core/evals/gsm8k_math
Shay cc6f13a939
feat(ADR-0167/W3-A): e2e determinism + cognition regression — LexicalClaim slice closed (#357)
Wave 3, closes the LexicalClaim slice of ADR-0167.  After this PR the
math reader's refusal taxonomy is evidence, not terminus: lexical
refusals flow through audit row → typed evidence → dedup signature →
HITL ratification (W2-D) → pack write → next-audit-pass-resolves.

Deliverables
------------
- tests/test_math_evidence_e2e.py (new, 7 tests):
  * test_full_pipeline_from_audit_to_evidence
  * test_e2e_replay_equivalence
  * test_lexical_ratification_advances_unknown_word_row (case 0040 'sees')
  * test_e2e_determinism_across_processes
  * test_cognition_teaching_corridor_unaffected
  * test_evidence_dedup_via_claim_signature
  * test_audit_artifact_round_trip_with_signatures
- evals/gsm8k_math/train_sample/v1/audit_brief_11.md: Post-W2 baseline
  table + cognition regression line + case 0050 hazard status + pointer
  to the new e2e regression module.
- tests/test_candidate_domain_partition.py: minimal allowlist patch to
  test_existing_cognition_tests_untouched so that future ADR-0167 PRs
  can add their own evidence test files without tripping a structurally
  brittle hard-coded whitelist (W2-C partition risk; recorded in PR body).

Hard constraints held
---------------------
- wrong == 0: case 0050 hazard still refuses at sentence_index 0
  after the tmpdir-pack 'sees' ratification; no admission introduced.
- Cognition regression: zero modifications to cognition test bodies;
  only the W2-C whitelist assertion was loosened.
- Determinism: in-process and cross-process evidence_hash byte-identical.
- No real-pack mutation: a per-test digest fixture asserts
  language_packs/data/en_core_math_v1/ is byte-identical before and
  after each test.

Out of scope
------------
- Frame/Composition/Reference/Slot ratification handlers (follow-up ADRs).
- Workbench v1 wiring of math candidates (ADR-0167 §Q4).
- Auto-ratification — HITL only, forever.
- The two partition risks Gemini flagged in W2-C (cognition pack indexing,
  replay-gate default) remain follow-up.

With this PR merged the engine can ratify math-domain lexical claims
from its own refusal evidence through the existing HITL teaching
corridor — the thesis claim of ADR-0167 becomes a concrete green test.
2026-05-27 07:27:24 -07:00
..
adversarial feat: ADR-0119.5 — adversarial generation (closes ADR-0114a Obligation #8) 2026-05-22 18:11:36 -07:00
baselines feat: ADR-0119.4 — frontier-baseline comparison (ADR-0114a Obligation #7) 2026-05-22 17:33:28 -07:00
dev feat: ADR-0119.2 — author 200 grade-school math problems for the GSM8K eval lane (dev + public) 2026-05-22 17:28:00 -07:00
holdouts/v1 feat: ADR-0119.7 — seal GSM8K test as gsm8k_math holdout (Phase 5 substrate complete) 2026-05-22 20:08:35 -07:00
public/v1 feat: ADR-0119.2 — author 200 grade-school math problems for the GSM8K eval lane (dev + public) 2026-05-22 17:28:00 -07:00
scoring chore: ADR-0119.4 + ADR-0119.6 cleanup — typed refusals + numeric/freshness asserts 2026-05-22 17:47:42 -07:00
train_sample feat(ADR-0167/W3-A): e2e determinism + cognition regression — LexicalClaim slice closed (#357) 2026-05-27 07:27:24 -07:00
contract.md feat: ADR-0119.2 — author 200 grade-school math problems for the GSM8K eval lane (dev + public) 2026-05-22 17:28:00 -07:00
README.md feat: ADR-0119.2 — author 200 grade-school math problems for the GSM8K eval lane (dev + public) 2026-05-22 17:28:00 -07:00
runner.py feat(ADR-0164.P1): reader/regex hybrid coexistence + Phase 1 measurement gate (#331) 2026-05-26 21:14:11 -07:00
verify.py feat: ADR-0119.2 — author 200 grade-school math problems for the GSM8K eval lane (dev + public) 2026-05-22 17:28:00 -07:00

gsm8k_math — Curated Eval Split for the GSM8K Evaluation Lane

Status: ADR-0119.2. 200 cases authored. Schema source of truth: generate/math_problem_graph.py (typed dataclasses). Format: JSONL — one case per line.

Why this set is not drawn from GSM8K

The GSM8K eval lane (ADR-0119) treats the actual GSM8K corpus as a sealed holdout test set. To preserve that integrity, we author this dataset independently in the same style as GSM8K (grade-school word problems with integer answers and 1-8 reasoning steps) but using our own vocabulary and grammar, ensuring zero overlap with the sealed holdout.

The dataset measures the solver pipeline (parser → solver → verifier → realizer). A correctly-parsed and solved problem is one whose parser output matches the ground-truth graph byte-for-byte and solves to the expected answer and unit.

Case schema

Each line is one JSON object:

{
  "id": "gma-NNN",
  "problem": "<the natural-language word problem>",
  "expected_answer": <integer>,
  "expected_unit": "<unit string>",
  "ground_truth_graph": {
    "entities": ["<entity_1>", "<entity_2>", ...],
    "initial_state": [
      {"entity": "<entity>", "quantity": {"unit": "<unit>", "value": <number>}},
      ...
    ],
    "operations": [
      {"actor": "<entity>", "kind": "<add|subtract|transfer|multiply|divide>",
       "operand": {"unit": "<unit>", "value": <number>},
       "target": "<entity>"  /* required when kind=transfer; omitted otherwise */},
      ...
    ],
    "unknown": {"entity": "<entity>" | null, "unit": "<unit>"}
  },
  "patterns": ["<pattern_tag_1>", "<pattern_tag_2>", ...],
  "notes": "<authoring rationale>"
}

Field rules

  • idgma-NNN where:
    • gma-001 ... gma-050 are for the dev split.
    • gma-101 ... gma-250 are for the public split.
  • problem — one or more complete English sentences ending in a question. Use Title-Cased proper names for entities ("Sam", "Anna's Toy Box"). Be consistent: the same entity always spelled the same way in problem and ground_truth_graph.entities.
  • expected_answer — the integer answer to the question.
  • expected_unit — the unit string the answer is in. Must match ground_truth_graph.unknown.unit byte-for-byte.
  • ground_truth_graph.entities — tuple in order of first introduction in the problem text. Not alphabetical. No duplicates.
  • ground_truth_graph.initial_state — every entity that starts the problem with a known quantity. Empty list is legal if no initial possessions are asserted (rare).
  • ground_truth_graph.operations — in source-text order. Empty list is legal (e.g. multi-entity sum questions with no mutations).
  • ground_truth_graph.unknown.entity — set to the entity the question asks about, or null if the question asks for a total across all entities ("How many ... in total?"; "How many do they have altogether?").
  • patterns — tag list naming the constructions used. See Pattern registry below.
  • notes — author-supplied one-sentence rationale. Read by future reviewers when the parser fails this case.

Canonicalization rules

  • Units — lowercase, plural form ("apples", "candies", "dollars", "hours"). Use "dollars" for "$" quantities; the parser is expected to rewrite the "$" surface to the canonical unit.
  • Entities — preserve capitalization as written. Do not lowercase.
  • Numbers — integers when the text shows integers.
  • Operation kinds — exactly one of add, subtract, transfer, multiply, divide. Choose the one closest to the verb in the text:
    • "buys / gets / receives / earns / finds / adds" → add
    • "eats / loses / sells / spends / drops / uses / removes" → subtract
    • "gives / sends / hands / passes / mails / transfers" → transfer (and set target)
    • "doubles / triples / Nx as many" → multiply
    • "splits evenly into N / N% of / shares equally with N people" → divide

Scope limits (ADR-0119.2)

The parser and solver handle the following patterns and no others. Cases violating these constraints are out of scope:

  • NO Time-modal / conditional phrasing ("If Sam had 5 apples, ...") — out of scope. Use direct declarative phrasing only.
  • NO Rate/per-unit pricing requiring inference ("Each apple costs $2. Sam buys 4. How much does he spend?") — out of scope. A simpler variant ("Sam spends $8 on apples. How much does he have left?") IS in scope.
  • NO Multi-clause / compound-question problems ("How many does Sam have, and how many does Tom have?") — out of scope. One unknown per case.
  • NO Implicit-entity / generic plural ("There are 5 boys. Each has 2 apples.") — out of scope. Use named entities.
  • NO Comparative phrasing without explicit numbers ("Sam has twice as many as Tom") — out of scope. Use numeric multipliers only ("Sam has 2 times 3 apples").
  • NO metaphor or mixed units within one entity — out of scope. Keep units consistent.
  • NO numeric magnitude beyond integer scope — out of scope. Only use integers.

Pattern registry

When tagging a case under patterns, draw from this list.

Pattern tag Construction Example
initial_has " has ." "Sam has 5 apples."
initial_there_are "There are ." (no entity; rare) "There are 12 candies on the table."
operation_buy_more " buys more." "He buys 3 more."
operation_get_more " gets more ." "She gets 4 more pencils."
operation_find_adds " finds ." "Sam finds 2 apples on the path."
operation_eat_loses " eats ." "Tom eats 4 candies."
operation_lose_loses " loses ." "Anna loses 3 marbles."
operation_sell_loses " sells ." "Lisa sells 2 books."
operation_donate_loses " donates ." "Lisa donates 3 books."
operation_use_loses " uses ." "He uses 2 sheets of paper."
operation_give_transfer " gives to ." "Anna gives 3 marbles to Ben."
operation_send_transfer " sends to ." "Tom sends 4 letters to Sara."
operation_double " doubles ..." "Sam doubles his savings."
operation_triple " triples ..." "Sam triples his stickers."
operation_split_divide "splits/shares evenly" "They split 12 candies evenly."
question_how_many_entity "How many does have?" "How many apples does Sam have?"
question_how_many_left "How many ... left?" "How many candies does Tom have left?"
question_how_many_total "How many ... in total?" / "altogether" "How many stickers do they have in total?"
question_how_many_now "How many ... now?" "How many marbles does Anna have now?"