set-logic QF_LIA)\n(declare-const ord_0 Int) ; position of Mentoring session\n(assert (>= ord_0 1))\n(assert (<= ord_0 6))\n(declare-const ord_1 Int) ; position of Product demo\n(assert (>= ord_1 1))\n(assert (<= ord_1 6))\n(declare-const ord_2 Int) ; position of Performance review\n(assert (>= ord_2 1))\n(assert (<= ord_2 6))\n(declare-const ord_3 Int) ; position of Training session\n(assert (>= ord_3 1))\n(assert (<= ord_3 6))\n(declare-const ord_4 Int) ; position of Workshop\n(assert (>= ord_4 1))\n(assert (<= ord_4 6))\n(declare-const ord_5 Int) ; position of Security audit\n(assert (>= ord_5 1))\n(assert (<= ord_5 6))\n(assert (distinct ord_0 ord_1 ord_2 ord_3 ord_4 ord_5))\n; ('before', 'Product demo', 'Security audit')\n; ('immediately_before', 'Training session', 'Security audit')\n; ('not_adjacent', 'Performance review', 'Security audit')\n; ('before', 'Mentoring session', 'Workshop')\n; ('before', 'Mentoring session', 'Product demo')\n(check-sat)", + "entities": [ + "Mentoring session", + "Product demo", + "Performance review", + "Training session", + "Workshop", + "Security audit" + ], + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 5, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Must Workshop happen before Training session?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "The ordering constraints allow sequences where Workshop is before Training session and vice versa.", + "query_type": "before", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Does Training session always precede Security audit?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "The chain of ordering constraints forces Training session before Security audit in every valid sequence.", + "query_type": "before", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Must Security audit happen before Training session?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "The constraints force Training session before Security audit; no valid ordering has Security audit first.", + "query_type": "before", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Must Mentoring session be the first event?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether Mentoring session is first depends on how the other ordering constraints resolve.", + "query_type": "first_last", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Does Security audit always precede Training session?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "The constraints force Training session before Security audit; no valid ordering has Security audit first.", + "query_type": "before", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1, + 2 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "UNKNOWN": 2, + "ENTAILED": 1, + "CONTRADICTED": 2 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "temp_order_0052", + "domain": "temporal", + "subdomain": "event_ordering", + "logic_type": "linear_arithmetic", + "premises": [ + "There are 7 events that happen in sequence: Board meeting, Onboarding, Mentoring session, Hackathon session, Strategy planning, Keynote, and Team standup.", + "Each event occurs at a unique position (1 = first, 7 = last).", + "Board meeting happens before Keynote.", + "Onboarding and Strategy planning are not consecutive events.", + "Hackathon session and Keynote are not consecutive events.", + "Strategy planning and Team standup are not consecutive events.", + "Onboarding happens before Mentoring session.", + "Mentoring session happens before Strategy planning.", + "Keynote and Team standup are not consecutive events." + ], + "formal_representation": "(set-logic QF_LIA)\n(declare-const ord_0 Int) ; position of Board meeting\n(assert (>= ord_0 1))\n(assert (<= ord_0 7))\n(declare-const ord_1 Int) ; position of Onboarding\n(assert (>= ord_1 1))\n(assert (<= ord_1 7))\n(declare-const ord_2 Int) ; position of Mentoring session\n(assert (>= ord_2 1))\n(assert (<= ord_2 7))\n(declare-const ord_3 Int) ; position of Hackathon session\n(assert (>= ord_3 1))\n(assert (<= ord_3 7))\n(declare-const ord_4 Int) ; position of Strategy planning\n(assert (>= ord_4 1))\n(assert (<= ord_4 7))\n(declare-const ord_5 Int) ; position of Keynote\n(assert (>= ord_5 1))\n(assert (<= ord_5 7))\n(declare-const ord_6 Int) ; position of Team standup\n(assert (>= ord_6 1))\n(assert (<= ord_6 7))\n(assert (distinct ord_0 ord_1 ord_2 ord_3 ord_4 ord_5 ord_6))\n; ('before', 'Board meeting', 'Keynote')\n; ('not_adjacent', 'Onboarding', 'Strategy planning')\n; ('not_adjacent', 'Hackathon session', 'Keynote')\n; ('not_adjacent', 'Strategy planning', 'Team standup')\n; ('before', 'Onboarding', 'Mentoring session')\n; ('before', 'Mentoring session', 'Strategy planning')\n; ('not_adjacent', 'Keynote', 'Team standup')\n(check-sat)", + "entities": [ + "Board meeting", + "Onboarding", + "Mentoring session", + "Hackathon session", + "Strategy planning", + "Keynote", + "Team standup" + ], + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 5, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Must Keynote and Onboarding be consecutive events?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some orderings place Keynote and Onboarding consecutively while others separate them.", + "query_type": "adjacent", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Must Board meeting and Mentoring session be consecutive events?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some orderings place Board meeting and Mentoring session consecutively while others separate them.", + "query_type": "adjacent", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Must Mentoring session happen before Keynote?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "The ordering constraints allow sequences where Mentoring session is before Keynote and vice versa.", + "query_type": "before", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Does Hackathon session always precede Strategy planning?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "The ordering constraints allow sequences where Hackathon session is before Strategy planning and vice versa.", + "query_type": "before", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Must Keynote be the last event?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether Keynote is last depends on how the other ordering constraints resolve.", + "query_type": "first_last", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 2 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "UNKNOWN": 5 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "temp_sched_0050", + "domain": "temporal", + "subdomain": "event_scheduling", + "logic_type": "linear_arithmetic", + "premises": [ + "A day has 12 available hours (slots 0 through 11).", + "There are 5 events to schedule: Data migration, Vendor meeting, Tech talk, Client call, and Sprint planning.", + "Data migration takes 1 hour(s).", + "Vendor meeting takes 3 hour(s).", + "Tech talk takes 3 hour(s).", + "Client call takes 2 hour(s).", + "Sprint planning takes 2 hour(s).", + "There must be at least 2 hour(s) between Data migration and Tech talk.", + "Tech talk and Client call must not overlap.", + "Vendor meeting and Client call must not overlap.", + "Client call must start at hour 0.", + "Tech talk must start no later than hour 8." + ], + "formal_representation": "(set-logic QF_LIA)\n(declare-const s_0 Int) ; start of Data migration\n(assert (>= s_0 0))\n(assert (<= (+ s_0 1) 12))\n(declare-const s_1 Int) ; start of Vendor meeting\n(assert (>= s_1 0))\n(assert (<= (+ s_1 3) 12))\n(declare-const s_2 Int) ; start of Tech talk\n(assert (>= s_2 0))\n(assert (<= (+ s_2 3) 12))\n(declare-const s_3 Int) ; start of Client call\n(assert (>= s_3 0))\n(assert (<= (+ s_3 2) 12))\n(declare-const s_4 Int) ; start of Sprint planning\n(assert (>= s_4 0))\n(assert (<= (+ s_4 2) 12))\n; ('gap', 'Data migration', 'Tech talk', 2)\n; ('no_overlap', 'Tech talk', 'Client call')\n; ('no_overlap', 'Vendor meeting', 'Client call')\n; ('exact', 'Client call', 0)\n; ('latest', 'Tech talk', 8)\n(check-sat)", + "entities": [ + "Data migration", + "Vendor meeting", + "Tech talk", + "Client call", + "Sprint planning" + ], + "durations": { + "Data migration": 1, + "Vendor meeting": 3, + "Tech talk": 3, + "Client call": 2, + "Sprint planning": 2 + }, + "time_horizon": 12, + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 5, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Must Sprint planning be active during hour 11?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether Sprint planning is active at hour 11 depends on how the remaining scheduling constraints resolve.", + "query_type": "time_slot", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Is it possible for Sprint planning and Tech talk to run simultaneously?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid schedules have Sprint planning and Tech talk overlapping, while others keep them separate.", + "query_type": "overlap", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Does Data migration always start before Sprint planning?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid schedules have Data migration first, others have Sprint planning first.", + "query_type": "before_after", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Is it possible for Tech talk and Client call to run simultaneously?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "No valid schedule allows Tech talk and Client call to overlap, given the separation constraints.", + "query_type": "overlap", + "depends_on": [ + 1 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Is it possible for Vendor meeting and Tech talk to run simultaneously?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid schedules have Vendor meeting and Tech talk overlapping, while others keep them separate.", + "query_type": "overlap", + "depends_on": [ + 1, + 3 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "UNKNOWN": 4, + "CONTRADICTED": 1 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "temp_sched_0071", + "domain": "temporal", + "subdomain": "event_scheduling", + "logic_type": "linear_arithmetic", + "premises": [ + "A day has 8 available hours (slots 0 through 7).", + "There are 4 events to schedule: QA review, Strategy planning, Data migration, and Mentoring session.", + "QA review takes 3 hour(s).", + "Strategy planning takes 2 hour(s).", + "Data migration takes 2 hour(s).", + "Mentoring session takes 1 hour(s).", + "Data migration and Mentoring session must not overlap.", + "Strategy planning must finish before Data migration starts.", + "There must be at least 1 hour(s) between QA review and Mentoring session.", + "Strategy planning and Mentoring session must start at the same time.", + "QA review must finish before Strategy planning starts." + ], + "formal_representation": "(set-logic QF_LIA)\n(declare-const s_0 Int) ; start of QA review\n(assert (>= s_0 0))\n(assert (<= (+ s_0 3) 8))\n(declare-const s_1 Int) ; start of Strategy planning\n(assert (>= s_1 0))\n(assert (<= (+ s_1 2) 8))\n(declare-const s_2 Int) ; start of Data migration\n(assert (>= s_2 0))\n(assert (<= (+ s_2 2) 8))\n(declare-const s_3 Int) ; start of Mentoring session\n(assert (>= s_3 0))\n(assert (<= (+ s_3 1) 8))\n; ('no_overlap', 'Data migration', 'Mentoring session')\n; ('before', 'Strategy planning', 'Data migration')\n; ('gap', 'QA review', 'Mentoring session', 1)\n; ('same_start', 'Strategy planning', 'Mentoring session')\n; ('before', 'QA review', 'Strategy planning')\n(check-sat)", + "entities": [ + "QA review", + "Strategy planning", + "Data migration", + "Mentoring session" + ], + "durations": { + "QA review": 3, + "Strategy planning": 2, + "Data migration": 2, + "Mentoring session": 1 + }, + "time_horizon": 8, + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 7, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Must Mentoring session be active during hour 6?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "No valid schedule has Mentoring session running at hour 6, given its duration (1h) and the constraints.", + "query_type": "time_slot", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Can QA review and Mentoring session overlap in time?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "No valid schedule allows QA review and Mentoring session to overlap, given the separation constraints.", + "query_type": "overlap", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Is it possible for Mentoring session and Data migration to run simultaneously?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "No valid schedule allows Mentoring session and Data migration to overlap, given the separation constraints.", + "query_type": "overlap", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Can Data migration be scheduled to include hour 1?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "No valid schedule has Data migration running at hour 1, given its duration (2h) and the constraints.", + "query_type": "time_slot", + "depends_on": [ + 2 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Can QA review fit entirely within hours 0 to 4?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "All constraints force QA review (3h) into the window [0, 4] in every valid schedule.", + "query_type": "duration_fit", + "depends_on": [ + 1 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q5", + "query": "Can Mentoring session be scheduled to include hour 1?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "No valid schedule has Mentoring session running at hour 1, given its duration (1h) and the constraints.", + "query_type": "time_slot", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1, + 2 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q6", + "query": "Can Mentoring session and Data migration overlap in time?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "No valid schedule allows Mentoring session and Data migration to overlap, given the separation constraints.", + "query_type": "overlap", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1, + 2, + 3, + 5 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "CONTRADICTED": 6, + "ENTAILED": 1 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "pol_elig_0024", + "domain": "policy", + "subdomain": "eligibility", + "logic_type": "first_order_ground", + "premises": [ + "Applicants: Grace, Bob, Eve, and Alice.", + "Programs: Research Grant, Housing Assistance, Tax Credit.", + "Grace has 13 years of experience.", + "Grace's annual income is $80,000.", + "Grace is a local resident.", + "Bob is 39 years old.", + "Eve is 23 years old.", + "Eve has 18 years of experience.", + "Eve's annual income is $25,000.", + "Alice has 0 years of experience.", + "Research Grant requires applicants to be at least 35 years old.", + "Housing Assistance requires annual income at least $30,000.", + "Housing Assistance is restricted to local residents.", + "Tax Credit requires annual income at least $20,000.", + "Tax Credit is only available to applicants 60 or younger.", + "Tax Credit is only available to applicants 45 or younger." + ], + "formal_representation": "; Eligibility rules with numeric constraints (QF_LIA + Bool)", + "entities": { + "applicants": [ + "Grace", + "Bob", + "Eve", + "Alice" + ], + "programs": [ + "Research Grant", + "Housing Assistance", + "Tax Credit" + ] + }, + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 7, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Is Eve eligible for Tax Credit while Alice is not?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "The comparison depends on unknown attributes; multiple scenarios are consistent.", + "query_type": "compare", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Does Eve qualify for Research Grant?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "Eve fails at least one eligibility requirement for Research Grant, making qualification impossible.", + "query_type": "eligible", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Is Eve eligible for Tax Credit?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some of Eve's attributes are unknown; they might or might not meet all Tax Credit requirements.", + "query_type": "eligible", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Is Alice at least 40 years old?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "The premises don't determine whether Alice satisfies: at least 40.", + "query_type": "attribute", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Can Eve be eligible for both Tax Credit and Research Grant?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "The requirements for Tax Credit and Research Grant are mutually exclusive for Eve's attributes.", + "query_type": "mutual_exclusive", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1, + 2 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q5", + "query": "Is Bob eligible for Housing Assistance while Alice is not?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "The comparison depends on unknown attributes; multiple scenarios are consistent.", + "query_type": "compare", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 3 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q6", + "query": "Can Eve apply for Housing Assistance?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "Eve fails at least one eligibility requirement for Housing Assistance, making qualification impossible.", + "query_type": "eligible", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1, + 2, + 4, + 5 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "UNKNOWN": 4, + "CONTRADICTED": 3 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "pol_elig_0082", + "domain": "policy", + "subdomain": "eligibility", + "logic_type": "first_order_ground", + "premises": [ + "Applicants: Hank, Alice, Diana, and Charlie.", + "Programs: Scholarship, Training Program, Business License.", + "Hank's annual income is $25,000.", + "Hank is 29 years old.", + "Alice has 19 years of experience.", + "Alice is 57 years old.", + "Diana is a local resident.", + "Diana's annual income is $80,000.", + "Charlie is 58 years old.", + "Charlie's annual income is $65,000.", + "Scholarship requires at least 5 years of experience.", + "Scholarship is only available to applicants 65 or younger.", + "Training Program requires annual income at most $80,000.", + "Training Program is only available to applicants 65 or younger.", + "Business License requires annual income at most $60,000." + ], + "formal_representation": "; Eligibility rules with numeric constraints (QF_LIA + Bool)", + "entities": { + "applicants": [ + "Hank", + "Alice", + "Diana", + "Charlie" + ], + "programs": [ + "Scholarship", + "Training Program", + "Business License" + ] + }, + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 7, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Does Alice earn at least $100,000?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "The premises don't determine whether Alice satisfies: income >= $100,000.", + "query_type": "attribute", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Is Diana eligible for Business License?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "Diana fails at least one eligibility requirement for Business License, making qualification impossible.", + "query_type": "eligible", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Can Alice be eligible for both Scholarship and Business License?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether Alice can qualify for both depends on unknown attribute values.", + "query_type": "mutual_exclusive", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Does Hank qualify for Scholarship?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some of Hank's attributes are unknown; they might or might not meet all Scholarship requirements.", + "query_type": "eligible", + "depends_on": [ + 2 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Can Alice apply for Business License?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some of Alice's attributes are unknown; they might or might not meet all Business License requirements.", + "query_type": "eligible", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1, + 2 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q5", + "query": "Can Charlie be eligible for both Scholarship and Training Program?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether Charlie can qualify for both depends on unknown attribute values.", + "query_type": "mutual_exclusive", + "depends_on": [ + 2, + 3 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q6", + "query": "Can Hank apply for Scholarship?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some of Hank's attributes are unknown; they might or might not meet all Scholarship requirements.", + "query_type": "eligible", + "depends_on": [ + 2, + 3, + 5 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "UNKNOWN": 6, + "CONTRADICTED": 1 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "pol_elig_0087", + "domain": "policy", + "subdomain": "eligibility", + "logic_type": "first_order_ground", + "premises": [ + "Applicants: Eve, Charlie, Grace, Frank, and Hank.", + "Programs: Training Program, Tax Credit, Health Coverage.", + "Eve is a local resident.", + "Eve is 48 years old.", + "Charlie is 24 years old.", + "Charlie is not a local resident.", + "Charlie's annual income is $50,000.", + "Grace has 19 years of experience.", + "Grace's annual income is $120,000.", + "Frank is a local resident.", + "Frank's annual income is $65,000.", + "Hank is not a local resident.", + "Training Program requires at least 8 years of experience.", + "Training Program is restricted to local residents.", + "Tax Credit is only available to applicants 60 or younger.", + "Tax Credit is restricted to local residents.", + "Tax Credit requires annual income at least $30,000.", + "Health Coverage requires annual income at least $20,000.", + "Health Coverage requires annual income at most $80,000.", + "Health Coverage requires at least 3 years of experience." + ], + "formal_representation": "; Eligibility rules with numeric constraints (QF_LIA + Bool)", + "entities": { + "applicants": [ + "Eve", + "Charlie", + "Grace", + "Frank", + "Hank" + ], + "programs": [ + "Training Program", + "Tax Credit", + "Health Coverage" + ] + }, + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 6, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Is Grace eligible for Tax Credit while Charlie is not?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "The comparison depends on unknown attributes; multiple scenarios are consistent.", + "query_type": "compare", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Is Eve eligible for Tax Credit while Frank is not?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "The comparison depends on unknown attributes; multiple scenarios are consistent.", + "query_type": "compare", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Does Frank qualify for Tax Credit?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some of Frank's attributes are unknown; they might or might not meet all Tax Credit requirements.", + "query_type": "eligible", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Is Eve eligible for Health Coverage while Hank is not?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "The comparison depends on unknown attributes; multiple scenarios are consistent.", + "query_type": "compare", + "depends_on": [ + 1 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Can Grace be eligible for both Health Coverage and Tax Credit?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "The requirements for Health Coverage and Tax Credit are mutually exclusive for Grace's attributes.", + "query_type": "mutual_exclusive", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1, + 2, + 3 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q5", + "query": "Is Hank eligible for Tax Credit while Frank is not?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "It's impossible for Hank to qualify while Frank doesn't, given their known attributes.", + "query_type": "compare", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1, + 2, + 3, + 4 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "UNKNOWN": 4, + "CONTRADICTED": 2 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "pol_access_0013", + "domain": "policy", + "subdomain": "access_control", + "logic_type": "first_order_ground", + "premises": [ + "There are 4 employees: Frank, Iris, Jack, and Alice.", + "Available roles: Intern, Admin, Manager, Guest.", + "Resources: Config Server, API Gateway, Deployment Pipeline, Source Code.", + "Each employee has exactly one role.", + "Any Manager can access Deployment Pipeline.", + "No Manager may access API Gateway.", + "A Admin who can access API Gateway also gets access to Source Code.", + "A Manager who can access Deployment Pipeline also gets access to Source Code.", + "No Intern may access Source Code.", + "Any Guest can access Deployment Pipeline.", + "Iris is a Manager.", + "Alice is a Guest.", + "Jack is a Manager.", + "Frank is a Admin." + ], + "formal_representation": "; Policy domain: role-based access control\n; ('grant', 'Manager', 'Deployment Pipeline')\n; ('deny', 'Manager', 'API Gateway')\n; ('conditional', 'Admin', 'API Gateway', 'Source Code')\n; ('conditional', 'Manager', 'Deployment Pipeline', 'Source Code')\n; ('deny', 'Intern', 'Source Code')\n; ('grant', 'Guest', 'Deployment Pipeline')\n; ('assigned', 'Iris', 'Manager')\n; ('assigned', 'Alice', 'Guest')\n; ('assigned', 'Jack', 'Manager')\n; ('assigned', 'Frank', 'Admin')", + "entities": { + "people": [ + "Frank", + "Iris", + "Jack", + "Alice" + ], + "roles": [ + "Intern", + "Admin", + "Manager", + "Guest" + ], + "resources": [ + "Config Server", + "API Gateway", + "Deployment Pipeline", + "Source Code" + ] + }, + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 5, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Can both Jack and Iris access Source Code?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "Both Jack and Iris's constraints guarantee them joint access to Source Code.", + "query_type": "two_people", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Can both Jack and Frank hold the Intern role?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "At most one of Jack or Frank can be a Intern, due to the single-role constraint and other assignments.", + "query_type": "exclusive", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Can both Frank and Alice hold the Manager role?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "At most one of Frank or Alice can be a Manager, due to the single-role constraint and other assignments.", + "query_type": "exclusive", + "depends_on": [ + 1 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Can Frank have the Guest role?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "Assigning Frank the Guest role would violate one or more constraints.", + "query_type": "must_have_role", + "depends_on": [ + 1, + 2 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Can both Frank and Alice hold the Admin role?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "At most one of Frank or Alice can be a Admin, due to the single-role constraint and other assignments.", + "query_type": "exclusive", + "depends_on": [ + 1, + 2, + 3 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "ENTAILED": 1, + "CONTRADICTED": 4 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "pol_elig_0053", + "domain": "policy", + "subdomain": "eligibility", + "logic_type": "first_order_ground", + "premises": [ + "Applicants: Alice, Frank, Grace, and Eve.", + "Programs: Business License, Tax Credit.", + "Alice's annual income is $50,000.", + "Frank's annual income is $25,000.", + "Frank has 2 years of experience.", + "Frank is 31 years old.", + "Grace's annual income is $50,000.", + "Eve is not a local resident.", + "Eve is 57 years old.", + "Eve's annual income is $120,000.", + "Business License is restricted to local residents.", + "Tax Credit is only available to applicants 65 or younger." + ], + "formal_representation": "; Eligibility rules with numeric constraints (QF_LIA + Bool)", + "entities": { + "applicants": [ + "Alice", + "Frank", + "Grace", + "Eve" + ], + "programs": [ + "Business License", + "Tax Credit" + ] + }, + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 7, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Can Frank apply for Tax Credit?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some of Frank's attributes are unknown; they might or might not meet all Tax Credit requirements.", + "query_type": "eligible", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Is Alice eligible for Tax Credit while Eve is not?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "The comparison depends on unknown attributes; multiple scenarios are consistent.", + "query_type": "compare", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Can Eve be eligible for both Tax Credit and Business License?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "The requirements for Tax Credit and Business License are mutually exclusive for Eve's attributes.", + "query_type": "mutual_exclusive", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Is Grace eligible for Business License while Eve is not?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "The comparison depends on unknown attributes; multiple scenarios are consistent.", + "query_type": "compare", + "depends_on": [ + 1, + 2 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Is Frank eligible for Tax Credit while Grace is not?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "The comparison depends on unknown attributes; multiple scenarios are consistent.", + "query_type": "compare", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1, + 2, + 3 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q5", + "query": "Does Eve qualify for Tax Credit?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some of Eve's attributes are unknown; they might or might not meet all Tax Credit requirements.", + "query_type": "eligible", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1, + 2, + 3, + 4 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q6", + "query": "Can Frank apply for Business License?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some of Frank's attributes are unknown; they might or might not meet all Business License requirements.", + "query_type": "eligible", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 2, + 3, + 4 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "UNKNOWN": 6, + "CONTRADICTED": 1 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "pol_elig_0073", + "domain": "policy", + "subdomain": "eligibility", + "logic_type": "first_order_ground", + "premises": [ + "Applicants: Alice, Diana, Bob, and Hank.", + "Programs: Business License, Scholarship.", + "Alice is not a local resident.", + "Diana has 11 years of experience.", + "Diana is not a local resident.", + "Bob is 32 years old.", + "Bob is not a local resident.", + "Bob has 15 years of experience.", + "Hank is a local resident.", + "Hank has 1 years of experience.", + "Hank is 40 years old.", + "Business License requires annual income at most $60,000.", + "Business License requires applicants to be at least 25 years old.", + "Business License requires annual income at least $50,000.", + "Scholarship requires applicants to be at least 35 years old." + ], + "formal_representation": "; Eligibility rules with numeric constraints (QF_LIA + Bool)", + "entities": { + "applicants": [ + "Alice", + "Diana", + "Bob", + "Hank" + ], + "programs": [ + "Business License", + "Scholarship" + ] + }, + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 6, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Can Bob be eligible for both Scholarship and Business License?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "The requirements for Scholarship and Business License are mutually exclusive for Bob's attributes.", + "query_type": "mutual_exclusive", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Can Bob be eligible for both Business License and Scholarship?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "The requirements for Business License and Scholarship are mutually exclusive for Bob's attributes.", + "query_type": "mutual_exclusive", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Is Hank eligible for Business License while Bob is not?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "The comparison depends on unknown attributes; multiple scenarios are consistent.", + "query_type": "compare", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Is Diana eligible for Business License?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some of Diana's attributes are unknown; they might or might not meet all Business License requirements.", + "query_type": "eligible", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1, + 2 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Does Alice earn at least $100,000?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "The premises don't determine whether Alice satisfies: income >= $100,000.", + "query_type": "attribute", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q5", + "query": "Can Hank be eligible for both Business License and Scholarship?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether Hank can qualify for both depends on unknown attribute values.", + "query_type": "mutual_exclusive", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1, + 2, + 3 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "CONTRADICTED": 2, + "UNKNOWN": 4 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "pol_access_0048", + "domain": "policy", + "subdomain": "access_control", + "logic_type": "first_order_ground", + "premises": [ + "There are 5 employees: Grace, Hank, Bob, Jack, and Iris.", + "Available roles: Contractor, Intern, Admin, Developer, Manager.", + "Resources: Customer Data, Admin Panel, Analytics Dashboard, Config Server, Source Code, Financial Records.", + "Each employee has exactly one role.", + "Any Developer can access Admin Panel.", + "A Intern who can access Financial Records also gets access to Analytics Dashboard.", + "A Intern who can access Analytics Dashboard also gets access to Config Server.", + "No Admin may access Analytics Dashboard.", + "A Admin who can access Customer Data also gets access to Financial Records.", + "Grace is a Contractor.", + "Iris is a Intern.", + "Jack is a Intern." + ], + "formal_representation": "; Policy domain: role-based access control\n; ('grant', 'Developer', 'Admin Panel')\n; ('conditional', 'Intern', 'Financial Records', 'Analytics Dashboard')\n; ('conditional', 'Intern', 'Analytics Dashboard', 'Config Server')\n; ('deny', 'Admin', 'Analytics Dashboard')\n; ('conditional', 'Admin', 'Customer Data', 'Financial Records')\n; ('assigned', 'Grace', 'Contractor')\n; ('assigned', 'Iris', 'Intern')\n; ('assigned', 'Jack', 'Intern')", + "entities": { + "people": [ + "Grace", + "Hank", + "Bob", + "Jack", + "Iris" + ], + "roles": [ + "Contractor", + "Intern", + "Admin", + "Developer", + "Manager" + ], + "resources": [ + "Customer Data", + "Admin Panel", + "Analytics Dashboard", + "Config Server", + "Source Code", + "Financial Records" + ] + }, + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 5, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Can both Jack and Iris access Config Server?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether both can access Config Server depends on their role assignments, which are not fully constrained.", + "query_type": "two_people", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Can Bob have the Developer role?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Multiple role assignments are consistent with the constraints; Bob may or may not be a Developer.", + "query_type": "must_have_role", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Can both Hank and Iris access Analytics Dashboard?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether both can access Analytics Dashboard depends on their role assignments, which are not fully constrained.", + "query_type": "two_people", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Can Iris have the Intern role?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "The constraints force Iris into the Intern role; no other assignment is consistent.", + "query_type": "must_have_role", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 2 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Does Bob have access rights to Financial Records?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether Bob can access Financial Records depends on their role assignment, which is not fully determined.", + "query_type": "can_access", + "depends_on": [ + 1 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "UNKNOWN": 4, + "ENTAILED": 1 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "pol_elig_0058", + "domain": "policy", + "subdomain": "eligibility", + "logic_type": "first_order_ground", + "premises": [ + "Applicants: Bob, Charlie, Diana, and Hank.", + "Programs: Travel Visa, Training Program.", + "Bob is a local resident.", + "Charlie is 27 years old.", + "Charlie's annual income is $80,000.", + "Charlie is not a local resident.", + "Diana is 58 years old.", + "Diana's annual income is $120,000.", + "Diana has 7 years of experience.", + "Hank is 50 years old.", + "Travel Visa requires annual income at least $20,000.", + "Training Program requires annual income at least $50,000.", + "Training Program is restricted to local residents.", + "Training Program requires annual income at most $60,000." + ], + "formal_representation": "; Eligibility rules with numeric constraints (QF_LIA + Bool)", + "entities": { + "applicants": [ + "Bob", + "Charlie", + "Diana", + "Hank" + ], + "programs": [ + "Travel Visa", + "Training Program" + ] + }, + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 7, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Is Charlie at least 50 years old?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "The premises establish that Charlie does not satisfy: at least 50.", + "query_type": "attribute", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Can Diana be eligible for both Training Program and Travel Visa?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "The requirements for Training Program and Travel Visa are mutually exclusive for Diana's attributes.", + "query_type": "mutual_exclusive", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Does Diana qualify for Travel Visa?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some of Diana's attributes are unknown; they might or might not meet all Travel Visa requirements.", + "query_type": "eligible", + "depends_on": [ + 1 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Can Bob be eligible for both Travel Visa and Training Program?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether Bob can qualify for both depends on unknown attribute values.", + "query_type": "mutual_exclusive", + "depends_on": [ + 1, + 2 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Can Charlie be eligible for both Travel Visa and Training Program?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "The requirements for Travel Visa and Training Program are mutually exclusive for Charlie's attributes.", + "query_type": "mutual_exclusive", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1, + 2, + 3 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q5", + "query": "Does Hank earn at least $50,000?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "The premises don't determine whether Hank satisfies: income >= $50,000.", + "query_type": "attribute", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q6", + "query": "Is Bob eligible for Travel Visa while Diana is not?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "The comparison depends on unknown attributes; multiple scenarios are consistent.", + "query_type": "compare", + "depends_on": [ + 1, + 2, + 3, + 4 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "CONTRADICTED": 3, + "UNKNOWN": 4 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "pol_elig_0032", + "domain": "policy", + "subdomain": "eligibility", + "logic_type": "first_order_ground", + "premises": [ + "Applicants: Bob, Charlie, Diana, and Grace.", + "Programs: Health Coverage, Research Grant.", + "Bob is not a local resident.", + "Bob's annual income is $120,000.", + "Bob has 6 years of experience.", + "Charlie is a local resident.", + "Diana has 9 years of experience.", + "Diana is 53 years old.", + "Grace has 20 years of experience.", + "Health Coverage requires annual income at least $30,000.", + "Health Coverage requires at least 2 years of experience.", + "Research Grant requires annual income at most $40,000.", + "Research Grant is only available to applicants 60 or younger.", + "Research Grant requires annual income at least $30,000." + ], + "formal_representation": "; Eligibility rules with numeric constraints (QF_LIA + Bool)", + "entities": { + "applicants": [ + "Bob", + "Charlie", + "Diana", + "Grace" + ], + "programs": [ + "Health Coverage", + "Research Grant" + ] + }, + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 5, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Is Charlie eligible for Health Coverage while Diana is not?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "The comparison depends on unknown attributes; multiple scenarios are consistent.", + "query_type": "compare", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Can Grace apply for Health Coverage?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some of Grace's attributes are unknown; they might or might not meet all Health Coverage requirements.", + "query_type": "eligible", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Is Diana at least 30 years old?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "The premises directly establish that Diana satisfies: at least 30.", + "query_type": "attribute", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Is Diana eligible for Research Grant while Grace is not?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "The comparison depends on unknown attributes; multiple scenarios are consistent.", + "query_type": "compare", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1, + 2 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Is Grace eligible for Health Coverage?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some of Grace's attributes are unknown; they might or might not meet all Health Coverage requirements.", + "query_type": "eligible", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1, + 3 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "UNKNOWN": 4, + "ENTAILED": 1 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "pol_elig_0084", + "domain": "policy", + "subdomain": "eligibility", + "logic_type": "first_order_ground", + "premises": [ + "Applicants: Alice, Eve, Grace, Diana, and Frank.", + "Programs: Business License, Health Coverage, Travel Visa.", + "Alice is a local resident.", + "Alice's annual income is $120,000.", + "Alice has 19 years of experience.", + "Eve is 45 years old.", + "Eve has 18 years of experience.", + "Grace's annual income is $80,000.", + "Grace has 8 years of experience.", + "Diana's annual income is $120,000.", + "Frank has 17 years of experience.", + "Frank's annual income is $35,000.", + "Business License requires annual income at most $80,000.", + "Business License requires at least 8 years of experience.", + "Health Coverage is restricted to local residents.", + "Travel Visa requires at least 8 years of experience." + ], + "formal_representation": "; Eligibility rules with numeric constraints (QF_LIA + Bool)", + "entities": { + "applicants": [ + "Alice", + "Eve", + "Grace", + "Diana", + "Frank" + ], + "programs": [ + "Business License", + "Health Coverage", + "Travel Visa" + ] + }, + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 6, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Is Grace eligible for Business License while Alice is not?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "The comparison depends on unknown attributes; multiple scenarios are consistent.", + "query_type": "compare", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Can Frank apply for Health Coverage?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some of Frank's attributes are unknown; they might or might not meet all Health Coverage requirements.", + "query_type": "eligible", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Is Frank at least 50 years old?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "The premises don't determine whether Frank satisfies: at least 50.", + "query_type": "attribute", + "depends_on": [ + 1 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Is Eve eligible for Health Coverage?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some of Eve's attributes are unknown; they might or might not meet all Health Coverage requirements.", + "query_type": "eligible", + "depends_on": [ + 1 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Does Diana qualify for Travel Visa?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some of Diana's attributes are unknown; they might or might not meet all Travel Visa requirements.", + "query_type": "eligible", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q5", + "query": "Does Alice earn at least $100,000?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "The premises directly establish that Alice satisfies: income >= $100,000.", + "query_type": "attribute", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "UNKNOWN": 5, + "ENTAILED": 1 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "pol_elig_0030", + "domain": "policy", + "subdomain": "eligibility", + "logic_type": "first_order_ground", + "premises": [ + "Applicants: Charlie, Bob, Frank, and Alice.", + "Programs: Business License, Health Coverage.", + "Charlie has 8 years of experience.", + "Bob has 16 years of experience.", + "Frank's annual income is $35,000.", + "Frank is 33 years old.", + "Frank has 10 years of experience.", + "Alice's annual income is $100,000.", + "Alice has 4 years of experience.", + "Alice is a local resident.", + "Business License requires applicants to be at least 21 years old.", + "Business License is restricted to local residents.", + "Business License is only available to applicants 65 or younger.", + "Health Coverage requires applicants to be at least 21 years old.", + "Health Coverage is restricted to local residents." + ], + "formal_representation": "; Eligibility rules with numeric constraints (QF_LIA + Bool)", + "entities": { + "applicants": [ + "Charlie", + "Bob", + "Frank", + "Alice" + ], + "programs": [ + "Business License", + "Health Coverage" + ] + }, + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 8, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Can Frank apply for Business License?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some of Frank's attributes are unknown; they might or might not meet all Business License requirements.", + "query_type": "eligible", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Is Frank at least 50 years old?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "The premises establish that Frank does not satisfy: at least 50.", + "query_type": "attribute", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Does Alice earn at least $100,000?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "The premises directly establish that Alice satisfies: income >= $100,000.", + "query_type": "attribute", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Is Alice at least 40 years old?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "The premises don't determine whether Alice satisfies: at least 40.", + "query_type": "attribute", + "depends_on": [ + 2 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Does Bob qualify for Business License?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some of Bob's attributes are unknown; they might or might not meet all Business License requirements.", + "query_type": "eligible", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q5", + "query": "Is Charlie eligible for Business License while Alice is not?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "The comparison depends on unknown attributes; multiple scenarios are consistent.", + "query_type": "compare", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 2, + 3, + 4 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q6", + "query": "Can Alice be eligible for both Business License and Health Coverage?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether Alice can qualify for both depends on unknown attribute values.", + "query_type": "mutual_exclusive", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 2, + 3, + 4, + 5 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q7", + "query": "Does Charlie qualify for Health Coverage?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some of Charlie's attributes are unknown; they might or might not meet all Health Coverage requirements.", + "query_type": "eligible", + "depends_on": [ + 5, + 6 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "UNKNOWN": 6, + "CONTRADICTED": 1, + "ENTAILED": 1 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "pol_access_0007", + "domain": "policy", + "subdomain": "access_control", + "logic_type": "first_order_ground", + "premises": [ + "There are 4 employees: Bob, Eve, Iris, and Frank.", + "Available roles: Contractor, Auditor, Guest, Developer, Manager.", + "Resources: Admin Panel, Source Code, Audit Logs, API Gateway.", + "Each employee has exactly one role.", + "Any Auditor can access Admin Panel.", + "A Developer who can access Audit Logs also gets access to Admin Panel.", + "Any Guest can access Source Code.", + "Bob is a Guest.", + "Iris is a Developer.", + "Frank is a Manager.", + "Eve is a Guest." + ], + "formal_representation": "; Policy domain: role-based access control\n; ('grant', 'Auditor', 'Admin Panel')\n; ('conditional', 'Developer', 'Audit Logs', 'Admin Panel')\n; ('grant', 'Guest', 'Source Code')\n; ('assigned', 'Bob', 'Guest')\n; ('assigned', 'Iris', 'Developer')\n; ('assigned', 'Frank', 'Manager')\n; ('assigned', 'Eve', 'Guest')", + "entities": { + "people": [ + "Bob", + "Eve", + "Iris", + "Frank" + ], + "roles": [ + "Contractor", + "Auditor", + "Guest", + "Developer", + "Manager" + ], + "resources": [ + "Admin Panel", + "Source Code", + "Audit Logs", + "API Gateway" + ] + }, + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 6, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Can both Frank and Eve hold the Manager role?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "At most one of Frank or Eve can be a Manager, due to the single-role constraint and other assignments.", + "query_type": "exclusive", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Is Iris permitted to use Source Code?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether Iris can access Source Code depends on their role assignment, which is not fully determined.", + "query_type": "can_access", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Can Frank have the Contractor role?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "Assigning Frank the Contractor role would violate one or more constraints.", + "query_type": "must_have_role", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Can both Bob and Eve access API Gateway?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether both can access API Gateway depends on their role assignments, which are not fully constrained.", + "query_type": "two_people", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Is it guaranteed that Eve holds the Auditor role?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "Assigning Eve the Auditor role would violate one or more constraints.", + "query_type": "must_have_role", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 3 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q5", + "query": "Can both Eve and Bob access Source Code?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "Both Eve and Bob's constraints guarantee them joint access to Source Code.", + "query_type": "two_people", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1, + 3, + 4 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "CONTRADICTED": 3, + "UNKNOWN": 2, + "ENTAILED": 1 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "pol_access_0057", + "domain": "policy", + "subdomain": "access_control", + "logic_type": "first_order_ground", + "premises": [ + "There are 4 employees: Hank, Bob, Alice, and Grace.", + "Available roles: Analyst, Intern, Developer.", + "Resources: Audit Logs, Backup System, Database, Config Server, Financial Records, Customer Data.", + "Each employee has exactly one role.", + "A Developer who can access Audit Logs also gets access to Database.", + "Any Developer can access Customer Data.", + "No Developer may access Customer Data.", + "Hank is a Intern.", + "Alice is a Analyst." + ], + "formal_representation": "; Policy domain: role-based access control\n; ('conditional', 'Developer', 'Audit Logs', 'Database')\n; ('grant', 'Developer', 'Customer Data')\n; ('deny', 'Developer', 'Customer Data')\n; ('assigned', 'Hank', 'Intern')\n; ('assigned', 'Alice', 'Analyst')", + "entities": { + "people": [ + "Hank", + "Bob", + "Alice", + "Grace" + ], + "roles": [ + "Analyst", + "Intern", + "Developer" + ], + "resources": [ + "Audit Logs", + "Backup System", + "Database", + "Config Server", + "Financial Records", + "Customer Data" + ] + }, + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 6, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Can both Bob and Hank access Financial Records?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether both can access Financial Records depends on their role assignments, which are not fully constrained.", + "query_type": "two_people", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Can Bob have the Intern role?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Multiple role assignments are consistent with the constraints; Bob may or may not be a Intern.", + "query_type": "must_have_role", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Is it guaranteed that Grace holds the Developer role?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "Assigning Grace the Developer role would violate one or more constraints.", + "query_type": "must_have_role", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Can Grace have the Analyst role?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Multiple role assignments are consistent with the constraints; Grace may or may not be a Analyst.", + "query_type": "must_have_role", + "depends_on": [ + 2 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Is Bob permitted to use Audit Logs?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether Bob can access Audit Logs depends on their role assignment, which is not fully determined.", + "query_type": "can_access", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q5", + "query": "Can Alice have the Developer role?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "Assigning Alice the Developer role would violate one or more constraints.", + "query_type": "must_have_role", + "depends_on": [ + 2 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "UNKNOWN": 4, + "CONTRADICTED": 2 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "pol_elig_0089", + "domain": "policy", + "subdomain": "eligibility", + "logic_type": "first_order_ground", + "premises": [ + "Applicants: Bob, Grace, Hank, Frank, and Charlie.", + "Programs: Scholarship, Tax Credit, Health Coverage.", + "Bob's annual income is $50,000.", + "Bob has 14 years of experience.", + "Grace is a local resident.", + "Grace has 13 years of experience.", + "Grace is 39 years old.", + "Hank has 7 years of experience.", + "Hank is not a local resident.", + "Frank is a local resident.", + "Frank's annual income is $100,000.", + "Frank has 17 years of experience.", + "Charlie's annual income is $50,000.", + "Scholarship requires annual income at least $20,000.", + "Tax Credit is only available to applicants 45 or younger.", + "Tax Credit requires at least 5 years of experience.", + "Tax Credit is restricted to local residents.", + "Health Coverage is only available to applicants 55 or younger.", + "Health Coverage requires annual income at most $80,000." + ], + "formal_representation": "; Eligibility rules with numeric constraints (QF_LIA + Bool)", + "entities": { + "applicants": [ + "Bob", + "Grace", + "Hank", + "Frank", + "Charlie" + ], + "programs": [ + "Scholarship", + "Tax Credit", + "Health Coverage" + ] + }, + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 8, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Is Bob eligible for Tax Credit while Hank is not?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "The comparison depends on unknown attributes; multiple scenarios are consistent.", + "query_type": "compare", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Is Charlie eligible for Health Coverage?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some of Charlie's attributes are unknown; they might or might not meet all Health Coverage requirements.", + "query_type": "eligible", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Is Hank eligible for Tax Credit?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "Hank fails at least one eligibility requirement for Tax Credit, making qualification impossible.", + "query_type": "eligible", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Is Charlie at least 40 years old?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "The premises don't determine whether Charlie satisfies: at least 40.", + "query_type": "attribute", + "depends_on": [ + 1 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Is Charlie eligible for Health Coverage while Grace is not?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "The comparison depends on unknown attributes; multiple scenarios are consistent.", + "query_type": "compare", + "depends_on": [ + 1, + 3 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q5", + "query": "Can Hank be eligible for both Scholarship and Health Coverage?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether Hank can qualify for both depends on unknown attribute values.", + "query_type": "mutual_exclusive", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1, + 2, + 4 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q6", + "query": "Is Charlie eligible for Scholarship?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some of Charlie's attributes are unknown; they might or might not meet all Scholarship requirements.", + "query_type": "eligible", + "depends_on": [ + 1, + 3, + 4, + 5 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q7", + "query": "Can Bob be eligible for both Health Coverage and Tax Credit?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether Bob can qualify for both depends on unknown attribute values.", + "query_type": "mutual_exclusive", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1, + 2, + 4, + 5 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "UNKNOWN": 7, + "CONTRADICTED": 1 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "pol_elig_0047", + "domain": "policy", + "subdomain": "eligibility", + "logic_type": "first_order_ground", + "premises": [ + "Applicants: Bob, Grace, Diana, Frank, and Eve.", + "Programs: Health Coverage, Travel Visa, Tax Credit.", + "Bob is a local resident.", + "Bob is 31 years old.", + "Grace is a local resident.", + "Grace's annual income is $100,000.", + "Diana is 55 years old.", + "Frank has 10 years of experience.", + "Frank is 30 years old.", + "Frank's annual income is $35,000.", + "Eve's annual income is $35,000.", + "Eve is 52 years old.", + "Eve has 8 years of experience.", + "Health Coverage requires applicants to be at least 25 years old.", + "Health Coverage requires applicants to be at least 35 years old.", + "Travel Visa requires annual income at least $50,000.", + "Travel Visa is restricted to local residents.", + "Travel Visa requires applicants to be at least 25 years old.", + "Tax Credit requires annual income at most $40,000.", + "Tax Credit requires annual income at least $50,000." + ], + "formal_representation": "; Eligibility rules with numeric constraints (QF_LIA + Bool)", + "entities": { + "applicants": [ + "Bob", + "Grace", + "Diana", + "Frank", + "Eve" + ], + "programs": [ + "Health Coverage", + "Travel Visa", + "Tax Credit" + ] + }, + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 8, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Is Eve eligible for Travel Visa while Diana is not?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "It's impossible for Eve to qualify while Diana doesn't, given their known attributes.", + "query_type": "compare", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Is Grace eligible for Tax Credit while Bob is not?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "It's impossible for Grace to qualify while Bob doesn't, given their known attributes.", + "query_type": "compare", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Does Eve earn at least $50,000?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "The premises establish that Eve does not satisfy: income >= $50,000.", + "query_type": "attribute", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Can Frank be eligible for both Health Coverage and Tax Credit?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "The requirements for Health Coverage and Tax Credit are mutually exclusive for Frank's attributes.", + "query_type": "mutual_exclusive", + "depends_on": [ + 1 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Does Bob earn at least $75,000?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "The premises don't determine whether Bob satisfies: income >= $75,000.", + "query_type": "attribute", + "depends_on": [ + 1 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q5", + "query": "Does Diana qualify for Tax Credit?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "Diana fails at least one eligibility requirement for Tax Credit, making qualification impossible.", + "query_type": "eligible", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1, + 3 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q6", + "query": "Is Frank at least 50 years old?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "The premises establish that Frank does not satisfy: at least 50.", + "query_type": "attribute", + "depends_on": [ + 3 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q7", + "query": "Is Bob eligible for Health Coverage while Eve is not?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "It's impossible for Bob to qualify while Eve doesn't, given their known attributes.", + "query_type": "compare", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1, + 2, + 3, + 4 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "CONTRADICTED": 7, + "UNKNOWN": 1 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "pol_access_0029", + "domain": "policy", + "subdomain": "access_control", + "logic_type": "first_order_ground", + "premises": [ + "There are 6 employees: Alice, Iris, Eve, Frank, Grace, and Charlie.", + "Available roles: Guest, Contractor, Analyst.", + "Resources: Admin Panel, Database, HR Portal, Analytics Dashboard, Config Server.", + "Each employee has exactly one role.", + "Any Guest can access Database.", + "No Guest may access HR Portal.", + "A Contractor who can access Database also gets access to Analytics Dashboard.", + "A Guest who can access Admin Panel also gets access to HR Portal.", + "A Contractor who can access Config Server also gets access to Admin Panel.", + "No Contractor may access Config Server.", + "Alice is a Analyst.", + "Eve is a Guest.", + "Frank is a Contractor.", + "Charlie is a Analyst." + ], + "formal_representation": "; Policy domain: role-based access control\n; ('grant', 'Guest', 'Database')\n; ('deny', 'Guest', 'HR Portal')\n; ('conditional', 'Contractor', 'Database', 'Analytics Dashboard')\n; ('conditional', 'Guest', 'Admin Panel', 'HR Portal')\n; ('conditional', 'Contractor', 'Config Server', 'Admin Panel')\n; ('deny', 'Contractor', 'Config Server')\n; ('assigned', 'Alice', 'Analyst')\n; ('assigned', 'Eve', 'Guest')\n; ('assigned', 'Frank', 'Contractor')\n; ('assigned', 'Charlie', 'Analyst')", + "entities": { + "people": [ + "Alice", + "Iris", + "Eve", + "Frank", + "Grace", + "Charlie" + ], + "roles": [ + "Guest", + "Contractor", + "Analyst" + ], + "resources": [ + "Admin Panel", + "Database", + "HR Portal", + "Analytics Dashboard", + "Config Server" + ] + }, + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 8, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Can Alice have the Guest role?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "Assigning Alice the Guest role would violate one or more constraints.", + "query_type": "must_have_role", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Is Alice permitted to use HR Portal?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether Alice can access HR Portal depends on their role assignment, which is not fully determined.", + "query_type": "can_access", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Does Charlie have access rights to Admin Panel?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether Charlie can access Admin Panel depends on their role assignment, which is not fully determined.", + "query_type": "can_access", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Can both Charlie and Iris access Database?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether both can access Database depends on their role assignments, which are not fully constrained.", + "query_type": "two_people", + "depends_on": [ + 2 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Must Frank be a Contractor?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "The constraints force Frank into the Contractor role; no other assignment is consistent.", + "query_type": "must_have_role", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q5", + "query": "Can both Iris and Frank access Database?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether both can access Database depends on their role assignments, which are not fully constrained.", + "query_type": "two_people", + "depends_on": [ + 3, + 4 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q6", + "query": "Can Charlie have the Contractor role?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "Assigning Charlie the Contractor role would violate one or more constraints.", + "query_type": "must_have_role", + "depends_on": [ + 2, + 3, + 4 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q7", + "query": "Can Frank have the Guest role?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "Assigning Frank the Guest role would violate one or more constraints.", + "query_type": "must_have_role", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 4, + 5 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "CONTRADICTED": 3, + "UNKNOWN": 4, + "ENTAILED": 1 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "pol_access_0088", + "domain": "policy", + "subdomain": "access_control", + "logic_type": "first_order_ground", + "premises": [ + "There are 6 employees: Alice, Eve, Grace, Hank, Diana, and Frank.", + "Available roles: Developer, Manager, Auditor.", + "Resources: Database, Deployment Pipeline, Analytics Dashboard, API Gateway, Config Server.", + "Each employee has exactly one role.", + "A Manager who can access Database also gets access to Deployment Pipeline.", + "Any Auditor can access Analytics Dashboard.", + "No Manager may access Deployment Pipeline.", + "Any Auditor can access Config Server.", + "Any Auditor can access API Gateway.", + "Eve is a Auditor.", + "Hank is a Auditor.", + "Alice is a Developer.", + "Frank is a Developer." + ], + "formal_representation": "; Policy domain: role-based access control\n; ('conditional', 'Manager', 'Database', 'Deployment Pipeline')\n; ('grant', 'Auditor', 'Analytics Dashboard')\n; ('deny', 'Manager', 'Deployment Pipeline')\n; ('grant', 'Auditor', 'Config Server')\n; ('grant', 'Auditor', 'API Gateway')\n; ('assigned', 'Eve', 'Auditor')\n; ('assigned', 'Hank', 'Auditor')\n; ('assigned', 'Alice', 'Developer')\n; ('assigned', 'Frank', 'Developer')", + "entities": { + "people": [ + "Alice", + "Eve", + "Grace", + "Hank", + "Diana", + "Frank" + ], + "roles": [ + "Developer", + "Manager", + "Auditor" + ], + "resources": [ + "Database", + "Deployment Pipeline", + "Analytics Dashboard", + "API Gateway", + "Config Server" + ] + }, + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 6, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Can both Hank and Diana access Database?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether both can access Database depends on their role assignments, which are not fully constrained.", + "query_type": "two_people", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Can both Frank and Grace hold the Developer role?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "It's possible for both to be Developers, but also possible for one or both to have different roles.", + "query_type": "exclusive", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Can both Frank and Eve hold the Developer role?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "At most one of Frank or Eve can be a Developer, due to the single-role constraint and other assignments.", + "query_type": "exclusive", + "depends_on": [ + 1 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Is it guaranteed that Grace holds the Manager role?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Multiple role assignments are consistent with the constraints; Grace may or may not be a Manager.", + "query_type": "must_have_role", + "depends_on": [ + 1 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Can both Diana and Alice hold the Auditor role?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "At most one of Diana or Alice can be a Auditor, due to the single-role constraint and other assignments.", + "query_type": "exclusive", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q5", + "query": "Does Diana have access rights to Database?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether Diana can access Database depends on their role assignment, which is not fully determined.", + "query_type": "can_access", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 4 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "UNKNOWN": 4, + "CONTRADICTED": 2 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "pol_access_0096", + "domain": "policy", + "subdomain": "access_control", + "logic_type": "first_order_ground", + "premises": [ + "There are 4 employees: Jack, Charlie, Frank, and Hank.", + "Available roles: Contractor, Manager, Intern, Guest.", + "Resources: Financial Records, Deployment Pipeline, Customer Data, Admin Panel, Analytics Dashboard, Config Server.", + "Each employee has exactly one role.", + "A Contractor who can access Analytics Dashboard also gets access to Deployment Pipeline.", + "A Contractor who can access Admin Panel also gets access to Financial Records.", + "A Guest who can access Analytics Dashboard also gets access to Deployment Pipeline.", + "A Guest who can access Analytics Dashboard also gets access to Admin Panel.", + "Frank is a Manager.", + "Charlie is a Contractor.", + "Jack is a Contractor.", + "Hank is a Guest." + ], + "formal_representation": "; Policy domain: role-based access control\n; ('conditional', 'Contractor', 'Analytics Dashboard', 'Deployment Pipeline')\n; ('conditional', 'Contractor', 'Admin Panel', 'Financial Records')\n; ('conditional', 'Guest', 'Analytics Dashboard', 'Deployment Pipeline')\n; ('conditional', 'Guest', 'Analytics Dashboard', 'Admin Panel')\n; ('assigned', 'Frank', 'Manager')\n; ('assigned', 'Charlie', 'Contractor')\n; ('assigned', 'Jack', 'Contractor')\n; ('assigned', 'Hank', 'Guest')", + "entities": { + "people": [ + "Jack", + "Charlie", + "Frank", + "Hank" + ], + "roles": [ + "Contractor", + "Manager", + "Intern", + "Guest" + ], + "resources": [ + "Financial Records", + "Deployment Pipeline", + "Customer Data", + "Admin Panel", + "Analytics Dashboard", + "Config Server" + ] + }, + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 6, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Can both Frank and Charlie access Deployment Pipeline?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether both can access Deployment Pipeline depends on their role assignments, which are not fully constrained.", + "query_type": "two_people", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Can Frank have the Guest role?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "Assigning Frank the Guest role would violate one or more constraints.", + "query_type": "must_have_role", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Can both Charlie and Frank hold the Guest role?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "At most one of Charlie or Frank can be a Guest, due to the single-role constraint and other assignments.", + "query_type": "exclusive", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Can Frank have the Contractor role?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "Assigning Frank the Contractor role would violate one or more constraints.", + "query_type": "must_have_role", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1, + 2 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Can Frank have the Intern role?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "Assigning Frank the Intern role would violate one or more constraints.", + "query_type": "must_have_role", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1, + 2, + 3 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q5", + "query": "Can both Charlie and Frank access Deployment Pipeline?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether both can access Deployment Pipeline depends on their role assignments, which are not fully constrained.", + "query_type": "two_people", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1, + 2, + 3, + 4 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "UNKNOWN": 2, + "CONTRADICTED": 4 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "pol_access_0022", + "domain": "policy", + "subdomain": "access_control", + "logic_type": "first_order_ground", + "premises": [ + "There are 4 employees: Bob, Diana, Charlie, and Frank.", + "Available roles: Intern, Guest, Auditor.", + "Resources: Source Code, API Gateway, Financial Records, Deployment Pipeline, Customer Data.", + "Each employee has exactly one role.", + "A Guest who can access Financial Records also gets access to Deployment Pipeline.", + "A Intern who can access Deployment Pipeline also gets access to Customer Data.", + "Any Guest can access Financial Records.", + "Diana is a Intern.", + "Bob is a Auditor.", + "Charlie is a Intern.", + "Frank is a Guest." + ], + "formal_representation": "; Policy domain: role-based access control\n; ('conditional', 'Guest', 'Financial Records', 'Deployment Pipeline')\n; ('conditional', 'Intern', 'Deployment Pipeline', 'Customer Data')\n; ('grant', 'Guest', 'Financial Records')\n; ('assigned', 'Diana', 'Intern')\n; ('assigned', 'Bob', 'Auditor')\n; ('assigned', 'Charlie', 'Intern')\n; ('assigned', 'Frank', 'Guest')", + "entities": { + "people": [ + "Bob", + "Diana", + "Charlie", + "Frank" + ], + "roles": [ + "Intern", + "Guest", + "Auditor" + ], + "resources": [ + "Source Code", + "API Gateway", + "Financial Records", + "Deployment Pipeline", + "Customer Data" + ] + }, + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 5, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Can both Charlie and Diana hold the Auditor role?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "At most one of Charlie or Diana can be a Auditor, due to the single-role constraint and other assignments.", + "query_type": "exclusive", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Does Frank have access rights to Customer Data?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether Frank can access Customer Data depends on their role assignment, which is not fully determined.", + "query_type": "can_access", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Can Diana have the Guest role?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "Assigning Diana the Guest role would violate one or more constraints.", + "query_type": "must_have_role", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Can both Charlie and Diana hold the Intern role?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "Both Charlie and Diana must hold the Intern role given the constraints.", + "query_type": "exclusive", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 2 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Can both Bob and Frank access Source Code?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether both can access Source Code depends on their role assignments, which are not fully constrained.", + "query_type": "two_people", + "depends_on": [ + 1 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "CONTRADICTED": 2, + "UNKNOWN": 2, + "ENTAILED": 1 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "pol_access_0097", + "domain": "policy", + "subdomain": "access_control", + "logic_type": "first_order_ground", + "premises": [ + "There are 4 employees: Hank, Frank, Eve, and Iris.", + "Available roles: Guest, Intern, Contractor, Developer.", + "Resources: HR Portal, Admin Panel, Financial Records, Database, Deployment Pipeline, Config Server.", + "Each employee has exactly one role.", + "No Contractor may access Database.", + "Any Contractor can access Config Server.", + "Any Developer can access Config Server.", + "No Developer may access HR Portal.", + "Any Intern can access Database.", + "Any Intern can access HR Portal.", + "Iris is a Guest.", + "Eve is a Guest.", + "Hank is a Developer." + ], + "formal_representation": "; Policy domain: role-based access control\n; ('deny', 'Contractor', 'Database')\n; ('grant', 'Contractor', 'Config Server')\n; ('grant', 'Developer', 'Config Server')\n; ('deny', 'Developer', 'HR Portal')\n; ('grant', 'Intern', 'Database')\n; ('grant', 'Intern', 'HR Portal')\n; ('assigned', 'Iris', 'Guest')\n; ('assigned', 'Eve', 'Guest')\n; ('assigned', 'Hank', 'Developer')", + "entities": { + "people": [ + "Hank", + "Frank", + "Eve", + "Iris" + ], + "roles": [ + "Guest", + "Intern", + "Contractor", + "Developer" + ], + "resources": [ + "HR Portal", + "Admin Panel", + "Financial Records", + "Database", + "Deployment Pipeline", + "Config Server" + ] + }, + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 5, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Is Hank permitted to use Deployment Pipeline?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether Hank can access Deployment Pipeline depends on their role assignment, which is not fully determined.", + "query_type": "can_access", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Can both Eve and Frank access Admin Panel?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether both can access Admin Panel depends on their role assignments, which are not fully constrained.", + "query_type": "two_people", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Can both Eve and Iris access HR Portal?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether both can access HR Portal depends on their role assignments, which are not fully constrained.", + "query_type": "two_people", + "depends_on": [ + 1 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Does Eve have access rights to Database?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether Eve can access Database depends on their role assignment, which is not fully determined.", + "query_type": "can_access", + "depends_on": [ + 1, + 2 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Can Eve have the Developer role?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "Assigning Eve the Developer role would violate one or more constraints.", + "query_type": "must_have_role", + "depends_on": [ + 1, + 2, + 3 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "UNKNOWN": 4, + "CONTRADICTED": 1 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "pol_access_0031", + "domain": "policy", + "subdomain": "access_control", + "logic_type": "first_order_ground", + "premises": [ + "There are 5 employees: Charlie, Diana, Grace, Iris, and Bob.", + "Available roles: Auditor, Contractor, Intern.", + "Resources: Customer Data, Database, Audit Logs, Admin Panel.", + "Each employee has exactly one role.", + "A Intern who can access Audit Logs also gets access to Admin Panel.", + "No Intern may access Audit Logs.", + "No Auditor may access Admin Panel.", + "Any Intern can access Database.", + "Charlie is a Contractor.", + "Bob is a Intern.", + "Diana is a Intern." + ], + "formal_representation": "; Policy domain: role-based access control\n; ('conditional', 'Intern', 'Audit Logs', 'Admin Panel')\n; ('deny', 'Intern', 'Audit Logs')\n; ('deny', 'Auditor', 'Admin Panel')\n; ('grant', 'Intern', 'Database')\n; ('assigned', 'Charlie', 'Contractor')\n; ('assigned', 'Bob', 'Intern')\n; ('assigned', 'Diana', 'Intern')", + "entities": { + "people": [ + "Charlie", + "Diana", + "Grace", + "Iris", + "Bob" + ], + "roles": [ + "Auditor", + "Contractor", + "Intern" + ], + "resources": [ + "Customer Data", + "Database", + "Audit Logs", + "Admin Panel" + ] + }, + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 5, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Can both Bob and Grace access Customer Data?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether both can access Customer Data depends on their role assignments, which are not fully constrained.", + "query_type": "two_people", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Can Iris have the Auditor role?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Multiple role assignments are consistent with the constraints; Iris may or may not be a Auditor.", + "query_type": "must_have_role", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Must Diana be a Auditor?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "Assigning Diana the Auditor role would violate one or more constraints.", + "query_type": "must_have_role", + "depends_on": [ + 1 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Can Grace have the Intern role?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Multiple role assignments are consistent with the constraints; Grace may or may not be a Intern.", + "query_type": "must_have_role", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Must Bob be a Contractor?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "Assigning Bob the Contractor role would violate one or more constraints.", + "query_type": "must_have_role", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "UNKNOWN": 3, + "CONTRADICTED": 2 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "pol_access_0063", + "domain": "policy", + "subdomain": "access_control", + "logic_type": "first_order_ground", + "premises": [ + "There are 4 employees: Bob, Eve, Iris, and Frank.", + "Available roles: Contractor, Intern, Admin.", + "Resources: Backup System, Database, Source Code, Customer Data, Audit Logs, API Gateway.", + "Each employee has exactly one role.", + "A Contractor who can access API Gateway also gets access to Source Code.", + "No Contractor may access Audit Logs.", + "A Intern who can access Backup System also gets access to Customer Data.", + "Any Intern can access API Gateway.", + "Any Contractor can access Source Code.", + "Iris is a Intern.", + "Bob is a Intern." + ], + "formal_representation": "; Policy domain: role-based access control\n; ('conditional', 'Contractor', 'API Gateway', 'Source Code')\n; ('deny', 'Contractor', 'Audit Logs')\n; ('conditional', 'Intern', 'Backup System', 'Customer Data')\n; ('grant', 'Intern', 'API Gateway')\n; ('grant', 'Contractor', 'Source Code')\n; ('assigned', 'Iris', 'Intern')\n; ('assigned', 'Bob', 'Intern')", + "entities": { + "people": [ + "Bob", + "Eve", + "Iris", + "Frank" + ], + "roles": [ + "Contractor", + "Intern", + "Admin" + ], + "resources": [ + "Backup System", + "Database", + "Source Code", + "Customer Data", + "Audit Logs", + "API Gateway" + ] + }, + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 6, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Can both Iris and Bob access Customer Data?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether both can access Customer Data depends on their role assignments, which are not fully constrained.", + "query_type": "two_people", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Is it guaranteed that Iris holds the Admin role?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "Assigning Iris the Admin role would violate one or more constraints.", + "query_type": "must_have_role", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Does Eve have access rights to Customer Data?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether Eve can access Customer Data depends on their role assignment, which is not fully determined.", + "query_type": "can_access", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Is Eve permitted to use API Gateway?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether Eve can access API Gateway depends on their role assignment, which is not fully determined.", + "query_type": "can_access", + "depends_on": [ + 2 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Must Frank be a Admin?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Multiple role assignments are consistent with the constraints; Frank may or may not be a Admin.", + "query_type": "must_have_role", + "depends_on": [ + 1 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q5", + "query": "Can Frank have the Admin role?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Multiple role assignments are consistent with the constraints; Frank may or may not be a Admin.", + "query_type": "must_have_role", + "depends_on": [ + 1, + 4 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "UNKNOWN": 5, + "CONTRADICTED": 1 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "pol_elig_0021", + "domain": "policy", + "subdomain": "eligibility", + "logic_type": "first_order_ground", + "premises": [ + "Applicants: Hank, Eve, Diana, and Charlie.", + "Programs: Travel Visa, Housing Assistance.", + "Hank has 12 years of experience.", + "Hank is 23 years old.", + "Hank's annual income is $50,000.", + "Eve's annual income is $35,000.", + "Eve has 18 years of experience.", + "Diana has 18 years of experience.", + "Charlie is not a local resident.", + "Charlie is 36 years old.", + "Charlie's annual income is $65,000.", + "Travel Visa is only available to applicants 45 or younger.", + "Housing Assistance is only available to applicants 65 or younger." + ], + "formal_representation": "; Eligibility rules with numeric constraints (QF_LIA + Bool)", + "entities": { + "applicants": [ + "Hank", + "Eve", + "Diana", + "Charlie" + ], + "programs": [ + "Travel Visa", + "Housing Assistance" + ] + }, + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 6, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Is Charlie eligible for Housing Assistance while Eve is not?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "The comparison depends on unknown attributes; multiple scenarios are consistent.", + "query_type": "compare", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Is Charlie eligible for Housing Assistance while Diana is not?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "The comparison depends on unknown attributes; multiple scenarios are consistent.", + "query_type": "compare", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Is Eve at least 30 years old?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "The premises don't determine whether Eve satisfies: at least 30.", + "query_type": "attribute", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Can Diana be eligible for both Housing Assistance and Travel Visa?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether Diana can qualify for both depends on unknown attribute values.", + "query_type": "mutual_exclusive", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Does Eve qualify for Housing Assistance?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some of Eve's attributes are unknown; they might or might not meet all Housing Assistance requirements.", + "query_type": "eligible", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1, + 2, + 3 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q5", + "query": "Can Eve apply for Travel Visa?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some of Eve's attributes are unknown; they might or might not meet all Travel Visa requirements.", + "query_type": "eligible", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 2, + 3, + 4 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "UNKNOWN": 6 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "pol_access_0035", + "domain": "policy", + "subdomain": "access_control", + "logic_type": "first_order_ground", + "premises": [ + "There are 4 employees: Charlie, Jack, Hank, and Eve.", + "Available roles: Analyst, Admin, Developer, Contractor.", + "Resources: Financial Records, HR Portal, Backup System, Customer Data.", + "Each employee has exactly one role.", + "A Analyst who can access HR Portal also gets access to Backup System.", + "A Analyst who can access Financial Records also gets access to HR Portal.", + "No Developer may access Customer Data.", + "No Contractor may access Financial Records.", + "Any Analyst can access Financial Records.", + "A Contractor who can access Financial Records also gets access to Customer Data.", + "Hank is a Developer.", + "Eve is a Developer." + ], + "formal_representation": "; Policy domain: role-based access control\n; ('conditional', 'Analyst', 'HR Portal', 'Backup System')\n; ('conditional', 'Analyst', 'Financial Records', 'HR Portal')\n; ('deny', 'Developer', 'Customer Data')\n; ('deny', 'Contractor', 'Financial Records')\n; ('grant', 'Analyst', 'Financial Records')\n; ('conditional', 'Contractor', 'Financial Records', 'Customer Data')\n; ('assigned', 'Hank', 'Developer')\n; ('assigned', 'Eve', 'Developer')", + "entities": { + "people": [ + "Charlie", + "Jack", + "Hank", + "Eve" + ], + "roles": [ + "Analyst", + "Admin", + "Developer", + "Contractor" + ], + "resources": [ + "Financial Records", + "HR Portal", + "Backup System", + "Customer Data" + ] + }, + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 6, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Can both Jack and Hank access Customer Data?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "The rules prevent both Jack and Hank from simultaneously accessing Customer Data.", + "query_type": "two_people", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Is Jack permitted to use HR Portal?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether Jack can access HR Portal depends on their role assignment, which is not fully determined.", + "query_type": "can_access", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Is Hank permitted to use HR Portal?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether Hank can access HR Portal depends on their role assignment, which is not fully determined.", + "query_type": "can_access", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Can both Hank and Charlie hold the Contractor role?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "At most one of Hank or Charlie can be a Contractor, due to the single-role constraint and other assignments.", + "query_type": "exclusive", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 2 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Must Charlie be a Developer?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Multiple role assignments are consistent with the constraints; Charlie may or may not be a Developer.", + "query_type": "must_have_role", + "depends_on": [ + 3 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q5", + "query": "Can both Eve and Charlie hold the Analyst role?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "At most one of Eve or Charlie can be a Analyst, due to the single-role constraint and other assignments.", + "query_type": "exclusive", + "depends_on": [ + 3, + 4 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "CONTRADICTED": 3, + "UNKNOWN": 3 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "pol_elig_0043", + "domain": "policy", + "subdomain": "eligibility", + "logic_type": "first_order_ground", + "premises": [ + "Applicants: Frank, Alice, Charlie, and Grace.", + "Programs: Housing Assistance, Research Grant, Tax Credit.", + "Frank is not a local resident.", + "Frank has 6 years of experience.", + "Alice is a local resident.", + "Alice is 37 years old.", + "Charlie is 65 years old.", + "Charlie has 2 years of experience.", + "Grace is 51 years old.", + "Grace has 2 years of experience.", + "Housing Assistance is restricted to local residents.", + "Housing Assistance requires annual income at least $20,000.", + "Housing Assistance requires annual income at most $80,000.", + "Research Grant requires at least 3 years of experience.", + "Research Grant is restricted to local residents.", + "Research Grant is restricted to local residents.", + "Tax Credit is restricted to local residents.", + "Tax Credit is restricted to local residents.", + "Tax Credit requires at least 2 years of experience." + ], + "formal_representation": "; Eligibility rules with numeric constraints (QF_LIA + Bool)", + "entities": { + "applicants": [ + "Frank", + "Alice", + "Charlie", + "Grace" + ], + "programs": [ + "Housing Assistance", + "Research Grant", + "Tax Credit" + ] + }, + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 8, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Is Frank eligible for Research Grant while Grace is not?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "It's impossible for Frank to qualify while Grace doesn't, given their known attributes.", + "query_type": "compare", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Is Frank eligible for Research Grant while Alice is not?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "It's impossible for Frank to qualify while Alice doesn't, given their known attributes.", + "query_type": "compare", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Can Alice be eligible for both Research Grant and Tax Credit?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether Alice can qualify for both depends on unknown attribute values.", + "query_type": "mutual_exclusive", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Is Charlie eligible for Research Grant while Frank is not?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "It's impossible for Charlie to qualify while Frank doesn't, given their known attributes.", + "query_type": "compare", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1, + 2 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Can Frank apply for Tax Credit?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "Frank fails at least one eligibility requirement for Tax Credit, making qualification impossible.", + "query_type": "eligible", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1, + 2, + 3 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q5", + "query": "Can Alice be eligible for both Research Grant and Housing Assistance?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether Alice can qualify for both depends on unknown attribute values.", + "query_type": "mutual_exclusive", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1, + 2, + 3 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q6", + "query": "Is Alice at least 40 years old?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "The premises establish that Alice does not satisfy: at least 40.", + "query_type": "attribute", + "depends_on": [ + 1, + 2, + 5 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q7", + "query": "Does Frank earn at least $50,000?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "The premises don't determine whether Frank satisfies: income >= $50,000.", + "query_type": "attribute", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1, + 3, + 4 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "CONTRADICTED": 5, + "UNKNOWN": 3 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "pol_elig_0012", + "domain": "policy", + "subdomain": "eligibility", + "logic_type": "first_order_ground", + "premises": [ + "Applicants: Bob, Alice, Grace, Diana, and Eve.", + "Programs: Training Program, Housing Assistance, Business License.", + "Bob's annual income is $25,000.", + "Bob is a local resident.", + "Bob is 42 years old.", + "Alice's annual income is $120,000.", + "Alice is 51 years old.", + "Alice is a local resident.", + "Grace's annual income is $120,000.", + "Grace has 2 years of experience.", + "Grace is not a local resident.", + "Diana has 0 years of experience.", + "Diana is not a local resident.", + "Diana is 40 years old.", + "Eve's annual income is $100,000.", + "Eve is 50 years old.", + "Eve has 15 years of experience.", + "Training Program is restricted to local residents.", + "Training Program requires annual income at most $60,000.", + "Housing Assistance requires annual income at most $40,000.", + "Business License requires annual income at least $50,000.", + "Business License requires applicants to be at least 21 years old.", + "Business License requires at least 2 years of experience." + ], + "formal_representation": "; Eligibility rules with numeric constraints (QF_LIA + Bool)", + "entities": { + "applicants": [ + "Bob", + "Alice", + "Grace", + "Diana", + "Eve" + ], + "programs": [ + "Training Program", + "Housing Assistance", + "Business License" + ] + }, + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 6, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Is Bob eligible for Housing Assistance while Alice is not?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "The comparison depends on unknown attributes; multiple scenarios are consistent.", + "query_type": "compare", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Can Eve be eligible for both Training Program and Housing Assistance?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "The requirements for Training Program and Housing Assistance are mutually exclusive for Eve's attributes.", + "query_type": "mutual_exclusive", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Is Alice eligible for Training Program while Eve is not?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "It's impossible for Alice to qualify while Eve doesn't, given their known attributes.", + "query_type": "compare", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Is Grace at least 40 years old?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "The premises don't determine whether Grace satisfies: at least 40.", + "query_type": "attribute", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Is Bob at least 30 years old?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "The premises directly establish that Bob satisfies: at least 30.", + "query_type": "attribute", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q5", + "query": "Is Grace at least 30 years old?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "The premises don't determine whether Grace satisfies: at least 30.", + "query_type": "attribute", + "depends_on": [ + 3 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "UNKNOWN": 3, + "CONTRADICTED": 2, + "ENTAILED": 1 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "pol_elig_0074", + "domain": "policy", + "subdomain": "eligibility", + "logic_type": "first_order_ground", + "premises": [ + "Applicants: Frank, Eve, Grace, Alice, and Diana.", + "Programs: Research Grant, Travel Visa.", + "Frank has 1 years of experience.", + "Eve's annual income is $35,000.", + "Eve is 61 years old.", + "Grace is not a local resident.", + "Grace's annual income is $35,000.", + "Alice is 48 years old.", + "Alice is not a local resident.", + "Alice has 9 years of experience.", + "Diana's annual income is $100,000.", + "Diana has 11 years of experience.", + "Research Grant is restricted to local residents.", + "Research Grant is restricted to local residents.", + "Research Grant is restricted to local residents.", + "Travel Visa is restricted to local residents.", + "Travel Visa requires at least 5 years of experience." + ], + "formal_representation": "; Eligibility rules with numeric constraints (QF_LIA + Bool)", + "entities": { + "applicants": [ + "Frank", + "Eve", + "Grace", + "Alice", + "Diana" + ], + "programs": [ + "Research Grant", + "Travel Visa" + ] + }, + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 7, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Is Grace eligible for Travel Visa?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "Grace fails at least one eligibility requirement for Travel Visa, making qualification impossible.", + "query_type": "eligible", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Is Alice at least 50 years old?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "The premises establish that Alice does not satisfy: at least 50.", + "query_type": "attribute", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Is Diana eligible for Research Grant while Eve is not?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "The comparison depends on unknown attributes; multiple scenarios are consistent.", + "query_type": "compare", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Is Eve eligible for Research Grant while Diana is not?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "The comparison depends on unknown attributes; multiple scenarios are consistent.", + "query_type": "compare", + "depends_on": [ + 2 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Does Alice earn at least $100,000?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "The premises don't determine whether Alice satisfies: income >= $100,000.", + "query_type": "attribute", + "depends_on": [ + 1 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q5", + "query": "Is Alice at least 40 years old?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "The premises directly establish that Alice satisfies: at least 40.", + "query_type": "attribute", + "depends_on": [ + 1, + 4 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q6", + "query": "Does Eve qualify for Research Grant?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some of Eve's attributes are unknown; they might or might not meet all Research Grant requirements.", + "query_type": "eligible", + "depends_on": [ + 2, + 3 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "CONTRADICTED": 2, + "UNKNOWN": 4, + "ENTAILED": 1 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "pol_elig_0014", + "domain": "policy", + "subdomain": "eligibility", + "logic_type": "first_order_ground", + "premises": [ + "Applicants: Charlie, Frank, Alice, and Hank.", + "Programs: Training Program, Research Grant, Travel Visa.", + "Charlie has 18 years of experience.", + "Charlie is 26 years old.", + "Charlie's annual income is $100,000.", + "Frank is 41 years old.", + "Alice is 28 years old.", + "Hank has 10 years of experience.", + "Hank's annual income is $100,000.", + "Training Program requires annual income at least $20,000.", + "Training Program requires annual income at most $60,000.", + "Training Program requires at least 5 years of experience.", + "Research Grant is only available to applicants 65 or younger.", + "Research Grant requires applicants to be at least 35 years old.", + "Travel Visa requires annual income at most $40,000.", + "Travel Visa is only available to applicants 60 or younger.", + "Travel Visa is restricted to local residents." + ], + "formal_representation": "; Eligibility rules with numeric constraints (QF_LIA + Bool)", + "entities": { + "applicants": [ + "Charlie", + "Frank", + "Alice", + "Hank" + ], + "programs": [ + "Training Program", + "Research Grant", + "Travel Visa" + ] + }, + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 6, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Can Frank be eligible for both Training Program and Travel Visa?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether Frank can qualify for both depends on unknown attribute values.", + "query_type": "mutual_exclusive", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Is Charlie at least 40 years old?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "The premises establish that Charlie does not satisfy: at least 40.", + "query_type": "attribute", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Can Hank be eligible for both Training Program and Travel Visa?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "The requirements for Training Program and Travel Visa are mutually exclusive for Hank's attributes.", + "query_type": "mutual_exclusive", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Is Alice at least 30 years old?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "The premises establish that Alice does not satisfy: at least 30.", + "query_type": "attribute", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Does Hank qualify for Training Program?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "Hank fails at least one eligibility requirement for Training Program, making qualification impossible.", + "query_type": "eligible", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 2 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q5", + "query": "Is Alice at least 40 years old?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "The premises establish that Alice does not satisfy: at least 40.", + "query_type": "attribute", + "depends_on": [ + 3 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "UNKNOWN": 1, + "CONTRADICTED": 5 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "pol_elig_0023", + "domain": "policy", + "subdomain": "eligibility", + "logic_type": "first_order_ground", + "premises": [ + "Applicants: Hank, Eve, Diana, Alice, Frank, and Charlie.", + "Programs: Health Coverage, Tax Credit.", + "Hank's annual income is $80,000.", + "Eve is 63 years old.", + "Diana's annual income is $35,000.", + "Alice has 5 years of experience.", + "Frank has 17 years of experience.", + "Frank's annual income is $100,000.", + "Frank is 40 years old.", + "Charlie is 20 years old.", + "Charlie has 18 years of experience.", + "Charlie is not a local resident.", + "Health Coverage requires at least 5 years of experience.", + "Tax Credit requires annual income at least $50,000.", + "Tax Credit is restricted to local residents.", + "Tax Credit requires at least 8 years of experience." + ], + "formal_representation": "; Eligibility rules with numeric constraints (QF_LIA + Bool)", + "entities": { + "applicants": [ + "Hank", + "Eve", + "Diana", + "Alice", + "Frank", + "Charlie" + ], + "programs": [ + "Health Coverage", + "Tax Credit" + ] + }, + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 8, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Does Charlie earn at least $50,000?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "The premises don't determine whether Charlie satisfies: income >= $50,000.", + "query_type": "attribute", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Is Eve at least 40 years old?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "The premises directly establish that Eve satisfies: at least 40.", + "query_type": "attribute", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Is Charlie at least 50 years old?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "The premises establish that Charlie does not satisfy: at least 50.", + "query_type": "attribute", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Does Frank qualify for Tax Credit?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some of Frank's attributes are unknown; they might or might not meet all Tax Credit requirements.", + "query_type": "eligible", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Does Diana earn at least $75,000?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "The premises establish that Diana does not satisfy: income >= $75,000.", + "query_type": "attribute", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q5", + "query": "Is Frank eligible for Health Coverage while Diana is not?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "The comparison depends on unknown attributes; multiple scenarios are consistent.", + "query_type": "compare", + "depends_on": [ + 3, + 4 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q6", + "query": "Is Eve at least 50 years old?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "The premises directly establish that Eve satisfies: at least 50.", + "query_type": "attribute", + "depends_on": [ + 1 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q7", + "query": "Does Frank earn at least $100,000?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "The premises directly establish that Frank satisfies: income >= $100,000.", + "query_type": "attribute", + "depends_on": [ + 3, + 5 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "UNKNOWN": 3, + "ENTAILED": 3, + "CONTRADICTED": 2 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "pol_access_0093", + "domain": "policy", + "subdomain": "access_control", + "logic_type": "first_order_ground", + "premises": [ + "There are 4 employees: Alice, Diana, Jack, and Charlie.", + "Available roles: Contractor, Intern, Guest.", + "Resources: HR Portal, Customer Data, Analytics Dashboard, Financial Records, Deployment Pipeline, Database.", + "Each employee has exactly one role.", + "Any Intern can access Deployment Pipeline.", + "Any Contractor can access Database.", + "A Guest who can access Database also gets access to HR Portal.", + "A Guest who can access Deployment Pipeline also gets access to Financial Records.", + "Alice is a Intern.", + "Jack is a Contractor." + ], + "formal_representation": "; Policy domain: role-based access control\n; ('grant', 'Intern', 'Deployment Pipeline')\n; ('grant', 'Contractor', 'Database')\n; ('conditional', 'Guest', 'Database', 'HR Portal')\n; ('conditional', 'Guest', 'Deployment Pipeline', 'Financial Records')\n; ('assigned', 'Alice', 'Intern')\n; ('assigned', 'Jack', 'Contractor')", + "entities": { + "people": [ + "Alice", + "Diana", + "Jack", + "Charlie" + ], + "roles": [ + "Contractor", + "Intern", + "Guest" + ], + "resources": [ + "HR Portal", + "Customer Data", + "Analytics Dashboard", + "Financial Records", + "Deployment Pipeline", + "Database" + ] + }, + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 7, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Can both Jack and Diana access Analytics Dashboard?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether both can access Analytics Dashboard depends on their role assignments, which are not fully constrained.", + "query_type": "two_people", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Is Charlie permitted to use HR Portal?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether Charlie can access HR Portal depends on their role assignment, which is not fully determined.", + "query_type": "can_access", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Must Alice be a Guest?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "Assigning Alice the Guest role would violate one or more constraints.", + "query_type": "must_have_role", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Can both Alice and Charlie access Analytics Dashboard?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether both can access Analytics Dashboard depends on their role assignments, which are not fully constrained.", + "query_type": "two_people", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1, + 2 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Can both Charlie and Jack hold the Intern role?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "At most one of Charlie or Jack can be a Intern, due to the single-role constraint and other assignments.", + "query_type": "exclusive", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1, + 3 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q5", + "query": "Can both Charlie and Alice access Analytics Dashboard?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether both can access Analytics Dashboard depends on their role assignments, which are not fully constrained.", + "query_type": "two_people", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1, + 2, + 3, + 4 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q6", + "query": "Must Diana be a Contractor?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Multiple role assignments are consistent with the constraints; Diana may or may not be a Contractor.", + "query_type": "must_have_role", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "UNKNOWN": 5, + "CONTRADICTED": 2 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "pol_access_0078", + "domain": "policy", + "subdomain": "access_control", + "logic_type": "first_order_ground", + "premises": [ + "There are 4 employees: Iris, Grace, Bob, and Jack.", + "Available roles: Analyst, Auditor, Guest.", + "Resources: Customer Data, HR Portal, Database, Deployment Pipeline.", + "Each employee has exactly one role.", + "No Analyst may access Deployment Pipeline.", + "A Auditor who can access Database also gets access to HR Portal.", + "Any Guest can access HR Portal.", + "A Analyst who can access Database also gets access to HR Portal.", + "No Guest may access Database.", + "Any Auditor can access Deployment Pipeline.", + "Iris is a Auditor.", + "Grace is a Guest." + ], + "formal_representation": "; Policy domain: role-based access control\n; ('deny', 'Analyst', 'Deployment Pipeline')\n; ('conditional', 'Auditor', 'Database', 'HR Portal')\n; ('grant', 'Guest', 'HR Portal')\n; ('conditional', 'Analyst', 'Database', 'HR Portal')\n; ('deny', 'Guest', 'Database')\n; ('grant', 'Auditor', 'Deployment Pipeline')\n; ('assigned', 'Iris', 'Auditor')\n; ('assigned', 'Grace', 'Guest')", + "entities": { + "people": [ + "Iris", + "Grace", + "Bob", + "Jack" + ], + "roles": [ + "Analyst", + "Auditor", + "Guest" + ], + "resources": [ + "Customer Data", + "HR Portal", + "Database", + "Deployment Pipeline" + ] + }, + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 6, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Can Bob have the Analyst role?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Multiple role assignments are consistent with the constraints; Bob may or may not be a Analyst.", + "query_type": "must_have_role", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Is Jack permitted to use Customer Data?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether Jack can access Customer Data depends on their role assignment, which is not fully determined.", + "query_type": "can_access", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Does Grace have access rights to Deployment Pipeline?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether Grace can access Deployment Pipeline depends on their role assignment, which is not fully determined.", + "query_type": "can_access", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Can Bob have the Guest role?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Multiple role assignments are consistent with the constraints; Bob may or may not be a Guest.", + "query_type": "must_have_role", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Can both Bob and Jack access Deployment Pipeline?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether both can access Deployment Pipeline depends on their role assignments, which are not fully constrained.", + "query_type": "two_people", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1, + 2, + 3 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q5", + "query": "Does Bob have access rights to Customer Data?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether Bob can access Customer Data depends on their role assignment, which is not fully determined.", + "query_type": "can_access", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1, + 3, + 4 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "UNKNOWN": 6 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "pol_elig_0010", + "domain": "policy", + "subdomain": "eligibility", + "logic_type": "first_order_ground", + "premises": [ + "Applicants: Bob, Eve, Hank, Grace, Charlie, and Frank.", + "Programs: Training Program, Business License.", + "Bob's annual income is $65,000.", + "Bob is not a local resident.", + "Eve's annual income is $50,000.", + "Hank is a local resident.", + "Grace is a local resident.", + "Grace has 18 years of experience.", + "Charlie has 18 years of experience.", + "Charlie is a local resident.", + "Frank is not a local resident.", + "Frank's annual income is $65,000.", + "Frank is 26 years old.", + "Training Program is restricted to local residents.", + "Training Program is restricted to local residents.", + "Business License is restricted to local residents." + ], + "formal_representation": "; Eligibility rules with numeric constraints (QF_LIA + Bool)", + "entities": { + "applicants": [ + "Bob", + "Eve", + "Hank", + "Grace", + "Charlie", + "Frank" + ], + "programs": [ + "Training Program", + "Business License" + ] + }, + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 5, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Is Bob eligible for Business License while Eve is not?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "It's impossible for Bob to qualify while Eve doesn't, given their known attributes.", + "query_type": "compare", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Does Bob qualify for Business License?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "Bob fails at least one eligibility requirement for Business License, making qualification impossible.", + "query_type": "eligible", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Is Eve eligible for Training Program while Frank is not?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "The comparison depends on unknown attributes; multiple scenarios are consistent.", + "query_type": "compare", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Can Bob apply for Training Program?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "Bob fails at least one eligibility requirement for Training Program, making qualification impossible.", + "query_type": "eligible", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1, + 2 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Is Eve eligible for Business License?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some of Eve's attributes are unknown; they might or might not meet all Business License requirements.", + "query_type": "eligible", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1, + 2 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "CONTRADICTED": 3, + "UNKNOWN": 2 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "pol_access_0072", + "domain": "policy", + "subdomain": "access_control", + "logic_type": "first_order_ground", + "premises": [ + "There are 6 employees: Bob, Charlie, Jack, Frank, Eve, and Alice.", + "Available roles: Analyst, Intern, Guest.", + "Resources: Database, Admin Panel, Analytics Dashboard, API Gateway.", + "Each employee has exactly one role.", + "No Analyst may access Analytics Dashboard.", + "No Intern may access Analytics Dashboard.", + "A Analyst who can access Database also gets access to Admin Panel.", + "A Intern who can access Database also gets access to Admin Panel.", + "A Intern who can access Analytics Dashboard also gets access to Database.", + "No Analyst may access API Gateway.", + "Bob is a Intern.", + "Eve is a Guest." + ], + "formal_representation": "; Policy domain: role-based access control\n; ('deny', 'Analyst', 'Analytics Dashboard')\n; ('deny', 'Intern', 'Analytics Dashboard')\n; ('conditional', 'Analyst', 'Database', 'Admin Panel')\n; ('conditional', 'Intern', 'Database', 'Admin Panel')\n; ('conditional', 'Intern', 'Analytics Dashboard', 'Database')\n; ('deny', 'Analyst', 'API Gateway')\n; ('assigned', 'Bob', 'Intern')\n; ('assigned', 'Eve', 'Guest')", + "entities": { + "people": [ + "Bob", + "Charlie", + "Jack", + "Frank", + "Eve", + "Alice" + ], + "roles": [ + "Analyst", + "Intern", + "Guest" + ], + "resources": [ + "Database", + "Admin Panel", + "Analytics Dashboard", + "API Gateway" + ] + }, + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 7, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Is Charlie permitted to use Admin Panel?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether Charlie can access Admin Panel depends on their role assignment, which is not fully determined.", + "query_type": "can_access", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Must Bob be a Guest?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "Assigning Bob the Guest role would violate one or more constraints.", + "query_type": "must_have_role", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Can Frank have the Intern role?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Multiple role assignments are consistent with the constraints; Frank may or may not be a Intern.", + "query_type": "must_have_role", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Must Eve be a Analyst?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "Assigning Eve the Analyst role would violate one or more constraints.", + "query_type": "must_have_role", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Can both Charlie and Jack access Analytics Dashboard?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether both can access Analytics Dashboard depends on their role assignments, which are not fully constrained.", + "query_type": "two_people", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q5", + "query": "Can Alice access Analytics Dashboard?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether Alice can access Analytics Dashboard depends on their role assignment, which is not fully determined.", + "query_type": "can_access", + "depends_on": [ + 4 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q6", + "query": "Can both Bob and Charlie access Database?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether both can access Database depends on their role assignments, which are not fully constrained.", + "query_type": "two_people", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1, + 4 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "UNKNOWN": 5, + "CONTRADICTED": 2 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "pol_elig_0083", + "domain": "policy", + "subdomain": "eligibility", + "logic_type": "first_order_ground", + "premises": [ + "Applicants: Grace, Eve, Frank, and Diana.", + "Programs: Business License, Training Program, Research Grant.", + "Grace is a local resident.", + "Grace has 5 years of experience.", + "Grace's annual income is $80,000.", + "Eve is 40 years old.", + "Frank has 19 years of experience.", + "Frank is a local resident.", + "Diana is not a local resident.", + "Business License requires annual income at least $30,000.", + "Business License requires annual income at least $30,000.", + "Training Program requires annual income at least $50,000.", + "Training Program requires applicants to be at least 21 years old.", + "Training Program requires applicants to be at least 21 years old.", + "Research Grant requires at least 8 years of experience.", + "Research Grant requires annual income at most $40,000." + ], + "formal_representation": "; Eligibility rules with numeric constraints (QF_LIA + Bool)", + "entities": { + "applicants": [ + "Grace", + "Eve", + "Frank", + "Diana" + ], + "programs": [ + "Business License", + "Training Program", + "Research Grant" + ] + }, + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 8, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Does Frank earn at least $75,000?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "The premises don't determine whether Frank satisfies: income >= $75,000.", + "query_type": "attribute", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Is Diana eligible for Training Program?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some of Diana's attributes are unknown; they might or might not meet all Training Program requirements.", + "query_type": "eligible", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Does Eve earn at least $100,000?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "The premises don't determine whether Eve satisfies: income >= $100,000.", + "query_type": "attribute", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Is Frank at least 30 years old?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "The premises don't determine whether Frank satisfies: at least 30.", + "query_type": "attribute", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Is Eve eligible for Training Program while Grace is not?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "The comparison depends on unknown attributes; multiple scenarios are consistent.", + "query_type": "compare", + "depends_on": [ + 1, + 2 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q5", + "query": "Is Grace eligible for Business License while Diana is not?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "The comparison depends on unknown attributes; multiple scenarios are consistent.", + "query_type": "compare", + "depends_on": [ + 1, + 4 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q6", + "query": "Is Grace eligible for Research Grant while Diana is not?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "It's impossible for Grace to qualify while Diana doesn't, given their known attributes.", + "query_type": "compare", + "depends_on": [ + 1, + 4, + 5 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q7", + "query": "Can Diana be eligible for both Business License and Research Grant?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether Diana can qualify for both depends on unknown attribute values.", + "query_type": "mutual_exclusive", + "depends_on": [ + 1, + 5, + 6 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "UNKNOWN": 7, + "CONTRADICTED": 1 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "pol_access_0069", + "domain": "policy", + "subdomain": "access_control", + "logic_type": "first_order_ground", + "premises": [ + "There are 5 employees: Hank, Frank, Diana, Charlie, and Bob.", + "Available roles: Developer, Admin, Guest.", + "Resources: Audit Logs, Financial Records, Customer Data, Config Server, HR Portal, Database.", + "Each employee has exactly one role.", + "Any Guest can access Financial Records.", + "A Guest who can access Config Server also gets access to Financial Records.", + "Any Guest can access Financial Records.", + "Any Developer can access Audit Logs.", + "No Guest may access Customer Data.", + "Diana is a Guest.", + "Hank is a Admin.", + "Charlie is a Guest.", + "Frank is a Developer." + ], + "formal_representation": "; Policy domain: role-based access control\n; ('grant', 'Guest', 'Financial Records')\n; ('conditional', 'Guest', 'Config Server', 'Financial Records')\n; ('grant', 'Guest', 'Financial Records')\n; ('grant', 'Developer', 'Audit Logs')\n; ('deny', 'Guest', 'Customer Data')\n; ('assigned', 'Diana', 'Guest')\n; ('assigned', 'Hank', 'Admin')\n; ('assigned', 'Charlie', 'Guest')\n; ('assigned', 'Frank', 'Developer')", + "entities": { + "people": [ + "Hank", + "Frank", + "Diana", + "Charlie", + "Bob" + ], + "roles": [ + "Developer", + "Admin", + "Guest" + ], + "resources": [ + "Audit Logs", + "Financial Records", + "Customer Data", + "Config Server", + "HR Portal", + "Database" + ] + }, + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 7, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Can both Hank and Bob hold the Admin role?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "It's possible for both to be Admins, but also possible for one or both to have different roles.", + "query_type": "exclusive", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Can both Bob and Diana hold the Admin role?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "At most one of Bob or Diana can be a Admin, due to the single-role constraint and other assignments.", + "query_type": "exclusive", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Can both Diana and Hank hold the Developer role?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "At most one of Diana or Hank can be a Developer, due to the single-role constraint and other assignments.", + "query_type": "exclusive", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Can both Bob and Charlie hold the Admin role?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "At most one of Bob or Charlie can be a Admin, due to the single-role constraint and other assignments.", + "query_type": "exclusive", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Can both Bob and Frank access Database?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether both can access Database depends on their role assignments, which are not fully constrained.", + "query_type": "two_people", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1, + 3 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q5", + "query": "Can both Frank and Bob access HR Portal?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether both can access HR Portal depends on their role assignments, which are not fully constrained.", + "query_type": "two_people", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1, + 3, + 4 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q6", + "query": "Can both Charlie and Diana hold the Admin role?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "At most one of Charlie or Diana can be a Admin, due to the single-role constraint and other assignments.", + "query_type": "exclusive", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1, + 2, + 3 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "UNKNOWN": 3, + "CONTRADICTED": 4 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "pol_access_0017", + "domain": "policy", + "subdomain": "access_control", + "logic_type": "first_order_ground", + "premises": [ + "There are 5 employees: Jack, Diana, Eve, Iris, and Hank.", + "Available roles: Admin, Analyst, Developer.", + "Resources: API Gateway, Analytics Dashboard, HR Portal, Audit Logs.", + "Each employee has exactly one role.", + "A Analyst who can access API Gateway also gets access to Analytics Dashboard.", + "A Developer who can access Analytics Dashboard also gets access to Audit Logs.", + "A Analyst who can access API Gateway also gets access to Audit Logs.", + "Hank is a Developer.", + "Jack is a Analyst." + ], + "formal_representation": "; Policy domain: role-based access control\n; ('conditional', 'Analyst', 'API Gateway', 'Analytics Dashboard')\n; ('conditional', 'Developer', 'Analytics Dashboard', 'Audit Logs')\n; ('conditional', 'Analyst', 'API Gateway', 'Audit Logs')\n; ('assigned', 'Hank', 'Developer')\n; ('assigned', 'Jack', 'Analyst')", + "entities": { + "people": [ + "Jack", + "Diana", + "Eve", + "Iris", + "Hank" + ], + "roles": [ + "Admin", + "Analyst", + "Developer" + ], + "resources": [ + "API Gateway", + "Analytics Dashboard", + "HR Portal", + "Audit Logs" + ] + }, + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 8, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Is Jack permitted to use Audit Logs?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether Jack can access Audit Logs depends on their role assignment, which is not fully determined.", + "query_type": "can_access", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Can both Hank and Eve hold the Admin role?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "At most one of Hank or Eve can be a Admin, due to the single-role constraint and other assignments.", + "query_type": "exclusive", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Can Diana access HR Portal?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether Diana can access HR Portal depends on their role assignment, which is not fully determined.", + "query_type": "can_access", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Can Hank access API Gateway?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether Hank can access API Gateway depends on their role assignment, which is not fully determined.", + "query_type": "can_access", + "depends_on": [ + 1 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Can both Iris and Eve hold the Developer role?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "It's possible for both to be Developers, but also possible for one or both to have different roles.", + "query_type": "exclusive", + "depends_on": [ + 1 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q5", + "query": "Can both Eve and Jack hold the Developer role?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "At most one of Eve or Jack can be a Developer, due to the single-role constraint and other assignments.", + "query_type": "exclusive", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1, + 4 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q6", + "query": "Can both Diana and Eve hold the Developer role?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "It's possible for both to be Developers, but also possible for one or both to have different roles.", + "query_type": "exclusive", + "depends_on": [ + 1, + 2, + 4, + 5 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q7", + "query": "Can both Iris and Jack access HR Portal?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether both can access HR Portal depends on their role assignments, which are not fully constrained.", + "query_type": "two_people", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 2, + 4, + 5 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "UNKNOWN": 6, + "CONTRADICTED": 2 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "pol_elig_0092", + "domain": "policy", + "subdomain": "eligibility", + "logic_type": "first_order_ground", + "premises": [ + "Applicants: Diana, Eve, Charlie, Frank, Bob, and Alice.", + "Programs: Scholarship, Tax Credit.", + "Diana's annual income is $35,000.", + "Diana is 54 years old.", + "Diana has 12 years of experience.", + "Eve is not a local resident.", + "Charlie's annual income is $65,000.", + "Charlie is 64 years old.", + "Frank is not a local resident.", + "Bob is 31 years old.", + "Bob is not a local resident.", + "Bob's annual income is $25,000.", + "Alice's annual income is $65,000.", + "Alice is not a local resident.", + "Alice is 51 years old.", + "Scholarship requires applicants to be at least 35 years old.", + "Scholarship is only available to applicants 45 or younger.", + "Tax Credit requires annual income at most $80,000." + ], + "formal_representation": "; Eligibility rules with numeric constraints (QF_LIA + Bool)", + "entities": { + "applicants": [ + "Diana", + "Eve", + "Charlie", + "Frank", + "Bob", + "Alice" + ], + "programs": [ + "Scholarship", + "Tax Credit" + ] + }, + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 5, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Is Alice eligible for Scholarship while Frank is not?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "It's impossible for Alice to qualify while Frank doesn't, given their known attributes.", + "query_type": "compare", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Is Eve eligible for Tax Credit?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some of Eve's attributes are unknown; they might or might not meet all Tax Credit requirements.", + "query_type": "eligible", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Can Diana be eligible for both Tax Credit and Scholarship?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "The requirements for Tax Credit and Scholarship are mutually exclusive for Diana's attributes.", + "query_type": "mutual_exclusive", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Can Frank be eligible for both Scholarship and Tax Credit?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether Frank can qualify for both depends on unknown attribute values.", + "query_type": "mutual_exclusive", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1, + 2 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Is Alice at least 30 years old?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "The premises directly establish that Alice satisfies: at least 30.", + "query_type": "attribute", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "CONTRADICTED": 2, + "UNKNOWN": 2, + "ENTAILED": 1 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "pol_access_0019", + "domain": "policy", + "subdomain": "access_control", + "logic_type": "first_order_ground", + "premises": [ + "There are 4 employees: Bob, Jack, Hank, and Frank.", + "Available roles: Analyst, Admin, Auditor, Intern, Developer.", + "Resources: Config Server, Database, Source Code, Deployment Pipeline, HR Portal.", + "Each employee has exactly one role.", + "A Analyst who can access Config Server also gets access to Deployment Pipeline.", + "A Auditor who can access Deployment Pipeline also gets access to Config Server.", + "No Admin may access HR Portal.", + "No Intern may access Config Server.", + "Frank is a Intern.", + "Hank is a Intern." + ], + "formal_representation": "; Policy domain: role-based access control\n; ('conditional', 'Analyst', 'Config Server', 'Deployment Pipeline')\n; ('conditional', 'Auditor', 'Deployment Pipeline', 'Config Server')\n; ('deny', 'Admin', 'HR Portal')\n; ('deny', 'Intern', 'Config Server')\n; ('assigned', 'Frank', 'Intern')\n; ('assigned', 'Hank', 'Intern')", + "entities": { + "people": [ + "Bob", + "Jack", + "Hank", + "Frank" + ], + "roles": [ + "Analyst", + "Admin", + "Auditor", + "Intern", + "Developer" + ], + "resources": [ + "Config Server", + "Database", + "Source Code", + "Deployment Pipeline", + "HR Portal" + ] + }, + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 6, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Is Jack permitted to use Config Server?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether Jack can access Config Server depends on their role assignment, which is not fully determined.", + "query_type": "can_access", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Must Jack be a Admin?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Multiple role assignments are consistent with the constraints; Jack may or may not be a Admin.", + "query_type": "must_have_role", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Is it guaranteed that Jack holds the Admin role?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Multiple role assignments are consistent with the constraints; Jack may or may not be a Admin.", + "query_type": "must_have_role", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Can both Bob and Frank access Source Code?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether both can access Source Code depends on their role assignments, which are not fully constrained.", + "query_type": "two_people", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Does Hank have access rights to Deployment Pipeline?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether Hank can access Deployment Pipeline depends on their role assignment, which is not fully determined.", + "query_type": "can_access", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q5", + "query": "Can Jack access Database?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether Jack can access Database depends on their role assignment, which is not fully determined.", + "query_type": "can_access", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1, + 2 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "UNKNOWN": 6 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "pol_elig_0038", + "domain": "policy", + "subdomain": "eligibility", + "logic_type": "first_order_ground", + "premises": [ + "Applicants: Eve, Charlie, Bob, and Diana.", + "Programs: Training Program, Travel Visa.", + "Eve has 18 years of experience.", + "Eve is 62 years old.", + "Eve's annual income is $80,000.", + "Charlie has 19 years of experience.", + "Charlie's annual income is $50,000.", + "Charlie is 53 years old.", + "Bob is 61 years old.", + "Bob has 19 years of experience.", + "Diana is a local resident.", + "Diana has 1 years of experience.", + "Training Program requires applicants to be at least 35 years old.", + "Travel Visa requires annual income at least $20,000." + ], + "formal_representation": "; Eligibility rules with numeric constraints (QF_LIA + Bool)", + "entities": { + "applicants": [ + "Eve", + "Charlie", + "Bob", + "Diana" + ], + "programs": [ + "Training Program", + "Travel Visa" + ] + }, + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 7, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Can Eve be eligible for both Training Program and Travel Visa?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether Eve can qualify for both depends on unknown attribute values.", + "query_type": "mutual_exclusive", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Is Eve at least 40 years old?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "The premises directly establish that Eve satisfies: at least 40.", + "query_type": "attribute", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Is Charlie at least 30 years old?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "The premises directly establish that Charlie satisfies: at least 30.", + "query_type": "attribute", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Can Eve be eligible for both Travel Visa and Training Program?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether Eve can qualify for both depends on unknown attribute values.", + "query_type": "mutual_exclusive", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Can Charlie apply for Training Program?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some of Charlie's attributes are unknown; they might or might not meet all Training Program requirements.", + "query_type": "eligible", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 2, + 3 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q5", + "query": "Can Charlie be eligible for both Training Program and Travel Visa?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether Charlie can qualify for both depends on unknown attribute values.", + "query_type": "mutual_exclusive", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 2, + 3, + 4 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q6", + "query": "Is Charlie eligible for Travel Visa?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some of Charlie's attributes are unknown; they might or might not meet all Travel Visa requirements.", + "query_type": "eligible", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 2, + 3, + 4, + 5 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "UNKNOWN": 5, + "ENTAILED": 2 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "pol_access_0091", + "domain": "policy", + "subdomain": "access_control", + "logic_type": "first_order_ground", + "premises": [ + "There are 6 employees: Grace, Bob, Charlie, Frank, Eve, and Hank.", + "Available roles: Auditor, Manager, Intern, Contractor, Analyst.", + "Resources: Deployment Pipeline, Database, Admin Panel, Audit Logs.", + "Each employee has exactly one role.", + "A Contractor who can access Database also gets access to Audit Logs.", + "A Manager who can access Admin Panel also gets access to Deployment Pipeline.", + "Any Analyst can access Audit Logs.", + "Any Auditor can access Database.", + "A Contractor who can access Audit Logs also gets access to Admin Panel.", + "Frank is a Analyst.", + "Charlie is a Auditor.", + "Eve is a Analyst.", + "Bob is a Contractor." + ], + "formal_representation": "; Policy domain: role-based access control\n; ('conditional', 'Contractor', 'Database', 'Audit Logs')\n; ('conditional', 'Manager', 'Admin Panel', 'Deployment Pipeline')\n; ('grant', 'Analyst', 'Audit Logs')\n; ('grant', 'Auditor', 'Database')\n; ('conditional', 'Contractor', 'Audit Logs', 'Admin Panel')\n; ('assigned', 'Frank', 'Analyst')\n; ('assigned', 'Charlie', 'Auditor')\n; ('assigned', 'Eve', 'Analyst')\n; ('assigned', 'Bob', 'Contractor')", + "entities": { + "people": [ + "Grace", + "Bob", + "Charlie", + "Frank", + "Eve", + "Hank" + ], + "roles": [ + "Auditor", + "Manager", + "Intern", + "Contractor", + "Analyst" + ], + "resources": [ + "Deployment Pipeline", + "Database", + "Admin Panel", + "Audit Logs" + ] + }, + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 5, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Does Grace have access rights to Deployment Pipeline?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether Grace can access Deployment Pipeline depends on their role assignment, which is not fully determined.", + "query_type": "can_access", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Is Bob permitted to use Audit Logs?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether Bob can access Audit Logs depends on their role assignment, which is not fully determined.", + "query_type": "can_access", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Must Hank be a Manager?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Multiple role assignments are consistent with the constraints; Hank may or may not be a Manager.", + "query_type": "must_have_role", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Can both Bob and Hank access Audit Logs?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether both can access Audit Logs depends on their role assignments, which are not fully constrained.", + "query_type": "two_people", + "depends_on": [ + 1, + 2 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Can Grace have the Analyst role?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Multiple role assignments are consistent with the constraints; Grace may or may not be a Analyst.", + "query_type": "must_have_role", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "UNKNOWN": 5 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "pol_access_0028", + "domain": "policy", + "subdomain": "access_control", + "logic_type": "first_order_ground", + "premises": [ + "There are 4 employees: Bob, Hank, Alice, and Charlie.", + "Available roles: Manager, Intern, Auditor, Analyst, Developer.", + "Resources: Admin Panel, Analytics Dashboard, Source Code, API Gateway.", + "Each employee has exactly one role.", + "Any Manager can access Analytics Dashboard.", + "A Developer who can access API Gateway also gets access to Analytics Dashboard.", + "Any Analyst can access Admin Panel.", + "A Intern who can access API Gateway also gets access to Analytics Dashboard.", + "Bob is a Auditor.", + "Hank is a Intern.", + "Alice is a Intern.", + "Charlie is a Analyst." + ], + "formal_representation": "; Policy domain: role-based access control\n; ('grant', 'Manager', 'Analytics Dashboard')\n; ('conditional', 'Developer', 'API Gateway', 'Analytics Dashboard')\n; ('grant', 'Analyst', 'Admin Panel')\n; ('conditional', 'Intern', 'API Gateway', 'Analytics Dashboard')\n; ('assigned', 'Bob', 'Auditor')\n; ('assigned', 'Hank', 'Intern')\n; ('assigned', 'Alice', 'Intern')\n; ('assigned', 'Charlie', 'Analyst')", + "entities": { + "people": [ + "Bob", + "Hank", + "Alice", + "Charlie" + ], + "roles": [ + "Manager", + "Intern", + "Auditor", + "Analyst", + "Developer" + ], + "resources": [ + "Admin Panel", + "Analytics Dashboard", + "Source Code", + "API Gateway" + ] + }, + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 8, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Is it guaranteed that Hank holds the Developer role?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "Assigning Hank the Developer role would violate one or more constraints.", + "query_type": "must_have_role", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Can both Bob and Hank hold the Manager role?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "At most one of Bob or Hank can be a Manager, due to the single-role constraint and other assignments.", + "query_type": "exclusive", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Can both Bob and Charlie access Admin Panel?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether both can access Admin Panel depends on their role assignments, which are not fully constrained.", + "query_type": "two_people", + "depends_on": [ + 1 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Can both Alice and Charlie hold the Developer role?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "At most one of Alice or Charlie can be a Developer, due to the single-role constraint and other assignments.", + "query_type": "exclusive", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 2 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Does Hank have access rights to Admin Panel?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether Hank can access Admin Panel depends on their role assignment, which is not fully determined.", + "query_type": "can_access", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1, + 2 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q5", + "query": "Can both Hank and Alice access Analytics Dashboard?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether both can access Analytics Dashboard depends on their role assignments, which are not fully constrained.", + "query_type": "two_people", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1, + 3, + 4 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q6", + "query": "Can both Charlie and Bob access API Gateway?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether both can access API Gateway depends on their role assignments, which are not fully constrained.", + "query_type": "two_people", + "depends_on": [ + 1, + 2, + 3 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q7", + "query": "Can both Hank and Alice hold the Developer role?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "At most one of Hank or Alice can be a Developer, due to the single-role constraint and other assignments.", + "query_type": "exclusive", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1, + 3, + 4, + 5 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "CONTRADICTED": 4, + "UNKNOWN": 4 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "pol_elig_0041", + "domain": "policy", + "subdomain": "eligibility", + "logic_type": "first_order_ground", + "premises": [ + "Applicants: Diana, Eve, Alice, and Charlie.", + "Programs: Housing Assistance, Research Grant.", + "Diana is not a local resident.", + "Diana is 23 years old.", + "Eve is 38 years old.", + "Alice is 65 years old.", + "Charlie has 8 years of experience.", + "Charlie is a local resident.", + "Housing Assistance requires annual income at most $60,000.", + "Research Grant requires annual income at most $40,000." + ], + "formal_representation": "; Eligibility rules with numeric constraints (QF_LIA + Bool)", + "entities": { + "applicants": [ + "Diana", + "Eve", + "Alice", + "Charlie" + ], + "programs": [ + "Housing Assistance", + "Research Grant" + ] + }, + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 5, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Can Eve apply for Housing Assistance?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some of Eve's attributes are unknown; they might or might not meet all Housing Assistance requirements.", + "query_type": "eligible", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Is Eve at least 50 years old?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "The premises establish that Eve does not satisfy: at least 50.", + "query_type": "attribute", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Is Diana eligible for Housing Assistance while Alice is not?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "The comparison depends on unknown attributes; multiple scenarios are consistent.", + "query_type": "compare", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Does Alice earn at least $50,000?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "The premises don't determine whether Alice satisfies: income >= $50,000.", + "query_type": "attribute", + "depends_on": [ + 2 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Can Eve apply for Research Grant?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some of Eve's attributes are unknown; they might or might not meet all Research Grant requirements.", + "query_type": "eligible", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "UNKNOWN": 4, + "CONTRADICTED": 1 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "pol_elig_0095", + "domain": "policy", + "subdomain": "eligibility", + "logic_type": "first_order_ground", + "premises": [ + "Applicants: Eve, Alice, Hank, Frank, Diana, and Bob.", + "Programs: Business License, Housing Assistance, Research Grant.", + "Eve is not a local resident.", + "Alice's annual income is $80,000.", + "Alice is 53 years old.", + "Hank's annual income is $50,000.", + "Frank is a local resident.", + "Frank's annual income is $120,000.", + "Diana is 50 years old.", + "Diana has 4 years of experience.", + "Bob's annual income is $100,000.", + "Business License is only available to applicants 55 or younger.", + "Business License requires annual income at least $30,000.", + "Business License requires applicants to be at least 30 years old.", + "Housing Assistance requires annual income at least $20,000.", + "Housing Assistance requires at least 5 years of experience.", + "Research Grant is only available to applicants 55 or younger.", + "Research Grant requires annual income at least $30,000.", + "Research Grant is only available to applicants 60 or younger." + ], + "formal_representation": "; Eligibility rules with numeric constraints (QF_LIA + Bool)", + "entities": { + "applicants": [ + "Eve", + "Alice", + "Hank", + "Frank", + "Diana", + "Bob" + ], + "programs": [ + "Business License", + "Housing Assistance", + "Research Grant" + ] + }, + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 7, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Can Diana be eligible for both Research Grant and Housing Assistance?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "The requirements for Research Grant and Housing Assistance are mutually exclusive for Diana's attributes.", + "query_type": "mutual_exclusive", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Does Hank earn at least $50,000?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "The premises directly establish that Hank satisfies: income >= $50,000.", + "query_type": "attribute", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Is Bob eligible for Research Grant while Diana is not?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "The comparison depends on unknown attributes; multiple scenarios are consistent.", + "query_type": "compare", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Can Eve apply for Business License?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some of Eve's attributes are unknown; they might or might not meet all Business License requirements.", + "query_type": "eligible", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Can Diana be eligible for both Housing Assistance and Business License?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "The requirements for Housing Assistance and Business License are mutually exclusive for Diana's attributes.", + "query_type": "mutual_exclusive", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 2, + 3 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q5", + "query": "Can Alice apply for Business License?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some of Alice's attributes are unknown; they might or might not meet all Business License requirements.", + "query_type": "eligible", + "depends_on": [ + 3, + 4 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q6", + "query": "Is Frank eligible for Business License?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some of Frank's attributes are unknown; they might or might not meet all Business License requirements.", + "query_type": "eligible", + "depends_on": [ + 3, + 4, + 5 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "CONTRADICTED": 2, + "ENTAILED": 1, + "UNKNOWN": 4 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "pol_access_0009", + "domain": "policy", + "subdomain": "access_control", + "logic_type": "first_order_ground", + "premises": [ + "There are 5 employees: Alice, Eve, Iris, Bob, and Diana.", + "Available roles: Guest, Intern, Developer, Manager.", + "Resources: Financial Records, Audit Logs, Customer Data, Config Server, Admin Panel, HR Portal.", + "Each employee has exactly one role.", + "A Guest who can access Admin Panel also gets access to Financial Records.", + "A Guest who can access Customer Data also gets access to HR Portal.", + "No Guest may access Audit Logs.", + "Any Developer can access Audit Logs.", + "Any Guest can access Admin Panel.", + "No Intern may access Admin Panel.", + "Eve is a Guest.", + "Iris is a Guest.", + "Alice is a Intern." + ], + "formal_representation": "; Policy domain: role-based access control\n; ('conditional', 'Guest', 'Admin Panel', 'Financial Records')\n; ('conditional', 'Guest', 'Customer Data', 'HR Portal')\n; ('deny', 'Guest', 'Audit Logs')\n; ('grant', 'Developer', 'Audit Logs')\n; ('grant', 'Guest', 'Admin Panel')\n; ('deny', 'Intern', 'Admin Panel')\n; ('assigned', 'Eve', 'Guest')\n; ('assigned', 'Iris', 'Guest')\n; ('assigned', 'Alice', 'Intern')", + "entities": { + "people": [ + "Alice", + "Eve", + "Iris", + "Bob", + "Diana" + ], + "roles": [ + "Guest", + "Intern", + "Developer", + "Manager" + ], + "resources": [ + "Financial Records", + "Audit Logs", + "Customer Data", + "Config Server", + "Admin Panel", + "HR Portal" + ] + }, + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 7, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Can both Alice and Iris access Audit Logs?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "The rules prevent both Alice and Iris from simultaneously accessing Audit Logs.", + "query_type": "two_people", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Must Alice be a Developer?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "Assigning Alice the Developer role would violate one or more constraints.", + "query_type": "must_have_role", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Can both Eve and Iris access Financial Records?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "Both Eve and Iris's constraints guarantee them joint access to Financial Records.", + "query_type": "two_people", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Can both Diana and Eve hold the Developer role?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "At most one of Diana or Eve can be a Developer, due to the single-role constraint and other assignments.", + "query_type": "exclusive", + "depends_on": [ + 1, + 2 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Can both Eve and Iris access Admin Panel?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "Both Eve and Iris's constraints guarantee them joint access to Admin Panel.", + "query_type": "two_people", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1, + 2, + 3 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q5", + "query": "Can both Alice and Diana access Config Server?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether both can access Config Server depends on their role assignments, which are not fully constrained.", + "query_type": "two_people", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1, + 3 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q6", + "query": "Can both Diana and Alice hold the Manager role?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "At most one of Diana or Alice can be a Manager, due to the single-role constraint and other assignments.", + "query_type": "exclusive", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1, + 3, + 5 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "CONTRADICTED": 4, + "ENTAILED": 2, + "UNKNOWN": 1 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "pol_elig_0085", + "domain": "policy", + "subdomain": "eligibility", + "logic_type": "first_order_ground", + "premises": [ + "Applicants: Eve, Bob, Grace, Alice, and Hank.", + "Programs: Business License, Scholarship, Tax Credit.", + "Eve is 60 years old.", + "Bob is 51 years old.", + "Bob has 6 years of experience.", + "Grace is a local resident.", + "Alice is 32 years old.", + "Alice's annual income is $50,000.", + "Alice is not a local resident.", + "Hank is not a local resident.", + "Business License requires annual income at most $60,000.", + "Business License requires applicants to be at least 30 years old.", + "Scholarship requires at least 8 years of experience.", + "Scholarship requires annual income at most $60,000.", + "Scholarship requires annual income at least $20,000.", + "Tax Credit requires applicants to be at least 30 years old." + ], + "formal_representation": "; Eligibility rules with numeric constraints (QF_LIA + Bool)", + "entities": { + "applicants": [ + "Eve", + "Bob", + "Grace", + "Alice", + "Hank" + ], + "programs": [ + "Business License", + "Scholarship", + "Tax Credit" + ] + }, + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 7, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Can Hank apply for Scholarship?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some of Hank's attributes are unknown; they might or might not meet all Scholarship requirements.", + "query_type": "eligible", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Can Hank be eligible for both Scholarship and Tax Credit?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether Hank can qualify for both depends on unknown attribute values.", + "query_type": "mutual_exclusive", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Can Alice be eligible for both Business License and Scholarship?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether Alice can qualify for both depends on unknown attribute values.", + "query_type": "mutual_exclusive", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Is Hank at least 30 years old?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "The premises don't determine whether Hank satisfies: at least 30.", + "query_type": "attribute", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Is Grace eligible for Tax Credit?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some of Grace's attributes are unknown; they might or might not meet all Tax Credit requirements.", + "query_type": "eligible", + "depends_on": [ + 1 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q5", + "query": "Does Alice earn at least $50,000?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "The premises directly establish that Alice satisfies: income >= $50,000.", + "query_type": "attribute", + "depends_on": [ + 2 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q6", + "query": "Can Eve be eligible for both Scholarship and Tax Credit?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether Eve can qualify for both depends on unknown attribute values.", + "query_type": "mutual_exclusive", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1, + 2, + 4 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "UNKNOWN": 6, + "ENTAILED": 1 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "pol_elig_0098", + "domain": "policy", + "subdomain": "eligibility", + "logic_type": "first_order_ground", + "premises": [ + "Applicants: Eve, Frank, Charlie, Hank, and Alice.", + "Programs: Scholarship, Travel Visa.", + "Eve is not a local resident.", + "Eve is 53 years old.", + "Eve's annual income is $65,000.", + "Frank is not a local resident.", + "Frank is 57 years old.", + "Frank's annual income is $65,000.", + "Charlie has 9 years of experience.", + "Charlie is 64 years old.", + "Charlie's annual income is $80,000.", + "Hank is not a local resident.", + "Hank's annual income is $35,000.", + "Hank has 14 years of experience.", + "Alice's annual income is $100,000.", + "Alice has 2 years of experience.", + "Scholarship requires annual income at most $80,000.", + "Travel Visa is restricted to local residents.", + "Travel Visa is only available to applicants 55 or younger.", + "Travel Visa requires annual income at least $20,000." + ], + "formal_representation": "; Eligibility rules with numeric constraints (QF_LIA + Bool)", + "entities": { + "applicants": [ + "Eve", + "Frank", + "Charlie", + "Hank", + "Alice" + ], + "programs": [ + "Scholarship", + "Travel Visa" + ] + }, + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 7, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Is Alice eligible for Scholarship while Eve is not?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "It's impossible for Alice to qualify while Eve doesn't, given their known attributes.", + "query_type": "compare", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Can Eve be eligible for both Scholarship and Travel Visa?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "The requirements for Scholarship and Travel Visa are mutually exclusive for Eve's attributes.", + "query_type": "mutual_exclusive", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Is Frank eligible for Travel Visa while Alice is not?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "It's impossible for Frank to qualify while Alice doesn't, given their known attributes.", + "query_type": "compare", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Is Charlie eligible for Scholarship while Hank is not?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "The comparison depends on unknown attributes; multiple scenarios are consistent.", + "query_type": "compare", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Can Charlie apply for Scholarship?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some of Charlie's attributes are unknown; they might or might not meet all Scholarship requirements.", + "query_type": "eligible", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1, + 3 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q5", + "query": "Can Alice be eligible for both Travel Visa and Scholarship?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "The requirements for Travel Visa and Scholarship are mutually exclusive for Alice's attributes.", + "query_type": "mutual_exclusive", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1, + 2, + 3, + 4 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q6", + "query": "Is Alice eligible for Travel Visa while Eve is not?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "The comparison depends on unknown attributes; multiple scenarios are consistent.", + "query_type": "compare", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1, + 2, + 5 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "CONTRADICTED": 4, + "UNKNOWN": 3 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "pol_access_0066", + "domain": "policy", + "subdomain": "access_control", + "logic_type": "first_order_ground", + "premises": [ + "There are 6 employees: Eve, Iris, Frank, Alice, Bob, and Jack.", + "Available roles: Manager, Intern, Analyst, Guest, Developer.", + "Resources: Financial Records, Analytics Dashboard, Audit Logs, Database, Source Code, Admin Panel.", + "Each employee has exactly one role.", + "Any Manager can access Financial Records.", + "A Intern who can access Source Code also gets access to Financial Records.", + "No Manager may access Audit Logs.", + "Iris is a Analyst.", + "Jack is a Manager." + ], + "formal_representation": "; Policy domain: role-based access control\n; ('grant', 'Manager', 'Financial Records')\n; ('conditional', 'Intern', 'Source Code', 'Financial Records')\n; ('deny', 'Manager', 'Audit Logs')\n; ('assigned', 'Iris', 'Analyst')\n; ('assigned', 'Jack', 'Manager')", + "entities": { + "people": [ + "Eve", + "Iris", + "Frank", + "Alice", + "Bob", + "Jack" + ], + "roles": [ + "Manager", + "Intern", + "Analyst", + "Guest", + "Developer" + ], + "resources": [ + "Financial Records", + "Analytics Dashboard", + "Audit Logs", + "Database", + "Source Code", + "Admin Panel" + ] + }, + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 6, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Can Frank have the Guest role?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Multiple role assignments are consistent with the constraints; Frank may or may not be a Guest.", + "query_type": "must_have_role", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Must Iris be a Intern?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "Assigning Iris the Intern role would violate one or more constraints.", + "query_type": "must_have_role", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Can Alice have the Guest role?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Multiple role assignments are consistent with the constraints; Alice may or may not be a Guest.", + "query_type": "must_have_role", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Can Eve have the Guest role?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Multiple role assignments are consistent with the constraints; Eve may or may not be a Guest.", + "query_type": "must_have_role", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 2 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Can Iris have the Developer role?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "Assigning Iris the Developer role would violate one or more constraints.", + "query_type": "must_have_role", + "depends_on": [ + 1, + 3 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q5", + "query": "Can both Frank and Iris access Source Code?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether both can access Source Code depends on their role assignments, which are not fully constrained.", + "query_type": "two_people", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1, + 4 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "UNKNOWN": 4, + "CONTRADICTED": 2 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "pol_elig_0052", + "domain": "policy", + "subdomain": "eligibility", + "logic_type": "first_order_ground", + "premises": [ + "Applicants: Charlie, Grace, Diana, Eve, Bob, and Hank.", + "Programs: Health Coverage, Business License, Tax Credit.", + "Charlie is a local resident.", + "Grace is 37 years old.", + "Grace's annual income is $25,000.", + "Diana is a local resident.", + "Diana is 22 years old.", + "Diana has 4 years of experience.", + "Eve's annual income is $35,000.", + "Eve is not a local resident.", + "Bob is 55 years old.", + "Hank's annual income is $80,000.", + "Hank is 21 years old.", + "Health Coverage requires applicants to be at least 21 years old.", + "Business License is restricted to local residents.", + "Business License requires annual income at most $40,000.", + "Business License is only available to applicants 55 or younger.", + "Tax Credit requires at least 8 years of experience." + ], + "formal_representation": "; Eligibility rules with numeric constraints (QF_LIA + Bool)", + "entities": { + "applicants": [ + "Charlie", + "Grace", + "Diana", + "Eve", + "Bob", + "Hank" + ], + "programs": [ + "Health Coverage", + "Business License", + "Tax Credit" + ] + }, + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 8, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Can Hank apply for Business License?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "Hank fails at least one eligibility requirement for Business License, making qualification impossible.", + "query_type": "eligible", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Is Diana at least 40 years old?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "The premises establish that Diana does not satisfy: at least 40.", + "query_type": "attribute", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Is Charlie at least 30 years old?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "The premises don't determine whether Charlie satisfies: at least 30.", + "query_type": "attribute", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Can Hank be eligible for both Tax Credit and Business License?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "The requirements for Tax Credit and Business License are mutually exclusive for Hank's attributes.", + "query_type": "mutual_exclusive", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Is Eve eligible for Tax Credit while Diana is not?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "The comparison depends on unknown attributes; multiple scenarios are consistent.", + "query_type": "compare", + "depends_on": [ + 1, + 3 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q5", + "query": "Is Hank eligible for Tax Credit?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some of Hank's attributes are unknown; they might or might not meet all Tax Credit requirements.", + "query_type": "eligible", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 3, + 4 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q6", + "query": "Is Eve eligible for Health Coverage while Bob is not?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "The comparison depends on unknown attributes; multiple scenarios are consistent.", + "query_type": "compare", + "depends_on": [ + 4 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q7", + "query": "Can Diana be eligible for both Health Coverage and Business License?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether Diana can qualify for both depends on unknown attribute values.", + "query_type": "mutual_exclusive", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1, + 3, + 4, + 6 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "CONTRADICTED": 3, + "UNKNOWN": 5 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "pol_elig_0068", + "domain": "policy", + "subdomain": "eligibility", + "logic_type": "first_order_ground", + "premises": [ + "Applicants: Bob, Grace, Alice, Charlie, Diana, and Frank.", + "Programs: Travel Visa, Research Grant, Training Program.", + "Bob's annual income is $80,000.", + "Grace is not a local resident.", + "Alice is a local resident.", + "Charlie's annual income is $50,000.", + "Charlie has 17 years of experience.", + "Charlie is 55 years old.", + "Diana has 16 years of experience.", + "Diana's annual income is $35,000.", + "Diana is 47 years old.", + "Frank's annual income is $25,000.", + "Frank is a local resident.", + "Travel Visa requires annual income at most $40,000.", + "Travel Visa requires annual income at most $60,000.", + "Research Grant is restricted to local residents.", + "Research Grant requires applicants to be at least 25 years old.", + "Training Program is only available to applicants 45 or younger.", + "Training Program is only available to applicants 45 or younger.", + "Training Program requires annual income at least $50,000." + ], + "formal_representation": "; Eligibility rules with numeric constraints (QF_LIA + Bool)", + "entities": { + "applicants": [ + "Bob", + "Grace", + "Alice", + "Charlie", + "Diana", + "Frank" + ], + "programs": [ + "Travel Visa", + "Research Grant", + "Training Program" + ] + }, + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 5, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Is Grace eligible for Training Program while Alice is not?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "The comparison depends on unknown attributes; multiple scenarios are consistent.", + "query_type": "compare", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Is Diana eligible for Training Program while Frank is not?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "It's impossible for Diana to qualify while Frank doesn't, given their known attributes.", + "query_type": "compare", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Is Diana eligible for Training Program?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "Diana fails at least one eligibility requirement for Training Program, making qualification impossible.", + "query_type": "eligible", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Can Diana be eligible for both Research Grant and Travel Visa?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether Diana can qualify for both depends on unknown attribute values.", + "query_type": "mutual_exclusive", + "depends_on": [ + 1, + 2 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Can Bob apply for Travel Visa?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "Bob fails at least one eligibility requirement for Travel Visa, making qualification impossible.", + "query_type": "eligible", + "depends_on": [ + 3 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "UNKNOWN": 2, + "CONTRADICTED": 3 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "pol_access_0015", + "domain": "policy", + "subdomain": "access_control", + "logic_type": "first_order_ground", + "premises": [ + "There are 6 employees: Frank, Hank, Diana, Eve, Jack, and Alice.", + "Available roles: Auditor, Intern, Manager, Contractor, Developer.", + "Resources: HR Portal, Backup System, Deployment Pipeline, Audit Logs.", + "Each employee has exactly one role.", + "No Developer may access Audit Logs.", + "Any Developer can access Deployment Pipeline.", + "A Auditor who can access HR Portal also gets access to Deployment Pipeline.", + "Any Auditor can access Deployment Pipeline.", + "Any Developer can access Deployment Pipeline.", + "Jack is a Contractor.", + "Hank is a Manager.", + "Eve is a Auditor.", + "Alice is a Auditor." + ], + "formal_representation": "; Policy domain: role-based access control\n; ('deny', 'Developer', 'Audit Logs')\n; ('grant', 'Developer', 'Deployment Pipeline')\n; ('conditional', 'Auditor', 'HR Portal', 'Deployment Pipeline')\n; ('grant', 'Auditor', 'Deployment Pipeline')\n; ('grant', 'Developer', 'Deployment Pipeline')\n; ('assigned', 'Jack', 'Contractor')\n; ('assigned', 'Hank', 'Manager')\n; ('assigned', 'Eve', 'Auditor')\n; ('assigned', 'Alice', 'Auditor')", + "entities": { + "people": [ + "Frank", + "Hank", + "Diana", + "Eve", + "Jack", + "Alice" + ], + "roles": [ + "Auditor", + "Intern", + "Manager", + "Contractor", + "Developer" + ], + "resources": [ + "HR Portal", + "Backup System", + "Deployment Pipeline", + "Audit Logs" + ] + }, + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 7, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Is Diana permitted to use HR Portal?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether Diana can access HR Portal depends on their role assignment, which is not fully determined.", + "query_type": "can_access", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Can both Alice and Hank hold the Manager role?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "At most one of Alice or Hank can be a Manager, due to the single-role constraint and other assignments.", + "query_type": "exclusive", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Is it guaranteed that Frank holds the Developer role?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Multiple role assignments are consistent with the constraints; Frank may or may not be a Developer.", + "query_type": "must_have_role", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Can both Hank and Jack access HR Portal?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether both can access HR Portal depends on their role assignments, which are not fully constrained.", + "query_type": "two_people", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Can Diana access Deployment Pipeline?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether Diana can access Deployment Pipeline depends on their role assignment, which is not fully determined.", + "query_type": "can_access", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q5", + "query": "Can both Diana and Alice hold the Developer role?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "At most one of Diana or Alice can be a Developer, due to the single-role constraint and other assignments.", + "query_type": "exclusive", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1, + 2, + 4 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q6", + "query": "Can both Frank and Eve hold the Contractor role?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "At most one of Frank or Eve can be a Contractor, due to the single-role constraint and other assignments.", + "query_type": "exclusive", + "depends_on": [ + 2, + 5 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "UNKNOWN": 4, + "CONTRADICTED": 3 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "pol_access_0054", + "domain": "policy", + "subdomain": "access_control", + "logic_type": "first_order_ground", + "premises": [ + "There are 4 employees: Diana, Frank, Bob, and Grace.", + "Available roles: Auditor, Developer, Admin, Intern, Guest.", + "Resources: Financial Records, Backup System, Audit Logs, API Gateway, Source Code, Customer Data.", + "Each employee has exactly one role.", + "Any Auditor can access Audit Logs.", + "A Admin who can access API Gateway also gets access to Source Code.", + "A Auditor who can access Backup System also gets access to Customer Data.", + "Frank is a Admin.", + "Diana is a Intern." + ], + "formal_representation": "; Policy domain: role-based access control\n; ('grant', 'Auditor', 'Audit Logs')\n; ('conditional', 'Admin', 'API Gateway', 'Source Code')\n; ('conditional', 'Auditor', 'Backup System', 'Customer Data')\n; ('assigned', 'Frank', 'Admin')\n; ('assigned', 'Diana', 'Intern')", + "entities": { + "people": [ + "Diana", + "Frank", + "Bob", + "Grace" + ], + "roles": [ + "Auditor", + "Developer", + "Admin", + "Intern", + "Guest" + ], + "resources": [ + "Financial Records", + "Backup System", + "Audit Logs", + "API Gateway", + "Source Code", + "Customer Data" + ] + }, + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 6, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Can both Bob and Frank access Audit Logs?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether both can access Audit Logs depends on their role assignments, which are not fully constrained.", + "query_type": "two_people", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Can Diana have the Intern role?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "The constraints force Diana into the Intern role; no other assignment is consistent.", + "query_type": "must_have_role", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Must Grace be a Guest?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Multiple role assignments are consistent with the constraints; Grace may or may not be a Guest.", + "query_type": "must_have_role", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Can both Grace and Frank access Backup System?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether both can access Backup System depends on their role assignments, which are not fully constrained.", + "query_type": "two_people", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 2 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Can both Diana and Frank hold the Developer role?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "At most one of Diana or Frank can be a Developer, due to the single-role constraint and other assignments.", + "query_type": "exclusive", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1, + 3 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q5", + "query": "Can both Diana and Frank access Source Code?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether both can access Source Code depends on their role assignments, which are not fully constrained.", + "query_type": "two_people", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1, + 3, + 4 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "UNKNOWN": 4, + "ENTAILED": 1, + "CONTRADICTED": 1 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "pol_access_0040", + "domain": "policy", + "subdomain": "access_control", + "logic_type": "first_order_ground", + "premises": [ + "There are 5 employees: Grace, Jack, Bob, Eve, and Alice.", + "Available roles: Guest, Admin, Analyst, Developer.", + "Resources: Config Server, Deployment Pipeline, HR Portal, Admin Panel.", + "Each employee has exactly one role.", + "Any Guest can access Admin Panel.", + "Any Admin can access Deployment Pipeline.", + "Any Developer can access Deployment Pipeline.", + "A Admin who can access HR Portal also gets access to Deployment Pipeline.", + "A Admin who can access Deployment Pipeline also gets access to Config Server.", + "No Guest may access Admin Panel.", + "Alice is a Admin.", + "Eve is a Developer." + ], + "formal_representation": "; Policy domain: role-based access control\n; ('grant', 'Guest', 'Admin Panel')\n; ('grant', 'Admin', 'Deployment Pipeline')\n; ('grant', 'Developer', 'Deployment Pipeline')\n; ('conditional', 'Admin', 'HR Portal', 'Deployment Pipeline')\n; ('conditional', 'Admin', 'Deployment Pipeline', 'Config Server')\n; ('deny', 'Guest', 'Admin Panel')\n; ('assigned', 'Alice', 'Admin')\n; ('assigned', 'Eve', 'Developer')", + "entities": { + "people": [ + "Grace", + "Jack", + "Bob", + "Eve", + "Alice" + ], + "roles": [ + "Guest", + "Admin", + "Analyst", + "Developer" + ], + "resources": [ + "Config Server", + "Deployment Pipeline", + "HR Portal", + "Admin Panel" + ] + }, + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 6, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Can both Alice and Grace hold the Developer role?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "At most one of Alice or Grace can be a Developer, due to the single-role constraint and other assignments.", + "query_type": "exclusive", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Can both Bob and Eve hold the Admin role?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "At most one of Bob or Eve can be a Admin, due to the single-role constraint and other assignments.", + "query_type": "exclusive", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Is Bob permitted to use HR Portal?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether Bob can access HR Portal depends on their role assignment, which is not fully determined.", + "query_type": "can_access", + "depends_on": [ + 1 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Is it guaranteed that Jack holds the Analyst role?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Multiple role assignments are consistent with the constraints; Jack may or may not be a Analyst.", + "query_type": "must_have_role", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Can both Grace and Eve access Deployment Pipeline?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether both can access Deployment Pipeline depends on their role assignments, which are not fully constrained.", + "query_type": "two_people", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q5", + "query": "Can both Grace and Alice hold the Guest role?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "At most one of Grace or Alice can be a Guest, due to the single-role constraint and other assignments.", + "query_type": "exclusive", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 4 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "CONTRADICTED": 3, + "UNKNOWN": 3 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "pol_elig_0065", + "domain": "policy", + "subdomain": "eligibility", + "logic_type": "first_order_ground", + "premises": [ + "Applicants: Diana, Eve, Charlie, Grace, Frank, and Hank.", + "Programs: Business License, Scholarship, Health Coverage.", + "Diana has 5 years of experience.", + "Eve is a local resident.", + "Eve's annual income is $100,000.", + "Eve has 12 years of experience.", + "Charlie is a local resident.", + "Grace is not a local resident.", + "Grace's annual income is $65,000.", + "Grace has 7 years of experience.", + "Frank is not a local resident.", + "Hank is not a local resident.", + "Business License requires annual income at least $20,000.", + "Business License requires applicants to be at least 25 years old.", + "Business License requires annual income at least $20,000.", + "Scholarship requires annual income at most $80,000.", + "Scholarship requires at least 2 years of experience.", + "Health Coverage requires at least 2 years of experience.", + "Health Coverage is restricted to local residents.", + "Health Coverage requires at least 2 years of experience." + ], + "formal_representation": "; Eligibility rules with numeric constraints (QF_LIA + Bool)", + "entities": { + "applicants": [ + "Diana", + "Eve", + "Charlie", + "Grace", + "Frank", + "Hank" + ], + "programs": [ + "Business License", + "Scholarship", + "Health Coverage" + ] + }, + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 8, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Can Grace be eligible for both Health Coverage and Scholarship?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "The requirements for Health Coverage and Scholarship are mutually exclusive for Grace's attributes.", + "query_type": "mutual_exclusive", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Is Charlie eligible for Scholarship while Eve is not?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "The comparison depends on unknown attributes; multiple scenarios are consistent.", + "query_type": "compare", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Is Hank eligible for Scholarship?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some of Hank's attributes are unknown; they might or might not meet all Scholarship requirements.", + "query_type": "eligible", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Is Grace eligible for Scholarship while Eve is not?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "The comparison depends on unknown attributes; multiple scenarios are consistent.", + "query_type": "compare", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1, + 2 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Does Eve earn at least $75,000?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "The premises directly establish that Eve satisfies: income >= $75,000.", + "query_type": "attribute", + "depends_on": [ + 1, + 3 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q5", + "query": "Can Frank apply for Scholarship?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some of Frank's attributes are unknown; they might or might not meet all Scholarship requirements.", + "query_type": "eligible", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1, + 2, + 3 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q6", + "query": "Can Diana be eligible for both Business License and Scholarship?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether Diana can qualify for both depends on unknown attribute values.", + "query_type": "mutual_exclusive", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1, + 2, + 3, + 5 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q7", + "query": "Is Grace eligible for Health Coverage while Diana is not?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "It's impossible for Grace to qualify while Diana doesn't, given their known attributes.", + "query_type": "compare", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 3, + 6 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "CONTRADICTED": 2, + "UNKNOWN": 5, + "ENTAILED": 1 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "pol_access_0025", + "domain": "policy", + "subdomain": "access_control", + "logic_type": "first_order_ground", + "premises": [ + "There are 4 employees: Jack, Charlie, Hank, and Frank.", + "Available roles: Intern, Developer, Admin, Contractor.", + "Resources: Config Server, API Gateway, Source Code, Financial Records.", + "Each employee has exactly one role.", + "No Contractor may access Financial Records.", + "A Intern who can access Source Code also gets access to Config Server.", + "No Contractor may access Financial Records.", + "Any Admin can access Config Server.", + "Hank is a Contractor.", + "Charlie is a Contractor.", + "Frank is a Developer." + ], + "formal_representation": "; Policy domain: role-based access control\n; ('deny', 'Contractor', 'Financial Records')\n; ('conditional', 'Intern', 'Source Code', 'Config Server')\n; ('deny', 'Contractor', 'Financial Records')\n; ('grant', 'Admin', 'Config Server')\n; ('assigned', 'Hank', 'Contractor')\n; ('assigned', 'Charlie', 'Contractor')\n; ('assigned', 'Frank', 'Developer')", + "entities": { + "people": [ + "Jack", + "Charlie", + "Hank", + "Frank" + ], + "roles": [ + "Intern", + "Developer", + "Admin", + "Contractor" + ], + "resources": [ + "Config Server", + "API Gateway", + "Source Code", + "Financial Records" + ] + }, + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 5, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Can both Hank and Frank access API Gateway?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether both can access API Gateway depends on their role assignments, which are not fully constrained.", + "query_type": "two_people", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Can both Frank and Charlie hold the Admin role?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "At most one of Frank or Charlie can be a Admin, due to the single-role constraint and other assignments.", + "query_type": "exclusive", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Does Jack have access rights to Source Code?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether Jack can access Source Code depends on their role assignment, which is not fully determined.", + "query_type": "can_access", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Can both Frank and Hank hold the Developer role?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "At most one of Frank or Hank can be a Developer, due to the single-role constraint and other assignments.", + "query_type": "exclusive", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Is Hank permitted to use Financial Records?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "No valid role assignment for Hank allows access to Financial Records, given the denial rules.", + "query_type": "can_access", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 3 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "UNKNOWN": 2, + "CONTRADICTED": 3 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "pol_elig_0042", + "domain": "policy", + "subdomain": "eligibility", + "logic_type": "first_order_ground", + "premises": [ + "Applicants: Frank, Grace, Diana, and Bob.", + "Programs: Research Grant, Health Coverage, Tax Credit.", + "Frank's annual income is $25,000.", + "Frank has 12 years of experience.", + "Grace is 29 years old.", + "Diana is 51 years old.", + "Diana has 4 years of experience.", + "Bob has 20 years of experience.", + "Bob is not a local resident.", + "Research Grant requires annual income at least $20,000.", + "Research Grant is only available to applicants 65 or younger.", + "Health Coverage is only available to applicants 55 or younger.", + "Health Coverage requires annual income at most $60,000.", + "Tax Credit is restricted to local residents.", + "Tax Credit is only available to applicants 60 or younger.", + "Tax Credit requires at least 3 years of experience." + ], + "formal_representation": "; Eligibility rules with numeric constraints (QF_LIA + Bool)", + "entities": { + "applicants": [ + "Frank", + "Grace", + "Diana", + "Bob" + ], + "programs": [ + "Research Grant", + "Health Coverage", + "Tax Credit" + ] + }, + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 8, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Can Frank be eligible for both Health Coverage and Research Grant?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether Frank can qualify for both depends on unknown attribute values.", + "query_type": "mutual_exclusive", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Does Diana earn at least $100,000?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "The premises don't determine whether Diana satisfies: income >= $100,000.", + "query_type": "attribute", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Is Grace eligible for Research Grant while Bob is not?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "The comparison depends on unknown attributes; multiple scenarios are consistent.", + "query_type": "compare", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Is Frank eligible for Health Coverage while Grace is not?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "The comparison depends on unknown attributes; multiple scenarios are consistent.", + "query_type": "compare", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 2 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Does Bob qualify for Tax Credit?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "Bob fails at least one eligibility requirement for Tax Credit, making qualification impossible.", + "query_type": "eligible", + "depends_on": [ + 2 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q5", + "query": "Can Bob apply for Health Coverage?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some of Bob's attributes are unknown; they might or might not meet all Health Coverage requirements.", + "query_type": "eligible", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 2, + 3, + 4 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q6", + "query": "Can Bob be eligible for both Tax Credit and Research Grant?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "The requirements for Tax Credit and Research Grant are mutually exclusive for Bob's attributes.", + "query_type": "mutual_exclusive", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 2, + 4, + 5 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q7", + "query": "Does Grace earn at least $50,000?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "The premises don't determine whether Grace satisfies: income >= $50,000.", + "query_type": "attribute", + "depends_on": [ + 2, + 3 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "UNKNOWN": 6, + "CONTRADICTED": 2 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "pol_elig_0026", + "domain": "policy", + "subdomain": "eligibility", + "logic_type": "first_order_ground", + "premises": [ + "Applicants: Frank, Grace, Hank, Charlie, Diana, and Bob.", + "Programs: Health Coverage, Training Program.", + "Frank is 52 years old.", + "Grace has 20 years of experience.", + "Grace is 57 years old.", + "Hank is a local resident.", + "Hank's annual income is $65,000.", + "Charlie's annual income is $35,000.", + "Charlie has 10 years of experience.", + "Diana has 8 years of experience.", + "Diana is a local resident.", + "Diana's annual income is $35,000.", + "Bob has 1 years of experience.", + "Health Coverage is restricted to local residents.", + "Health Coverage requires annual income at least $50,000.", + "Health Coverage requires at least 5 years of experience.", + "Training Program requires annual income at least $20,000.", + "Training Program requires applicants to be at least 30 years old.", + "Training Program requires annual income at most $80,000." + ], + "formal_representation": "; Eligibility rules with numeric constraints (QF_LIA + Bool)", + "entities": { + "applicants": [ + "Frank", + "Grace", + "Hank", + "Charlie", + "Diana", + "Bob" + ], + "programs": [ + "Health Coverage", + "Training Program" + ] + }, + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 8, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Can Grace be eligible for both Training Program and Health Coverage?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether Grace can qualify for both depends on unknown attribute values.", + "query_type": "mutual_exclusive", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Can Bob apply for Health Coverage?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "Bob fails at least one eligibility requirement for Health Coverage, making qualification impossible.", + "query_type": "eligible", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Can Grace apply for Training Program?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some of Grace's attributes are unknown; they might or might not meet all Training Program requirements.", + "query_type": "eligible", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Is Bob eligible for Health Coverage while Hank is not?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "It's impossible for Bob to qualify while Hank doesn't, given their known attributes.", + "query_type": "compare", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Is Charlie eligible for Health Coverage while Bob is not?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "It's impossible for Charlie to qualify while Bob doesn't, given their known attributes.", + "query_type": "compare", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1, + 3 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q5", + "query": "Is Diana at least 40 years old?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "The premises don't determine whether Diana satisfies: at least 40.", + "query_type": "attribute", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q6", + "query": "Is Frank eligible for Health Coverage while Charlie is not?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "The comparison depends on unknown attributes; multiple scenarios are consistent.", + "query_type": "compare", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1, + 3, + 4 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q7", + "query": "Is Hank eligible for Training Program while Grace is not?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "The comparison depends on unknown attributes; multiple scenarios are consistent.", + "query_type": "compare", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 2, + 3 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "UNKNOWN": 5, + "CONTRADICTED": 3 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "pol_elig_0050", + "domain": "policy", + "subdomain": "eligibility", + "logic_type": "first_order_ground", + "premises": [ + "Applicants: Alice, Bob, Hank, and Charlie.", + "Programs: Training Program, Tax Credit.", + "Alice is 24 years old.", + "Alice has 18 years of experience.", + "Bob's annual income is $80,000.", + "Hank has 5 years of experience.", + "Hank is a local resident.", + "Hank is 46 years old.", + "Charlie is not a local resident.", + "Training Program requires applicants to be at least 21 years old.", + "Training Program requires at least 3 years of experience.", + "Tax Credit requires applicants to be at least 30 years old." + ], + "formal_representation": "; Eligibility rules with numeric constraints (QF_LIA + Bool)", + "entities": { + "applicants": [ + "Alice", + "Bob", + "Hank", + "Charlie" + ], + "programs": [ + "Training Program", + "Tax Credit" + ] + }, + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 7, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Is Bob at least 30 years old?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "The premises don't determine whether Bob satisfies: at least 30.", + "query_type": "attribute", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Can Bob be eligible for both Tax Credit and Training Program?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether Bob can qualify for both depends on unknown attribute values.", + "query_type": "mutual_exclusive", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Does Hank qualify for Tax Credit?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some of Hank's attributes are unknown; they might or might not meet all Tax Credit requirements.", + "query_type": "eligible", + "depends_on": [ + 1 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Is Bob eligible for Training Program?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some of Bob's attributes are unknown; they might or might not meet all Training Program requirements.", + "query_type": "eligible", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Does Charlie earn at least $100,000?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "The premises don't determine whether Charlie satisfies: income >= $100,000.", + "query_type": "attribute", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q5", + "query": "Does Hank earn at least $75,000?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "The premises don't determine whether Hank satisfies: income >= $75,000.", + "query_type": "attribute", + "depends_on": [ + 2 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q6", + "query": "Can Alice be eligible for both Training Program and Tax Credit?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "The requirements for Training Program and Tax Credit are mutually exclusive for Alice's attributes.", + "query_type": "mutual_exclusive", + "depends_on": [ + 1, + 2, + 3 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "UNKNOWN": 6, + "CONTRADICTED": 1 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "pol_access_0070", + "domain": "policy", + "subdomain": "access_control", + "logic_type": "first_order_ground", + "premises": [ + "There are 4 employees: Frank, Charlie, Alice, and Hank.", + "Available roles: Auditor, Guest, Manager, Admin.", + "Resources: Analytics Dashboard, Deployment Pipeline, Database, API Gateway, Customer Data.", + "Each employee has exactly one role.", + "A Admin who can access Customer Data also gets access to API Gateway.", + "No Guest may access Database.", + "A Guest who can access Database also gets access to API Gateway.", + "Charlie is a Guest.", + "Alice is a Guest." + ], + "formal_representation": "; Policy domain: role-based access control\n; ('conditional', 'Admin', 'Customer Data', 'API Gateway')\n; ('deny', 'Guest', 'Database')\n; ('conditional', 'Guest', 'Database', 'API Gateway')\n; ('assigned', 'Charlie', 'Guest')\n; ('assigned', 'Alice', 'Guest')", + "entities": { + "people": [ + "Frank", + "Charlie", + "Alice", + "Hank" + ], + "roles": [ + "Auditor", + "Guest", + "Manager", + "Admin" + ], + "resources": [ + "Analytics Dashboard", + "Deployment Pipeline", + "Database", + "API Gateway", + "Customer Data" + ] + }, + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 6, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Can both Frank and Hank access Customer Data?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether both can access Customer Data depends on their role assignments, which are not fully constrained.", + "query_type": "two_people", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Is it guaranteed that Frank holds the Admin role?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Multiple role assignments are consistent with the constraints; Frank may or may not be a Admin.", + "query_type": "must_have_role", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Is Alice permitted to use Deployment Pipeline?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether Alice can access Deployment Pipeline depends on their role assignment, which is not fully determined.", + "query_type": "can_access", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Is Alice permitted to use Analytics Dashboard?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether Alice can access Analytics Dashboard depends on their role assignment, which is not fully determined.", + "query_type": "can_access", + "depends_on": [ + 2 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Does Frank have access rights to API Gateway?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether Frank can access API Gateway depends on their role assignment, which is not fully determined.", + "query_type": "can_access", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q5", + "query": "Can both Alice and Hank hold the Admin role?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "At most one of Alice or Hank can be a Admin, due to the single-role constraint and other assignments.", + "query_type": "exclusive", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1, + 2, + 3 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "UNKNOWN": 5, + "CONTRADICTED": 1 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "pol_elig_0027", + "domain": "policy", + "subdomain": "eligibility", + "logic_type": "first_order_ground", + "premises": [ + "Applicants: Grace, Eve, Bob, and Hank.", + "Programs: Housing Assistance, Business License, Tax Credit.", + "Grace is 61 years old.", + "Grace's annual income is $65,000.", + "Grace is a local resident.", + "Eve is not a local resident.", + "Bob's annual income is $100,000.", + "Hank is 25 years old.", + "Hank is not a local resident.", + "Hank has 17 years of experience.", + "Housing Assistance requires annual income at most $60,000.", + "Housing Assistance requires at least 3 years of experience.", + "Housing Assistance requires at least 3 years of experience.", + "Business License requires at least 3 years of experience.", + "Tax Credit requires at least 8 years of experience." + ], + "formal_representation": "; Eligibility rules with numeric constraints (QF_LIA + Bool)", + "entities": { + "applicants": [ + "Grace", + "Eve", + "Bob", + "Hank" + ], + "programs": [ + "Housing Assistance", + "Business License", + "Tax Credit" + ] + }, + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 6, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Can Grace be eligible for both Tax Credit and Housing Assistance?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "The requirements for Tax Credit and Housing Assistance are mutually exclusive for Grace's attributes.", + "query_type": "mutual_exclusive", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Is Grace eligible for Tax Credit?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some of Grace's attributes are unknown; they might or might not meet all Tax Credit requirements.", + "query_type": "eligible", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Is Eve at least 30 years old?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "The premises don't determine whether Eve satisfies: at least 30.", + "query_type": "attribute", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Does Bob earn at least $50,000?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "The premises directly establish that Bob satisfies: income >= $50,000.", + "query_type": "attribute", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Can Bob be eligible for both Housing Assistance and Tax Credit?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "The requirements for Housing Assistance and Tax Credit are mutually exclusive for Bob's attributes.", + "query_type": "mutual_exclusive", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1, + 3 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q5", + "query": "Is Hank eligible for Business License while Eve is not?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "The comparison depends on unknown attributes; multiple scenarios are consistent.", + "query_type": "compare", + "depends_on": [ + 2 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "CONTRADICTED": 2, + "UNKNOWN": 3, + "ENTAILED": 1 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "pol_access_0039", + "domain": "policy", + "subdomain": "access_control", + "logic_type": "first_order_ground", + "premises": [ + "There are 4 employees: Hank, Frank, Jack, and Diana.", + "Available roles: Contractor, Developer, Analyst, Intern.", + "Resources: Deployment Pipeline, Audit Logs, API Gateway, Config Server, Analytics Dashboard, HR Portal.", + "Each employee has exactly one role.", + "No Developer may access API Gateway.", + "A Developer who can access Deployment Pipeline also gets access to HR Portal.", + "No Intern may access Analytics Dashboard.", + "Frank is a Developer.", + "Hank is a Contractor.", + "Diana is a Developer.", + "Jack is a Developer." + ], + "formal_representation": "; Policy domain: role-based access control\n; ('deny', 'Developer', 'API Gateway')\n; ('conditional', 'Developer', 'Deployment Pipeline', 'HR Portal')\n; ('deny', 'Intern', 'Analytics Dashboard')\n; ('assigned', 'Frank', 'Developer')\n; ('assigned', 'Hank', 'Contractor')\n; ('assigned', 'Diana', 'Developer')\n; ('assigned', 'Jack', 'Developer')", + "entities": { + "people": [ + "Hank", + "Frank", + "Jack", + "Diana" + ], + "roles": [ + "Contractor", + "Developer", + "Analyst", + "Intern" + ], + "resources": [ + "Deployment Pipeline", + "Audit Logs", + "API Gateway", + "Config Server", + "Analytics Dashboard", + "HR Portal" + ] + }, + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 5, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Can both Diana and Jack access API Gateway?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "The rules prevent both Diana and Jack from simultaneously accessing API Gateway.", + "query_type": "two_people", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Can both Diana and Jack hold the Contractor role?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "At most one of Diana or Jack can be a Contractor, due to the single-role constraint and other assignments.", + "query_type": "exclusive", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Can both Diana and Frank hold the Analyst role?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "At most one of Diana or Frank can be a Analyst, due to the single-role constraint and other assignments.", + "query_type": "exclusive", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Does Diana have access rights to HR Portal?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether Diana can access HR Portal depends on their role assignment, which is not fully determined.", + "query_type": "can_access", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1, + 2 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Must Frank be a Contractor?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "Assigning Frank the Contractor role would violate one or more constraints.", + "query_type": "must_have_role", + "depends_on": [ + 1, + 2 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "CONTRADICTED": 4, + "UNKNOWN": 1 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "pol_elig_0004", + "domain": "policy", + "subdomain": "eligibility", + "logic_type": "first_order_ground", + "premises": [ + "Applicants: Diana, Grace, Frank, Eve, and Hank.", + "Programs: Research Grant, Business License, Tax Credit.", + "Diana is 20 years old.", + "Grace is 55 years old.", + "Grace has 20 years of experience.", + "Frank is 58 years old.", + "Eve is a local resident.", + "Hank is a local resident.", + "Hank has 2 years of experience.", + "Research Grant requires annual income at least $20,000.", + "Research Grant is restricted to local residents.", + "Research Grant requires at least 3 years of experience.", + "Business License requires applicants to be at least 30 years old.", + "Tax Credit requires annual income at most $40,000.", + "Tax Credit requires at least 5 years of experience." + ], + "formal_representation": "; Eligibility rules with numeric constraints (QF_LIA + Bool)", + "entities": { + "applicants": [ + "Diana", + "Grace", + "Frank", + "Eve", + "Hank" + ], + "programs": [ + "Research Grant", + "Business License", + "Tax Credit" + ] + }, + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 5, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Can Frank be eligible for both Business License and Tax Credit?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether Frank can qualify for both depends on unknown attribute values.", + "query_type": "mutual_exclusive", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Does Eve earn at least $50,000?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "The premises don't determine whether Eve satisfies: income >= $50,000.", + "query_type": "attribute", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Is Hank eligible for Business License while Frank is not?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "The comparison depends on unknown attributes; multiple scenarios are consistent.", + "query_type": "compare", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Does Frank qualify for Research Grant?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some of Frank's attributes are unknown; they might or might not meet all Research Grant requirements.", + "query_type": "eligible", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 2 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Is Eve eligible for Research Grant?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some of Eve's attributes are unknown; they might or might not meet all Research Grant requirements.", + "query_type": "eligible", + "depends_on": [ + 1, + 3 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "UNKNOWN": 5 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "pol_elig_0018", + "domain": "policy", + "subdomain": "eligibility", + "logic_type": "first_order_ground", + "premises": [ + "Applicants: Alice, Diana, Hank, and Bob.", + "Programs: Housing Assistance, Travel Visa.", + "Alice's annual income is $80,000.", + "Alice is 32 years old.", + "Alice has 12 years of experience.", + "Diana is a local resident.", + "Diana has 9 years of experience.", + "Hank has 10 years of experience.", + "Hank is a local resident.", + "Bob's annual income is $120,000.", + "Bob is 53 years old.", + "Bob is a local resident.", + "Housing Assistance requires annual income at least $20,000.", + "Housing Assistance requires annual income at most $40,000.", + "Housing Assistance requires at least 8 years of experience.", + "Travel Visa is only available to applicants 55 or younger.", + "Travel Visa requires applicants to be at least 30 years old.", + "Travel Visa requires annual income at most $60,000." + ], + "formal_representation": "; Eligibility rules with numeric constraints (QF_LIA + Bool)", + "entities": { + "applicants": [ + "Alice", + "Diana", + "Hank", + "Bob" + ], + "programs": [ + "Housing Assistance", + "Travel Visa" + ] + }, + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 8, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Is Alice eligible for Travel Visa while Hank is not?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "It's impossible for Alice to qualify while Hank doesn't, given their known attributes.", + "query_type": "compare", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Can Bob be eligible for both Travel Visa and Housing Assistance?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "The requirements for Travel Visa and Housing Assistance are mutually exclusive for Bob's attributes.", + "query_type": "mutual_exclusive", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Can Hank be eligible for both Travel Visa and Housing Assistance?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether Hank can qualify for both depends on unknown attribute values.", + "query_type": "mutual_exclusive", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Can Diana be eligible for both Travel Visa and Housing Assistance?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether Diana can qualify for both depends on unknown attribute values.", + "query_type": "mutual_exclusive", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1, + 2 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Is Bob eligible for Housing Assistance while Alice is not?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "It's impossible for Bob to qualify while Alice doesn't, given their known attributes.", + "query_type": "compare", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1, + 2, + 3 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q5", + "query": "Is Hank eligible for Housing Assistance?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some of Hank's attributes are unknown; they might or might not meet all Housing Assistance requirements.", + "query_type": "eligible", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1, + 2, + 3, + 4 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q6", + "query": "Is Bob eligible for Housing Assistance while Hank is not?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "It's impossible for Bob to qualify while Hank doesn't, given their known attributes.", + "query_type": "compare", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1, + 2, + 3, + 4, + 5 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q7", + "query": "Can Bob be eligible for both Housing Assistance and Travel Visa?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "The requirements for Housing Assistance and Travel Visa are mutually exclusive for Bob's attributes.", + "query_type": "mutual_exclusive", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1, + 2, + 3, + 4, + 5, + 6 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "CONTRADICTED": 5, + "UNKNOWN": 3 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "pol_elig_0080", + "domain": "policy", + "subdomain": "eligibility", + "logic_type": "first_order_ground", + "premises": [ + "Applicants: Alice, Eve, Hank, and Grace.", + "Programs: Travel Visa, Health Coverage.", + "Alice's annual income is $65,000.", + "Alice is 27 years old.", + "Eve has 7 years of experience.", + "Eve is 56 years old.", + "Hank is not a local resident.", + "Grace is not a local resident.", + "Travel Visa requires at least 8 years of experience.", + "Travel Visa is restricted to local residents.", + "Travel Visa requires annual income at most $80,000.", + "Health Coverage is restricted to local residents.", + "Health Coverage requires applicants to be at least 35 years old.", + "Health Coverage requires at least 5 years of experience." + ], + "formal_representation": "; Eligibility rules with numeric constraints (QF_LIA + Bool)", + "entities": { + "applicants": [ + "Alice", + "Eve", + "Hank", + "Grace" + ], + "programs": [ + "Travel Visa", + "Health Coverage" + ] + }, + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 7, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Can Eve be eligible for both Health Coverage and Travel Visa?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "The requirements for Health Coverage and Travel Visa are mutually exclusive for Eve's attributes.", + "query_type": "mutual_exclusive", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Does Hank earn at least $100,000?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "The premises don't determine whether Hank satisfies: income >= $100,000.", + "query_type": "attribute", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Can Hank be eligible for both Health Coverage and Travel Visa?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "The requirements for Health Coverage and Travel Visa are mutually exclusive for Hank's attributes.", + "query_type": "mutual_exclusive", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Is Hank eligible for Health Coverage while Alice is not?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "It's impossible for Hank to qualify while Alice doesn't, given their known attributes.", + "query_type": "compare", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1, + 2 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Can Grace be eligible for both Health Coverage and Travel Visa?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "The requirements for Health Coverage and Travel Visa are mutually exclusive for Grace's attributes.", + "query_type": "mutual_exclusive", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 2, + 3 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q5", + "query": "Is Alice eligible for Health Coverage?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "Alice fails at least one eligibility requirement for Health Coverage, making qualification impossible.", + "query_type": "eligible", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 2, + 3, + 4 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q6", + "query": "Can Alice be eligible for both Travel Visa and Health Coverage?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "The requirements for Travel Visa and Health Coverage are mutually exclusive for Alice's attributes.", + "query_type": "mutual_exclusive", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 2, + 3, + 4, + 5 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "CONTRADICTED": 6, + "UNKNOWN": 1 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "pol_access_0062", + "domain": "policy", + "subdomain": "access_control", + "logic_type": "first_order_ground", + "premises": [ + "There are 4 employees: Hank, Iris, Grace, and Bob.", + "Available roles: Auditor, Manager, Contractor, Admin.", + "Resources: API Gateway, Source Code, Config Server, Deployment Pipeline.", + "Each employee has exactly one role.", + "Any Admin can access Config Server.", + "A Manager who can access Source Code also gets access to Deployment Pipeline.", + "A Contractor who can access API Gateway also gets access to Config Server.", + "Grace is a Auditor.", + "Hank is a Manager." + ], + "formal_representation": "; Policy domain: role-based access control\n; ('grant', 'Admin', 'Config Server')\n; ('conditional', 'Manager', 'Source Code', 'Deployment Pipeline')\n; ('conditional', 'Contractor', 'API Gateway', 'Config Server')\n; ('assigned', 'Grace', 'Auditor')\n; ('assigned', 'Hank', 'Manager')", + "entities": { + "people": [ + "Hank", + "Iris", + "Grace", + "Bob" + ], + "roles": [ + "Auditor", + "Manager", + "Contractor", + "Admin" + ], + "resources": [ + "API Gateway", + "Source Code", + "Config Server", + "Deployment Pipeline" + ] + }, + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 6, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Can both Bob and Hank access Source Code?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether both can access Source Code depends on their role assignments, which are not fully constrained.", + "query_type": "two_people", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Can Bob access Deployment Pipeline?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether Bob can access Deployment Pipeline depends on their role assignment, which is not fully determined.", + "query_type": "can_access", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Can both Hank and Iris access Config Server?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether both can access Config Server depends on their role assignments, which are not fully constrained.", + "query_type": "two_people", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Can both Hank and Iris hold the Admin role?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "At most one of Hank or Iris can be a Admin, due to the single-role constraint and other assignments.", + "query_type": "exclusive", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 2 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Can both Iris and Hank hold the Contractor role?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "At most one of Iris or Hank can be a Contractor, due to the single-role constraint and other assignments.", + "query_type": "exclusive", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 2, + 3 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q5", + "query": "Can both Bob and Iris hold the Admin role?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "It's possible for both to be Admins, but also possible for one or both to have different roles.", + "query_type": "exclusive", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1, + 2, + 3, + 4 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "UNKNOWN": 4, + "CONTRADICTED": 2 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "pol_access_0099", + "domain": "policy", + "subdomain": "access_control", + "logic_type": "first_order_ground", + "premises": [ + "There are 5 employees: Alice, Diana, Eve, Grace, and Jack.", + "Available roles: Intern, Developer, Manager, Analyst.", + "Resources: Database, Backup System, API Gateway, Customer Data, Audit Logs, Config Server.", + "Each employee has exactly one role.", + "A Intern who can access Database also gets access to API Gateway.", + "A Analyst who can access Customer Data also gets access to Backup System.", + "A Intern who can access Customer Data also gets access to Backup System.", + "Any Manager can access Database.", + "Eve is a Analyst.", + "Grace is a Analyst.", + "Jack is a Intern." + ], + "formal_representation": "; Policy domain: role-based access control\n; ('conditional', 'Intern', 'Database', 'API Gateway')\n; ('conditional', 'Analyst', 'Customer Data', 'Backup System')\n; ('conditional', 'Intern', 'Customer Data', 'Backup System')\n; ('grant', 'Manager', 'Database')\n; ('assigned', 'Eve', 'Analyst')\n; ('assigned', 'Grace', 'Analyst')\n; ('assigned', 'Jack', 'Intern')", + "entities": { + "people": [ + "Alice", + "Diana", + "Eve", + "Grace", + "Jack" + ], + "roles": [ + "Intern", + "Developer", + "Manager", + "Analyst" + ], + "resources": [ + "Database", + "Backup System", + "API Gateway", + "Customer Data", + "Audit Logs", + "Config Server" + ] + }, + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 7, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Can both Diana and Grace access Customer Data?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether both can access Customer Data depends on their role assignments, which are not fully constrained.", + "query_type": "two_people", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Does Alice have access rights to API Gateway?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether Alice can access API Gateway depends on their role assignment, which is not fully determined.", + "query_type": "can_access", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Can both Diana and Jack access API Gateway?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether both can access API Gateway depends on their role assignments, which are not fully constrained.", + "query_type": "two_people", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Is it guaranteed that Grace holds the Analyst role?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "The constraints force Grace into the Analyst role; no other assignment is consistent.", + "query_type": "must_have_role", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Is Grace permitted to use Customer Data?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether Grace can access Customer Data depends on their role assignment, which is not fully determined.", + "query_type": "can_access", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 3 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q5", + "query": "Can both Jack and Eve hold the Developer role?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "At most one of Jack or Eve can be a Developer, due to the single-role constraint and other assignments.", + "query_type": "exclusive", + "depends_on": [ + 2 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q6", + "query": "Is Jack permitted to use Backup System?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether Jack can access Backup System depends on their role assignment, which is not fully determined.", + "query_type": "can_access", + "depends_on": [ + 2, + 5 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "UNKNOWN": 5, + "ENTAILED": 1, + "CONTRADICTED": 1 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "pol_elig_0090", + "domain": "policy", + "subdomain": "eligibility", + "logic_type": "first_order_ground", + "premises": [ + "Applicants: Diana, Alice, Frank, and Bob.", + "Programs: Training Program, Business License, Travel Visa.", + "Diana is 41 years old.", + "Diana's annual income is $25,000.", + "Alice is 38 years old.", + "Alice's annual income is $100,000.", + "Alice has 6 years of experience.", + "Frank has 13 years of experience.", + "Bob is not a local resident.", + "Bob has 4 years of experience.", + "Training Program requires at least 8 years of experience.", + "Business License requires annual income at most $60,000.", + "Business License is only available to applicants 60 or younger.", + "Travel Visa requires at least 5 years of experience.", + "Travel Visa requires annual income at least $30,000.", + "Travel Visa is restricted to local residents." + ], + "formal_representation": "; Eligibility rules with numeric constraints (QF_LIA + Bool)", + "entities": { + "applicants": [ + "Diana", + "Alice", + "Frank", + "Bob" + ], + "programs": [ + "Training Program", + "Business License", + "Travel Visa" + ] + }, + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 5, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Can Alice be eligible for both Travel Visa and Business License?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "The requirements for Travel Visa and Business License are mutually exclusive for Alice's attributes.", + "query_type": "mutual_exclusive", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Can Frank be eligible for both Training Program and Travel Visa?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether Frank can qualify for both depends on unknown attribute values.", + "query_type": "mutual_exclusive", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Is Frank eligible for Travel Visa while Diana is not?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "The comparison depends on unknown attributes; multiple scenarios are consistent.", + "query_type": "compare", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Can Diana be eligible for both Training Program and Business License?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether Diana can qualify for both depends on unknown attribute values.", + "query_type": "mutual_exclusive", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1, + 2 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Can Bob be eligible for both Business License and Training Program?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "The requirements for Business License and Training Program are mutually exclusive for Bob's attributes.", + "query_type": "mutual_exclusive", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1, + 3 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "CONTRADICTED": 2, + "UNKNOWN": 3 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "pol_access_0034", + "domain": "policy", + "subdomain": "access_control", + "logic_type": "first_order_ground", + "premises": [ + "There are 4 employees: Charlie, Eve, Bob, and Diana.", + "Available roles: Developer, Guest, Manager, Intern.", + "Resources: HR Portal, Source Code, Config Server, Analytics Dashboard, Financial Records, Admin Panel.", + "Each employee has exactly one role.", + "Any Developer can access HR Portal.", + "Any Developer can access Financial Records.", + "A Guest who can access Config Server also gets access to HR Portal.", + "Any Guest can access Admin Panel.", + "A Developer who can access Analytics Dashboard also gets access to Config Server.", + "No Intern may access Analytics Dashboard.", + "Eve is a Manager.", + "Charlie is a Intern." + ], + "formal_representation": "; Policy domain: role-based access control\n; ('grant', 'Developer', 'HR Portal')\n; ('grant', 'Developer', 'Financial Records')\n; ('conditional', 'Guest', 'Config Server', 'HR Portal')\n; ('grant', 'Guest', 'Admin Panel')\n; ('conditional', 'Developer', 'Analytics Dashboard', 'Config Server')\n; ('deny', 'Intern', 'Analytics Dashboard')\n; ('assigned', 'Eve', 'Manager')\n; ('assigned', 'Charlie', 'Intern')", + "entities": { + "people": [ + "Charlie", + "Eve", + "Bob", + "Diana" + ], + "roles": [ + "Developer", + "Guest", + "Manager", + "Intern" + ], + "resources": [ + "HR Portal", + "Source Code", + "Config Server", + "Analytics Dashboard", + "Financial Records", + "Admin Panel" + ] + }, + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 5, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Can Charlie access Config Server?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether Charlie can access Config Server depends on their role assignment, which is not fully determined.", + "query_type": "can_access", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Can both Bob and Diana access HR Portal?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether both can access HR Portal depends on their role assignments, which are not fully constrained.", + "query_type": "two_people", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Does Charlie have access rights to Financial Records?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether Charlie can access Financial Records depends on their role assignment, which is not fully determined.", + "query_type": "can_access", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Can both Eve and Diana hold the Guest role?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "At most one of Eve or Diana can be a Guest, due to the single-role constraint and other assignments.", + "query_type": "exclusive", + "depends_on": [ + 1 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Can Diana access Analytics Dashboard?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether Diana can access Analytics Dashboard depends on their role assignment, which is not fully determined.", + "query_type": "can_access", + "depends_on": [ + 1, + 3 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "UNKNOWN": 4, + "CONTRADICTED": 1 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "pol_access_0033", + "domain": "policy", + "subdomain": "access_control", + "logic_type": "first_order_ground", + "premises": [ + "There are 4 employees: Charlie, Jack, Hank, and Bob.", + "Available roles: Analyst, Developer, Auditor.", + "Resources: API Gateway, Customer Data, Financial Records, Database, Config Server, Source Code.", + "Each employee has exactly one role.", + "Any Analyst can access Customer Data.", + "A Analyst who can access Database also gets access to Financial Records.", + "Any Developer can access API Gateway.", + "No Developer may access Customer Data.", + "No Analyst may access Financial Records.", + "No Auditor may access Source Code.", + "Charlie is a Analyst.", + "Hank is a Auditor." + ], + "formal_representation": "; Policy domain: role-based access control\n; ('grant', 'Analyst', 'Customer Data')\n; ('conditional', 'Analyst', 'Database', 'Financial Records')\n; ('grant', 'Developer', 'API Gateway')\n; ('deny', 'Developer', 'Customer Data')\n; ('deny', 'Analyst', 'Financial Records')\n; ('deny', 'Auditor', 'Source Code')\n; ('assigned', 'Charlie', 'Analyst')\n; ('assigned', 'Hank', 'Auditor')", + "entities": { + "people": [ + "Charlie", + "Jack", + "Hank", + "Bob" + ], + "roles": [ + "Analyst", + "Developer", + "Auditor" + ], + "resources": [ + "API Gateway", + "Customer Data", + "Financial Records", + "Database", + "Config Server", + "Source Code" + ] + }, + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 5, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Can both Jack and Bob hold the Auditor role?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "It's possible for both to be Auditors, but also possible for one or both to have different roles.", + "query_type": "exclusive", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Can both Charlie and Jack access Source Code?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether both can access Source Code depends on their role assignments, which are not fully constrained.", + "query_type": "two_people", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Can Jack have the Auditor role?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Multiple role assignments are consistent with the constraints; Jack may or may not be a Auditor.", + "query_type": "must_have_role", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Can Charlie access Database?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "No valid role assignment for Charlie allows access to Database, given the denial rules.", + "query_type": "can_access", + "depends_on": [ + 1 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Can both Bob and Charlie access Customer Data?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether both can access Customer Data depends on their role assignments, which are not fully constrained.", + "query_type": "two_people", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1, + 3 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "UNKNOWN": 4, + "CONTRADICTED": 1 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "pol_access_0060", + "domain": "policy", + "subdomain": "access_control", + "logic_type": "first_order_ground", + "premises": [ + "There are 5 employees: Hank, Eve, Diana, Grace, and Iris.", + "Available roles: Analyst, Intern, Developer, Manager.", + "Resources: Deployment Pipeline, Database, API Gateway, Analytics Dashboard, Admin Panel, Financial Records.", + "Each employee has exactly one role.", + "A Intern who can access Database also gets access to Deployment Pipeline.", + "Any Intern can access Analytics Dashboard.", + "No Intern may access API Gateway.", + "Eve is a Intern.", + "Diana is a Analyst.", + "Grace is a Analyst.", + "Hank is a Intern." + ], + "formal_representation": "; Policy domain: role-based access control\n; ('conditional', 'Intern', 'Database', 'Deployment Pipeline')\n; ('grant', 'Intern', 'Analytics Dashboard')\n; ('deny', 'Intern', 'API Gateway')\n; ('assigned', 'Eve', 'Intern')\n; ('assigned', 'Diana', 'Analyst')\n; ('assigned', 'Grace', 'Analyst')\n; ('assigned', 'Hank', 'Intern')", + "entities": { + "people": [ + "Hank", + "Eve", + "Diana", + "Grace", + "Iris" + ], + "roles": [ + "Analyst", + "Intern", + "Developer", + "Manager" + ], + "resources": [ + "Deployment Pipeline", + "Database", + "API Gateway", + "Analytics Dashboard", + "Admin Panel", + "Financial Records" + ] + }, + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 6, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Can both Eve and Grace hold the Developer role?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "At most one of Eve or Grace can be a Developer, due to the single-role constraint and other assignments.", + "query_type": "exclusive", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Can both Diana and Grace access API Gateway?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether both can access API Gateway depends on their role assignments, which are not fully constrained.", + "query_type": "two_people", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Can both Hank and Eve access Financial Records?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether both can access Financial Records depends on their role assignments, which are not fully constrained.", + "query_type": "two_people", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Can Iris access Admin Panel?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether Iris can access Admin Panel depends on their role assignment, which is not fully determined.", + "query_type": "can_access", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Must Grace be a Analyst?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "The constraints force Grace into the Analyst role; no other assignment is consistent.", + "query_type": "must_have_role", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q5", + "query": "Is it guaranteed that Eve holds the Intern role?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "The constraints force Eve into the Intern role; no other assignment is consistent.", + "query_type": "must_have_role", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 2 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "CONTRADICTED": 1, + "UNKNOWN": 3, + "ENTAILED": 2 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "pol_access_0045", + "domain": "policy", + "subdomain": "access_control", + "logic_type": "first_order_ground", + "premises": [ + "There are 4 employees: Hank, Frank, Alice, and Grace.", + "Available roles: Admin, Manager, Guest.", + "Resources: Customer Data, Source Code, Analytics Dashboard, Database, Backup System.", + "Each employee has exactly one role.", + "A Manager who can access Analytics Dashboard also gets access to Backup System.", + "Any Guest can access Database.", + "No Manager may access Source Code.", + "Any Manager can access Backup System.", + "Frank is a Admin.", + "Hank is a Guest." + ], + "formal_representation": "; Policy domain: role-based access control\n; ('conditional', 'Manager', 'Analytics Dashboard', 'Backup System')\n; ('grant', 'Guest', 'Database')\n; ('deny', 'Manager', 'Source Code')\n; ('grant', 'Manager', 'Backup System')\n; ('assigned', 'Frank', 'Admin')\n; ('assigned', 'Hank', 'Guest')", + "entities": { + "people": [ + "Hank", + "Frank", + "Alice", + "Grace" + ], + "roles": [ + "Admin", + "Manager", + "Guest" + ], + "resources": [ + "Customer Data", + "Source Code", + "Analytics Dashboard", + "Database", + "Backup System" + ] + }, + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 5, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Can both Alice and Grace access Customer Data?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether both can access Customer Data depends on their role assignments, which are not fully constrained.", + "query_type": "two_people", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Is it guaranteed that Frank holds the Admin role?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "The constraints force Frank into the Admin role; no other assignment is consistent.", + "query_type": "must_have_role", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Can both Alice and Frank access Backup System?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether both can access Backup System depends on their role assignments, which are not fully constrained.", + "query_type": "two_people", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Is it guaranteed that Grace holds the Admin role?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Multiple role assignments are consistent with the constraints; Grace may or may not be a Admin.", + "query_type": "must_have_role", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Does Grace have access rights to Database?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether Grace can access Database depends on their role assignment, which is not fully determined.", + "query_type": "can_access", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 3 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "UNKNOWN": 4, + "ENTAILED": 1 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "pol_access_0003", + "domain": "policy", + "subdomain": "access_control", + "logic_type": "first_order_ground", + "premises": [ + "There are 5 employees: Hank, Bob, Eve, Jack, and Iris.", + "Available roles: Guest, Analyst, Auditor, Developer.", + "Resources: Config Server, Analytics Dashboard, Deployment Pipeline, Backup System, Audit Logs.", + "Each employee has exactly one role.", + "Any Developer can access Analytics Dashboard.", + "No Guest may access Deployment Pipeline.", + "Any Developer can access Backup System.", + "No Guest may access Deployment Pipeline.", + "A Developer who can access Analytics Dashboard also gets access to Config Server.", + "Iris is a Guest.", + "Eve is a Analyst." + ], + "formal_representation": "; Policy domain: role-based access control\n; ('grant', 'Developer', 'Analytics Dashboard')\n; ('deny', 'Guest', 'Deployment Pipeline')\n; ('grant', 'Developer', 'Backup System')\n; ('deny', 'Guest', 'Deployment Pipeline')\n; ('conditional', 'Developer', 'Analytics Dashboard', 'Config Server')\n; ('assigned', 'Iris', 'Guest')\n; ('assigned', 'Eve', 'Analyst')", + "entities": { + "people": [ + "Hank", + "Bob", + "Eve", + "Jack", + "Iris" + ], + "roles": [ + "Guest", + "Analyst", + "Auditor", + "Developer" + ], + "resources": [ + "Config Server", + "Analytics Dashboard", + "Deployment Pipeline", + "Backup System", + "Audit Logs" + ] + }, + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 5, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Can both Hank and Bob access Audit Logs?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether both can access Audit Logs depends on their role assignments, which are not fully constrained.", + "query_type": "two_people", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Can both Hank and Bob hold the Developer role?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "It's possible for both to be Developers, but also possible for one or both to have different roles.", + "query_type": "exclusive", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Can both Hank and Iris hold the Auditor role?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "At most one of Hank or Iris can be a Auditor, due to the single-role constraint and other assignments.", + "query_type": "exclusive", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Does Hank have access rights to Audit Logs?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether Hank can access Audit Logs depends on their role assignment, which is not fully determined.", + "query_type": "can_access", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1, + 2 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Can Eve access Config Server?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether Eve can access Config Server depends on their role assignment, which is not fully determined.", + "query_type": "can_access", + "depends_on": [ + 1 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "UNKNOWN": 4, + "CONTRADICTED": 1 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "pol_access_0075", + "domain": "policy", + "subdomain": "access_control", + "logic_type": "first_order_ground", + "premises": [ + "There are 6 employees: Bob, Diana, Eve, Charlie, Alice, and Iris.", + "Available roles: Admin, Analyst, Manager, Developer, Contractor.", + "Resources: Analytics Dashboard, Admin Panel, API Gateway, Config Server, Source Code, Database.", + "Each employee has exactly one role.", + "No Admin may access Analytics Dashboard.", + "Any Analyst can access API Gateway.", + "No Manager may access Source Code.", + "No Manager may access API Gateway.", + "No Analyst may access Database.", + "A Manager who can access Analytics Dashboard also gets access to API Gateway.", + "Eve is a Manager.", + "Bob is a Admin.", + "Diana is a Manager.", + "Charlie is a Admin." + ], + "formal_representation": "; Policy domain: role-based access control\n; ('deny', 'Admin', 'Analytics Dashboard')\n; ('grant', 'Analyst', 'API Gateway')\n; ('deny', 'Manager', 'Source Code')\n; ('deny', 'Manager', 'API Gateway')\n; ('deny', 'Analyst', 'Database')\n; ('conditional', 'Manager', 'Analytics Dashboard', 'API Gateway')\n; ('assigned', 'Eve', 'Manager')\n; ('assigned', 'Bob', 'Admin')\n; ('assigned', 'Diana', 'Manager')\n; ('assigned', 'Charlie', 'Admin')", + "entities": { + "people": [ + "Bob", + "Diana", + "Eve", + "Charlie", + "Alice", + "Iris" + ], + "roles": [ + "Admin", + "Analyst", + "Manager", + "Developer", + "Contractor" + ], + "resources": [ + "Analytics Dashboard", + "Admin Panel", + "API Gateway", + "Config Server", + "Source Code", + "Database" + ] + }, + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 7, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Must Alice be a Manager?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Multiple role assignments are consistent with the constraints; Alice may or may not be a Manager.", + "query_type": "must_have_role", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Can both Alice and Charlie access Database?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether both can access Database depends on their role assignments, which are not fully constrained.", + "query_type": "two_people", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Is it guaranteed that Alice holds the Analyst role?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Multiple role assignments are consistent with the constraints; Alice may or may not be a Analyst.", + "query_type": "must_have_role", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Can Diana access Database?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether Diana can access Database depends on their role assignment, which is not fully determined.", + "query_type": "can_access", + "depends_on": [ + 1 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Can both Charlie and Alice hold the Contractor role?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "At most one of Charlie or Alice can be a Contractor, due to the single-role constraint and other assignments.", + "query_type": "exclusive", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1, + 2 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q5", + "query": "Can Alice access Database?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether Alice can access Database depends on their role assignment, which is not fully determined.", + "query_type": "can_access", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1, + 2, + 3, + 4 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q6", + "query": "Is it guaranteed that Eve holds the Manager role?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "The constraints force Eve into the Manager role; no other assignment is consistent.", + "query_type": "must_have_role", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "UNKNOWN": 5, + "CONTRADICTED": 1, + "ENTAILED": 1 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "pol_access_0067", + "domain": "policy", + "subdomain": "access_control", + "logic_type": "first_order_ground", + "premises": [ + "There are 4 employees: Bob, Hank, Alice, and Jack.", + "Available roles: Analyst, Contractor, Intern, Auditor.", + "Resources: Audit Logs, Admin Panel, Financial Records, HR Portal, Deployment Pipeline, Database.", + "Each employee has exactly one role.", + "A Intern who can access HR Portal also gets access to Database.", + "No Intern may access HR Portal.", + "A Intern who can access Financial Records also gets access to Database.", + "A Contractor who can access Database also gets access to Audit Logs.", + "A Auditor who can access Admin Panel also gets access to Audit Logs.", + "No Intern may access Admin Panel.", + "Alice is a Contractor.", + "Jack is a Contractor." + ], + "formal_representation": "; Policy domain: role-based access control\n; ('conditional', 'Intern', 'HR Portal', 'Database')\n; ('deny', 'Intern', 'HR Portal')\n; ('conditional', 'Intern', 'Financial Records', 'Database')\n; ('conditional', 'Contractor', 'Database', 'Audit Logs')\n; ('conditional', 'Auditor', 'Admin Panel', 'Audit Logs')\n; ('deny', 'Intern', 'Admin Panel')\n; ('assigned', 'Alice', 'Contractor')\n; ('assigned', 'Jack', 'Contractor')", + "entities": { + "people": [ + "Bob", + "Hank", + "Alice", + "Jack" + ], + "roles": [ + "Analyst", + "Contractor", + "Intern", + "Auditor" + ], + "resources": [ + "Audit Logs", + "Admin Panel", + "Financial Records", + "HR Portal", + "Deployment Pipeline", + "Database" + ] + }, + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 6, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Can both Hank and Bob hold the Contractor role?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "It's possible for both to be Contractors, but also possible for one or both to have different roles.", + "query_type": "exclusive", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Can Jack have the Auditor role?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "Assigning Jack the Auditor role would violate one or more constraints.", + "query_type": "must_have_role", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Is Hank permitted to use Deployment Pipeline?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether Hank can access Deployment Pipeline depends on their role assignment, which is not fully determined.", + "query_type": "can_access", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Can both Jack and Hank access Financial Records?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether both can access Financial Records depends on their role assignments, which are not fully constrained.", + "query_type": "two_people", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1, + 2 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Does Jack have access rights to Audit Logs?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether Jack can access Audit Logs depends on their role assignment, which is not fully determined.", + "query_type": "can_access", + "depends_on": [ + 1, + 3 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q5", + "query": "Is Alice permitted to use Deployment Pipeline?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether Alice can access Deployment Pipeline depends on their role assignment, which is not fully determined.", + "query_type": "can_access", + "depends_on": [ + 2 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "UNKNOWN": 5, + "CONTRADICTED": 1 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "pol_elig_0037", + "domain": "policy", + "subdomain": "eligibility", + "logic_type": "first_order_ground", + "premises": [ + "Applicants: Frank, Hank, Eve, and Charlie.", + "Programs: Research Grant, Housing Assistance, Scholarship.", + "Frank has 15 years of experience.", + "Frank is not a local resident.", + "Hank is a local resident.", + "Eve's annual income is $35,000.", + "Charlie is a local resident.", + "Research Grant is restricted to local residents.", + "Housing Assistance is restricted to local residents.", + "Scholarship requires applicants to be at least 21 years old." + ], + "formal_representation": "; Eligibility rules with numeric constraints (QF_LIA + Bool)", + "entities": { + "applicants": [ + "Frank", + "Hank", + "Eve", + "Charlie" + ], + "programs": [ + "Research Grant", + "Housing Assistance", + "Scholarship" + ] + }, + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 5, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Is Hank eligible for Housing Assistance while Frank is not?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "The comparison depends on unknown attributes; multiple scenarios are consistent.", + "query_type": "compare", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Is Frank at least 40 years old?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "The premises don't determine whether Frank satisfies: at least 40.", + "query_type": "attribute", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Does Frank earn at least $100,000?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "The premises don't determine whether Frank satisfies: income >= $100,000.", + "query_type": "attribute", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Is Eve at least 30 years old?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "The premises don't determine whether Eve satisfies: at least 30.", + "query_type": "attribute", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Can Hank apply for Scholarship?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some of Hank's attributes are unknown; they might or might not meet all Scholarship requirements.", + "query_type": "eligible", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "UNKNOWN": 5 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "pol_access_0001", + "domain": "policy", + "subdomain": "access_control", + "logic_type": "first_order_ground", + "premises": [ + "There are 6 employees: Bob, Eve, Jack, Alice, Diana, and Charlie.", + "Available roles: Admin, Analyst, Guest, Intern, Auditor.", + "Resources: Admin Panel, Config Server, Database, Source Code.", + "Each employee has exactly one role.", + "A Auditor who can access Admin Panel also gets access to Config Server.", + "No Intern may access Database.", + "Any Auditor can access Database.", + "A Intern who can access Database also gets access to Admin Panel.", + "Jack is a Guest.", + "Alice is a Auditor.", + "Diana is a Intern." + ], + "formal_representation": "; Policy domain: role-based access control\n; ('conditional', 'Auditor', 'Admin Panel', 'Config Server')\n; ('deny', 'Intern', 'Database')\n; ('grant', 'Auditor', 'Database')\n; ('conditional', 'Intern', 'Database', 'Admin Panel')\n; ('assigned', 'Jack', 'Guest')\n; ('assigned', 'Alice', 'Auditor')\n; ('assigned', 'Diana', 'Intern')", + "entities": { + "people": [ + "Bob", + "Eve", + "Jack", + "Alice", + "Diana", + "Charlie" + ], + "roles": [ + "Admin", + "Analyst", + "Guest", + "Intern", + "Auditor" + ], + "resources": [ + "Admin Panel", + "Config Server", + "Database", + "Source Code" + ] + }, + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 7, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Is Jack permitted to use Config Server?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether Jack can access Config Server depends on their role assignment, which is not fully determined.", + "query_type": "can_access", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Must Charlie be a Analyst?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Multiple role assignments are consistent with the constraints; Charlie may or may not be a Analyst.", + "query_type": "must_have_role", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Can Jack access Database?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether Jack can access Database depends on their role assignment, which is not fully determined.", + "query_type": "can_access", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Can both Eve and Charlie access Database?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether both can access Database depends on their role assignments, which are not fully constrained.", + "query_type": "two_people", + "depends_on": [ + 1, + 2 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Can both Eve and Bob access Config Server?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether both can access Config Server depends on their role assignments, which are not fully constrained.", + "query_type": "two_people", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 3 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q5", + "query": "Can both Alice and Jack hold the Intern role?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "At most one of Alice or Jack can be a Intern, due to the single-role constraint and other assignments.", + "query_type": "exclusive", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 2 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q6", + "query": "Can both Charlie and Eve hold the Intern role?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "It's possible for both to be Interns, but also possible for one or both to have different roles.", + "query_type": "exclusive", + "depends_on": [ + 1, + 3, + 4, + 5 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "UNKNOWN": 6, + "CONTRADICTED": 1 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "pol_elig_0016", + "domain": "policy", + "subdomain": "eligibility", + "logic_type": "first_order_ground", + "premises": [ + "Applicants: Diana, Charlie, Grace, Frank, Hank, and Alice.", + "Programs: Training Program, Housing Assistance, Health Coverage.", + "Diana has 0 years of experience.", + "Diana's annual income is $65,000.", + "Diana is 65 years old.", + "Charlie's annual income is $50,000.", + "Grace's annual income is $80,000.", + "Grace is not a local resident.", + "Frank is not a local resident.", + "Hank's annual income is $35,000.", + "Alice is not a local resident.", + "Training Program is restricted to local residents.", + "Training Program requires annual income at most $60,000.", + "Housing Assistance requires applicants to be at least 21 years old.", + "Housing Assistance requires at least 3 years of experience.", + "Housing Assistance is only available to applicants 60 or younger.", + "Health Coverage is restricted to local residents.", + "Health Coverage is only available to applicants 45 or younger." + ], + "formal_representation": "; Eligibility rules with numeric constraints (QF_LIA + Bool)", + "entities": { + "applicants": [ + "Diana", + "Charlie", + "Grace", + "Frank", + "Hank", + "Alice" + ], + "programs": [ + "Training Program", + "Housing Assistance", + "Health Coverage" + ] + }, + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 6, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Can Hank be eligible for both Health Coverage and Housing Assistance?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether Hank can qualify for both depends on unknown attribute values.", + "query_type": "mutual_exclusive", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Is Frank at least 50 years old?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "The premises don't determine whether Frank satisfies: at least 50.", + "query_type": "attribute", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Is Diana eligible for Health Coverage while Charlie is not?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "It's impossible for Diana to qualify while Charlie doesn't, given their known attributes.", + "query_type": "compare", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Can Grace be eligible for both Health Coverage and Training Program?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "The requirements for Health Coverage and Training Program are mutually exclusive for Grace's attributes.", + "query_type": "mutual_exclusive", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 2 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Is Diana eligible for Training Program while Charlie is not?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "It's impossible for Diana to qualify while Charlie doesn't, given their known attributes.", + "query_type": "compare", + "depends_on": [ + 2, + 3 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q5", + "query": "Can Frank apply for Housing Assistance?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some of Frank's attributes are unknown; they might or might not meet all Housing Assistance requirements.", + "query_type": "eligible", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "UNKNOWN": 3, + "CONTRADICTED": 3 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "pol_elig_0005", + "domain": "policy", + "subdomain": "eligibility", + "logic_type": "first_order_ground", + "premises": [ + "Applicants: Eve, Hank, Grace, and Frank.", + "Programs: Business License, Tax Credit.", + "Eve is a local resident.", + "Hank is 39 years old.", + "Hank is a local resident.", + "Hank's annual income is $80,000.", + "Grace's annual income is $50,000.", + "Grace is a local resident.", + "Grace is 21 years old.", + "Frank is 55 years old.", + "Frank's annual income is $120,000.", + "Frank has 19 years of experience.", + "Business License requires at least 3 years of experience.", + "Tax Credit requires at least 3 years of experience.", + "Tax Credit requires annual income at least $30,000.", + "Tax Credit requires at least 5 years of experience." + ], + "formal_representation": "; Eligibility rules with numeric constraints (QF_LIA + Bool)", + "entities": { + "applicants": [ + "Eve", + "Hank", + "Grace", + "Frank" + ], + "programs": [ + "Business License", + "Tax Credit" + ] + }, + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 6, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Does Frank earn at least $50,000?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "The premises directly establish that Frank satisfies: income >= $50,000.", + "query_type": "attribute", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Does Eve earn at least $75,000?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "The premises don't determine whether Eve satisfies: income >= $75,000.", + "query_type": "attribute", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Is Frank eligible for Tax Credit while Hank is not?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "The comparison depends on unknown attributes; multiple scenarios are consistent.", + "query_type": "compare", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Does Eve earn at least $100,000?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "The premises don't determine whether Eve satisfies: income >= $100,000.", + "query_type": "attribute", + "depends_on": [ + 1 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Can Eve apply for Business License?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some of Eve's attributes are unknown; they might or might not meet all Business License requirements.", + "query_type": "eligible", + "depends_on": [ + 1, + 3 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q5", + "query": "Is Grace eligible for Business License?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some of Grace's attributes are unknown; they might or might not meet all Business License requirements.", + "query_type": "eligible", + "depends_on": [ + 4 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "ENTAILED": 1, + "UNKNOWN": 5 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "pol_access_0059", + "domain": "policy", + "subdomain": "access_control", + "logic_type": "first_order_ground", + "premises": [ + "There are 6 employees: Charlie, Alice, Bob, Eve, Hank, and Diana.", + "Available roles: Manager, Contractor, Analyst, Intern, Admin.", + "Resources: Financial Records, HR Portal, Source Code, Database.", + "Each employee has exactly one role.", + "Any Contractor can access Financial Records.", + "A Contractor who can access Financial Records also gets access to HR Portal.", + "A Manager who can access Database also gets access to Source Code.", + "A Intern who can access Database also gets access to Financial Records.", + "No Admin may access HR Portal.", + "No Admin may access Source Code.", + "Diana is a Admin.", + "Alice is a Analyst.", + "Eve is a Analyst." + ], + "formal_representation": "; Policy domain: role-based access control\n; ('grant', 'Contractor', 'Financial Records')\n; ('conditional', 'Contractor', 'Financial Records', 'HR Portal')\n; ('conditional', 'Manager', 'Database', 'Source Code')\n; ('conditional', 'Intern', 'Database', 'Financial Records')\n; ('deny', 'Admin', 'HR Portal')\n; ('deny', 'Admin', 'Source Code')\n; ('assigned', 'Diana', 'Admin')\n; ('assigned', 'Alice', 'Analyst')\n; ('assigned', 'Eve', 'Analyst')", + "entities": { + "people": [ + "Charlie", + "Alice", + "Bob", + "Eve", + "Hank", + "Diana" + ], + "roles": [ + "Manager", + "Contractor", + "Analyst", + "Intern", + "Admin" + ], + "resources": [ + "Financial Records", + "HR Portal", + "Source Code", + "Database" + ] + }, + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 5, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Can Diana access Source Code?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "No valid role assignment for Diana allows access to Source Code, given the denial rules.", + "query_type": "can_access", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Can both Alice and Eve access HR Portal?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether both can access HR Portal depends on their role assignments, which are not fully constrained.", + "query_type": "two_people", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Must Diana be a Admin?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "The constraints force Diana into the Admin role; no other assignment is consistent.", + "query_type": "must_have_role", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Is Charlie permitted to use Database?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether Charlie can access Database depends on their role assignment, which is not fully determined.", + "query_type": "can_access", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Can both Diana and Eve hold the Manager role?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "At most one of Diana or Eve can be a Manager, due to the single-role constraint and other assignments.", + "query_type": "exclusive", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1, + 2 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "CONTRADICTED": 2, + "UNKNOWN": 2, + "ENTAILED": 1 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "pol_elig_0008", + "domain": "policy", + "subdomain": "eligibility", + "logic_type": "first_order_ground", + "premises": [ + "Applicants: Hank, Frank, Diana, Grace, and Eve.", + "Programs: Travel Visa, Housing Assistance.", + "Hank is not a local resident.", + "Hank is 65 years old.", + "Frank's annual income is $120,000.", + "Frank is a local resident.", + "Frank is 28 years old.", + "Diana's annual income is $80,000.", + "Grace is not a local resident.", + "Grace has 1 years of experience.", + "Grace is 59 years old.", + "Eve has 12 years of experience.", + "Eve is a local resident.", + "Eve's annual income is $50,000.", + "Travel Visa is only available to applicants 45 or younger.", + "Travel Visa is restricted to local residents.", + "Travel Visa requires applicants to be at least 25 years old.", + "Housing Assistance requires annual income at most $60,000.", + "Housing Assistance is only available to applicants 60 or younger.", + "Housing Assistance is only available to applicants 65 or younger." + ], + "formal_representation": "; Eligibility rules with numeric constraints (QF_LIA + Bool)", + "entities": { + "applicants": [ + "Hank", + "Frank", + "Diana", + "Grace", + "Eve" + ], + "programs": [ + "Travel Visa", + "Housing Assistance" + ] + }, + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 5, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Is Frank eligible for Travel Visa while Diana is not?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "The comparison depends on unknown attributes; multiple scenarios are consistent.", + "query_type": "compare", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Can Diana be eligible for both Travel Visa and Housing Assistance?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "The requirements for Travel Visa and Housing Assistance are mutually exclusive for Diana's attributes.", + "query_type": "mutual_exclusive", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Can Eve be eligible for both Travel Visa and Housing Assistance?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether Eve can qualify for both depends on unknown attribute values.", + "query_type": "mutual_exclusive", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Does Hank earn at least $100,000?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "The premises don't determine whether Hank satisfies: income >= $100,000.", + "query_type": "attribute", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Can Hank be eligible for both Travel Visa and Housing Assistance?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "The requirements for Travel Visa and Housing Assistance are mutually exclusive for Hank's attributes.", + "query_type": "mutual_exclusive", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1, + 2, + 3 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "UNKNOWN": 3, + "CONTRADICTED": 2 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "pol_elig_0086", + "domain": "policy", + "subdomain": "eligibility", + "logic_type": "first_order_ground", + "premises": [ + "Applicants: Hank, Eve, Diana, Alice, and Frank.", + "Programs: Health Coverage, Research Grant.", + "Hank is a local resident.", + "Eve's annual income is $65,000.", + "Eve is 37 years old.", + "Eve is a local resident.", + "Diana's annual income is $65,000.", + "Diana is not a local resident.", + "Diana is 64 years old.", + "Alice's annual income is $35,000.", + "Alice is not a local resident.", + "Alice has 6 years of experience.", + "Frank has 19 years of experience.", + "Health Coverage is only available to applicants 65 or younger.", + "Health Coverage requires annual income at least $30,000.", + "Research Grant is restricted to local residents.", + "Research Grant is only available to applicants 55 or younger." + ], + "formal_representation": "; Eligibility rules with numeric constraints (QF_LIA + Bool)", + "entities": { + "applicants": [ + "Hank", + "Eve", + "Diana", + "Alice", + "Frank" + ], + "programs": [ + "Health Coverage", + "Research Grant" + ] + }, + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 7, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Is Diana eligible for Health Coverage while Hank is not?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "The comparison depends on unknown attributes; multiple scenarios are consistent.", + "query_type": "compare", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Can Hank be eligible for both Research Grant and Health Coverage?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether Hank can qualify for both depends on unknown attribute values.", + "query_type": "mutual_exclusive", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Is Frank eligible for Research Grant while Diana is not?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "The comparison depends on unknown attributes; multiple scenarios are consistent.", + "query_type": "compare", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Can Alice apply for Research Grant?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "Alice fails at least one eligibility requirement for Research Grant, making qualification impossible.", + "query_type": "eligible", + "depends_on": [ + 1, + 2 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Can Frank be eligible for both Health Coverage and Research Grant?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether Frank can qualify for both depends on unknown attribute values.", + "query_type": "mutual_exclusive", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1, + 2, + 3 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q5", + "query": "Can Alice be eligible for both Health Coverage and Research Grant?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "The requirements for Health Coverage and Research Grant are mutually exclusive for Alice's attributes.", + "query_type": "mutual_exclusive", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1, + 2, + 3, + 4 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q6", + "query": "Is Eve at least 30 years old?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "The premises directly establish that Eve satisfies: at least 30.", + "query_type": "attribute", + "depends_on": [] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "UNKNOWN": 4, + "CONTRADICTED": 2, + "ENTAILED": 1 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "under_diag_0010", + "domain": "underspecified", + "subdomain": "diagnostic", + "logic_type": "partial_information", + "premises": [ + "The individual presents with certain symptoms.", + "The possible conditions are: allergic reaction, heat exhaustion, flu.", + "Exactly one condition is present.", + "The individual has fatigue.", + "The individual has dizziness.", + "Allergic reaction always causes dizziness.", + "Heat exhaustion always causes dizziness.", + "Heat exhaustion always causes fatigue.", + "Heat exhaustion always causes fever.", + "Flu always causes fever." + ], + "formal_representation": "; Diagnostic: exactly-one condition, symptom implications, partial observations", + "entities": { + "conditions": [ + "allergic reaction", + "heat exhaustion", + "flu" + ], + "symptoms": [ + "dizziness", + "fever", + "fatigue" + ], + "observed": [ + "fatigue", + "dizziness" + ] + }, + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 5, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Should we expect fever given the observations?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether the individual shows fever depends on which condition is present, which is not yet determined.", + "query_type": "unobserved_symptom", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Can we rule out flu?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "The observations don't conclusively rule out flu, but don't confirm it either.", + "query_type": "rule_out", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Could the individual have both heat exhaustion and flu?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "Exactly one condition is present; having both heat exhaustion and flu violates this premise.", + "query_type": "both_conditions", + "depends_on": [ + 1 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Does the individual have flu?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Multiple conditions remain consistent with the partial observations. flu is possible but not certain.", + "query_type": "has_condition", + "depends_on": [ + 1, + 2 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Is allergic reaction definitively excluded?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "The observations don't conclusively rule out allergic reaction, but don't confirm it either.", + "query_type": "rule_out", + "depends_on": [] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "UNKNOWN": 4, + "CONTRADICTED": 1 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "under_diag_0087", + "domain": "underspecified", + "subdomain": "diagnostic", + "logic_type": "partial_information", + "premises": [ + "Patient a presents with certain symptoms.", + "The possible conditions are: flu, dehydration, migraine, viral infection, food poisoning.", + "Exactly one condition is present.", + "Patient a has fatigue.", + "Patient a does not have headache.", + "Flu always causes headache.", + "Flu always causes fatigue.", + "Flu always causes fever.", + "Dehydration always causes fever.", + "Dehydration always causes headache.", + "Migraine always causes dizziness.", + "Migraine always causes fatigue.", + "Viral infection always causes fever.", + "Food poisoning always causes headache.", + "Food poisoning always causes rash." + ], + "formal_representation": "; Diagnostic: exactly-one condition, symptom implications, partial observations", + "entities": { + "conditions": [ + "flu", + "dehydration", + "migraine", + "viral infection", + "food poisoning" + ], + "symptoms": [ + "headache", + "fever", + "fatigue", + "rash", + "dizziness" + ], + "observed": [ + "fatigue", + "headache" + ] + }, + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 6, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Is painkillers appropriate if the diagnosis is migraine?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether painkillers is appropriate depends on confirming migraine as the diagnosis, which is not yet determined.", + "query_type": "treatment", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Could Patient A have both flu and migraine?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "Exactly one condition is present; having both flu and migraine violates this premise.", + "query_type": "both_conditions", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Could Patient A have both viral infection and food poisoning?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "Exactly one condition is present; having both viral infection and food poisoning violates this premise.", + "query_type": "both_conditions", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Should we expect dizziness given the observations?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether Patient A shows dizziness depends on which condition is present, which is not yet determined.", + "query_type": "unobserved_symptom", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Is antihistamines appropriate if the diagnosis is viral infection?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether antihistamines is appropriate depends on confirming viral infection as the diagnosis, which is not yet determined.", + "query_type": "treatment", + "depends_on": [ + 2 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q5", + "query": "Is rest appropriate if the diagnosis is food poisoning?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "food poisoning has been ruled out, so treatment planning for food poisoning is not applicable.", + "query_type": "treatment", + "depends_on": [ + 2 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "UNKNOWN": 3, + "CONTRADICTED": 3 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "under_fault_0011", + "domain": "underspecified", + "subdomain": "fault_diagnosis", + "logic_type": "partial_information", + "premises": [ + "A system has 4 components: display adapter, power supply, input controller, and memory module.", + "If display adapter fails, input controller also fails.", + "If input controller fails, display adapter also fails.", + "If power supply fails, memory module also fails.", + "If input controller fails, memory module also fails.", + "display adapter is functioning." + ], + "formal_representation": "; Fault diagnosis: dependency cascades, partial sensor data", + "entities": { + "components": [ + "display adapter", + "power supply", + "input controller", + "memory module" + ], + "known": [ + "display adapter" + ], + "unknown": [ + "power supply", + "input controller", + "memory module" + ] + }, + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 7, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "If display adapter fails, must memory module also fail?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "A dependency chain exists from display adapter to memory module, so display adapter's failure guarantees memory module's failure.", + "query_type": "cascade", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Are all components functioning?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some components lack sensor data; full system health is indeterminate.", + "query_type": "system_ok", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Can both display adapter and power supply be failed simultaneously?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "The 'at-least-one' or dependency constraints prevent simultaneous failure of display adapter and power supply.", + "query_type": "both_fail", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Is power supply currently functioning?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "No sensor data for power supply and dependency chains don't uniquely determine its state.", + "query_type": "is_working", + "depends_on": [ + 2 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Can both input controller and display adapter be failed simultaneously?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "The 'at-least-one' or dependency constraints prevent simultaneous failure of input controller and display adapter.", + "query_type": "both_fail", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 2 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q5", + "query": "If display adapter fails, must input controller also fail?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "A dependency chain exists from display adapter to input controller, so display adapter's failure guarantees input controller's failure.", + "query_type": "cascade", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 2, + 4 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q6", + "query": "If memory module fails, must power supply also fail?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether memory module's failure cascades to power supply depends on intermediate component states that are unknown.", + "query_type": "cascade", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 2, + 3 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "ENTAILED": 2, + "UNKNOWN": 3, + "CONTRADICTED": 2 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "under_diag_0083", + "domain": "underspecified", + "subdomain": "diagnostic", + "logic_type": "partial_information", + "premises": [ + "The patient presents with certain symptoms.", + "The possible conditions are: allergic reaction, heat exhaustion, migraine, flu, food poisoning.", + "Exactly one condition is present.", + "The patient does not have joint pain.", + "The patient has fever.", + "Allergic reaction always causes headache.", + "Heat exhaustion always causes headache.", + "Migraine always causes fever.", + "Flu always causes nausea.", + "Flu always causes headache.", + "Food poisoning always causes joint pain.", + "Food poisoning always causes nausea.", + "Food poisoning always causes fever.", + "Allergic reaction never causes joint pain." + ], + "formal_representation": "; Diagnostic: exactly-one condition, symptom implications, partial observations", + "entities": { + "conditions": [ + "allergic reaction", + "heat exhaustion", + "migraine", + "flu", + "food poisoning" + ], + "symptoms": [ + "nausea", + "headache", + "joint pain", + "fever" + ], + "observed": [ + "joint pain", + "fever" + ] + }, + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 5, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Can we rule out migraine?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "The observations don't conclusively rule out migraine, but don't confirm it either.", + "query_type": "rule_out", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Is food poisoning the correct diagnosis?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "The symptom pattern is inconsistent with food poisoning\u2014at least one observation directly contradicts it.", + "query_type": "has_condition", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Will the patient show headache?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether the patient shows headache depends on which condition is present, which is not yet determined.", + "query_type": "unobserved_symptom", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Could the patient have both migraine and food poisoning?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "Exactly one condition is present; having both migraine and food poisoning violates this premise.", + "query_type": "both_conditions", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Is antibiotics appropriate if the diagnosis is migraine?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether antibiotics is appropriate depends on confirming migraine as the diagnosis, which is not yet determined.", + "query_type": "treatment", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 3 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "UNKNOWN": 3, + "CONTRADICTED": 2 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "under_fault_0091", + "domain": "underspecified", + "subdomain": "fault_diagnosis", + "logic_type": "partial_information", + "premises": [ + "A system has 4 components: network card, storage drive, cooling fan, and power supply.", + "If network card fails, power supply also fails.", + "If storage drive fails, cooling fan also fails.", + "cooling fan is functioning.", + "power supply is failed." + ], + "formal_representation": "; Fault diagnosis: dependency cascades, partial sensor data", + "entities": { + "components": [ + "network card", + "storage drive", + "cooling fan", + "power supply" + ], + "known": [ + "cooling fan", + "power supply" + ], + "unknown": [ + "network card", + "storage drive" + ] + }, + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 5, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Has cooling fan failed?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "Either direct observation or cascade failure confirms cooling fan has failed.", + "query_type": "is_working", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Can both cooling fan and network card be failed simultaneously?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "The 'at-least-one' or dependency constraints prevent simultaneous failure of cooling fan and network card.", + "query_type": "both_fail", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "If cooling fan fails, must power supply also fail?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "A dependency chain exists from cooling fan to power supply, so cooling fan's failure guarantees power supply's failure.", + "query_type": "cascade", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Can both cooling fan and power supply be failed simultaneously?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "The 'at-least-one' or dependency constraints prevent simultaneous failure of cooling fan and power supply.", + "query_type": "both_fail", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1, + 2 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Is power supply currently functioning?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "Either direct observation or cascade failure confirms power supply has failed.", + "query_type": "is_working", + "depends_on": [ + 2, + 3 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "CONTRADICTED": 4, + "ENTAILED": 1 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "under_inv_0090", + "domain": "underspecified", + "subdomain": "investigation", + "logic_type": "partial_information", + "premises": [ + "A crime was committed. The suspects are: Harper, Blake, Alex, and Jordan.", + "Exactly one suspect is guilty.", + "Harper has no prior criminal record.", + "Blake's alibi has been confirmed (they were elsewhere).", + "Blake has no prior criminal record.", + "Alex has no prior criminal record." + ], + "formal_representation": "; Investigation: exactly-one guilty, partial evidence", + "entities": { + "suspects": [ + "Harper", + "Blake", + "Alex", + "Jordan" + ] + }, + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 8, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Is Jordan the guilty party?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "The evidence is insufficient to determine Jordan's guilt. Multiple suspects remain viable.", + "query_type": "is_guilty", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Could both Jordan and Alex be guilty?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "Exactly one person is guilty; both Jordan and Alex being guilty violates the single-culprit premise.", + "query_type": "pair", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Is the culprit either Alex or Blake?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "While Alex and Blake are both possible, other suspects haven't been eliminated either.", + "query_type": "narrow_down", + "depends_on": [ + 1 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Is the culprit either Alex or Harper?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "While Alex and Harper are both possible, other suspects haven't been eliminated either.", + "query_type": "narrow_down", + "depends_on": [ + 1, + 2 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Is the culprit either Jordan or Alex?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "While Jordan and Alex are both possible, other suspects haven't been eliminated either.", + "query_type": "narrow_down", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1, + 2, + 3 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q5", + "query": "Could both Blake and Alex be guilty?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "Exactly one person is guilty; both Blake and Alex being guilty violates the single-culprit premise.", + "query_type": "pair", + "depends_on": [ + 1, + 2, + 3, + 4 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q6", + "query": "Is the culprit either Blake or Harper?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "While Blake and Harper are both possible, other suspects haven't been eliminated either.", + "query_type": "narrow_down", + "depends_on": [ + 2, + 3, + 5 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q7", + "query": "Can we conclude Harper is guilty?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "The evidence is insufficient to determine Harper's guilt. Multiple suspects remain viable.", + "query_type": "is_guilty", + "depends_on": [ + 3, + 6 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "UNKNOWN": 6, + "CONTRADICTED": 2 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "under_diag_0040", + "domain": "underspecified", + "subdomain": "diagnostic", + "logic_type": "partial_information", + "premises": [ + "Patient a presents with certain symptoms.", + "The possible conditions are: food poisoning, flu, viral infection, dehydration.", + "Exactly one condition is present.", + "Patient a has joint pain.", + "Patient a has dizziness.", + "Food poisoning always causes dizziness.", + "Food poisoning always causes headache.", + "Food poisoning always causes joint pain.", + "Flu always causes headache.", + "Flu always causes joint pain.", + "Flu always causes dizziness.", + "Viral infection always causes headache.", + "Viral infection always causes dizziness.", + "Viral infection always causes joint pain.", + "Dehydration always causes joint pain.", + "Dehydration always causes dizziness.", + "Dehydration always causes headache." + ], + "formal_representation": "; Diagnostic: exactly-one condition, symptom implications, partial observations", + "entities": { + "conditions": [ + "food poisoning", + "flu", + "viral infection", + "dehydration" + ], + "symptoms": [ + "joint pain", + "headache", + "dizziness" + ], + "observed": [ + "joint pain", + "dizziness" + ] + }, + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 5, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Will Patient A show headache?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "Every condition consistent with the observations causes headache, so Patient A must show it.", + "query_type": "unobserved_symptom", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Should we expect headache given the observations?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "Every condition consistent with the observations causes headache, so Patient A must show it.", + "query_type": "unobserved_symptom", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Could Patient A have both dehydration and flu?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "Exactly one condition is present; having both dehydration and flu violates this premise.", + "query_type": "both_conditions", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Is viral infection definitively excluded?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "The observations don't conclusively rule out viral infection, but don't confirm it either.", + "query_type": "rule_out", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Is cold compress appropriate if the diagnosis is food poisoning?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether cold compress is appropriate depends on confirming food poisoning as the diagnosis, which is not yet determined.", + "query_type": "treatment", + "depends_on": [] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "ENTAILED": 2, + "CONTRADICTED": 1, + "UNKNOWN": 2 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "under_diag_0096", + "domain": "underspecified", + "subdomain": "diagnostic", + "logic_type": "partial_information", + "premises": [ + "Patient a presents with certain symptoms.", + "The possible conditions are: viral infection, migraine, food poisoning, heat exhaustion, allergic reaction.", + "Exactly one condition is present.", + "Patient a has nausea.", + "Patient a has cough.", + "Viral infection always causes nausea.", + "Migraine always causes cough.", + "Migraine always causes nausea.", + "Food poisoning always causes headache.", + "Food poisoning always causes cough.", + "Heat exhaustion always causes cough.", + "Heat exhaustion always causes headache.", + "Heat exhaustion always causes nausea.", + "Allergic reaction always causes cough.", + "Allergic reaction always causes nausea.", + "Food poisoning never causes nausea." + ], + "formal_representation": "; Diagnostic: exactly-one condition, symptom implications, partial observations", + "entities": { + "conditions": [ + "viral infection", + "migraine", + "food poisoning", + "heat exhaustion", + "allergic reaction" + ], + "symptoms": [ + "cough", + "nausea", + "headache" + ], + "observed": [ + "nausea", + "cough" + ] + }, + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 5, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Is antihistamines appropriate if the diagnosis is allergic reaction?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether antihistamines is appropriate depends on confirming allergic reaction as the diagnosis, which is not yet determined.", + "query_type": "treatment", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Is headache guaranteed for Patient A?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether Patient A shows headache depends on which condition is present, which is not yet determined.", + "query_type": "unobserved_symptom", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Can we rule out food poisoning?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "The observations are incompatible with food poisoning; it can be definitively ruled out.", + "query_type": "rule_out", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Is viral infection the correct diagnosis?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Multiple conditions remain consistent with the partial observations. viral infection is possible but not certain.", + "query_type": "has_condition", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Does Patient A have allergic reaction?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Multiple conditions remain consistent with the partial observations. allergic reaction is possible but not certain.", + "query_type": "has_condition", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "UNKNOWN": 4, + "ENTAILED": 1 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "under_diag_0105", + "domain": "underspecified", + "subdomain": "diagnostic", + "logic_type": "partial_information", + "premises": [ + "Patient a presents with certain symptoms.", + "The possible conditions are: heat exhaustion, food poisoning, flu, dehydration.", + "Exactly one condition is present.", + "Patient a has headache.", + "Patient a has dizziness.", + "Heat exhaustion always causes dizziness.", + "Heat exhaustion always causes headache.", + "Heat exhaustion always causes fatigue.", + "Food poisoning always causes headache.", + "Food poisoning always causes fatigue.", + "Flu always causes dizziness.", + "Dehydration always causes headache.", + "Dehydration always causes dizziness." + ], + "formal_representation": "; Diagnostic: exactly-one condition, symptom implications, partial observations", + "entities": { + "conditions": [ + "heat exhaustion", + "food poisoning", + "flu", + "dehydration" + ], + "symptoms": [ + "dizziness", + "fatigue", + "headache" + ], + "observed": [ + "headache", + "dizziness" + ] + }, + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 6, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Is painkillers appropriate if the diagnosis is heat exhaustion?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether painkillers is appropriate depends on confirming heat exhaustion as the diagnosis, which is not yet determined.", + "query_type": "treatment", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Could Patient A have both food poisoning and heat exhaustion?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "Exactly one condition is present; having both food poisoning and heat exhaustion violates this premise.", + "query_type": "both_conditions", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Should we expect fatigue given the observations?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether Patient A shows fatigue depends on which condition is present, which is not yet determined.", + "query_type": "unobserved_symptom", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Does Patient A have flu?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Multiple conditions remain consistent with the partial observations. flu is possible but not certain.", + "query_type": "has_condition", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Will Patient A show fatigue?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether Patient A shows fatigue depends on which condition is present, which is not yet determined.", + "query_type": "unobserved_symptom", + "depends_on": [ + 2 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q5", + "query": "Is cold compress appropriate if the diagnosis is food poisoning?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether cold compress is appropriate depends on confirming food poisoning as the diagnosis, which is not yet determined.", + "query_type": "treatment", + "depends_on": [ + 1 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "UNKNOWN": 5, + "CONTRADICTED": 1 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "under_fault_0027", + "domain": "underspecified", + "subdomain": "fault_diagnosis", + "logic_type": "partial_information", + "premises": [ + "A system has 5 components: storage drive, power supply, cooling fan, input controller, and memory module.", + "If power supply fails, input controller also fails.", + "If storage drive fails, input controller also fails.", + "If power supply fails, cooling fan also fails.", + "At least one of input controller or storage drive must be working.", + "input controller is functioning.", + "power supply is functioning." + ], + "formal_representation": "; Fault diagnosis: dependency cascades, partial sensor data", + "entities": { + "components": [ + "storage drive", + "power supply", + "cooling fan", + "input controller", + "memory module" + ], + "known": [ + "input controller", + "power supply" + ], + "unknown": [ + "storage drive", + "cooling fan", + "memory module" + ] + }, + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 8, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Has cooling fan failed?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "No sensor data for cooling fan and dependency chains don't uniquely determine its state.", + "query_type": "is_working", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Are all components functioning?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some components lack sensor data; full system health is indeterminate.", + "query_type": "system_ok", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "If memory module fails, must input controller also fail?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether memory module's failure cascades to input controller depends on intermediate component states that are unknown.", + "query_type": "cascade", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "If input controller fails, must storage drive also fail?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "A dependency chain exists from input controller to storage drive, so input controller's failure guarantees storage drive's failure.", + "query_type": "cascade", + "depends_on": [ + 2 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Is cooling fan currently functioning?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "No sensor data for cooling fan and dependency chains don't uniquely determine its state.", + "query_type": "is_working", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q5", + "query": "Can both memory module and storage drive be failed simultaneously?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "The 'at-least-one' or dependency constraints prevent simultaneous failure of memory module and storage drive.", + "query_type": "both_fail", + "depends_on": [ + 2, + 3 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q6", + "query": "If storage drive fails, must power supply also fail?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "A dependency chain exists from storage drive to power supply, so storage drive's failure guarantees power supply's failure.", + "query_type": "cascade", + "depends_on": [ + 3, + 5 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q7", + "query": "Can both memory module and input controller be failed simultaneously?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "The 'at-least-one' or dependency constraints prevent simultaneous failure of memory module and input controller.", + "query_type": "both_fail", + "depends_on": [ + 2, + 3, + 5 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "UNKNOWN": 4, + "ENTAILED": 2, + "CONTRADICTED": 2 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "under_fault_0050", + "domain": "underspecified", + "subdomain": "fault_diagnosis", + "logic_type": "partial_information", + "premises": [ + "A system has 4 components: cooling fan, network card, power supply, and display adapter.", + "If display adapter fails, power supply also fails.", + "If power supply fails, network card also fails.", + "If network card fails, power supply also fails.", + "If display adapter fails, power supply also fails.", + "cooling fan is functioning." + ], + "formal_representation": "; Fault diagnosis: dependency cascades, partial sensor data", + "entities": { + "components": [ + "cooling fan", + "network card", + "power supply", + "display adapter" + ], + "known": [ + "cooling fan" + ], + "unknown": [ + "network card", + "power supply", + "display adapter" + ] + }, + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 6, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Has network card failed?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "No sensor data for network card and dependency chains don't uniquely determine its state.", + "query_type": "is_working", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "If network card fails, must display adapter also fail?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether network card's failure cascades to display adapter depends on intermediate component states that are unknown.", + "query_type": "cascade", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "If network card fails, must cooling fan also fail?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether network card's failure cascades to cooling fan depends on intermediate component states that are unknown.", + "query_type": "cascade", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "If power supply fails, must network card also fail?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "A dependency chain exists from power supply to network card, so power supply's failure guarantees network card's failure.", + "query_type": "cascade", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1, + 2 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Are all components functioning?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some components lack sensor data; full system health is indeterminate.", + "query_type": "system_ok", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q5", + "query": "If power supply fails, must cooling fan also fail?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether power supply's failure cascades to cooling fan depends on intermediate component states that are unknown.", + "query_type": "cascade", + "depends_on": [ + 2, + 3 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "UNKNOWN": 5, + "ENTAILED": 1 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "under_diag_0053", + "domain": "underspecified", + "subdomain": "diagnostic", + "logic_type": "partial_information", + "premises": [ + "Patient a presents with certain symptoms.", + "The possible conditions are: food poisoning, migraine, flu, viral infection.", + "Exactly one condition is present.", + "Patient a has headache.", + "Patient a has joint pain.", + "Patient a has fatigue.", + "Food poisoning always causes dizziness.", + "Food poisoning always causes joint pain.", + "Migraine always causes joint pain.", + "Flu always causes fatigue.", + "Flu always causes dizziness.", + "Viral infection always causes dizziness.", + "Viral infection always causes fatigue." + ], + "formal_representation": "; Diagnostic: exactly-one condition, symptom implications, partial observations", + "entities": { + "conditions": [ + "food poisoning", + "migraine", + "flu", + "viral infection" + ], + "symptoms": [ + "joint pain", + "dizziness", + "fatigue", + "headache" + ], + "observed": [ + "headache", + "joint pain", + "fatigue" + ] + }, + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 7, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Is flu the correct diagnosis?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Multiple conditions remain consistent with the partial observations. flu is possible but not certain.", + "query_type": "has_condition", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Could Patient A have both food poisoning and viral infection?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "Exactly one condition is present; having both food poisoning and viral infection violates this premise.", + "query_type": "both_conditions", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Could Patient A have both migraine and flu?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "Exactly one condition is present; having both migraine and flu violates this premise.", + "query_type": "both_conditions", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Is painkillers appropriate if the diagnosis is viral infection?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether painkillers is appropriate depends on confirming viral infection as the diagnosis, which is not yet determined.", + "query_type": "treatment", + "depends_on": [ + 1 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Is food poisoning definitively excluded?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "The observations don't conclusively rule out food poisoning, but don't confirm it either.", + "query_type": "rule_out", + "depends_on": [ + 1 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q5", + "query": "Should we expect dizziness given the observations?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether Patient A shows dizziness depends on which condition is present, which is not yet determined.", + "query_type": "unobserved_symptom", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q6", + "query": "Will Patient A show dizziness?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether Patient A shows dizziness depends on which condition is present, which is not yet determined.", + "query_type": "unobserved_symptom", + "depends_on": [ + 5 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "UNKNOWN": 5, + "CONTRADICTED": 2 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "under_diag_0009", + "domain": "underspecified", + "subdomain": "diagnostic", + "logic_type": "partial_information", + "premises": [ + "The individual presents with certain symptoms.", + "The possible conditions are: flu, heat exhaustion, dehydration, migraine.", + "Exactly one condition is present.", + "The individual does not have joint pain.", + "The individual has dizziness.", + "The individual has fever.", + "The individual does not have cough.", + "Flu always causes cough.", + "Flu always causes joint pain.", + "Heat exhaustion always causes cough.", + "Dehydration always causes dizziness.", + "Migraine always causes fever.", + "Migraine always causes nausea.", + "Migraine always causes cough." + ], + "formal_representation": "; Diagnostic: exactly-one condition, symptom implications, partial observations", + "entities": { + "conditions": [ + "flu", + "heat exhaustion", + "dehydration", + "migraine" + ], + "symptoms": [ + "joint pain", + "dizziness", + "fever", + "nausea", + "cough" + ], + "observed": [ + "joint pain", + "dizziness", + "fever", + "cough" + ] + }, + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 8, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Should we expect nausea given the observations?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether the individual shows nausea depends on which condition is present, which is not yet determined.", + "query_type": "unobserved_symptom", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Is migraine definitively excluded?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "The observations are incompatible with migraine; it can be definitively ruled out.", + "query_type": "rule_out", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Is heat exhaustion definitively excluded?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "The observations are incompatible with heat exhaustion; it can be definitively ruled out.", + "query_type": "rule_out", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Is antihistamines appropriate if the diagnosis is dehydration?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "The diagnosis is confirmed as dehydration, so antihistamines is appropriate based on the treatment protocol.", + "query_type": "treatment", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Is nausea guaranteed for the individual?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether the individual shows nausea depends on which condition is present, which is not yet determined.", + "query_type": "unobserved_symptom", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q5", + "query": "Could the individual have both migraine and heat exhaustion?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "Exactly one condition is present; having both migraine and heat exhaustion violates this premise.", + "query_type": "both_conditions", + "depends_on": [ + 1, + 2 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q6", + "query": "Could the individual have both flu and heat exhaustion?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "Exactly one condition is present; having both flu and heat exhaustion violates this premise.", + "query_type": "both_conditions", + "depends_on": [ + 2, + 5 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q7", + "query": "Will the individual show nausea?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether the individual shows nausea depends on which condition is present, which is not yet determined.", + "query_type": "unobserved_symptom", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 4 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "UNKNOWN": 3, + "ENTAILED": 3, + "CONTRADICTED": 2 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "under_inv_0023", + "domain": "underspecified", + "subdomain": "investigation", + "logic_type": "partial_information", + "premises": [ + "A crime was committed. The suspects are: Alex, Indigo, Jordan, Harper, and Grey.", + "Exactly one suspect is guilty.", + "Jordan has no prior criminal record.", + "Grey's alibi has been confirmed (they were elsewhere).", + "DNA evidence conclusively matches Harper." + ], + "formal_representation": "; Investigation: exactly-one guilty, partial evidence", + "entities": { + "suspects": [ + "Alex", + "Indigo", + "Jordan", + "Harper", + "Grey" + ] + }, + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 7, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Did Grey commit the crime?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "Grey has a confirmed alibi or is otherwise eliminated; they cannot be the guilty party.", + "query_type": "is_guilty", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Could both Indigo and Harper be guilty?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "Exactly one person is guilty; both Indigo and Harper being guilty violates the single-culprit premise.", + "query_type": "pair", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Has Alex been exonerated by the evidence?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "The evidence conclusively clears Alex\u2014alibi confirmed or other exonerating facts establish innocence.", + "query_type": "is_innocent", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Could both Grey and Harper be guilty?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "Exactly one person is guilty; both Grey and Harper being guilty violates the single-culprit premise.", + "query_type": "pair", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Is the culprit either Harper or Jordan?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "All other suspects are eliminated, leaving only Harper or Jordan as possibilities.", + "query_type": "narrow_down", + "depends_on": [ + 1, + 3 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q5", + "query": "Is Harper definitely innocent?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "All evidence points to Harper as the sole guilty party; declaring innocence contradicts the facts.", + "query_type": "is_innocent", + "depends_on": [ + 1, + 3, + 4 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q6", + "query": "Can we clear Grey?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "The evidence conclusively clears Grey\u2014alibi confirmed or other exonerating facts establish innocence.", + "query_type": "is_innocent", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 3 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "CONTRADICTED": 4, + "ENTAILED": 3 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "under_fault_0028", + "domain": "underspecified", + "subdomain": "fault_diagnosis", + "logic_type": "partial_information", + "premises": [ + "A system has 6 components: memory module, motherboard, power supply, input controller, display adapter, and cooling fan.", + "If display adapter fails, power supply also fails.", + "If display adapter fails, motherboard also fails.", + "If display adapter fails, motherboard also fails.", + "If display adapter fails, input controller also fails.", + "At least one of motherboard or cooling fan must be working.", + "memory module is failed." + ], + "formal_representation": "; Fault diagnosis: dependency cascades, partial sensor data", + "entities": { + "components": [ + "memory module", + "motherboard", + "power supply", + "input controller", + "display adapter", + "cooling fan" + ], + "known": [ + "memory module" + ], + "unknown": [ + "motherboard", + "power supply", + "input controller", + "display adapter", + "cooling fan" + ] + }, + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 7, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Are all components functioning?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "At least one component is confirmed failed, so not all are functioning.", + "query_type": "system_ok", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Can we confirm display adapter is operational?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "No sensor data for display adapter and dependency chains don't uniquely determine its state.", + "query_type": "is_working", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Can both input controller and motherboard be failed simultaneously?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid states have both failed, others don't; insufficient data to determine.", + "query_type": "both_fail", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Is input controller currently functioning?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "No sensor data for input controller and dependency chains don't uniquely determine its state.", + "query_type": "is_working", + "depends_on": [ + 2 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "If display adapter fails, must motherboard also fail?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "A dependency chain exists from display adapter to motherboard, so display adapter's failure guarantees motherboard's failure.", + "query_type": "cascade", + "depends_on": [ + 1, + 2 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q5", + "query": "Can both motherboard and cooling fan be failed simultaneously?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "The 'at-least-one' or dependency constraints prevent simultaneous failure of motherboard and cooling fan.", + "query_type": "both_fail", + "depends_on": [ + 2, + 4 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q6", + "query": "If memory module fails, must power supply also fail?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether memory module's failure cascades to power supply depends on intermediate component states that are unknown.", + "query_type": "cascade", + "depends_on": [] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "CONTRADICTED": 2, + "UNKNOWN": 4, + "ENTAILED": 1 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "under_diag_0062", + "domain": "underspecified", + "subdomain": "diagnostic", + "logic_type": "partial_information", + "premises": [ + "The individual presents with certain symptoms.", + "The possible conditions are: flu, migraine, heat exhaustion, allergic reaction.", + "Exactly one condition is present.", + "The individual has dizziness.", + "The individual has cough.", + "The individual has fatigue.", + "Flu always causes cough.", + "Migraine always causes fatigue.", + "Migraine always causes cough.", + "Migraine always causes dizziness.", + "Heat exhaustion always causes joint pain.", + "Heat exhaustion always causes dizziness.", + "Allergic reaction always causes joint pain.", + "Flu never causes joint pain." + ], + "formal_representation": "; Diagnostic: exactly-one condition, symptom implications, partial observations", + "entities": { + "conditions": [ + "flu", + "migraine", + "heat exhaustion", + "allergic reaction" + ], + "symptoms": [ + "cough", + "dizziness", + "joint pain", + "fatigue" + ], + "observed": [ + "dizziness", + "cough", + "fatigue" + ] + }, + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 5, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Could the individual have both flu and allergic reaction?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "Exactly one condition is present; having both flu and allergic reaction violates this premise.", + "query_type": "both_conditions", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Could the individual have both allergic reaction and heat exhaustion?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "Exactly one condition is present; having both allergic reaction and heat exhaustion violates this premise.", + "query_type": "both_conditions", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Can we conclude the individual has allergic reaction?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Multiple conditions remain consistent with the partial observations. allergic reaction is possible but not certain.", + "query_type": "has_condition", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Will the individual show joint pain?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether the individual shows joint pain depends on which condition is present, which is not yet determined.", + "query_type": "unobserved_symptom", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Is heat exhaustion the correct diagnosis?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Multiple conditions remain consistent with the partial observations. heat exhaustion is possible but not certain.", + "query_type": "has_condition", + "depends_on": [ + 1 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "CONTRADICTED": 2, + "UNKNOWN": 3 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "under_inv_0064", + "domain": "underspecified", + "subdomain": "investigation", + "logic_type": "partial_information", + "premises": [ + "A crime was committed. The suspects are: Jordan, Blake, Grey, Dana, Ellis, and Alex.", + "Exactly one suspect is guilty.", + "Grey's alibi has been confirmed (they were elsewhere).", + "Dana's alibi has been confirmed (they were elsewhere).", + "Ellis's fingerprints were found at the scene.", + "Alex has no prior criminal record." + ], + "formal_representation": "; Investigation: exactly-one guilty, partial evidence", + "entities": { + "suspects": [ + "Jordan", + "Blake", + "Grey", + "Dana", + "Ellis", + "Alex" + ] + }, + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 7, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Did Dana commit the crime?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "Dana has a confirmed alibi or is otherwise eliminated; they cannot be the guilty party.", + "query_type": "is_guilty", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Is the culprit either Ellis or Grey?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "While Ellis and Grey are both possible, other suspects haven't been eliminated either.", + "query_type": "narrow_down", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Is the culprit either Jordan or Ellis?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "While Jordan and Ellis are both possible, other suspects haven't been eliminated either.", + "query_type": "narrow_down", + "depends_on": [ + 1 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Is the culprit either Ellis or Blake?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "While Ellis and Blake are both possible, other suspects haven't been eliminated either.", + "query_type": "narrow_down", + "depends_on": [ + 1, + 2 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Could both Jordan and Grey be guilty?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "Exactly one person is guilty; both Jordan and Grey being guilty violates the single-culprit premise.", + "query_type": "pair", + "depends_on": [ + 1, + 2 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q5", + "query": "Is Grey the guilty party?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "Grey has a confirmed alibi or is otherwise eliminated; they cannot be the guilty party.", + "query_type": "is_guilty", + "depends_on": [ + 1, + 4 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q6", + "query": "Is the culprit either Dana or Grey?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "Both Dana and Grey are cleared by evidence; the culprit must be someone else.", + "query_type": "narrow_down", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1, + 4, + 5 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "CONTRADICTED": 4, + "UNKNOWN": 3 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "under_diag_0097", + "domain": "underspecified", + "subdomain": "diagnostic", + "logic_type": "partial_information", + "premises": [ + "Patient a presents with certain symptoms.", + "The possible conditions are: dehydration, viral infection, migraine.", + "Exactly one condition is present.", + "Patient a does not have dizziness.", + "Patient a has cough.", + "Patient a does not have rash.", + "Dehydration always causes cough.", + "Dehydration always causes headache.", + "Viral infection always causes headache.", + "Migraine always causes headache.", + "Migraine always causes fever.", + "Migraine never causes dizziness." + ], + "formal_representation": "; Diagnostic: exactly-one condition, symptom implications, partial observations", + "entities": { + "conditions": [ + "dehydration", + "viral infection", + "migraine" + ], + "symptoms": [ + "headache", + "cough", + "dizziness", + "rash", + "fever" + ], + "observed": [ + "dizziness", + "cough", + "rash" + ] + }, + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 6, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Does Patient A have migraine?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Multiple conditions remain consistent with the partial observations. migraine is possible but not certain.", + "query_type": "has_condition", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Is viral infection definitively excluded?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "The observations don't conclusively rule out viral infection, but don't confirm it either.", + "query_type": "rule_out", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Is fever guaranteed for Patient A?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether Patient A shows fever depends on which condition is present, which is not yet determined.", + "query_type": "unobserved_symptom", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Is rest appropriate if the diagnosis is viral infection?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether rest is appropriate depends on confirming viral infection as the diagnosis, which is not yet determined.", + "query_type": "treatment", + "depends_on": [ + 1 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Is viral infection the correct diagnosis?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Multiple conditions remain consistent with the partial observations. viral infection is possible but not certain.", + "query_type": "has_condition", + "depends_on": [ + 1, + 3 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q5", + "query": "Could Patient A have both migraine and dehydration?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "Exactly one condition is present; having both migraine and dehydration violates this premise.", + "query_type": "both_conditions", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "UNKNOWN": 5, + "CONTRADICTED": 1 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "under_inv_0092", + "domain": "underspecified", + "subdomain": "investigation", + "logic_type": "partial_information", + "premises": [ + "A crime was committed. The suspects are: Dana, Harper, Jordan, Indigo, and Grey.", + "Exactly one suspect is guilty.", + "Dana has an established motive.", + "Jordan's alibi has been confirmed (they were elsewhere).", + "Grey has an established motive." + ], + "formal_representation": "; Investigation: exactly-one guilty, partial evidence", + "entities": { + "suspects": [ + "Dana", + "Harper", + "Jordan", + "Indigo", + "Grey" + ] + }, + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 6, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Is Indigo the guilty party?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "The evidence is insufficient to determine Indigo's guilt. Multiple suspects remain viable.", + "query_type": "is_guilty", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Is Jordan the guilty party?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "Jordan has a confirmed alibi or is otherwise eliminated; they cannot be the guilty party.", + "query_type": "is_guilty", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Is the culprit either Grey or Jordan?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "While Grey and Jordan are both possible, other suspects haven't been eliminated either.", + "query_type": "narrow_down", + "depends_on": [ + 1 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Has Dana been exonerated by the evidence?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "The evidence neither conclusively clears nor convicts Dana. Innocence is possible but not proven.", + "query_type": "is_innocent", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Could both Dana and Jordan be guilty?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "Exactly one person is guilty; both Dana and Jordan being guilty violates the single-culprit premise.", + "query_type": "pair", + "depends_on": [ + 1, + 2, + 3 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q5", + "query": "Could both Grey and Indigo be guilty?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "Exactly one person is guilty; both Grey and Indigo being guilty violates the single-culprit premise.", + "query_type": "pair", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 2 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "UNKNOWN": 3, + "CONTRADICTED": 3 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "under_diag_0031", + "domain": "underspecified", + "subdomain": "diagnostic", + "logic_type": "partial_information", + "premises": [ + "Patient a presents with certain symptoms.", + "The possible conditions are: allergic reaction, food poisoning, viral infection, flu, heat exhaustion.", + "Exactly one condition is present.", + "Patient a has headache.", + "Patient a has fever.", + "Patient a does not have cough.", + "Allergic reaction always causes dizziness.", + "Food poisoning always causes cough.", + "Food poisoning always causes fever.", + "Viral infection always causes headache.", + "Viral infection always causes dizziness.", + "Viral infection always causes fever.", + "Flu always causes cough.", + "Heat exhaustion always causes fever.", + "Heat exhaustion always causes cough.", + "Heat exhaustion always causes headache." + ], + "formal_representation": "; Diagnostic: exactly-one condition, symptom implications, partial observations", + "entities": { + "conditions": [ + "allergic reaction", + "food poisoning", + "viral infection", + "flu", + "heat exhaustion" + ], + "symptoms": [ + "headache", + "fever", + "cough", + "dizziness" + ], + "observed": [ + "headache", + "fever", + "cough" + ] + }, + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 6, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Should we expect dizziness given the observations?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "Every condition consistent with the observations causes dizziness, so Patient A must show it.", + "query_type": "unobserved_symptom", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Is antihistamines appropriate if the diagnosis is heat exhaustion?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "heat exhaustion has been ruled out, so treatment planning for heat exhaustion is not applicable.", + "query_type": "treatment", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Is antihistamines appropriate if the diagnosis is allergic reaction?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether antihistamines is appropriate depends on confirming allergic reaction as the diagnosis, which is not yet determined.", + "query_type": "treatment", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Can we rule out viral infection?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "The observations don't conclusively rule out viral infection, but don't confirm it either.", + "query_type": "rule_out", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Is dizziness guaranteed for Patient A?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "Every condition consistent with the observations causes dizziness, so Patient A must show it.", + "query_type": "unobserved_symptom", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q5", + "query": "Could Patient A have both food poisoning and viral infection?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "Exactly one condition is present; having both food poisoning and viral infection violates this premise.", + "query_type": "both_conditions", + "depends_on": [ + 3 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "ENTAILED": 2, + "CONTRADICTED": 2, + "UNKNOWN": 2 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "under_diag_0069", + "domain": "underspecified", + "subdomain": "diagnostic", + "logic_type": "partial_information", + "premises": [ + "The patient presents with certain symptoms.", + "The possible conditions are: migraine, dehydration, viral infection, allergic reaction.", + "Exactly one condition is present.", + "The patient does not have headache.", + "The patient does not have rash.", + "Migraine always causes joint pain.", + "Dehydration always causes fatigue.", + "Dehydration always causes rash.", + "Viral infection always causes dizziness.", + "Allergic reaction always causes joint pain.", + "Allergic reaction always causes rash." + ], + "formal_representation": "; Diagnostic: exactly-one condition, symptom implications, partial observations", + "entities": { + "conditions": [ + "migraine", + "dehydration", + "viral infection", + "allergic reaction" + ], + "symptoms": [ + "fatigue", + "joint pain", + "headache", + "rash", + "dizziness" + ], + "observed": [ + "headache", + "rash" + ] + }, + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 5, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Could the patient have both viral infection and dehydration?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "Exactly one condition is present; having both viral infection and dehydration violates this premise.", + "query_type": "both_conditions", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Does the patient have viral infection?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Multiple conditions remain consistent with the partial observations. viral infection is possible but not certain.", + "query_type": "has_condition", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Is joint pain guaranteed for the patient?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether the patient shows joint pain depends on which condition is present, which is not yet determined.", + "query_type": "unobserved_symptom", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Is allergic reaction definitively excluded?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "The observations are incompatible with allergic reaction; it can be definitively ruled out.", + "query_type": "rule_out", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Does the patient have migraine?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Multiple conditions remain consistent with the partial observations. migraine is possible but not certain.", + "query_type": "has_condition", + "depends_on": [] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "CONTRADICTED": 1, + "UNKNOWN": 3, + "ENTAILED": 1 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "under_inv_0017", + "domain": "underspecified", + "subdomain": "investigation", + "logic_type": "partial_information", + "premises": [ + "A crime was committed. The suspects are: Jordan, Blake, Harper, Dana, Indigo, and Ellis.", + "Exactly one suspect is guilty.", + "Jordan has no prior criminal record.", + "A witness placed Blake at the scene.", + "Indigo has no prior criminal record." + ], + "formal_representation": "; Investigation: exactly-one guilty, partial evidence", + "entities": { + "suspects": [ + "Jordan", + "Blake", + "Harper", + "Dana", + "Indigo", + "Ellis" + ] + }, + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 5, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Could both Blake and Harper be guilty?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "Exactly one person is guilty; both Blake and Harper being guilty violates the single-culprit premise.", + "query_type": "pair", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Is the culprit either Ellis or Jordan?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "While Ellis and Jordan are both possible, other suspects haven't been eliminated either.", + "query_type": "narrow_down", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Is the culprit either Dana or Blake?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "While Dana and Blake are both possible, other suspects haven't been eliminated either.", + "query_type": "narrow_down", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Is the culprit either Ellis or Indigo?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "While Ellis and Indigo are both possible, other suspects haven't been eliminated either.", + "query_type": "narrow_down", + "depends_on": [ + 1 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Is the culprit either Harper or Jordan?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "While Harper and Jordan are both possible, other suspects haven't been eliminated either.", + "query_type": "narrow_down", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "CONTRADICTED": 1, + "UNKNOWN": 4 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "under_fault_0107", + "domain": "underspecified", + "subdomain": "fault_diagnosis", + "logic_type": "partial_information", + "premises": [ + "A system has 4 components: network card, power supply, storage drive, and cooling fan.", + "If power supply fails, network card also fails.", + "If network card fails, power supply also fails.", + "If storage drive fails, network card also fails.", + "At least one of network card or storage drive must be working.", + "At least one of network card or storage drive must be working.", + "cooling fan is failed." + ], + "formal_representation": "; Fault diagnosis: dependency cascades, partial sensor data", + "entities": { + "components": [ + "network card", + "power supply", + "storage drive", + "cooling fan" + ], + "known": [ + "cooling fan" + ], + "unknown": [ + "network card", + "power supply", + "storage drive" + ] + }, + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 8, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Is network card currently functioning?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "No sensor data for network card and dependency chains don't uniquely determine its state.", + "query_type": "is_working", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Are all components functioning?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "At least one component is confirmed failed, so not all are functioning.", + "query_type": "system_ok", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "If cooling fan fails, must power supply also fail?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether cooling fan's failure cascades to power supply depends on intermediate component states that are unknown.", + "query_type": "cascade", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Has power supply failed?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "No sensor data for power supply and dependency chains don't uniquely determine its state.", + "query_type": "is_working", + "depends_on": [ + 2 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Has storage drive failed?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "Either direct observation or cascade failure confirms storage drive has failed.", + "query_type": "is_working", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q5", + "query": "If power supply fails, must network card also fail?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "A dependency chain exists from power supply to network card, so power supply's failure guarantees network card's failure.", + "query_type": "cascade", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 2, + 3 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q6", + "query": "Can both cooling fan and network card be failed simultaneously?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid states have both failed, others don't; insufficient data to determine.", + "query_type": "both_fail", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 2, + 5 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q7", + "query": "Is storage drive currently functioning?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "Sensor data or dependency reasoning confirms storage drive is functioning.", + "query_type": "is_working", + "depends_on": [ + 4 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "UNKNOWN": 4, + "CONTRADICTED": 2, + "ENTAILED": 2 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "under_fault_0108", + "domain": "underspecified", + "subdomain": "fault_diagnosis", + "logic_type": "partial_information", + "premises": [ + "A system has 5 components: motherboard, memory module, network card, input controller, and storage drive.", + "If motherboard fails, network card also fails.", + "If motherboard fails, input controller also fails.", + "At least one of input controller or network card must be working.", + "At least one of network card or input controller must be working.", + "network card is functioning.", + "motherboard is functioning." + ], + "formal_representation": "; Fault diagnosis: dependency cascades, partial sensor data", + "entities": { + "components": [ + "motherboard", + "memory module", + "network card", + "input controller", + "storage drive" + ], + "known": [ + "network card", + "motherboard" + ], + "unknown": [ + "memory module", + "input controller", + "storage drive" + ] + }, + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 7, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Has memory module failed?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "No sensor data for memory module and dependency chains don't uniquely determine its state.", + "query_type": "is_working", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Is storage drive currently functioning?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "No sensor data for storage drive and dependency chains don't uniquely determine its state.", + "query_type": "is_working", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Can both network card and motherboard be failed simultaneously?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "The 'at-least-one' or dependency constraints prevent simultaneous failure of network card and motherboard.", + "query_type": "both_fail", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Has storage drive failed?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "No sensor data for storage drive and dependency chains don't uniquely determine its state.", + "query_type": "is_working", + "depends_on": [ + 1 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Has network card failed?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "Either direct observation or cascade failure confirms network card has failed.", + "query_type": "is_working", + "depends_on": [ + 2 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q5", + "query": "Can both input controller and network card be failed simultaneously?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "The 'at-least-one' or dependency constraints prevent simultaneous failure of input controller and network card.", + "query_type": "both_fail", + "depends_on": [ + 2, + 4 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q6", + "query": "Are all components functioning?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some components lack sensor data; full system health is indeterminate.", + "query_type": "system_ok", + "depends_on": [] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "UNKNOWN": 4, + "CONTRADICTED": 3 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "under_fault_0098", + "domain": "underspecified", + "subdomain": "fault_diagnosis", + "logic_type": "partial_information", + "premises": [ + "A system has 4 components: display adapter, cooling fan, network card, and power supply.", + "If cooling fan fails, power supply also fails.", + "If network card fails, power supply also fails.", + "If cooling fan fails, power supply also fails.", + "If power supply fails, cooling fan also fails.", + "At least one of display adapter or power supply must be working.", + "power supply is failed." + ], + "formal_representation": "; Fault diagnosis: dependency cascades, partial sensor data", + "entities": { + "components": [ + "display adapter", + "cooling fan", + "network card", + "power supply" + ], + "known": [ + "power supply" + ], + "unknown": [ + "display adapter", + "cooling fan", + "network card" + ] + }, + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 8, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Can we confirm cooling fan is operational?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "Either direct observation or cascade failure confirms cooling fan has failed.", + "query_type": "is_working", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "If power supply fails, must cooling fan also fail?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "A dependency chain exists from power supply to cooling fan, so power supply's failure guarantees cooling fan's failure.", + "query_type": "cascade", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Is display adapter currently functioning?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "Sensor data or dependency reasoning confirms display adapter is functioning.", + "query_type": "is_working", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Can both power supply and cooling fan be failed simultaneously?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "The constraints force both power supply and cooling fan to be failed in every valid state.", + "query_type": "both_fail", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "If network card fails, must display adapter also fail?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether network card's failure cascades to display adapter depends on intermediate component states that are unknown.", + "query_type": "cascade", + "depends_on": [ + 2 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q5", + "query": "Are all components functioning?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "At least one component is confirmed failed, so not all are functioning.", + "query_type": "system_ok", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q6", + "query": "Has cooling fan failed?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "Sensor data or dependency reasoning confirms cooling fan is functioning.", + "query_type": "is_working", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1, + 3 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q7", + "query": "Can both cooling fan and display adapter be failed simultaneously?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "The 'at-least-one' or dependency constraints prevent simultaneous failure of cooling fan and display adapter.", + "query_type": "both_fail", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1, + 2, + 3, + 4, + 6 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "CONTRADICTED": 3, + "ENTAILED": 4, + "UNKNOWN": 1 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "under_diag_0066", + "domain": "underspecified", + "subdomain": "diagnostic", + "logic_type": "partial_information", + "premises": [ + "Patient a presents with certain symptoms.", + "The possible conditions are: migraine, dehydration, heat exhaustion, allergic reaction, viral infection.", + "Exactly one condition is present.", + "Patient a has fatigue.", + "Patient a has nausea.", + "Migraine always causes nausea.", + "Migraine always causes cough.", + "Dehydration always causes nausea.", + "Dehydration always causes cough.", + "Dehydration always causes fatigue.", + "Heat exhaustion always causes cough.", + "Heat exhaustion always causes fatigue.", + "Heat exhaustion always causes nausea.", + "Allergic reaction always causes nausea.", + "Allergic reaction always causes cough.", + "Viral infection always causes fatigue.", + "Viral infection always causes nausea." + ], + "formal_representation": "; Diagnostic: exactly-one condition, symptom implications, partial observations", + "entities": { + "conditions": [ + "migraine", + "dehydration", + "heat exhaustion", + "allergic reaction", + "viral infection" + ], + "symptoms": [ + "fatigue", + "cough", + "nausea" + ], + "observed": [ + "fatigue", + "nausea" + ] + }, + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 5, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Is fluids appropriate if the diagnosis is dehydration?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether fluids is appropriate depends on confirming dehydration as the diagnosis, which is not yet determined.", + "query_type": "treatment", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Could Patient A have both heat exhaustion and viral infection?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "Exactly one condition is present; having both heat exhaustion and viral infection violates this premise.", + "query_type": "both_conditions", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Is fluids appropriate if the diagnosis is migraine?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether fluids is appropriate depends on confirming migraine as the diagnosis, which is not yet determined.", + "query_type": "treatment", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Is heat exhaustion the correct diagnosis?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Multiple conditions remain consistent with the partial observations. heat exhaustion is possible but not certain.", + "query_type": "has_condition", + "depends_on": [ + 1 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Should we expect cough given the observations?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether Patient A shows cough depends on which condition is present, which is not yet determined.", + "query_type": "unobserved_symptom", + "depends_on": [] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "UNKNOWN": 4, + "CONTRADICTED": 1 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "under_inv_0078", + "domain": "underspecified", + "subdomain": "investigation", + "logic_type": "partial_information", + "premises": [ + "A crime was committed. The suspects are: Frankie, Indigo, Alex, Blake, Ellis, and Grey.", + "Exactly one suspect is guilty.", + "Alex's alibi has been confirmed (they were elsewhere).", + "A witness placed Blake at the scene.", + "Grey has an established motive.", + "Grey's fingerprints were found at the scene." + ], + "formal_representation": "; Investigation: exactly-one guilty, partial evidence", + "entities": { + "suspects": [ + "Frankie", + "Indigo", + "Alex", + "Blake", + "Ellis", + "Grey" + ] + }, + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 5, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Could both Blake and Grey be guilty?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "Exactly one person is guilty; both Blake and Grey being guilty violates the single-culprit premise.", + "query_type": "pair", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Has Alex been exonerated by the evidence?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "The evidence conclusively clears Alex\u2014alibi confirmed or other exonerating facts establish innocence.", + "query_type": "is_innocent", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Could both Blake and Indigo be guilty?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "Exactly one person is guilty; both Blake and Indigo being guilty violates the single-culprit premise.", + "query_type": "pair", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Can we clear Ellis?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "The evidence neither conclusively clears nor convicts Ellis. Innocence is possible but not proven.", + "query_type": "is_innocent", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Has Blake been exonerated by the evidence?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "The evidence neither conclusively clears nor convicts Blake. Innocence is possible but not proven.", + "query_type": "is_innocent", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 2 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "CONTRADICTED": 2, + "ENTAILED": 1, + "UNKNOWN": 2 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "under_fault_0100", + "domain": "underspecified", + "subdomain": "fault_diagnosis", + "logic_type": "partial_information", + "premises": [ + "A system has 6 components: storage drive, cooling fan, motherboard, network card, memory module, and input controller.", + "If motherboard fails, cooling fan also fails.", + "If input controller fails, motherboard also fails.", + "At least one of storage drive or cooling fan must be working.", + "At least one of memory module or cooling fan must be working.", + "motherboard is functioning." + ], + "formal_representation": "; Fault diagnosis: dependency cascades, partial sensor data", + "entities": { + "components": [ + "storage drive", + "cooling fan", + "motherboard", + "network card", + "memory module", + "input controller" + ], + "known": [ + "motherboard" + ], + "unknown": [ + "storage drive", + "cooling fan", + "network card", + "memory module", + "input controller" + ] + }, + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 8, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "If memory module fails, must input controller also fail?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether memory module's failure cascades to input controller depends on intermediate component states that are unknown.", + "query_type": "cascade", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Can both motherboard and memory module be failed simultaneously?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "The 'at-least-one' or dependency constraints prevent simultaneous failure of motherboard and memory module.", + "query_type": "both_fail", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "If cooling fan fails, must motherboard also fail?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether cooling fan's failure cascades to motherboard depends on intermediate component states that are unknown.", + "query_type": "cascade", + "depends_on": [ + 1 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "If storage drive fails, must input controller also fail?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether storage drive's failure cascades to input controller depends on intermediate component states that are unknown.", + "query_type": "cascade", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Are all components functioning?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some components lack sensor data; full system health is indeterminate.", + "query_type": "system_ok", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q5", + "query": "If motherboard fails, must storage drive also fail?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "A dependency chain exists from motherboard to storage drive, so motherboard's failure guarantees storage drive's failure.", + "query_type": "cascade", + "depends_on": [ + 1, + 2, + 3 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q6", + "query": "Is input controller currently functioning?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "Sensor data or dependency reasoning confirms input controller is functioning.", + "query_type": "is_working", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 3 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q7", + "query": "Can we confirm network card is operational?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "No sensor data for network card and dependency chains don't uniquely determine its state.", + "query_type": "is_working", + "depends_on": [] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "UNKNOWN": 5, + "CONTRADICTED": 1, + "ENTAILED": 2 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "under_diag_0020", + "domain": "underspecified", + "subdomain": "diagnostic", + "logic_type": "partial_information", + "premises": [ + "The individual presents with certain symptoms.", + "The possible conditions are: heat exhaustion, migraine, food poisoning.", + "Exactly one condition is present.", + "The individual does not have fever.", + "The individual has rash.", + "Heat exhaustion always causes headache.", + "Migraine always causes fatigue.", + "Migraine always causes headache.", + "Food poisoning always causes rash." + ], + "formal_representation": "; Diagnostic: exactly-one condition, symptom implications, partial observations", + "entities": { + "conditions": [ + "heat exhaustion", + "migraine", + "food poisoning" + ], + "symptoms": [ + "headache", + "rash", + "fever", + "fatigue" + ], + "observed": [ + "fever", + "rash" + ] + }, + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 8, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Could the individual have both migraine and food poisoning?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "Exactly one condition is present; having both migraine and food poisoning violates this premise.", + "query_type": "both_conditions", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Should we expect headache given the observations?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether the individual shows headache depends on which condition is present, which is not yet determined.", + "query_type": "unobserved_symptom", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Is food poisoning definitively excluded?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "The observations don't conclusively rule out food poisoning, but don't confirm it either.", + "query_type": "rule_out", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Is antihistamines appropriate if the diagnosis is migraine?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether antihistamines is appropriate depends on confirming migraine as the diagnosis, which is not yet determined.", + "query_type": "treatment", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Will the individual show headache?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether the individual shows headache depends on which condition is present, which is not yet determined.", + "query_type": "unobserved_symptom", + "depends_on": [ + 1 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q5", + "query": "Is food poisoning the correct diagnosis?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Multiple conditions remain consistent with the partial observations. food poisoning is possible but not certain.", + "query_type": "has_condition", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 2 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q6", + "query": "Can we conclude the individual has heat exhaustion?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Multiple conditions remain consistent with the partial observations. heat exhaustion is possible but not certain.", + "query_type": "has_condition", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q7", + "query": "Does the individual have food poisoning?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Multiple conditions remain consistent with the partial observations. food poisoning is possible but not certain.", + "query_type": "has_condition", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 2, + 5 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "CONTRADICTED": 1, + "UNKNOWN": 7 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "under_fault_0094", + "domain": "underspecified", + "subdomain": "fault_diagnosis", + "logic_type": "partial_information", + "premises": [ + "A system has 4 components: motherboard, storage drive, network card, and display adapter.", + "If network card fails, storage drive also fails.", + "If storage drive fails, motherboard also fails.", + "If display adapter fails, network card also fails.", + "At least one of motherboard or network card must be working.", + "At least one of storage drive or motherboard must be working.", + "network card is functioning." + ], + "formal_representation": "; Fault diagnosis: dependency cascades, partial sensor data", + "entities": { + "components": [ + "motherboard", + "storage drive", + "network card", + "display adapter" + ], + "known": [ + "network card" + ], + "unknown": [ + "motherboard", + "storage drive", + "display adapter" + ] + }, + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 8, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Can both motherboard and storage drive be failed simultaneously?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "The 'at-least-one' or dependency constraints prevent simultaneous failure of motherboard and storage drive.", + "query_type": "both_fail", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Is network card currently functioning?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "Sensor data or dependency reasoning confirms network card is functioning.", + "query_type": "is_working", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "If network card fails, must display adapter also fail?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "A dependency chain exists from network card to display adapter, so network card's failure guarantees display adapter's failure.", + "query_type": "cascade", + "depends_on": [ + 1 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Is display adapter currently functioning?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "Sensor data or dependency reasoning confirms display adapter is functioning.", + "query_type": "is_working", + "depends_on": [ + 2 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "If motherboard fails, must display adapter also fail?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether motherboard's failure cascades to display adapter depends on intermediate component states that are unknown.", + "query_type": "cascade", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 2, + 3 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q5", + "query": "Can both network card and storage drive be failed simultaneously?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "The 'at-least-one' or dependency constraints prevent simultaneous failure of network card and storage drive.", + "query_type": "both_fail", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1, + 2 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q6", + "query": "Can both motherboard and network card be failed simultaneously?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "The 'at-least-one' or dependency constraints prevent simultaneous failure of motherboard and network card.", + "query_type": "both_fail", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1, + 2, + 4, + 5 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q7", + "query": "Are all components functioning?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some components lack sensor data; full system health is indeterminate.", + "query_type": "system_ok", + "depends_on": [] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "CONTRADICTED": 3, + "ENTAILED": 3, + "UNKNOWN": 2 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "under_inv_0065", + "domain": "underspecified", + "subdomain": "investigation", + "logic_type": "partial_information", + "premises": [ + "A crime was committed. The suspects are: Harper, Grey, Alex, Indigo, and Blake.", + "Exactly one suspect is guilty.", + "Alex has an established motive.", + "A witness placed Alex at the scene.", + "Blake has an established motive.", + "DNA evidence conclusively matches Indigo." + ], + "formal_representation": "; Investigation: exactly-one guilty, partial evidence", + "entities": { + "suspects": [ + "Harper", + "Grey", + "Alex", + "Indigo", + "Blake" + ] + }, + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 5, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Is Alex the guilty party?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "Alex has a confirmed alibi or is otherwise eliminated; they cannot be the guilty party.", + "query_type": "is_guilty", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Is the culprit either Alex or Indigo?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "All other suspects are eliminated, leaving only Alex or Indigo as possibilities.", + "query_type": "narrow_down", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Did Grey commit the crime?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "Grey has a confirmed alibi or is otherwise eliminated; they cannot be the guilty party.", + "query_type": "is_guilty", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Is the culprit either Blake or Alex?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "Both Blake and Alex are cleared by evidence; the culprit must be someone else.", + "query_type": "narrow_down", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Could both Blake and Grey be guilty?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "Exactly one person is guilty; both Blake and Grey being guilty violates the single-culprit premise.", + "query_type": "pair", + "depends_on": [ + 2, + 3 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "CONTRADICTED": 4, + "ENTAILED": 1 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "under_inv_0084", + "domain": "underspecified", + "subdomain": "investigation", + "logic_type": "partial_information", + "premises": [ + "A crime was committed. The suspects are: Casey, Indigo, Alex, Ellis, Jordan, and Blake.", + "Exactly one suspect is guilty.", + "A witness placed Ellis at the scene." + ], + "formal_representation": "; Investigation: exactly-one guilty, partial evidence", + "entities": { + "suspects": [ + "Casey", + "Indigo", + "Alex", + "Ellis", + "Jordan", + "Blake" + ] + }, + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 8, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Has Alex been exonerated by the evidence?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "The evidence neither conclusively clears nor convicts Alex. Innocence is possible but not proven.", + "query_type": "is_innocent", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Could both Jordan and Blake be guilty?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "Exactly one person is guilty; both Jordan and Blake being guilty violates the single-culprit premise.", + "query_type": "pair", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Is the culprit either Ellis or Indigo?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "While Ellis and Indigo are both possible, other suspects haven't been eliminated either.", + "query_type": "narrow_down", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Did Jordan commit the crime?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "The evidence is insufficient to determine Jordan's guilt. Multiple suspects remain viable.", + "query_type": "is_guilty", + "depends_on": [ + 1 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Can we clear Jordan?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "The evidence neither conclusively clears nor convicts Jordan. Innocence is possible but not proven.", + "query_type": "is_innocent", + "depends_on": [ + 1, + 3 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q5", + "query": "Could both Ellis and Indigo be guilty?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "Exactly one person is guilty; both Ellis and Indigo being guilty violates the single-culprit premise.", + "query_type": "pair", + "depends_on": [ + 2 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q6", + "query": "Is the culprit either Indigo or Casey?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "While Indigo and Casey are both possible, other suspects haven't been eliminated either.", + "query_type": "narrow_down", + "depends_on": [ + 2, + 5 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q7", + "query": "Is the culprit either Jordan or Alex?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "While Jordan and Alex are both possible, other suspects haven't been eliminated either.", + "query_type": "narrow_down", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1, + 3, + 4 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "UNKNOWN": 6, + "CONTRADICTED": 2 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "under_diag_0095", + "domain": "underspecified", + "subdomain": "diagnostic", + "logic_type": "partial_information", + "premises": [ + "Patient a presents with certain symptoms.", + "The possible conditions are: food poisoning, heat exhaustion, flu, allergic reaction.", + "Exactly one condition is present.", + "Patient a has fatigue.", + "Patient a has joint pain.", + "Patient a has rash.", + "Food poisoning always causes fatigue.", + "Food poisoning always causes rash.", + "Heat exhaustion always causes rash.", + "Heat exhaustion always causes headache.", + "Heat exhaustion always causes fatigue.", + "Flu always causes headache.", + "Flu always causes joint pain.", + "Allergic reaction always causes fatigue." + ], + "formal_representation": "; Diagnostic: exactly-one condition, symptom implications, partial observations", + "entities": { + "conditions": [ + "food poisoning", + "heat exhaustion", + "flu", + "allergic reaction" + ], + "symptoms": [ + "fatigue", + "headache", + "rash", + "joint pain" + ], + "observed": [ + "fatigue", + "joint pain", + "rash" + ] + }, + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 7, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Is heat exhaustion the correct diagnosis?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Multiple conditions remain consistent with the partial observations. heat exhaustion is possible but not certain.", + "query_type": "has_condition", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Could Patient A have both flu and heat exhaustion?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "Exactly one condition is present; having both flu and heat exhaustion violates this premise.", + "query_type": "both_conditions", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Does Patient A have food poisoning?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Multiple conditions remain consistent with the partial observations. food poisoning is possible but not certain.", + "query_type": "has_condition", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Is painkillers appropriate if the diagnosis is food poisoning?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether painkillers is appropriate depends on confirming food poisoning as the diagnosis, which is not yet determined.", + "query_type": "treatment", + "depends_on": [ + 2 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Can we rule out flu?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "The observations don't conclusively rule out flu, but don't confirm it either.", + "query_type": "rule_out", + "depends_on": [ + 1 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q5", + "query": "Can we conclude Patient A has heat exhaustion?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Multiple conditions remain consistent with the partial observations. heat exhaustion is possible but not certain.", + "query_type": "has_condition", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q6", + "query": "Is rest appropriate if the diagnosis is food poisoning?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether rest is appropriate depends on confirming food poisoning as the diagnosis, which is not yet determined.", + "query_type": "treatment", + "depends_on": [ + 2, + 3 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "UNKNOWN": 6, + "CONTRADICTED": 1 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "under_fault_0089", + "domain": "underspecified", + "subdomain": "fault_diagnosis", + "logic_type": "partial_information", + "premises": [ + "A system has 5 components: display adapter, memory module, storage drive, cooling fan, and network card.", + "If network card fails, display adapter also fails.", + "If storage drive fails, cooling fan also fails.", + "If memory module fails, cooling fan also fails.", + "display adapter is failed.", + "memory module is functioning." + ], + "formal_representation": "; Fault diagnosis: dependency cascades, partial sensor data", + "entities": { + "components": [ + "display adapter", + "memory module", + "storage drive", + "cooling fan", + "network card" + ], + "known": [ + "display adapter", + "memory module" + ], + "unknown": [ + "storage drive", + "cooling fan", + "network card" + ] + }, + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 7, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Can both cooling fan and memory module be failed simultaneously?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "The 'at-least-one' or dependency constraints prevent simultaneous failure of cooling fan and memory module.", + "query_type": "both_fail", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Has cooling fan failed?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "No sensor data for cooling fan and dependency chains don't uniquely determine its state.", + "query_type": "is_working", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "If display adapter fails, must cooling fan also fail?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether display adapter's failure cascades to cooling fan depends on intermediate component states that are unknown.", + "query_type": "cascade", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "If cooling fan fails, must display adapter also fail?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "A dependency chain exists from cooling fan to display adapter, so cooling fan's failure guarantees display adapter's failure.", + "query_type": "cascade", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1, + 2 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Are all components functioning?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "At least one component is confirmed failed, so not all are functioning.", + "query_type": "system_ok", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q5", + "query": "Has network card failed?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "No sensor data for network card and dependency chains don't uniquely determine its state.", + "query_type": "is_working", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q6", + "query": "If network card fails, must display adapter also fail?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "A dependency chain exists from network card to display adapter, so network card's failure guarantees display adapter's failure.", + "query_type": "cascade", + "depends_on": [ + 2, + 3, + 5 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "CONTRADICTED": 2, + "UNKNOWN": 3, + "ENTAILED": 2 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "under_fault_0019", + "domain": "underspecified", + "subdomain": "fault_diagnosis", + "logic_type": "partial_information", + "premises": [ + "A system has 4 components: memory module, storage drive, cooling fan, and power supply.", + "If cooling fan fails, memory module also fails.", + "If storage drive fails, cooling fan also fails.", + "If power supply fails, cooling fan also fails.", + "If storage drive fails, memory module also fails.", + "storage drive is functioning." + ], + "formal_representation": "; Fault diagnosis: dependency cascades, partial sensor data", + "entities": { + "components": [ + "memory module", + "storage drive", + "cooling fan", + "power supply" + ], + "known": [ + "storage drive" + ], + "unknown": [ + "memory module", + "cooling fan", + "power supply" + ] + }, + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 6, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Can both cooling fan and storage drive be failed simultaneously?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "The 'at-least-one' or dependency constraints prevent simultaneous failure of cooling fan and storage drive.", + "query_type": "both_fail", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Has memory module failed?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "No sensor data for memory module and dependency chains don't uniquely determine its state.", + "query_type": "is_working", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Can we confirm memory module is operational?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "No sensor data for memory module and dependency chains don't uniquely determine its state.", + "query_type": "is_working", + "depends_on": [ + 1 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Can both power supply and storage drive be failed simultaneously?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "The 'at-least-one' or dependency constraints prevent simultaneous failure of power supply and storage drive.", + "query_type": "both_fail", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Can we confirm storage drive is operational?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "Sensor data or dependency reasoning confirms storage drive is functioning.", + "query_type": "is_working", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 3 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q5", + "query": "Are all components functioning?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some components lack sensor data; full system health is indeterminate.", + "query_type": "system_ok", + "depends_on": [] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "CONTRADICTED": 2, + "UNKNOWN": 3, + "ENTAILED": 1 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "under_inv_0099", + "domain": "underspecified", + "subdomain": "investigation", + "logic_type": "partial_information", + "premises": [ + "A crime was committed. The suspects are: Indigo, Blake, Frankie, Casey, and Alex.", + "Exactly one suspect is guilty.", + "Indigo's alibi has been confirmed (they were elsewhere).", + "Casey's fingerprints were found at the scene." + ], + "formal_representation": "; Investigation: exactly-one guilty, partial evidence", + "entities": { + "suspects": [ + "Indigo", + "Blake", + "Frankie", + "Casey", + "Alex" + ] + }, + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 7, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Could both Blake and Indigo be guilty?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "Exactly one person is guilty; both Blake and Indigo being guilty violates the single-culprit premise.", + "query_type": "pair", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Could both Indigo and Frankie be guilty?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "Exactly one person is guilty; both Indigo and Frankie being guilty violates the single-culprit premise.", + "query_type": "pair", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Could both Alex and Casey be guilty?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "Exactly one person is guilty; both Alex and Casey being guilty violates the single-culprit premise.", + "query_type": "pair", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Could both Blake and Frankie be guilty?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "Exactly one person is guilty; both Blake and Frankie being guilty violates the single-culprit premise.", + "query_type": "pair", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Is the culprit either Blake or Alex?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "While Blake and Alex are both possible, other suspects haven't been eliminated either.", + "query_type": "narrow_down", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 2, + 3 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q5", + "query": "Has Casey been exonerated by the evidence?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "The evidence neither conclusively clears nor convicts Casey. Innocence is possible but not proven.", + "query_type": "is_innocent", + "depends_on": [ + 2 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q6", + "query": "Could both Casey and Alex be guilty?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "Exactly one person is guilty; both Casey and Alex being guilty violates the single-culprit premise.", + "query_type": "pair", + "depends_on": [ + 2, + 4, + 5 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "CONTRADICTED": 5, + "UNKNOWN": 2 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "under_diag_0002", + "domain": "underspecified", + "subdomain": "diagnostic", + "logic_type": "partial_information", + "premises": [ + "Patient a presents with certain symptoms.", + "The possible conditions are: viral infection, dehydration, allergic reaction, heat exhaustion, food poisoning.", + "Exactly one condition is present.", + "Patient a does not have cough.", + "Patient a does not have fatigue.", + "Patient a does not have fever.", + "Viral infection always causes cough.", + "Viral infection always causes fever.", + "Dehydration always causes fever.", + "Allergic reaction always causes headache.", + "Heat exhaustion always causes fever.", + "Heat exhaustion always causes cough.", + "Food poisoning always causes nausea." + ], + "formal_representation": "; Diagnostic: exactly-one condition, symptom implications, partial observations", + "entities": { + "conditions": [ + "viral infection", + "dehydration", + "allergic reaction", + "heat exhaustion", + "food poisoning" + ], + "symptoms": [ + "headache", + "fatigue", + "nausea", + "cough", + "fever" + ], + "observed": [ + "cough", + "fatigue", + "fever" + ] + }, + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 7, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Is painkillers appropriate if the diagnosis is heat exhaustion?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "heat exhaustion has been ruled out, so treatment planning for heat exhaustion is not applicable.", + "query_type": "treatment", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Can we rule out food poisoning?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "The observations don't conclusively rule out food poisoning, but don't confirm it either.", + "query_type": "rule_out", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Could Patient A have both allergic reaction and food poisoning?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "Exactly one condition is present; having both allergic reaction and food poisoning violates this premise.", + "query_type": "both_conditions", + "depends_on": [ + 1 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Is heat exhaustion definitively excluded?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "The observations are incompatible with heat exhaustion; it can be definitively ruled out.", + "query_type": "rule_out", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Will Patient A show nausea?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether Patient A shows nausea depends on which condition is present, which is not yet determined.", + "query_type": "unobserved_symptom", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q5", + "query": "Does Patient A have viral infection?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "The symptom pattern is inconsistent with viral infection\u2014at least one observation directly contradicts it.", + "query_type": "has_condition", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q6", + "query": "Will Patient A show headache?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether Patient A shows headache depends on which condition is present, which is not yet determined.", + "query_type": "unobserved_symptom", + "depends_on": [] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "CONTRADICTED": 3, + "UNKNOWN": 3, + "ENTAILED": 1 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "under_fault_0036", + "domain": "underspecified", + "subdomain": "fault_diagnosis", + "logic_type": "partial_information", + "premises": [ + "A system has 4 components: power supply, input controller, storage drive, and network card.", + "If input controller fails, network card also fails.", + "If network card fails, power supply also fails.", + "If network card fails, input controller also fails.", + "At least one of input controller or network card must be working.", + "storage drive is failed." + ], + "formal_representation": "; Fault diagnosis: dependency cascades, partial sensor data", + "entities": { + "components": [ + "power supply", + "input controller", + "storage drive", + "network card" + ], + "known": [ + "storage drive" + ], + "unknown": [ + "power supply", + "input controller", + "network card" + ] + }, + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 5, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Can both power supply and input controller be failed simultaneously?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "The 'at-least-one' or dependency constraints prevent simultaneous failure of power supply and input controller.", + "query_type": "both_fail", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "If input controller fails, must network card also fail?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "A dependency chain exists from input controller to network card, so input controller's failure guarantees network card's failure.", + "query_type": "cascade", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "If storage drive fails, must network card also fail?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "There exist valid states where storage drive fails but network card remains operational.", + "query_type": "cascade", + "depends_on": [ + 1 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Has power supply failed?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "No sensor data for power supply and dependency chains don't uniquely determine its state.", + "query_type": "is_working", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Can both power supply and network card be failed simultaneously?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "The 'at-least-one' or dependency constraints prevent simultaneous failure of power supply and network card.", + "query_type": "both_fail", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1, + 2, + 3 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "CONTRADICTED": 3, + "ENTAILED": 1, + "UNKNOWN": 1 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "under_diag_0061", + "domain": "underspecified", + "subdomain": "diagnostic", + "logic_type": "partial_information", + "premises": [ + "The patient presents with certain symptoms.", + "The possible conditions are: heat exhaustion, viral infection, migraine, food poisoning.", + "Exactly one condition is present.", + "The patient has joint pain.", + "The patient has nausea.", + "Heat exhaustion always causes nausea.", + "Heat exhaustion always causes dizziness.", + "Heat exhaustion always causes joint pain.", + "Viral infection always causes nausea.", + "Viral infection always causes joint pain.", + "Viral infection always causes dizziness.", + "Migraine always causes nausea.", + "Migraine always causes joint pain.", + "Food poisoning always causes joint pain." + ], + "formal_representation": "; Diagnostic: exactly-one condition, symptom implications, partial observations", + "entities": { + "conditions": [ + "heat exhaustion", + "viral infection", + "migraine", + "food poisoning" + ], + "symptoms": [ + "dizziness", + "nausea", + "joint pain" + ], + "observed": [ + "joint pain", + "nausea" + ] + }, + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 5, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Could the patient have both migraine and heat exhaustion?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "Exactly one condition is present; having both migraine and heat exhaustion violates this premise.", + "query_type": "both_conditions", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Is food poisoning definitively excluded?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "The observations don't conclusively rule out food poisoning, but don't confirm it either.", + "query_type": "rule_out", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Does the patient have viral infection?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Multiple conditions remain consistent with the partial observations. viral infection is possible but not certain.", + "query_type": "has_condition", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Can we rule out viral infection?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "The observations don't conclusively rule out viral infection, but don't confirm it either.", + "query_type": "rule_out", + "depends_on": [ + 2 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Is cold compress appropriate if the diagnosis is migraine?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether cold compress is appropriate depends on confirming migraine as the diagnosis, which is not yet determined.", + "query_type": "treatment", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "CONTRADICTED": 1, + "UNKNOWN": 4 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "under_fault_0104", + "domain": "underspecified", + "subdomain": "fault_diagnosis", + "logic_type": "partial_information", + "premises": [ + "A system has 5 components: memory module, display adapter, motherboard, storage drive, and network card.", + "If display adapter fails, network card also fails.", + "If motherboard fails, memory module also fails.", + "If motherboard fails, display adapter also fails.", + "If display adapter fails, memory module also fails.", + "At least one of motherboard or display adapter must be working.", + "network card is failed.", + "memory module is functioning." + ], + "formal_representation": "; Fault diagnosis: dependency cascades, partial sensor data", + "entities": { + "components": [ + "memory module", + "display adapter", + "motherboard", + "storage drive", + "network card" + ], + "known": [ + "network card", + "memory module" + ], + "unknown": [ + "display adapter", + "motherboard", + "storage drive" + ] + }, + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 5, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Can both network card and storage drive be failed simultaneously?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid states have both failed, others don't; insufficient data to determine.", + "query_type": "both_fail", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Can we confirm storage drive is operational?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "No sensor data for storage drive and dependency chains don't uniquely determine its state.", + "query_type": "is_working", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Can both network card and motherboard be failed simultaneously?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "The 'at-least-one' or dependency constraints prevent simultaneous failure of network card and motherboard.", + "query_type": "both_fail", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Can both memory module and motherboard be failed simultaneously?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "The 'at-least-one' or dependency constraints prevent simultaneous failure of memory module and motherboard.", + "query_type": "both_fail", + "depends_on": [ + 2 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Are all components functioning?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "At least one component is confirmed failed, so not all are functioning.", + "query_type": "system_ok", + "depends_on": [] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "UNKNOWN": 2, + "CONTRADICTED": 3 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "under_inv_0059", + "domain": "underspecified", + "subdomain": "investigation", + "logic_type": "partial_information", + "premises": [ + "A crime was committed. The suspects are: Jordan, Casey, Ellis, and Harper.", + "Exactly one suspect is guilty.", + "Harper's alibi has been confirmed (they were elsewhere)." + ], + "formal_representation": "; Investigation: exactly-one guilty, partial evidence", + "entities": { + "suspects": [ + "Jordan", + "Casey", + "Ellis", + "Harper" + ] + }, + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 6, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Is Jordan definitely innocent?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "The evidence neither conclusively clears nor convicts Jordan. Innocence is possible but not proven.", + "query_type": "is_innocent", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Is Harper the guilty party?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "Harper has a confirmed alibi or is otherwise eliminated; they cannot be the guilty party.", + "query_type": "is_guilty", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Can we clear Ellis?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "The evidence neither conclusively clears nor convicts Ellis. Innocence is possible but not proven.", + "query_type": "is_innocent", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Could both Jordan and Ellis be guilty?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "Exactly one person is guilty; both Jordan and Ellis being guilty violates the single-culprit premise.", + "query_type": "pair", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 2 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Is Harper definitely innocent?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "The evidence conclusively clears Harper\u2014alibi confirmed or other exonerating facts establish innocence.", + "query_type": "is_innocent", + "depends_on": [ + 1 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q5", + "query": "Could both Casey and Harper be guilty?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "Exactly one person is guilty; both Casey and Harper being guilty violates the single-culprit premise.", + "query_type": "pair", + "depends_on": [ + 1, + 4 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "UNKNOWN": 2, + "CONTRADICTED": 3, + "ENTAILED": 1 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "under_diag_0035", + "domain": "underspecified", + "subdomain": "diagnostic", + "logic_type": "partial_information", + "premises": [ + "The patient presents with certain symptoms.", + "The possible conditions are: viral infection, allergic reaction, food poisoning, flu.", + "Exactly one condition is present.", + "The patient has headache.", + "The patient does not have nausea.", + "The patient has cough.", + "Viral infection always causes rash.", + "Viral infection always causes headache.", + "Allergic reaction always causes nausea.", + "Food poisoning always causes cough.", + "Flu always causes rash.", + "Flu always causes headache.", + "Flu never causes nausea." + ], + "formal_representation": "; Diagnostic: exactly-one condition, symptom implications, partial observations", + "entities": { + "conditions": [ + "viral infection", + "allergic reaction", + "food poisoning", + "flu" + ], + "symptoms": [ + "nausea", + "cough", + "headache", + "rash" + ], + "observed": [ + "headache", + "nausea", + "cough" + ] + }, + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 6, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Is painkillers appropriate if the diagnosis is food poisoning?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether painkillers is appropriate depends on confirming food poisoning as the diagnosis, which is not yet determined.", + "query_type": "treatment", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Is allergic reaction definitively excluded?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "The observations are incompatible with allergic reaction; it can be definitively ruled out.", + "query_type": "rule_out", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Should we expect rash given the observations?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether the patient shows rash depends on which condition is present, which is not yet determined.", + "query_type": "unobserved_symptom", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Could the patient have both viral infection and food poisoning?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "Exactly one condition is present; having both viral infection and food poisoning violates this premise.", + "query_type": "both_conditions", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Can we rule out viral infection?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "The observations don't conclusively rule out viral infection, but don't confirm it either.", + "query_type": "rule_out", + "depends_on": [ + 3 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q5", + "query": "Is viral infection the correct diagnosis?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Multiple conditions remain consistent with the partial observations. viral infection is possible but not certain.", + "query_type": "has_condition", + "depends_on": [ + 3, + 4 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "UNKNOWN": 4, + "ENTAILED": 1, + "CONTRADICTED": 1 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "under_diag_0015", + "domain": "underspecified", + "subdomain": "diagnostic", + "logic_type": "partial_information", + "premises": [ + "The patient presents with certain symptoms.", + "The possible conditions are: dehydration, allergic reaction, flu.", + "Exactly one condition is present.", + "The patient has nausea.", + "The patient does not have cough.", + "Dehydration always causes fever.", + "Dehydration always causes nausea.", + "Allergic reaction always causes rash.", + "Allergic reaction always causes headache.", + "Allergic reaction always causes cough.", + "Flu always causes nausea.", + "Allergic reaction never causes fever." + ], + "formal_representation": "; Diagnostic: exactly-one condition, symptom implications, partial observations", + "entities": { + "conditions": [ + "dehydration", + "allergic reaction", + "flu" + ], + "symptoms": [ + "fever", + "rash", + "cough", + "nausea", + "headache" + ], + "observed": [ + "nausea", + "cough" + ] + }, + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 6, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Is allergic reaction definitively excluded?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "The observations are incompatible with allergic reaction; it can be definitively ruled out.", + "query_type": "rule_out", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Could the patient have both allergic reaction and dehydration?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "Exactly one condition is present; having both allergic reaction and dehydration violates this premise.", + "query_type": "both_conditions", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Is fever guaranteed for the patient?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether the patient shows fever depends on which condition is present, which is not yet determined.", + "query_type": "unobserved_symptom", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Can we rule out flu?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "The observations don't conclusively rule out flu, but don't confirm it either.", + "query_type": "rule_out", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Is antibiotics appropriate if the diagnosis is flu?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether antibiotics is appropriate depends on confirming flu as the diagnosis, which is not yet determined.", + "query_type": "treatment", + "depends_on": [ + 3 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q5", + "query": "Will the patient show headache?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether the patient shows headache depends on which condition is present, which is not yet determined.", + "query_type": "unobserved_symptom", + "depends_on": [] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "ENTAILED": 1, + "CONTRADICTED": 1, + "UNKNOWN": 4 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "under_fault_0018", + "domain": "underspecified", + "subdomain": "fault_diagnosis", + "logic_type": "partial_information", + "premises": [ + "A system has 4 components: power supply, network card, motherboard, and display adapter.", + "If motherboard fails, network card also fails.", + "If motherboard fails, power supply also fails.", + "If display adapter fails, network card also fails.", + "At least one of motherboard or display adapter must be working.", + "motherboard is failed." + ], + "formal_representation": "; Fault diagnosis: dependency cascades, partial sensor data", + "entities": { + "components": [ + "power supply", + "network card", + "motherboard", + "display adapter" + ], + "known": [ + "motherboard" + ], + "unknown": [ + "power supply", + "network card", + "display adapter" + ] + }, + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 8, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Are all components functioning?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "At least one component is confirmed failed, so not all are functioning.", + "query_type": "system_ok", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Can both motherboard and network card be failed simultaneously?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "The constraints force both motherboard and network card to be failed in every valid state.", + "query_type": "both_fail", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "If motherboard fails, must display adapter also fail?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "There exist valid states where motherboard fails but display adapter remains operational.", + "query_type": "cascade", + "depends_on": [ + 1 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "If power supply fails, must network card also fail?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "A dependency chain exists from power supply to network card, so power supply's failure guarantees network card's failure.", + "query_type": "cascade", + "depends_on": [ + 1 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Can both power supply and network card be failed simultaneously?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "The constraints force both power supply and network card to be failed in every valid state.", + "query_type": "both_fail", + "depends_on": [ + 1, + 3 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q5", + "query": "If network card fails, must display adapter also fail?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "There exist valid states where network card fails but display adapter remains operational.", + "query_type": "cascade", + "depends_on": [ + 1, + 2, + 3, + 4 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q6", + "query": "Can we confirm power supply is operational?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "Either direct observation or cascade failure confirms power supply has failed.", + "query_type": "is_working", + "depends_on": [ + 3, + 4 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q7", + "query": "Has power supply failed?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "Sensor data or dependency reasoning confirms power supply is functioning.", + "query_type": "is_working", + "depends_on": [ + 3, + 4, + 6 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "CONTRADICTED": 4, + "ENTAILED": 4 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "under_inv_0106", + "domain": "underspecified", + "subdomain": "investigation", + "logic_type": "partial_information", + "premises": [ + "A crime was committed. The suspects are: Alex, Blake, Indigo, Grey, and Frankie.", + "Exactly one suspect is guilty.", + "Blake has no prior criminal record.", + "Indigo has no prior criminal record.", + "Frankie has an established motive.", + "DNA evidence conclusively matches Indigo." + ], + "formal_representation": "; Investigation: exactly-one guilty, partial evidence", + "entities": { + "suspects": [ + "Alex", + "Blake", + "Indigo", + "Grey", + "Frankie" + ] + }, + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 8, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Is Frankie the guilty party?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "Frankie has a confirmed alibi or is otherwise eliminated; they cannot be the guilty party.", + "query_type": "is_guilty", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Is the culprit either Grey or Alex?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "Both Grey and Alex are cleared by evidence; the culprit must be someone else.", + "query_type": "narrow_down", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Could both Frankie and Grey be guilty?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "Exactly one person is guilty; both Frankie and Grey being guilty violates the single-culprit premise.", + "query_type": "pair", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Can we conclude Grey is guilty?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "Grey has a confirmed alibi or is otherwise eliminated; they cannot be the guilty party.", + "query_type": "is_guilty", + "depends_on": [ + 1, + 2 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Is Blake the guilty party?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "Blake has a confirmed alibi or is otherwise eliminated; they cannot be the guilty party.", + "query_type": "is_guilty", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q5", + "query": "Is the culprit either Alex or Indigo?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "All other suspects are eliminated, leaving only Alex or Indigo as possibilities.", + "query_type": "narrow_down", + "depends_on": [ + 1 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q6", + "query": "Can we clear Alex?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "The evidence conclusively clears Alex\u2014alibi confirmed or other exonerating facts establish innocence.", + "query_type": "is_innocent", + "depends_on": [ + 1, + 5 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q7", + "query": "Is the culprit either Frankie or Grey?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "Both Frankie and Grey are cleared by evidence; the culprit must be someone else.", + "query_type": "narrow_down", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1, + 2, + 3 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "CONTRADICTED": 6, + "ENTAILED": 2 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "under_inv_0022", + "domain": "underspecified", + "subdomain": "investigation", + "logic_type": "partial_information", + "premises": [ + "A crime was committed. The suspects are: Blake, Alex, Casey, Harper, Ellis, and Indigo.", + "Exactly one suspect is guilty.", + "Casey has an established motive.", + "Harper's alibi has been confirmed (they were elsewhere).", + "Ellis has no prior criminal record.", + "DNA evidence conclusively matches Alex." + ], + "formal_representation": "; Investigation: exactly-one guilty, partial evidence", + "entities": { + "suspects": [ + "Blake", + "Alex", + "Casey", + "Harper", + "Ellis", + "Indigo" + ] + }, + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 7, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Is Alex definitely innocent?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "All evidence points to Alex as the sole guilty party; declaring innocence contradicts the facts.", + "query_type": "is_innocent", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Could both Alex and Ellis be guilty?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "Exactly one person is guilty; both Alex and Ellis being guilty violates the single-culprit premise.", + "query_type": "pair", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Is the culprit either Ellis or Blake?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "Both Ellis and Blake are cleared by evidence; the culprit must be someone else.", + "query_type": "narrow_down", + "depends_on": [ + 1 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Has Ellis been exonerated by the evidence?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "The evidence conclusively clears Ellis\u2014alibi confirmed or other exonerating facts establish innocence.", + "query_type": "is_innocent", + "depends_on": [ + 1, + 2 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Is the culprit either Alex or Harper?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "All other suspects are eliminated, leaving only Alex or Harper as possibilities.", + "query_type": "narrow_down", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q5", + "query": "Is the culprit either Alex or Casey?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "All other suspects are eliminated, leaving only Alex or Casey as possibilities.", + "query_type": "narrow_down", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1, + 4 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q6", + "query": "Did Blake commit the crime?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "Blake has a confirmed alibi or is otherwise eliminated; they cannot be the guilty party.", + "query_type": "is_guilty", + "depends_on": [ + 2 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "CONTRADICTED": 4, + "ENTAILED": 3 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "under_fault_0039", + "domain": "underspecified", + "subdomain": "fault_diagnosis", + "logic_type": "partial_information", + "premises": [ + "A system has 4 components: input controller, memory module, storage drive, and cooling fan.", + "If input controller fails, cooling fan also fails.", + "If input controller fails, storage drive also fails.", + "If input controller fails, storage drive also fails.", + "At least one of memory module or input controller must be working.", + "At least one of input controller or cooling fan must be working.", + "cooling fan is functioning." + ], + "formal_representation": "; Fault diagnosis: dependency cascades, partial sensor data", + "entities": { + "components": [ + "input controller", + "memory module", + "storage drive", + "cooling fan" + ], + "known": [ + "cooling fan" + ], + "unknown": [ + "input controller", + "memory module", + "storage drive" + ] + }, + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 7, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Can both storage drive and input controller be failed simultaneously?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "The 'at-least-one' or dependency constraints prevent simultaneous failure of storage drive and input controller.", + "query_type": "both_fail", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "If memory module fails, must storage drive also fail?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether memory module's failure cascades to storage drive depends on intermediate component states that are unknown.", + "query_type": "cascade", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Has input controller failed?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "Either direct observation or cascade failure confirms input controller has failed.", + "query_type": "is_working", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "If memory module fails, must input controller also fail?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether memory module's failure cascades to input controller depends on intermediate component states that are unknown.", + "query_type": "cascade", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1, + 2 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Is memory module currently functioning?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "No sensor data for memory module and dependency chains don't uniquely determine its state.", + "query_type": "is_working", + "depends_on": [ + 1, + 3 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q5", + "query": "Is input controller currently functioning?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "Sensor data or dependency reasoning confirms input controller is functioning.", + "query_type": "is_working", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 2, + 3 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q6", + "query": "Are all components functioning?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some components lack sensor data; full system health is indeterminate.", + "query_type": "system_ok", + "depends_on": [] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "CONTRADICTED": 2, + "UNKNOWN": 4, + "ENTAILED": 1 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "under_diag_0026", + "domain": "underspecified", + "subdomain": "diagnostic", + "logic_type": "partial_information", + "premises": [ + "The patient presents with certain symptoms.", + "The possible conditions are: flu, viral infection, allergic reaction, food poisoning, migraine.", + "Exactly one condition is present.", + "The patient has nausea.", + "The patient does not have rash.", + "The patient has cough.", + "Flu always causes cough.", + "Flu always causes headache.", + "Flu always causes nausea.", + "Viral infection always causes cough.", + "Viral infection always causes nausea.", + "Allergic reaction always causes nausea.", + "Food poisoning always causes headache.", + "Migraine always causes nausea.", + "Migraine always causes rash." + ], + "formal_representation": "; Diagnostic: exactly-one condition, symptom implications, partial observations", + "entities": { + "conditions": [ + "flu", + "viral infection", + "allergic reaction", + "food poisoning", + "migraine" + ], + "symptoms": [ + "nausea", + "rash", + "headache", + "cough" + ], + "observed": [ + "nausea", + "rash", + "cough" + ] + }, + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 8, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Does the patient have viral infection?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Multiple conditions remain consistent with the partial observations. viral infection is possible but not certain.", + "query_type": "has_condition", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Is headache guaranteed for the patient?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether the patient shows headache depends on which condition is present, which is not yet determined.", + "query_type": "unobserved_symptom", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Is allergic reaction the correct diagnosis?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Multiple conditions remain consistent with the partial observations. allergic reaction is possible but not certain.", + "query_type": "has_condition", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Could the patient have both flu and allergic reaction?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "Exactly one condition is present; having both flu and allergic reaction violates this premise.", + "query_type": "both_conditions", + "depends_on": [ + 2 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Is fluids appropriate if the diagnosis is viral infection?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether fluids is appropriate depends on confirming viral infection as the diagnosis, which is not yet determined.", + "query_type": "treatment", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 3 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q5", + "query": "Should we expect headache given the observations?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether the patient shows headache depends on which condition is present, which is not yet determined.", + "query_type": "unobserved_symptom", + "depends_on": [ + 1 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q6", + "query": "Will the patient show headache?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether the patient shows headache depends on which condition is present, which is not yet determined.", + "query_type": "unobserved_symptom", + "depends_on": [ + 1, + 5 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q7", + "query": "Could the patient have both allergic reaction and migraine?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "Exactly one condition is present; having both allergic reaction and migraine violates this premise.", + "query_type": "both_conditions", + "depends_on": [ + 2, + 3 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "UNKNOWN": 6, + "CONTRADICTED": 2 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "under_diag_0007", + "domain": "underspecified", + "subdomain": "diagnostic", + "logic_type": "partial_information", + "premises": [ + "The patient presents with certain symptoms.", + "The possible conditions are: food poisoning, allergic reaction, dehydration, migraine, heat exhaustion.", + "Exactly one condition is present.", + "The patient does not have fatigue.", + "The patient has rash.", + "Food poisoning always causes fatigue.", + "Food poisoning always causes cough.", + "Allergic reaction always causes joint pain.", + "Dehydration always causes fatigue.", + "Dehydration always causes cough.", + "Dehydration always causes rash.", + "Migraine always causes cough.", + "Migraine always causes joint pain.", + "Heat exhaustion always causes cough.", + "Heat exhaustion always causes fatigue." + ], + "formal_representation": "; Diagnostic: exactly-one condition, symptom implications, partial observations", + "entities": { + "conditions": [ + "food poisoning", + "allergic reaction", + "dehydration", + "migraine", + "heat exhaustion" + ], + "symptoms": [ + "joint pain", + "fatigue", + "rash", + "cough" + ], + "observed": [ + "fatigue", + "rash" + ] + }, + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 5, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Could the patient have both allergic reaction and migraine?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "Exactly one condition is present; having both allergic reaction and migraine violates this premise.", + "query_type": "both_conditions", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Should we expect joint pain given the observations?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "Every condition consistent with the observations causes joint pain, so the patient must show it.", + "query_type": "unobserved_symptom", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Could the patient have both allergic reaction and food poisoning?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "Exactly one condition is present; having both allergic reaction and food poisoning violates this premise.", + "query_type": "both_conditions", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Is dehydration the correct diagnosis?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "The symptom pattern is inconsistent with dehydration\u2014at least one observation directly contradicts it.", + "query_type": "has_condition", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Is rest appropriate if the diagnosis is allergic reaction?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether rest is appropriate depends on confirming allergic reaction as the diagnosis, which is not yet determined.", + "query_type": "treatment", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 2 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "CONTRADICTED": 3, + "ENTAILED": 1, + "UNKNOWN": 1 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "under_diag_0085", + "domain": "underspecified", + "subdomain": "diagnostic", + "logic_type": "partial_information", + "premises": [ + "The patient presents with certain symptoms.", + "The possible conditions are: allergic reaction, heat exhaustion, dehydration.", + "Exactly one condition is present.", + "The patient does not have fever.", + "The patient does not have fatigue.", + "The patient does not have joint pain.", + "Allergic reaction always causes fever.", + "Allergic reaction always causes joint pain.", + "Allergic reaction always causes fatigue.", + "Heat exhaustion always causes fatigue.", + "Dehydration always causes cough.", + "Dehydration never causes fever." + ], + "formal_representation": "; Diagnostic: exactly-one condition, symptom implications, partial observations", + "entities": { + "conditions": [ + "allergic reaction", + "heat exhaustion", + "dehydration" + ], + "symptoms": [ + "fever", + "fatigue", + "cough", + "joint pain" + ], + "observed": [ + "fever", + "fatigue", + "joint pain" + ] + }, + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 8, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Will the patient show cough?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "Every condition consistent with the observations causes cough, so the patient must show it.", + "query_type": "unobserved_symptom", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Is cough guaranteed for the patient?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "Every condition consistent with the observations causes cough, so the patient must show it.", + "query_type": "unobserved_symptom", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Is allergic reaction definitively excluded?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "The observations are incompatible with allergic reaction; it can be definitively ruled out.", + "query_type": "rule_out", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Is fluids appropriate if the diagnosis is heat exhaustion?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "heat exhaustion has been ruled out, so treatment planning for heat exhaustion is not applicable.", + "query_type": "treatment", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Is dehydration the correct diagnosis?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "The observed symptoms and exclusion rules uniquely identify dehydration as the only consistent diagnosis for the patient.", + "query_type": "has_condition", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q5", + "query": "Could the patient have both dehydration and allergic reaction?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "Exactly one condition is present; having both dehydration and allergic reaction violates this premise.", + "query_type": "both_conditions", + "depends_on": [ + 2, + 4 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q6", + "query": "Is heat exhaustion definitively excluded?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "The observations are incompatible with heat exhaustion; it can be definitively ruled out.", + "query_type": "rule_out", + "depends_on": [ + 3 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q7", + "query": "Is allergic reaction the correct diagnosis?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "The symptom pattern is inconsistent with allergic reaction\u2014at least one observation directly contradicts it.", + "query_type": "has_condition", + "depends_on": [ + 2, + 5 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "ENTAILED": 5, + "CONTRADICTED": 3 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "under_fault_0070", + "domain": "underspecified", + "subdomain": "fault_diagnosis", + "logic_type": "partial_information", + "premises": [ + "A system has 6 components: cooling fan, storage drive, motherboard, network card, display adapter, and input controller.", + "If input controller fails, display adapter also fails.", + "If display adapter fails, motherboard also fails.", + "If input controller fails, cooling fan also fails.", + "If input controller fails, motherboard also fails.", + "At least one of cooling fan or input controller must be working.", + "display adapter is functioning.", + "motherboard is failed." + ], + "formal_representation": "; Fault diagnosis: dependency cascades, partial sensor data", + "entities": { + "components": [ + "cooling fan", + "storage drive", + "motherboard", + "network card", + "display adapter", + "input controller" + ], + "known": [ + "display adapter", + "motherboard" + ], + "unknown": [ + "cooling fan", + "storage drive", + "network card", + "input controller" + ] + }, + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 7, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Can both motherboard and input controller be failed simultaneously?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "The 'at-least-one' or dependency constraints prevent simultaneous failure of motherboard and input controller.", + "query_type": "both_fail", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Can both network card and storage drive be failed simultaneously?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid states have both failed, others don't; insufficient data to determine.", + "query_type": "both_fail", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Has display adapter failed?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "Either direct observation or cascade failure confirms display adapter has failed.", + "query_type": "is_working", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Can both storage drive and motherboard be failed simultaneously?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid states have both failed, others don't; insufficient data to determine.", + "query_type": "both_fail", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Can both motherboard and cooling fan be failed simultaneously?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid states have both failed, others don't; insufficient data to determine.", + "query_type": "both_fail", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 3 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q5", + "query": "Is network card currently functioning?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "No sensor data for network card and dependency chains don't uniquely determine its state.", + "query_type": "is_working", + "depends_on": [ + 1 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q6", + "query": "Are all components functioning?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "At least one component is confirmed failed, so not all are functioning.", + "query_type": "system_ok", + "depends_on": [] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "CONTRADICTED": 3, + "UNKNOWN": 4 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "under_fault_0093", + "domain": "underspecified", + "subdomain": "fault_diagnosis", + "logic_type": "partial_information", + "premises": [ + "A system has 5 components: power supply, motherboard, storage drive, network card, and input controller.", + "If input controller fails, network card also fails.", + "If motherboard fails, input controller also fails.", + "If motherboard fails, network card also fails.", + "If motherboard fails, storage drive also fails.", + "At least one of input controller or power supply must be working.", + "network card is functioning.", + "input controller is functioning.", + "motherboard is functioning." + ], + "formal_representation": "; Fault diagnosis: dependency cascades, partial sensor data", + "entities": { + "components": [ + "power supply", + "motherboard", + "storage drive", + "network card", + "input controller" + ], + "known": [ + "network card", + "input controller", + "motherboard" + ], + "unknown": [ + "power supply", + "storage drive" + ] + }, + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 8, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "If storage drive fails, must input controller also fail?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether storage drive's failure cascades to input controller depends on intermediate component states that are unknown.", + "query_type": "cascade", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Can both input controller and network card be failed simultaneously?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "The 'at-least-one' or dependency constraints prevent simultaneous failure of input controller and network card.", + "query_type": "both_fail", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Can both network card and motherboard be failed simultaneously?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "The 'at-least-one' or dependency constraints prevent simultaneous failure of network card and motherboard.", + "query_type": "both_fail", + "depends_on": [ + 1 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Are all components functioning?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some components lack sensor data; full system health is indeterminate.", + "query_type": "system_ok", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "If input controller fails, must power supply also fail?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "A dependency chain exists from input controller to power supply, so input controller's failure guarantees power supply's failure.", + "query_type": "cascade", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q5", + "query": "Is network card currently functioning?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "Sensor data or dependency reasoning confirms network card is functioning.", + "query_type": "is_working", + "depends_on": [ + 1, + 2 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q6", + "query": "If motherboard fails, must storage drive also fail?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "A dependency chain exists from motherboard to storage drive, so motherboard's failure guarantees storage drive's failure.", + "query_type": "cascade", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 2 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q7", + "query": "If network card fails, must input controller also fail?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "A dependency chain exists from network card to input controller, so network card's failure guarantees input controller's failure.", + "query_type": "cascade", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1, + 2, + 4, + 5 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "UNKNOWN": 2, + "CONTRADICTED": 2, + "ENTAILED": 4 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "under_diag_0021", + "domain": "underspecified", + "subdomain": "diagnostic", + "logic_type": "partial_information", + "premises": [ + "The patient presents with certain symptoms.", + "The possible conditions are: food poisoning, migraine, viral infection, allergic reaction.", + "Exactly one condition is present.", + "The patient does not have fever.", + "The patient has nausea.", + "Food poisoning always causes nausea.", + "Migraine always causes fatigue.", + "Migraine always causes dizziness.", + "Viral infection always causes fatigue.", + "Viral infection always causes joint pain.", + "Allergic reaction always causes fatigue.", + "Allergic reaction always causes dizziness." + ], + "formal_representation": "; Diagnostic: exactly-one condition, symptom implications, partial observations", + "entities": { + "conditions": [ + "food poisoning", + "migraine", + "viral infection", + "allergic reaction" + ], + "symptoms": [ + "fatigue", + "nausea", + "dizziness", + "joint pain", + "fever" + ], + "observed": [ + "fever", + "nausea" + ] + }, + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 6, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Can we conclude the patient has migraine?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Multiple conditions remain consistent with the partial observations. migraine is possible but not certain.", + "query_type": "has_condition", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Can we conclude the patient has viral infection?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Multiple conditions remain consistent with the partial observations. viral infection is possible but not certain.", + "query_type": "has_condition", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Should we expect joint pain given the observations?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether the patient shows joint pain depends on which condition is present, which is not yet determined.", + "query_type": "unobserved_symptom", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Is food poisoning the correct diagnosis?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Multiple conditions remain consistent with the partial observations. food poisoning is possible but not certain.", + "query_type": "has_condition", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Is migraine the correct diagnosis?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Multiple conditions remain consistent with the partial observations. migraine is possible but not certain.", + "query_type": "has_condition", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q5", + "query": "Could the patient have both food poisoning and allergic reaction?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "Exactly one condition is present; having both food poisoning and allergic reaction violates this premise.", + "query_type": "both_conditions", + "depends_on": [ + 3 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "UNKNOWN": 5, + "CONTRADICTED": 1 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "under_fault_0045", + "domain": "underspecified", + "subdomain": "fault_diagnosis", + "logic_type": "partial_information", + "premises": [ + "A system has 4 components: memory module, power supply, display adapter, and input controller.", + "If display adapter fails, memory module also fails.", + "If display adapter fails, power supply also fails.", + "If memory module fails, input controller also fails.", + "At least one of input controller or power supply must be working.", + "At least one of power supply or display adapter must be working.", + "power supply is functioning.", + "input controller is failed." + ], + "formal_representation": "; Fault diagnosis: dependency cascades, partial sensor data", + "entities": { + "components": [ + "memory module", + "power supply", + "display adapter", + "input controller" + ], + "known": [ + "power supply", + "input controller" + ], + "unknown": [ + "memory module", + "display adapter" + ] + }, + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 5, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Can both memory module and power supply be failed simultaneously?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "The 'at-least-one' or dependency constraints prevent simultaneous failure of memory module and power supply.", + "query_type": "both_fail", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "If power supply fails, must memory module also fail?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "A dependency chain exists from power supply to memory module, so power supply's failure guarantees memory module's failure.", + "query_type": "cascade", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "If power supply fails, must display adapter also fail?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "A dependency chain exists from power supply to display adapter, so power supply's failure guarantees display adapter's failure.", + "query_type": "cascade", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Are all components functioning?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "At least one component is confirmed failed, so not all are functioning.", + "query_type": "system_ok", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Can both display adapter and input controller be failed simultaneously?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "The 'at-least-one' or dependency constraints prevent simultaneous failure of display adapter and input controller.", + "query_type": "both_fail", + "depends_on": [ + 2 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "CONTRADICTED": 3, + "ENTAILED": 2 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "under_inv_0014", + "domain": "underspecified", + "subdomain": "investigation", + "logic_type": "partial_information", + "premises": [ + "A crime was committed. The suspects are: Blake, Dana, Indigo, Jordan, Casey, and Grey.", + "Exactly one suspect is guilty.", + "Blake has an established motive.", + "Dana has no prior criminal record.", + "Dana has no prior criminal record.", + "DNA evidence conclusively matches Blake." + ], + "formal_representation": "; Investigation: exactly-one guilty, partial evidence", + "entities": { + "suspects": [ + "Blake", + "Dana", + "Indigo", + "Jordan", + "Casey", + "Grey" + ] + }, + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 6, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Is the culprit either Jordan or Blake?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "All other suspects are eliminated, leaving only Jordan or Blake as possibilities.", + "query_type": "narrow_down", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Is the culprit either Jordan or Indigo?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "Both Jordan and Indigo are cleared by evidence; the culprit must be someone else.", + "query_type": "narrow_down", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Did Indigo commit the crime?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "Indigo has a confirmed alibi or is otherwise eliminated; they cannot be the guilty party.", + "query_type": "is_guilty", + "depends_on": [ + 1 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Could both Grey and Dana be guilty?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "Exactly one person is guilty; both Grey and Dana being guilty violates the single-culprit premise.", + "query_type": "pair", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Is Dana definitely innocent?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "The evidence conclusively clears Dana\u2014alibi confirmed or other exonerating facts establish innocence.", + "query_type": "is_innocent", + "depends_on": [ + 3 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q5", + "query": "Could both Casey and Dana be guilty?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "Exactly one person is guilty; both Casey and Dana being guilty violates the single-culprit premise.", + "query_type": "pair", + "depends_on": [ + 3, + 4 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "ENTAILED": 2, + "CONTRADICTED": 4 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "under_diag_0042", + "domain": "underspecified", + "subdomain": "diagnostic", + "logic_type": "partial_information", + "premises": [ + "Patient a presents with certain symptoms.", + "The possible conditions are: flu, heat exhaustion, viral infection, migraine.", + "Exactly one condition is present.", + "Patient a has rash.", + "Patient a has fatigue.", + "Patient a has dizziness.", + "Flu always causes fatigue.", + "Flu always causes dizziness.", + "Flu always causes rash.", + "Heat exhaustion always causes dizziness.", + "Heat exhaustion always causes fatigue.", + "Heat exhaustion always causes rash.", + "Viral infection always causes fatigue.", + "Viral infection always causes dizziness.", + "Viral infection always causes cough.", + "Migraine always causes rash." + ], + "formal_representation": "; Diagnostic: exactly-one condition, symptom implications, partial observations", + "entities": { + "conditions": [ + "flu", + "heat exhaustion", + "viral infection", + "migraine" + ], + "symptoms": [ + "dizziness", + "rash", + "cough", + "fatigue" + ], + "observed": [ + "rash", + "fatigue", + "dizziness" + ] + }, + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 8, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Is migraine definitively excluded?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "The observations don't conclusively rule out migraine, but don't confirm it either.", + "query_type": "rule_out", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Is fluids appropriate if the diagnosis is viral infection?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether fluids is appropriate depends on confirming viral infection as the diagnosis, which is not yet determined.", + "query_type": "treatment", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Can we rule out flu?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "The observations don't conclusively rule out flu, but don't confirm it either.", + "query_type": "rule_out", + "depends_on": [ + 1 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Is rest appropriate if the diagnosis is migraine?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether rest is appropriate depends on confirming migraine as the diagnosis, which is not yet determined.", + "query_type": "treatment", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Could Patient A have both viral infection and migraine?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "Exactly one condition is present; having both viral infection and migraine violates this premise.", + "query_type": "both_conditions", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1, + 3 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q5", + "query": "Can we rule out migraine?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "The observations don't conclusively rule out migraine, but don't confirm it either.", + "query_type": "rule_out", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 3, + 4 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q6", + "query": "Is flu the correct diagnosis?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Multiple conditions remain consistent with the partial observations. flu is possible but not certain.", + "query_type": "has_condition", + "depends_on": [ + 1, + 2 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q7", + "query": "Does Patient A have viral infection?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Multiple conditions remain consistent with the partial observations. viral infection is possible but not certain.", + "query_type": "has_condition", + "depends_on": [ + 1, + 4 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "UNKNOWN": 7, + "CONTRADICTED": 1 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "under_inv_0006", + "domain": "underspecified", + "subdomain": "investigation", + "logic_type": "partial_information", + "premises": [ + "A crime was committed. The suspects are: Alex, Harper, Jordan, Blake, and Frankie.", + "Exactly one suspect is guilty.", + "A witness placed Jordan at the scene.", + "Frankie has no prior criminal record." + ], + "formal_representation": "; Investigation: exactly-one guilty, partial evidence", + "entities": { + "suspects": [ + "Alex", + "Harper", + "Jordan", + "Blake", + "Frankie" + ] + }, + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 8, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Could both Blake and Frankie be guilty?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "Exactly one person is guilty; both Blake and Frankie being guilty violates the single-culprit premise.", + "query_type": "pair", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Could both Harper and Blake be guilty?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "Exactly one person is guilty; both Harper and Blake being guilty violates the single-culprit premise.", + "query_type": "pair", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Can we clear Frankie?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "The evidence neither conclusively clears nor convicts Frankie. Innocence is possible but not proven.", + "query_type": "is_innocent", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Is the culprit either Frankie or Blake?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "While Frankie and Blake are both possible, other suspects haven't been eliminated either.", + "query_type": "narrow_down", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1, + 2 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Has Harper been exonerated by the evidence?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "The evidence neither conclusively clears nor convicts Harper. Innocence is possible but not proven.", + "query_type": "is_innocent", + "depends_on": [ + 1 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q5", + "query": "Could both Harper and Frankie be guilty?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "Exactly one person is guilty; both Harper and Frankie being guilty violates the single-culprit premise.", + "query_type": "pair", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1, + 2, + 3, + 4 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q6", + "query": "Is the culprit either Alex or Blake?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "While Alex and Blake are both possible, other suspects haven't been eliminated either.", + "query_type": "narrow_down", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1, + 3 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q7", + "query": "Could both Alex and Blake be guilty?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "Exactly one person is guilty; both Alex and Blake being guilty violates the single-culprit premise.", + "query_type": "pair", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1, + 3, + 6 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "CONTRADICTED": 4, + "UNKNOWN": 4 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "under_inv_0081", + "domain": "underspecified", + "subdomain": "investigation", + "logic_type": "partial_information", + "premises": [ + "A crime was committed. The suspects are: Ellis, Frankie, Blake, Alex, Grey, and Dana.", + "Exactly one suspect is guilty.", + "Ellis has no prior criminal record.", + "A witness placed Frankie at the scene.", + "A witness placed Blake at the scene.", + "Grey's fingerprints were found at the scene.", + "Dana's alibi has been confirmed (they were elsewhere)." + ], + "formal_representation": "; Investigation: exactly-one guilty, partial evidence", + "entities": { + "suspects": [ + "Ellis", + "Frankie", + "Blake", + "Alex", + "Grey", + "Dana" + ] + }, + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 5, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Could both Ellis and Grey be guilty?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "Exactly one person is guilty; both Ellis and Grey being guilty violates the single-culprit premise.", + "query_type": "pair", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Did Grey commit the crime?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "The evidence is insufficient to determine Grey's guilt. Multiple suspects remain viable.", + "query_type": "is_guilty", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Is the culprit either Frankie or Ellis?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "While Frankie and Ellis are both possible, other suspects haven't been eliminated either.", + "query_type": "narrow_down", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Could both Grey and Dana be guilty?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "Exactly one person is guilty; both Grey and Dana being guilty violates the single-culprit premise.", + "query_type": "pair", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Is the culprit either Dana or Ellis?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "While Dana and Ellis are both possible, other suspects haven't been eliminated either.", + "query_type": "narrow_down", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 2, + 3 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "CONTRADICTED": 2, + "UNKNOWN": 3 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "under_inv_0054", + "domain": "underspecified", + "subdomain": "investigation", + "logic_type": "partial_information", + "premises": [ + "A crime was committed. The suspects are: Grey, Dana, Harper, and Ellis.", + "Exactly one suspect is guilty.", + "Grey's alibi has been confirmed (they were elsewhere).", + "Ellis's fingerprints were found at the scene." + ], + "formal_representation": "; Investigation: exactly-one guilty, partial evidence", + "entities": { + "suspects": [ + "Grey", + "Dana", + "Harper", + "Ellis" + ] + }, + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 8, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Is Harper the guilty party?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "The evidence is insufficient to determine Harper's guilt. Multiple suspects remain viable.", + "query_type": "is_guilty", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Has Dana been exonerated by the evidence?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "The evidence neither conclusively clears nor convicts Dana. Innocence is possible but not proven.", + "query_type": "is_innocent", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Did Harper commit the crime?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "The evidence is insufficient to determine Harper's guilt. Multiple suspects remain viable.", + "query_type": "is_guilty", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Is the culprit either Dana or Harper?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "While Dana and Harper are both possible, other suspects haven't been eliminated either.", + "query_type": "narrow_down", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1, + 2 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Can we conclude Dana is guilty?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "The evidence is insufficient to determine Dana's guilt. Multiple suspects remain viable.", + "query_type": "is_guilty", + "depends_on": [ + 1, + 3 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q5", + "query": "Did Grey commit the crime?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "Grey has a confirmed alibi or is otherwise eliminated; they cannot be the guilty party.", + "query_type": "is_guilty", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q6", + "query": "Is the culprit either Ellis or Grey?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "While Ellis and Grey are both possible, other suspects haven't been eliminated either.", + "query_type": "narrow_down", + "depends_on": [ + 5 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q7", + "query": "Is the culprit either Dana or Grey?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "While Dana and Grey are both possible, other suspects haven't been eliminated either.", + "query_type": "narrow_down", + "depends_on": [ + 1, + 3, + 4, + 5, + 6 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "UNKNOWN": 7, + "CONTRADICTED": 1 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "under_inv_0034", + "domain": "underspecified", + "subdomain": "investigation", + "logic_type": "partial_information", + "premises": [ + "A crime was committed. The suspects are: Dana, Blake, Casey, Harper, Grey, and Frankie.", + "Exactly one suspect is guilty.", + "Dana's alibi has been confirmed (they were elsewhere).", + "Blake's alibi has been confirmed (they were elsewhere).", + "Grey has no prior criminal record." + ], + "formal_representation": "; Investigation: exactly-one guilty, partial evidence", + "entities": { + "suspects": [ + "Dana", + "Blake", + "Casey", + "Harper", + "Grey", + "Frankie" + ] + }, + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 7, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Can we clear Harper?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "The evidence neither conclusively clears nor convicts Harper. Innocence is possible but not proven.", + "query_type": "is_innocent", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Is Harper the guilty party?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "The evidence is insufficient to determine Harper's guilt. Multiple suspects remain viable.", + "query_type": "is_guilty", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Could both Blake and Dana be guilty?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "Exactly one person is guilty; both Blake and Dana being guilty violates the single-culprit premise.", + "query_type": "pair", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Is the culprit either Dana or Blake?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "Both Dana and Blake are cleared by evidence; the culprit must be someone else.", + "query_type": "narrow_down", + "depends_on": [ + 2 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Could both Casey and Dana be guilty?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "Exactly one person is guilty; both Casey and Dana being guilty violates the single-culprit premise.", + "query_type": "pair", + "depends_on": [ + 2, + 3 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q5", + "query": "Is the culprit either Blake or Frankie?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "While Blake and Frankie are both possible, other suspects haven't been eliminated either.", + "query_type": "narrow_down", + "depends_on": [ + 2, + 3 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q6", + "query": "Is the culprit either Casey or Dana?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "While Casey and Dana are both possible, other suspects haven't been eliminated either.", + "query_type": "narrow_down", + "depends_on": [ + 2, + 3, + 4 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "UNKNOWN": 4, + "CONTRADICTED": 3 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "under_inv_0102", + "domain": "underspecified", + "subdomain": "investigation", + "logic_type": "partial_information", + "premises": [ + "A crime was committed. The suspects are: Grey, Jordan, Casey, and Blake.", + "Exactly one suspect is guilty.", + "Grey has no prior criminal record.", + "Grey has an established motive.", + "Jordan has no prior criminal record.", + "Blake has an established motive." + ], + "formal_representation": "; Investigation: exactly-one guilty, partial evidence", + "entities": { + "suspects": [ + "Grey", + "Jordan", + "Casey", + "Blake" + ] + }, + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 6, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Is the culprit either Jordan or Casey?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "While Jordan and Casey are both possible, other suspects haven't been eliminated either.", + "query_type": "narrow_down", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Can we conclude Jordan is guilty?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "The evidence is insufficient to determine Jordan's guilt. Multiple suspects remain viable.", + "query_type": "is_guilty", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Can we conclude Blake is guilty?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "The evidence is insufficient to determine Blake's guilt. Multiple suspects remain viable.", + "query_type": "is_guilty", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Is the culprit either Blake or Casey?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "While Blake and Casey are both possible, other suspects haven't been eliminated either.", + "query_type": "narrow_down", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 2 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Has Grey been exonerated by the evidence?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "The evidence neither conclusively clears nor convicts Grey. Innocence is possible but not proven.", + "query_type": "is_innocent", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q5", + "query": "Is Jordan definitely innocent?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "The evidence neither conclusively clears nor convicts Jordan. Innocence is possible but not proven.", + "query_type": "is_innocent", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "UNKNOWN": 6 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "under_inv_0024", + "domain": "underspecified", + "subdomain": "investigation", + "logic_type": "partial_information", + "premises": [ + "A crime was committed. The suspects are: Casey, Jordan, Blake, Alex, and Indigo.", + "Exactly one suspect is guilty.", + "Casey has no prior criminal record.", + "Casey has an established motive.", + "Jordan's fingerprints were found at the scene.", + "A witness placed Alex at the scene.", + "A witness placed Indigo at the scene." + ], + "formal_representation": "; Investigation: exactly-one guilty, partial evidence", + "entities": { + "suspects": [ + "Casey", + "Jordan", + "Blake", + "Alex", + "Indigo" + ] + }, + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 5, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Is the culprit either Blake or Jordan?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "While Blake and Jordan are both possible, other suspects haven't been eliminated either.", + "query_type": "narrow_down", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Is the culprit either Blake or Indigo?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "While Blake and Indigo are both possible, other suspects haven't been eliminated either.", + "query_type": "narrow_down", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Could both Blake and Indigo be guilty?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "Exactly one person is guilty; both Blake and Indigo being guilty violates the single-culprit premise.", + "query_type": "pair", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Has Blake been exonerated by the evidence?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "The evidence neither conclusively clears nor convicts Blake. Innocence is possible but not proven.", + "query_type": "is_innocent", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1, + 2 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Is the culprit either Jordan or Alex?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "While Jordan and Alex are both possible, other suspects haven't been eliminated either.", + "query_type": "narrow_down", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "UNKNOWN": 4, + "CONTRADICTED": 1 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "under_diag_0038", + "domain": "underspecified", + "subdomain": "diagnostic", + "logic_type": "partial_information", + "premises": [ + "The individual presents with certain symptoms.", + "The possible conditions are: allergic reaction, food poisoning, migraine, flu.", + "Exactly one condition is present.", + "The individual does not have fatigue.", + "The individual has cough.", + "Allergic reaction always causes fatigue.", + "Allergic reaction always causes joint pain.", + "Allergic reaction always causes cough.", + "Food poisoning always causes cough.", + "Food poisoning always causes fatigue.", + "Food poisoning always causes joint pain.", + "Migraine always causes joint pain.", + "Flu always causes cough.", + "Flu always causes joint pain." + ], + "formal_representation": "; Diagnostic: exactly-one condition, symptom implications, partial observations", + "entities": { + "conditions": [ + "allergic reaction", + "food poisoning", + "migraine", + "flu" + ], + "symptoms": [ + "fatigue", + "cough", + "joint pain" + ], + "observed": [ + "fatigue", + "cough" + ] + }, + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 5, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Should we expect joint pain given the observations?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "Every condition consistent with the observations causes joint pain, so the individual must show it.", + "query_type": "unobserved_symptom", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Is allergic reaction definitively excluded?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "The observations are incompatible with allergic reaction; it can be definitively ruled out.", + "query_type": "rule_out", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Is food poisoning definitively excluded?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "The observations are incompatible with food poisoning; it can be definitively ruled out.", + "query_type": "rule_out", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Does the individual have flu?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Multiple conditions remain consistent with the partial observations. flu is possible but not certain.", + "query_type": "has_condition", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Can we conclude the individual has migraine?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Multiple conditions remain consistent with the partial observations. migraine is possible but not certain.", + "query_type": "has_condition", + "depends_on": [] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "ENTAILED": 3, + "UNKNOWN": 2 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "under_fault_0048", + "domain": "underspecified", + "subdomain": "fault_diagnosis", + "logic_type": "partial_information", + "premises": [ + "A system has 6 components: storage drive, power supply, display adapter, input controller, memory module, and network card.", + "If storage drive fails, display adapter also fails.", + "If network card fails, storage drive also fails.", + "If display adapter fails, power supply also fails.", + "At least one of memory module or network card must be working.", + "At least one of memory module or display adapter must be working.", + "network card is functioning.", + "power supply is failed.", + "memory module is functioning.", + "display adapter is functioning." + ], + "formal_representation": "; Fault diagnosis: dependency cascades, partial sensor data", + "entities": { + "components": [ + "storage drive", + "power supply", + "display adapter", + "input controller", + "memory module", + "network card" + ], + "known": [ + "network card", + "power supply", + "memory module", + "display adapter" + ], + "unknown": [ + "storage drive", + "input controller" + ] + }, + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 5, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Is network card currently functioning?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "Sensor data or dependency reasoning confirms network card is functioning.", + "query_type": "is_working", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "If power supply fails, must network card also fail?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "There exist valid states where power supply fails but network card remains operational.", + "query_type": "cascade", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Can both storage drive and display adapter be failed simultaneously?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "The 'at-least-one' or dependency constraints prevent simultaneous failure of storage drive and display adapter.", + "query_type": "both_fail", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Are all components functioning?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "At least one component is confirmed failed, so not all are functioning.", + "query_type": "system_ok", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "If input controller fails, must memory module also fail?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether input controller's failure cascades to memory module depends on intermediate component states that are unknown.", + "query_type": "cascade", + "depends_on": [] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "ENTAILED": 1, + "CONTRADICTED": 3, + "UNKNOWN": 1 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "under_diag_0012", + "domain": "underspecified", + "subdomain": "diagnostic", + "logic_type": "partial_information", + "premises": [ + "The individual presents with certain symptoms.", + "The possible conditions are: heat exhaustion, dehydration, viral infection, flu.", + "Exactly one condition is present.", + "The individual has rash.", + "The individual does not have joint pain.", + "Heat exhaustion always causes rash.", + "Dehydration always causes joint pain.", + "Dehydration always causes dizziness.", + "Viral infection always causes dizziness.", + "Viral infection always causes joint pain.", + "Viral infection always causes nausea.", + "Flu always causes nausea.", + "Flu always causes dizziness." + ], + "formal_representation": "; Diagnostic: exactly-one condition, symptom implications, partial observations", + "entities": { + "conditions": [ + "heat exhaustion", + "dehydration", + "viral infection", + "flu" + ], + "symptoms": [ + "headache", + "joint pain", + "nausea", + "rash", + "dizziness" + ], + "observed": [ + "rash", + "joint pain" + ] + }, + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 8, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Can we rule out viral infection?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "The observations are incompatible with viral infection; it can be definitively ruled out.", + "query_type": "rule_out", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Should we expect headache given the observations?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether the individual shows headache depends on which condition is present, which is not yet determined.", + "query_type": "unobserved_symptom", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Is dizziness guaranteed for the individual?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether the individual shows dizziness depends on which condition is present, which is not yet determined.", + "query_type": "unobserved_symptom", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Can we rule out heat exhaustion?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "The observations don't conclusively rule out heat exhaustion, but don't confirm it either.", + "query_type": "rule_out", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Does the individual have dehydration?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "The symptom pattern is inconsistent with dehydration\u2014at least one observation directly contradicts it.", + "query_type": "has_condition", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q5", + "query": "Is viral infection definitively excluded?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "The observations are incompatible with viral infection; it can be definitively ruled out.", + "query_type": "rule_out", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q6", + "query": "Will the individual show nausea?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether the individual shows nausea depends on which condition is present, which is not yet determined.", + "query_type": "unobserved_symptom", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q7", + "query": "Could the individual have both heat exhaustion and dehydration?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "Exactly one condition is present; having both heat exhaustion and dehydration violates this premise.", + "query_type": "both_conditions", + "depends_on": [ + 3, + 4 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "ENTAILED": 2, + "UNKNOWN": 4, + "CONTRADICTED": 2 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "under_inv_0043", + "domain": "underspecified", + "subdomain": "investigation", + "logic_type": "partial_information", + "premises": [ + "A crime was committed. The suspects are: Harper, Dana, Blake, and Grey.", + "Exactly one suspect is guilty.", + "Blake has no prior criminal record.", + "A witness placed Blake at the scene.", + "Grey's fingerprints were found at the scene." + ], + "formal_representation": "; Investigation: exactly-one guilty, partial evidence", + "entities": { + "suspects": [ + "Harper", + "Dana", + "Blake", + "Grey" + ] + }, + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 7, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Has Grey been exonerated by the evidence?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "The evidence neither conclusively clears nor convicts Grey. Innocence is possible but not proven.", + "query_type": "is_innocent", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Is the culprit either Grey or Blake?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "While Grey and Blake are both possible, other suspects haven't been eliminated either.", + "query_type": "narrow_down", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Could both Blake and Grey be guilty?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "Exactly one person is guilty; both Blake and Grey being guilty violates the single-culprit premise.", + "query_type": "pair", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Is the culprit either Harper or Dana?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "While Harper and Dana are both possible, other suspects haven't been eliminated either.", + "query_type": "narrow_down", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Could both Grey and Harper be guilty?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "Exactly one person is guilty; both Grey and Harper being guilty violates the single-culprit premise.", + "query_type": "pair", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1, + 2, + 3 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q5", + "query": "Is the culprit either Blake or Dana?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "While Blake and Dana are both possible, other suspects haven't been eliminated either.", + "query_type": "narrow_down", + "depends_on": [ + 1, + 2, + 3 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q6", + "query": "Is the culprit either Dana or Blake?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "While Dana and Blake are both possible, other suspects haven't been eliminated either.", + "query_type": "narrow_down", + "depends_on": [ + 1, + 2, + 3, + 5 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "UNKNOWN": 5, + "CONTRADICTED": 2 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "under_inv_0016", + "domain": "underspecified", + "subdomain": "investigation", + "logic_type": "partial_information", + "premises": [ + "A crime was committed. The suspects are: Blake, Harper, Jordan, Frankie, Ellis, and Grey.", + "Exactly one suspect is guilty.", + "Ellis has an established motive.", + "DNA evidence conclusively matches Jordan." + ], + "formal_representation": "; Investigation: exactly-one guilty, partial evidence", + "entities": { + "suspects": [ + "Blake", + "Harper", + "Jordan", + "Frankie", + "Ellis", + "Grey" + ] + }, + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 7, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Is Grey the guilty party?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "Grey has a confirmed alibi or is otherwise eliminated; they cannot be the guilty party.", + "query_type": "is_guilty", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Could both Harper and Grey be guilty?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "Exactly one person is guilty; both Harper and Grey being guilty violates the single-culprit premise.", + "query_type": "pair", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Can we conclude Frankie is guilty?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "Frankie has a confirmed alibi or is otherwise eliminated; they cannot be the guilty party.", + "query_type": "is_guilty", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Can we conclude Blake is guilty?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "Blake has a confirmed alibi or is otherwise eliminated; they cannot be the guilty party.", + "query_type": "is_guilty", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Is Ellis the guilty party?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "Ellis has a confirmed alibi or is otherwise eliminated; they cannot be the guilty party.", + "query_type": "is_guilty", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q5", + "query": "Can we conclude Harper is guilty?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "Harper has a confirmed alibi or is otherwise eliminated; they cannot be the guilty party.", + "query_type": "is_guilty", + "depends_on": [ + 1 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q6", + "query": "Has Jordan been exonerated by the evidence?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "All evidence points to Jordan as the sole guilty party; declaring innocence contradicts the facts.", + "query_type": "is_innocent", + "depends_on": [] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "CONTRADICTED": 7 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "under_inv_0076", + "domain": "underspecified", + "subdomain": "investigation", + "logic_type": "partial_information", + "premises": [ + "A crime was committed. The suspects are: Indigo, Frankie, Dana, Grey, Harper, and Alex.", + "Exactly one suspect is guilty.", + "Dana has no prior criminal record.", + "Harper's fingerprints were found at the scene.", + "Harper has an established motive.", + "DNA evidence conclusively matches Alex." + ], + "formal_representation": "; Investigation: exactly-one guilty, partial evidence", + "entities": { + "suspects": [ + "Indigo", + "Frankie", + "Dana", + "Grey", + "Harper", + "Alex" + ] + }, + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 8, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Is the culprit either Indigo or Frankie?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "Both Indigo and Frankie are cleared by evidence; the culprit must be someone else.", + "query_type": "narrow_down", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Did Dana commit the crime?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "Dana has a confirmed alibi or is otherwise eliminated; they cannot be the guilty party.", + "query_type": "is_guilty", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Can we conclude Indigo is guilty?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "Indigo has a confirmed alibi or is otherwise eliminated; they cannot be the guilty party.", + "query_type": "is_guilty", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Did Indigo commit the crime?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "Indigo has a confirmed alibi or is otherwise eliminated; they cannot be the guilty party.", + "query_type": "is_guilty", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 2 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Could both Harper and Indigo be guilty?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "Exactly one person is guilty; both Harper and Indigo being guilty violates the single-culprit premise.", + "query_type": "pair", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 2, + 3 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q5", + "query": "Is Indigo the guilty party?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "Indigo has a confirmed alibi or is otherwise eliminated; they cannot be the guilty party.", + "query_type": "is_guilty", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 2, + 3, + 4 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q6", + "query": "Has Dana been exonerated by the evidence?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "The evidence conclusively clears Dana\u2014alibi confirmed or other exonerating facts establish innocence.", + "query_type": "is_innocent", + "depends_on": [ + 1 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q7", + "query": "Did Harper commit the crime?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "Harper has a confirmed alibi or is otherwise eliminated; they cannot be the guilty party.", + "query_type": "is_guilty", + "depends_on": [ + 4 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "CONTRADICTED": 7, + "ENTAILED": 1 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "under_fault_0077", + "domain": "underspecified", + "subdomain": "fault_diagnosis", + "logic_type": "partial_information", + "premises": [ + "A system has 6 components: cooling fan, power supply, display adapter, memory module, input controller, and storage drive.", + "If storage drive fails, input controller also fails.", + "If memory module fails, input controller also fails.", + "If power supply fails, input controller also fails.", + "At least one of power supply or input controller must be working.", + "At least one of cooling fan or input controller must be working.", + "display adapter is failed.", + "cooling fan is functioning." + ], + "formal_representation": "; Fault diagnosis: dependency cascades, partial sensor data", + "entities": { + "components": [ + "cooling fan", + "power supply", + "display adapter", + "memory module", + "input controller", + "storage drive" + ], + "known": [ + "display adapter", + "cooling fan" + ], + "unknown": [ + "power supply", + "memory module", + "input controller", + "storage drive" + ] + }, + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 6, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Has storage drive failed?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "No sensor data for storage drive and dependency chains don't uniquely determine its state.", + "query_type": "is_working", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Is input controller currently functioning?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "No sensor data for input controller and dependency chains don't uniquely determine its state.", + "query_type": "is_working", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Has display adapter failed?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "Sensor data or dependency reasoning confirms display adapter is functioning.", + "query_type": "is_working", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Can both storage drive and display adapter be failed simultaneously?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid states have both failed, others don't; insufficient data to determine.", + "query_type": "both_fail", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 2 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Are all components functioning?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "At least one component is confirmed failed, so not all are functioning.", + "query_type": "system_ok", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q5", + "query": "If power supply fails, must input controller also fail?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "A dependency chain exists from power supply to input controller, so power supply's failure guarantees input controller's failure.", + "query_type": "cascade", + "depends_on": [ + 1 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "UNKNOWN": 3, + "ENTAILED": 2, + "CONTRADICTED": 1 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "under_inv_0025", + "domain": "underspecified", + "subdomain": "investigation", + "logic_type": "partial_information", + "premises": [ + "A crime was committed. The suspects are: Grey, Dana, Jordan, and Blake.", + "Exactly one suspect is guilty.", + "Grey has an established motive." + ], + "formal_representation": "; Investigation: exactly-one guilty, partial evidence", + "entities": { + "suspects": [ + "Grey", + "Dana", + "Jordan", + "Blake" + ] + }, + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 8, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Is Jordan the guilty party?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "The evidence is insufficient to determine Jordan's guilt. Multiple suspects remain viable.", + "query_type": "is_guilty", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Is Dana definitely innocent?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "The evidence neither conclusively clears nor convicts Dana. Innocence is possible but not proven.", + "query_type": "is_innocent", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Has Dana been exonerated by the evidence?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "The evidence neither conclusively clears nor convicts Dana. Innocence is possible but not proven.", + "query_type": "is_innocent", + "depends_on": [ + 1 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Is the culprit either Dana or Jordan?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "While Dana and Jordan are both possible, other suspects haven't been eliminated either.", + "query_type": "narrow_down", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1, + 2 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Has Grey been exonerated by the evidence?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "The evidence neither conclusively clears nor convicts Grey. Innocence is possible but not proven.", + "query_type": "is_innocent", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q5", + "query": "Is the culprit either Grey or Blake?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "While Grey and Blake are both possible, other suspects haven't been eliminated either.", + "query_type": "narrow_down", + "depends_on": [ + 4 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q6", + "query": "Could both Grey and Blake be guilty?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "Exactly one person is guilty; both Grey and Blake being guilty violates the single-culprit premise.", + "query_type": "pair", + "depends_on": [ + 4, + 5 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q7", + "query": "Did Jordan commit the crime?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "The evidence is insufficient to determine Jordan's guilt. Multiple suspects remain viable.", + "query_type": "is_guilty", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 3 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "UNKNOWN": 7, + "CONTRADICTED": 1 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "under_diag_0103", + "domain": "underspecified", + "subdomain": "diagnostic", + "logic_type": "partial_information", + "premises": [ + "Patient a presents with certain symptoms.", + "The possible conditions are: dehydration, flu, food poisoning, viral infection, allergic reaction.", + "Exactly one condition is present.", + "Patient a has cough.", + "Patient a has headache.", + "Dehydration always causes cough.", + "Dehydration always causes headache.", + "Dehydration always causes rash.", + "Flu always causes rash.", + "Flu always causes fatigue.", + "Food poisoning always causes cough.", + "Food poisoning always causes rash.", + "Viral infection always causes headache.", + "Viral infection always causes cough.", + "Allergic reaction always causes fatigue.", + "Allergic reaction always causes cough.", + "Allergic reaction always causes headache." + ], + "formal_representation": "; Diagnostic: exactly-one condition, symptom implications, partial observations", + "entities": { + "conditions": [ + "dehydration", + "flu", + "food poisoning", + "viral infection", + "allergic reaction" + ], + "symptoms": [ + "fatigue", + "dizziness", + "headache", + "cough", + "rash" + ], + "observed": [ + "cough", + "headache" + ] + }, + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 5, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Is painkillers appropriate if the diagnosis is dehydration?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether painkillers is appropriate depends on confirming dehydration as the diagnosis, which is not yet determined.", + "query_type": "treatment", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Is antibiotics appropriate if the diagnosis is food poisoning?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether antibiotics is appropriate depends on confirming food poisoning as the diagnosis, which is not yet determined.", + "query_type": "treatment", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Will Patient A show rash?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether Patient A shows rash depends on which condition is present, which is not yet determined.", + "query_type": "unobserved_symptom", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Is antihistamines appropriate if the diagnosis is food poisoning?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether antihistamines is appropriate depends on confirming food poisoning as the diagnosis, which is not yet determined.", + "query_type": "treatment", + "depends_on": [ + 1 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Is dehydration the correct diagnosis?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Multiple conditions remain consistent with the partial observations. dehydration is possible but not certain.", + "query_type": "has_condition", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "UNKNOWN": 5 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "under_fault_0079", + "domain": "underspecified", + "subdomain": "fault_diagnosis", + "logic_type": "partial_information", + "premises": [ + "A system has 4 components: network card, input controller, cooling fan, and motherboard.", + "If network card fails, input controller also fails.", + "If motherboard fails, network card also fails.", + "cooling fan is failed.", + "input controller is functioning." + ], + "formal_representation": "; Fault diagnosis: dependency cascades, partial sensor data", + "entities": { + "components": [ + "network card", + "input controller", + "cooling fan", + "motherboard" + ], + "known": [ + "cooling fan", + "input controller" + ], + "unknown": [ + "network card", + "motherboard" + ] + }, + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 8, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Can we confirm network card is operational?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "Sensor data or dependency reasoning confirms network card is functioning.", + "query_type": "is_working", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "If motherboard fails, must network card also fail?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "A dependency chain exists from motherboard to network card, so motherboard's failure guarantees network card's failure.", + "query_type": "cascade", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Are all components functioning?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "At least one component is confirmed failed, so not all are functioning.", + "query_type": "system_ok", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Can both network card and cooling fan be failed simultaneously?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "The 'at-least-one' or dependency constraints prevent simultaneous failure of network card and cooling fan.", + "query_type": "both_fail", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Can both cooling fan and motherboard be failed simultaneously?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "The 'at-least-one' or dependency constraints prevent simultaneous failure of cooling fan and motherboard.", + "query_type": "both_fail", + "depends_on": [ + 1, + 3 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q5", + "query": "If cooling fan fails, must motherboard also fail?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "There exist valid states where cooling fan fails but motherboard remains operational.", + "query_type": "cascade", + "depends_on": [ + 1, + 3, + 4 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q6", + "query": "Can we confirm motherboard is operational?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "Sensor data or dependency reasoning confirms motherboard is functioning.", + "query_type": "is_working", + "depends_on": [ + 1, + 4, + 5 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q7", + "query": "If cooling fan fails, must input controller also fail?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "There exist valid states where cooling fan fails but input controller remains operational.", + "query_type": "cascade", + "depends_on": [ + 3, + 4, + 5 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "ENTAILED": 3, + "CONTRADICTED": 5 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "under_diag_0049", + "domain": "underspecified", + "subdomain": "diagnostic", + "logic_type": "partial_information", + "premises": [ + "The individual presents with certain symptoms.", + "The possible conditions are: viral infection, dehydration, flu, allergic reaction, migraine.", + "Exactly one condition is present.", + "The individual has fatigue.", + "The individual does not have fever.", + "The individual does not have dizziness.", + "Viral infection always causes dizziness.", + "Viral infection always causes fatigue.", + "Dehydration always causes dizziness.", + "Dehydration always causes fatigue.", + "Flu always causes fatigue.", + "Flu always causes rash.", + "Allergic reaction always causes fever.", + "Allergic reaction always causes dizziness.", + "Migraine always causes rash.", + "Migraine always causes fever.", + "Migraine never causes dizziness." + ], + "formal_representation": "; Diagnostic: exactly-one condition, symptom implications, partial observations", + "entities": { + "conditions": [ + "viral infection", + "dehydration", + "flu", + "allergic reaction", + "migraine" + ], + "symptoms": [ + "fever", + "rash", + "dizziness", + "fatigue" + ], + "observed": [ + "fatigue", + "fever", + "dizziness" + ] + }, + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 6, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Should we expect rash given the observations?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "Every condition consistent with the observations causes rash, so the individual must show it.", + "query_type": "unobserved_symptom", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Could the individual have both migraine and dehydration?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "Exactly one condition is present; having both migraine and dehydration violates this premise.", + "query_type": "both_conditions", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Is viral infection definitively excluded?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "The observations are incompatible with viral infection; it can be definitively ruled out.", + "query_type": "rule_out", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Is rash guaranteed for the individual?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "Every condition consistent with the observations causes rash, so the individual must show it.", + "query_type": "unobserved_symptom", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Can we rule out viral infection?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "The observations are incompatible with viral infection; it can be definitively ruled out.", + "query_type": "rule_out", + "depends_on": [ + 2 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q5", + "query": "Could the individual have both flu and allergic reaction?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "Exactly one condition is present; having both flu and allergic reaction violates this premise.", + "query_type": "both_conditions", + "depends_on": [] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "ENTAILED": 4, + "CONTRADICTED": 2 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "under_fault_0073", + "domain": "underspecified", + "subdomain": "fault_diagnosis", + "logic_type": "partial_information", + "premises": [ + "A system has 6 components: memory module, network card, storage drive, input controller, cooling fan, and display adapter.", + "If cooling fan fails, storage drive also fails.", + "If network card fails, input controller also fails.", + "If input controller fails, display adapter also fails.", + "At least one of network card or display adapter must be working.", + "At least one of display adapter or network card must be working.", + "network card is functioning.", + "storage drive is functioning." + ], + "formal_representation": "; Fault diagnosis: dependency cascades, partial sensor data", + "entities": { + "components": [ + "memory module", + "network card", + "storage drive", + "input controller", + "cooling fan", + "display adapter" + ], + "known": [ + "network card", + "storage drive" + ], + "unknown": [ + "memory module", + "input controller", + "cooling fan", + "display adapter" + ] + }, + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 7, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "If display adapter fails, must input controller also fail?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether display adapter's failure cascades to input controller depends on intermediate component states that are unknown.", + "query_type": "cascade", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "If display adapter fails, must cooling fan also fail?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether display adapter's failure cascades to cooling fan depends on intermediate component states that are unknown.", + "query_type": "cascade", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "If memory module fails, must cooling fan also fail?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether memory module's failure cascades to cooling fan depends on intermediate component states that are unknown.", + "query_type": "cascade", + "depends_on": [ + 1 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Can both storage drive and input controller be failed simultaneously?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "The 'at-least-one' or dependency constraints prevent simultaneous failure of storage drive and input controller.", + "query_type": "both_fail", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Can we confirm network card is operational?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "Sensor data or dependency reasoning confirms network card is functioning.", + "query_type": "is_working", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q5", + "query": "Are all components functioning?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some components lack sensor data; full system health is indeterminate.", + "query_type": "system_ok", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q6", + "query": "If memory module fails, must input controller also fail?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether memory module's failure cascades to input controller depends on intermediate component states that are unknown.", + "query_type": "cascade", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 2, + 3 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "UNKNOWN": 5, + "CONTRADICTED": 1, + "ENTAILED": 1 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "under_fault_0004", + "domain": "underspecified", + "subdomain": "fault_diagnosis", + "logic_type": "partial_information", + "premises": [ + "A system has 5 components: power supply, memory module, storage drive, cooling fan, and motherboard.", + "If motherboard fails, storage drive also fails.", + "If cooling fan fails, power supply also fails.", + "If memory module fails, motherboard also fails.", + "cooling fan is functioning.", + "motherboard is functioning.", + "storage drive is functioning." + ], + "formal_representation": "; Fault diagnosis: dependency cascades, partial sensor data", + "entities": { + "components": [ + "power supply", + "memory module", + "storage drive", + "cooling fan", + "motherboard" + ], + "known": [ + "cooling fan", + "motherboard", + "storage drive" + ], + "unknown": [ + "power supply", + "memory module" + ] + }, + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 6, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Is memory module currently functioning?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "Sensor data or dependency reasoning confirms memory module is functioning.", + "query_type": "is_working", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Are all components functioning?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some components lack sensor data; full system health is indeterminate.", + "query_type": "system_ok", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "If cooling fan fails, must power supply also fail?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "A dependency chain exists from cooling fan to power supply, so cooling fan's failure guarantees power supply's failure.", + "query_type": "cascade", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "If storage drive fails, must power supply also fail?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "A dependency chain exists from storage drive to power supply, so storage drive's failure guarantees power supply's failure.", + "query_type": "cascade", + "depends_on": [ + 2 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "If motherboard fails, must cooling fan also fail?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "A dependency chain exists from motherboard to cooling fan, so motherboard's failure guarantees cooling fan's failure.", + "query_type": "cascade", + "depends_on": [ + 2 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q5", + "query": "Can both power supply and storage drive be failed simultaneously?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "The 'at-least-one' or dependency constraints prevent simultaneous failure of power supply and storage drive.", + "query_type": "both_fail", + "depends_on": [ + 2, + 3 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "ENTAILED": 4, + "UNKNOWN": 1, + "CONTRADICTED": 1 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "under_inv_0082", + "domain": "underspecified", + "subdomain": "investigation", + "logic_type": "partial_information", + "premises": [ + "A crime was committed. The suspects are: Jordan, Grey, Alex, Casey, and Ellis.", + "Exactly one suspect is guilty.", + "Alex's fingerprints were found at the scene.", + "Alex's alibi has been confirmed (they were elsewhere).", + "Ellis's fingerprints were found at the scene." + ], + "formal_representation": "; Investigation: exactly-one guilty, partial evidence", + "entities": { + "suspects": [ + "Jordan", + "Grey", + "Alex", + "Casey", + "Ellis" + ] + }, + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 6, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Is Alex the guilty party?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "Alex has a confirmed alibi or is otherwise eliminated; they cannot be the guilty party.", + "query_type": "is_guilty", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Could both Jordan and Ellis be guilty?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "Exactly one person is guilty; both Jordan and Ellis being guilty violates the single-culprit premise.", + "query_type": "pair", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Is the culprit either Grey or Ellis?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "While Grey and Ellis are both possible, other suspects haven't been eliminated either.", + "query_type": "narrow_down", + "depends_on": [ + 1 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Is the culprit either Alex or Grey?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "While Alex and Grey are both possible, other suspects haven't been eliminated either.", + "query_type": "narrow_down", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 2 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Is Alex definitely innocent?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "The evidence conclusively clears Alex\u2014alibi confirmed or other exonerating facts establish innocence.", + "query_type": "is_innocent", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 3 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q5", + "query": "Is Jordan definitely innocent?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "The evidence neither conclusively clears nor convicts Jordan. Innocence is possible but not proven.", + "query_type": "is_innocent", + "depends_on": [ + 1 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "CONTRADICTED": 2, + "UNKNOWN": 3, + "ENTAILED": 1 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "under_inv_0058", + "domain": "underspecified", + "subdomain": "investigation", + "logic_type": "partial_information", + "premises": [ + "A crime was committed. The suspects are: Jordan, Alex, Indigo, Casey, and Grey.", + "Exactly one suspect is guilty.", + "A witness placed Jordan at the scene.", + "Casey has an established motive.", + "DNA evidence conclusively matches Alex." + ], + "formal_representation": "; Investigation: exactly-one guilty, partial evidence", + "entities": { + "suspects": [ + "Jordan", + "Alex", + "Indigo", + "Casey", + "Grey" + ] + }, + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 6, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Could both Indigo and Casey be guilty?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "Exactly one person is guilty; both Indigo and Casey being guilty violates the single-culprit premise.", + "query_type": "pair", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Could both Alex and Indigo be guilty?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "Exactly one person is guilty; both Alex and Indigo being guilty violates the single-culprit premise.", + "query_type": "pair", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Has Alex been exonerated by the evidence?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "All evidence points to Alex as the sole guilty party; declaring innocence contradicts the facts.", + "query_type": "is_innocent", + "depends_on": [ + 1 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Is the culprit either Jordan or Grey?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "Both Jordan and Grey are cleared by evidence; the culprit must be someone else.", + "query_type": "narrow_down", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Is the culprit either Grey or Casey?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "Both Grey and Casey are cleared by evidence; the culprit must be someone else.", + "query_type": "narrow_down", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 3 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q5", + "query": "Can we clear Grey?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "The evidence conclusively clears Grey\u2014alibi confirmed or other exonerating facts establish innocence.", + "query_type": "is_innocent", + "depends_on": [ + 3, + 4 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "CONTRADICTED": 5, + "ENTAILED": 1 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "under_inv_0109", + "domain": "underspecified", + "subdomain": "investigation", + "logic_type": "partial_information", + "premises": [ + "A crime was committed. The suspects are: Ellis, Jordan, Frankie, and Indigo.", + "Exactly one suspect is guilty.", + "Indigo has no prior criminal record.", + "Indigo's alibi has been confirmed (they were elsewhere).", + "DNA evidence conclusively matches Frankie." + ], + "formal_representation": "; Investigation: exactly-one guilty, partial evidence", + "entities": { + "suspects": [ + "Ellis", + "Jordan", + "Frankie", + "Indigo" + ] + }, + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 6, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Can we conclude Jordan is guilty?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "Jordan has a confirmed alibi or is otherwise eliminated; they cannot be the guilty party.", + "query_type": "is_guilty", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Is the culprit either Frankie or Jordan?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "All other suspects are eliminated, leaving only Frankie or Jordan as possibilities.", + "query_type": "narrow_down", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Has Ellis been exonerated by the evidence?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "The evidence conclusively clears Ellis\u2014alibi confirmed or other exonerating facts establish innocence.", + "query_type": "is_innocent", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Is the culprit either Ellis or Jordan?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "Both Ellis and Jordan are cleared by evidence; the culprit must be someone else.", + "query_type": "narrow_down", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1, + 2 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Can we clear Indigo?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "The evidence conclusively clears Indigo\u2014alibi confirmed or other exonerating facts establish innocence.", + "query_type": "is_innocent", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q5", + "query": "Did Ellis commit the crime?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "Ellis has a confirmed alibi or is otherwise eliminated; they cannot be the guilty party.", + "query_type": "is_guilty", + "depends_on": [ + 2, + 3 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "CONTRADICTED": 3, + "ENTAILED": 3 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "under_fault_0101", + "domain": "underspecified", + "subdomain": "fault_diagnosis", + "logic_type": "partial_information", + "premises": [ + "A system has 5 components: memory module, input controller, storage drive, motherboard, and network card.", + "If storage drive fails, motherboard also fails.", + "If memory module fails, network card also fails.", + "At least one of storage drive or motherboard must be working.", + "storage drive is functioning." + ], + "formal_representation": "; Fault diagnosis: dependency cascades, partial sensor data", + "entities": { + "components": [ + "memory module", + "input controller", + "storage drive", + "motherboard", + "network card" + ], + "known": [ + "storage drive" + ], + "unknown": [ + "memory module", + "input controller", + "motherboard", + "network card" + ] + }, + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 5, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "If motherboard fails, must input controller also fail?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether motherboard's failure cascades to input controller depends on intermediate component states that are unknown.", + "query_type": "cascade", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "If storage drive fails, must input controller also fail?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "A dependency chain exists from storage drive to input controller, so storage drive's failure guarantees input controller's failure.", + "query_type": "cascade", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Is memory module currently functioning?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "No sensor data for memory module and dependency chains don't uniquely determine its state.", + "query_type": "is_working", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "If motherboard fails, must memory module also fail?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether motherboard's failure cascades to memory module depends on intermediate component states that are unknown.", + "query_type": "cascade", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 2 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "If storage drive fails, must motherboard also fail?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "A dependency chain exists from storage drive to motherboard, so storage drive's failure guarantees motherboard's failure.", + "query_type": "cascade", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1, + 3 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "UNKNOWN": 3, + "ENTAILED": 2 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "under_diag_0068", + "domain": "underspecified", + "subdomain": "diagnostic", + "logic_type": "partial_information", + "premises": [ + "The individual presents with certain symptoms.", + "The possible conditions are: viral infection, allergic reaction, flu, dehydration, migraine.", + "Exactly one condition is present.", + "The individual has rash.", + "The individual does not have cough.", + "The individual has joint pain.", + "The individual does not have fatigue.", + "Viral infection always causes dizziness.", + "Viral infection always causes cough.", + "Viral infection always causes fatigue.", + "Allergic reaction always causes rash.", + "Allergic reaction always causes dizziness.", + "Allergic reaction always causes joint pain.", + "Flu always causes joint pain.", + "Dehydration always causes fatigue.", + "Dehydration always causes joint pain.", + "Dehydration always causes cough.", + "Migraine always causes rash.", + "Migraine always causes dizziness." + ], + "formal_representation": "; Diagnostic: exactly-one condition, symptom implications, partial observations", + "entities": { + "conditions": [ + "viral infection", + "allergic reaction", + "flu", + "dehydration", + "migraine" + ], + "symptoms": [ + "rash", + "cough", + "joint pain", + "dizziness", + "fatigue" + ], + "observed": [ + "rash", + "cough", + "joint pain", + "fatigue" + ] + }, + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 5, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Should we expect dizziness given the observations?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether the individual shows dizziness depends on which condition is present, which is not yet determined.", + "query_type": "unobserved_symptom", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Can we conclude the individual has migraine?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Multiple conditions remain consistent with the partial observations. migraine is possible but not certain.", + "query_type": "has_condition", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Could the individual have both viral infection and migraine?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "Exactly one condition is present; having both viral infection and migraine violates this premise.", + "query_type": "both_conditions", + "depends_on": [ + 1 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Is migraine the correct diagnosis?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Multiple conditions remain consistent with the partial observations. migraine is possible but not certain.", + "query_type": "has_condition", + "depends_on": [ + 1, + 2 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Can we conclude the individual has flu?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Multiple conditions remain consistent with the partial observations. flu is possible but not certain.", + "query_type": "has_condition", + "depends_on": [] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "UNKNOWN": 4, + "CONTRADICTED": 1 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "under_fault_0030", + "domain": "underspecified", + "subdomain": "fault_diagnosis", + "logic_type": "partial_information", + "premises": [ + "A system has 5 components: display adapter, memory module, input controller, network card, and power supply.", + "If display adapter fails, network card also fails.", + "If input controller fails, memory module also fails.", + "display adapter is failed.", + "power supply is failed.", + "network card is failed." + ], + "formal_representation": "; Fault diagnosis: dependency cascades, partial sensor data", + "entities": { + "components": [ + "display adapter", + "memory module", + "input controller", + "network card", + "power supply" + ], + "known": [ + "display adapter", + "power supply", + "network card" + ], + "unknown": [ + "memory module", + "input controller" + ] + }, + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 7, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Can both input controller and power supply be failed simultaneously?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid states have both failed, others don't; insufficient data to determine.", + "query_type": "both_fail", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "If power supply fails, must network card also fail?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "A dependency chain exists from power supply to network card, so power supply's failure guarantees network card's failure.", + "query_type": "cascade", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Can both memory module and power supply be failed simultaneously?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid states have both failed, others don't; insufficient data to determine.", + "query_type": "both_fail", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "If input controller fails, must network card also fail?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "A dependency chain exists from input controller to network card, so input controller's failure guarantees network card's failure.", + "query_type": "cascade", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Are all components functioning?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "At least one component is confirmed failed, so not all are functioning.", + "query_type": "system_ok", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q5", + "query": "Is network card currently functioning?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "Either direct observation or cascade failure confirms network card has failed.", + "query_type": "is_working", + "depends_on": [ + 1, + 3 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q6", + "query": "If input controller fails, must memory module also fail?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "A dependency chain exists from input controller to memory module, so input controller's failure guarantees memory module's failure.", + "query_type": "cascade", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 2, + 3 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "UNKNOWN": 2, + "ENTAILED": 3, + "CONTRADICTED": 2 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "under_inv_0029", + "domain": "underspecified", + "subdomain": "investigation", + "logic_type": "partial_information", + "premises": [ + "A crime was committed. The suspects are: Dana, Casey, Jordan, Ellis, Harper, and Grey.", + "Exactly one suspect is guilty.", + "Dana has an established motive.", + "Dana has an established motive." + ], + "formal_representation": "; Investigation: exactly-one guilty, partial evidence", + "entities": { + "suspects": [ + "Dana", + "Casey", + "Jordan", + "Ellis", + "Harper", + "Grey" + ] + }, + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 8, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Is Grey the guilty party?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "The evidence is insufficient to determine Grey's guilt. Multiple suspects remain viable.", + "query_type": "is_guilty", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Is the culprit either Dana or Harper?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "While Dana and Harper are both possible, other suspects haven't been eliminated either.", + "query_type": "narrow_down", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Could both Casey and Grey be guilty?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "Exactly one person is guilty; both Casey and Grey being guilty violates the single-culprit premise.", + "query_type": "pair", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Can we clear Jordan?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "The evidence neither conclusively clears nor convicts Jordan. Innocence is possible but not proven.", + "query_type": "is_innocent", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Can we clear Harper?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "The evidence neither conclusively clears nor convicts Harper. Innocence is possible but not proven.", + "query_type": "is_innocent", + "depends_on": [ + 1 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q5", + "query": "Is the culprit either Harper or Ellis?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "While Harper and Ellis are both possible, other suspects haven't been eliminated either.", + "query_type": "narrow_down", + "depends_on": [ + 1, + 4 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q6", + "query": "Could both Dana and Harper be guilty?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "Exactly one person is guilty; both Dana and Harper being guilty violates the single-culprit premise.", + "query_type": "pair", + "depends_on": [ + 1, + 4, + 5 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q7", + "query": "Did Jordan commit the crime?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "The evidence is insufficient to determine Jordan's guilt. Multiple suspects remain viable.", + "query_type": "is_guilty", + "depends_on": [ + 3 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "UNKNOWN": 6, + "CONTRADICTED": 2 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "under_diag_0056", + "domain": "underspecified", + "subdomain": "diagnostic", + "logic_type": "partial_information", + "premises": [ + "The patient presents with certain symptoms.", + "The possible conditions are: dehydration, food poisoning, migraine, heat exhaustion.", + "Exactly one condition is present.", + "The patient has fatigue.", + "The patient has nausea.", + "The patient has fever.", + "Dehydration always causes fatigue.", + "Dehydration always causes fever.", + "Food poisoning always causes nausea.", + "Migraine always causes headache.", + "Migraine always causes fatigue.", + "Migraine always causes cough.", + "Heat exhaustion always causes fatigue.", + "Heat exhaustion always causes nausea." + ], + "formal_representation": "; Diagnostic: exactly-one condition, symptom implications, partial observations", + "entities": { + "conditions": [ + "dehydration", + "food poisoning", + "migraine", + "heat exhaustion" + ], + "symptoms": [ + "headache", + "fever", + "cough", + "fatigue", + "nausea" + ], + "observed": [ + "fatigue", + "nausea", + "fever" + ] + }, + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 5, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Is food poisoning the correct diagnosis?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Multiple conditions remain consistent with the partial observations. food poisoning is possible but not certain.", + "query_type": "has_condition", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Could the patient have both migraine and heat exhaustion?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "Exactly one condition is present; having both migraine and heat exhaustion violates this premise.", + "query_type": "both_conditions", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Could the patient have both migraine and food poisoning?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "Exactly one condition is present; having both migraine and food poisoning violates this premise.", + "query_type": "both_conditions", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Is heat exhaustion the correct diagnosis?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Multiple conditions remain consistent with the partial observations. heat exhaustion is possible but not certain.", + "query_type": "has_condition", + "depends_on": [ + 1 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Is rest appropriate if the diagnosis is dehydration?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether rest is appropriate depends on confirming dehydration as the diagnosis, which is not yet determined.", + "query_type": "treatment", + "depends_on": [] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "UNKNOWN": 3, + "CONTRADICTED": 2 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "under_diag_0074", + "domain": "underspecified", + "subdomain": "diagnostic", + "logic_type": "partial_information", + "premises": [ + "Patient a presents with certain symptoms.", + "The possible conditions are: migraine, dehydration, allergic reaction, food poisoning, heat exhaustion.", + "Exactly one condition is present.", + "Patient a does not have headache.", + "Patient a does not have fever.", + "Migraine always causes dizziness.", + "Dehydration always causes fever.", + "Dehydration always causes fatigue.", + "Allergic reaction always causes fatigue.", + "Allergic reaction always causes rash.", + "Allergic reaction always causes fever.", + "Food poisoning always causes dizziness.", + "Heat exhaustion always causes headache.", + "Heat exhaustion always causes fatigue.", + "Heat exhaustion always causes dizziness." + ], + "formal_representation": "; Diagnostic: exactly-one condition, symptom implications, partial observations", + "entities": { + "conditions": [ + "migraine", + "dehydration", + "allergic reaction", + "food poisoning", + "heat exhaustion" + ], + "symptoms": [ + "dizziness", + "fatigue", + "headache", + "rash", + "fever" + ], + "observed": [ + "headache", + "fever" + ] + }, + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 8, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Does Patient A have dehydration?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "The symptom pattern is inconsistent with dehydration\u2014at least one observation directly contradicts it.", + "query_type": "has_condition", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Is dehydration definitively excluded?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "The observations are incompatible with dehydration; it can be definitively ruled out.", + "query_type": "rule_out", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Is food poisoning definitively excluded?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "The observations don't conclusively rule out food poisoning, but don't confirm it either.", + "query_type": "rule_out", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Could Patient A have both dehydration and heat exhaustion?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "Exactly one condition is present; having both dehydration and heat exhaustion violates this premise.", + "query_type": "both_conditions", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Could Patient A have both food poisoning and heat exhaustion?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "Exactly one condition is present; having both food poisoning and heat exhaustion violates this premise.", + "query_type": "both_conditions", + "depends_on": [ + 2, + 3 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q5", + "query": "Can we conclude Patient A has heat exhaustion?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "The symptom pattern is inconsistent with heat exhaustion\u2014at least one observation directly contradicts it.", + "query_type": "has_condition", + "depends_on": [ + 3, + 4 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q6", + "query": "Should we expect fatigue given the observations?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether Patient A shows fatigue depends on which condition is present, which is not yet determined.", + "query_type": "unobserved_symptom", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q7", + "query": "Could Patient A have both allergic reaction and heat exhaustion?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "Exactly one condition is present; having both allergic reaction and heat exhaustion violates this premise.", + "query_type": "both_conditions", + "depends_on": [ + 3, + 4, + 5 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "CONTRADICTED": 5, + "ENTAILED": 1, + "UNKNOWN": 2 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "under_fault_0041", + "domain": "underspecified", + "subdomain": "fault_diagnosis", + "logic_type": "partial_information", + "premises": [ + "A system has 5 components: network card, cooling fan, memory module, storage drive, and motherboard.", + "If storage drive fails, memory module also fails.", + "If motherboard fails, cooling fan also fails.", + "If cooling fan fails, memory module also fails.", + "At least one of motherboard or cooling fan must be working.", + "network card is failed.", + "motherboard is functioning." + ], + "formal_representation": "; Fault diagnosis: dependency cascades, partial sensor data", + "entities": { + "components": [ + "network card", + "cooling fan", + "memory module", + "storage drive", + "motherboard" + ], + "known": [ + "network card", + "motherboard" + ], + "unknown": [ + "cooling fan", + "memory module", + "storage drive" + ] + }, + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 6, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Can we confirm cooling fan is operational?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "No sensor data for cooling fan and dependency chains don't uniquely determine its state.", + "query_type": "is_working", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Are all components functioning?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "At least one component is confirmed failed, so not all are functioning.", + "query_type": "system_ok", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Is network card currently functioning?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "Either direct observation or cascade failure confirms network card has failed.", + "query_type": "is_working", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Can we confirm storage drive is operational?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "No sensor data for storage drive and dependency chains don't uniquely determine its state.", + "query_type": "is_working", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "If network card fails, must cooling fan also fail?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether network card's failure cascades to cooling fan depends on intermediate component states that are unknown.", + "query_type": "cascade", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 2 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q5", + "query": "Is memory module currently functioning?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "No sensor data for memory module and dependency chains don't uniquely determine its state.", + "query_type": "is_working", + "depends_on": [] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "UNKNOWN": 4, + "CONTRADICTED": 2 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "under_diag_0001", + "domain": "underspecified", + "subdomain": "diagnostic", + "logic_type": "partial_information", + "premises": [ + "The patient presents with certain symptoms.", + "The possible conditions are: viral infection, heat exhaustion, allergic reaction, food poisoning.", + "Exactly one condition is present.", + "The patient has fever.", + "The patient has rash.", + "The patient does not have headache.", + "Viral infection always causes cough.", + "Viral infection always causes rash.", + "Heat exhaustion always causes cough.", + "Allergic reaction always causes headache.", + "Allergic reaction always causes fever.", + "Allergic reaction always causes rash.", + "Food poisoning always causes headache." + ], + "formal_representation": "; Diagnostic: exactly-one condition, symptom implications, partial observations", + "entities": { + "conditions": [ + "viral infection", + "heat exhaustion", + "allergic reaction", + "food poisoning" + ], + "symptoms": [ + "headache", + "rash", + "fever", + "cough" + ], + "observed": [ + "fever", + "rash", + "headache" + ] + }, + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 6, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Does the patient have heat exhaustion?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Multiple conditions remain consistent with the partial observations. heat exhaustion is possible but not certain.", + "query_type": "has_condition", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Could the patient have both allergic reaction and food poisoning?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "Exactly one condition is present; having both allergic reaction and food poisoning violates this premise.", + "query_type": "both_conditions", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Should we expect cough given the observations?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "Every condition consistent with the observations causes cough, so the patient must show it.", + "query_type": "unobserved_symptom", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Will the patient show cough?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "Every condition consistent with the observations causes cough, so the patient must show it.", + "query_type": "unobserved_symptom", + "depends_on": [ + 2 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Is fluids appropriate if the diagnosis is food poisoning?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "food poisoning has been ruled out, so treatment planning for food poisoning is not applicable.", + "query_type": "treatment", + "depends_on": [ + 1 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q5", + "query": "Could the patient have both allergic reaction and heat exhaustion?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "Exactly one condition is present; having both allergic reaction and heat exhaustion violates this premise.", + "query_type": "both_conditions", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "UNKNOWN": 1, + "CONTRADICTED": 3, + "ENTAILED": 2 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "under_fault_0071", + "domain": "underspecified", + "subdomain": "fault_diagnosis", + "logic_type": "partial_information", + "premises": [ + "A system has 5 components: network card, power supply, cooling fan, display adapter, and motherboard.", + "If motherboard fails, display adapter also fails.", + "If motherboard fails, power supply also fails.", + "At least one of motherboard or cooling fan must be working.", + "power supply is functioning." + ], + "formal_representation": "; Fault diagnosis: dependency cascades, partial sensor data", + "entities": { + "components": [ + "network card", + "power supply", + "cooling fan", + "display adapter", + "motherboard" + ], + "known": [ + "power supply" + ], + "unknown": [ + "network card", + "cooling fan", + "display adapter", + "motherboard" + ] + }, + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 7, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Can both display adapter and cooling fan be failed simultaneously?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Some valid states have both failed, others don't; insufficient data to determine.", + "query_type": "both_fail", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Can both power supply and cooling fan be failed simultaneously?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "The 'at-least-one' or dependency constraints prevent simultaneous failure of power supply and cooling fan.", + "query_type": "both_fail", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Can we confirm cooling fan is operational?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "No sensor data for cooling fan and dependency chains don't uniquely determine its state.", + "query_type": "is_working", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Is power supply currently functioning?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "Sensor data or dependency reasoning confirms power supply is functioning.", + "query_type": "is_working", + "depends_on": [ + 1 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "If cooling fan fails, must motherboard also fail?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "Whether cooling fan's failure cascades to motherboard depends on intermediate component states that are unknown.", + "query_type": "cascade", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1, + 2 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q5", + "query": "Can both display adapter and power supply be failed simultaneously?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "The 'at-least-one' or dependency constraints prevent simultaneous failure of display adapter and power supply.", + "query_type": "both_fail", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1, + 3 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q6", + "query": "Can both motherboard and power supply be failed simultaneously?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "The 'at-least-one' or dependency constraints prevent simultaneous failure of motherboard and power supply.", + "query_type": "both_fail", + "depends_on": [ + 1, + 3, + 4, + 5 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "UNKNOWN": 3, + "CONTRADICTED": 3, + "ENTAILED": 1 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "under_fault_0063", + "domain": "underspecified", + "subdomain": "fault_diagnosis", + "logic_type": "partial_information", + "premises": [ + "A system has 4 components: power supply, memory module, display adapter, and cooling fan.", + "If memory module fails, display adapter also fails.", + "If cooling fan fails, memory module also fails.", + "At least one of display adapter or memory module must be working.", + "At least one of power supply or display adapter must be working.", + "power supply is functioning." + ], + "formal_representation": "; Fault diagnosis: dependency cascades, partial sensor data", + "entities": { + "components": [ + "power supply", + "memory module", + "display adapter", + "cooling fan" + ], + "known": [ + "power supply" + ], + "unknown": [ + "memory module", + "display adapter", + "cooling fan" + ] + }, + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 8, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "If cooling fan fails, must power supply also fail?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "A dependency chain exists from cooling fan to power supply, so cooling fan's failure guarantees power supply's failure.", + "query_type": "cascade", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "If cooling fan fails, must memory module also fail?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "A dependency chain exists from cooling fan to memory module, so cooling fan's failure guarantees memory module's failure.", + "query_type": "cascade", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "If memory module fails, must display adapter also fail?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "A dependency chain exists from memory module to display adapter, so memory module's failure guarantees display adapter's failure.", + "query_type": "cascade", + "depends_on": [ + 1 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "If power supply fails, must cooling fan also fail?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "A dependency chain exists from power supply to cooling fan, so power supply's failure guarantees cooling fan's failure.", + "query_type": "cascade", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Can both display adapter and power supply be failed simultaneously?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "The 'at-least-one' or dependency constraints prevent simultaneous failure of display adapter and power supply.", + "query_type": "both_fail", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 2, + 3 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q5", + "query": "Can both display adapter and memory module be failed simultaneously?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "The 'at-least-one' or dependency constraints prevent simultaneous failure of display adapter and memory module.", + "query_type": "both_fail", + "depends_on": [ + 1, + 2, + 4 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q6", + "query": "Can we confirm power supply is operational?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "Sensor data or dependency reasoning confirms power supply is functioning.", + "query_type": "is_working", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 3, + 4 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q7", + "query": "Can we confirm memory module is operational?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "Sensor data or dependency reasoning confirms memory module is functioning.", + "query_type": "is_working", + "depends_on": [ + 1, + 2, + 5 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "ENTAILED": 6, + "CONTRADICTED": 2 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "under_inv_0033", + "domain": "underspecified", + "subdomain": "investigation", + "logic_type": "partial_information", + "premises": [ + "A crime was committed. The suspects are: Jordan, Harper, Dana, and Frankie.", + "Exactly one suspect is guilty." + ], + "formal_representation": "; Investigation: exactly-one guilty, partial evidence", + "entities": { + "suspects": [ + "Jordan", + "Harper", + "Dana", + "Frankie" + ] + }, + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 8, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Is the culprit either Dana or Frankie?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "While Dana and Frankie are both possible, other suspects haven't been eliminated either.", + "query_type": "narrow_down", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Could both Jordan and Harper be guilty?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "Exactly one person is guilty; both Jordan and Harper being guilty violates the single-culprit premise.", + "query_type": "pair", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Is the culprit either Dana or Harper?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "While Dana and Harper are both possible, other suspects haven't been eliminated either.", + "query_type": "narrow_down", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Is Jordan the guilty party?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "The evidence is insufficient to determine Jordan's guilt. Multiple suspects remain viable.", + "query_type": "is_guilty", + "depends_on": [ + 1 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Can we conclude Harper is guilty?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "The evidence is insufficient to determine Harper's guilt. Multiple suspects remain viable.", + "query_type": "is_guilty", + "depends_on": [ + 1, + 2 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q5", + "query": "Is the culprit either Harper or Dana?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "While Harper and Dana are both possible, other suspects haven't been eliminated either.", + "query_type": "narrow_down", + "depends_on": [ + 0, + 1, + 2, + 4 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q6", + "query": "Can we clear Harper?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "The evidence neither conclusively clears nor convicts Harper. Innocence is possible but not proven.", + "query_type": "is_innocent", + "depends_on": [ + 1, + 2, + 4, + 5 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q7", + "query": "Is Harper the guilty party?", + "label": "UNKNOWN", + "reasoning": "The evidence is insufficient to determine Harper's guilt. Multiple suspects remain viable.", + "query_type": "is_guilty", + "depends_on": [ + 1, + 2, + 4, + 5, + 6 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "UNKNOWN": 7, + "CONTRADICTED": 1 + } + } + ] + }, + { + "id": "under_inv_0000", + "domain": "underspecified", + "subdomain": "investigation", + "logic_type": "partial_information", + "premises": [ + "A crime was committed. The suspects are: Harper, Ellis, Blake, Casey, and Grey.", + "Exactly one suspect is guilty.", + "Blake's fingerprints were found at the scene.", + "Grey has no prior criminal record.", + "DNA evidence conclusively matches Ellis." + ], + "formal_representation": "; Investigation: exactly-one guilty, partial evidence", + "entities": { + "suspects": [ + "Harper", + "Ellis", + "Blake", + "Casey", + "Grey" + ] + }, + "bundles": [ + { + "bundle_id": "bundle_0", + "num_queries": 6, + "queries": [ + { + "query_id": "q0", + "query": "Did Casey commit the crime?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "Casey has a confirmed alibi or is otherwise eliminated; they cannot be the guilty party.", + "query_type": "is_guilty", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q1", + "query": "Did Blake commit the crime?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "Blake has a confirmed alibi or is otherwise eliminated; they cannot be the guilty party.", + "query_type": "is_guilty", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q2", + "query": "Is Casey the guilty party?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "Casey has a confirmed alibi or is otherwise eliminated; they cannot be the guilty party.", + "query_type": "is_guilty", + "depends_on": [ + 0 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q3", + "query": "Did Ellis commit the crime?", + "label": "ENTAILED", + "reasoning": "The evidence conclusively identifies Ellis as the guilty party; all other suspects are eliminated.", + "query_type": "is_guilty", + "depends_on": [] + }, + { + "query_id": "q4", + "query": "Is the culprit either Blake or Grey?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "Both Blake and Grey are cleared by evidence; the culprit must be someone else.", + "query_type": "narrow_down", + "depends_on": [ + 1 + ] + }, + { + "query_id": "q5", + "query": "Could both Grey and Blake be guilty?", + "label": "CONTRADICTED", + "reasoning": "Exactly one person is guilty; both Grey and Blake being guilty violates the single-culprit premise.", + "query_type": "pair", + "depends_on": [ + 1, + 4 + ] + } + ], + "label_distribution": { + "CONTRADICTED": 5, + "ENTAILED": 1 + } + } + ] + } + ] +} \ No newline at end of file