Datasets:
episode_id stringclasses 94
values | platform stringclasses 3
values | question_id stringclasses 49
values | capability stringclasses 6
values | capability_name stringclasses 6
values | question stringlengths 60 558 | option_a stringlengths 3 202 | option_b stringlengths 3 191 | option_c stringlengths 3 183 | option_d stringlengths 3 231 | gold_letter stringclasses 4
values | gold_answer stringlengths 3 231 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
hn_46375174 | hackernews | q6 | C3 | Collective structure | One thread begins with a testimonial from someone who owns two top-spec Framework 13 DIY laptops. Among its three direct replies, what's the ratio of follow-up Framework-owner testimonials to questions from the article author? | Two testimonials, one question | One testimonial, two questions | Three testimonials, no questions | No testimonials, three questions | A | Two testimonials, one question |
hn_46375174 | hackernews | q7 | C3 | Collective structure | Take the top-level thread of at least ten comments where activity is most concentrated among a few users. What's the ratio of comments between its two most active contributors? | 7 to 7 | 5 to 9 | 9 to 5 | 6 to 5 | C | 9 to 5 |
hn_46375174 | hackernews | q10 | C3 | Collective structure | In the thread where someone likens a broken X1 keyboard to rusted bike cables, only one reply moves away from the analogy debate and instead gives a concrete personal example about laptop wear. Which? | The reply offering a competitive-cyclist rebuttal to the bike analogy | The reply declaring that nitpicking analogies is rude and socially inept | The reply framing analogies as simplifications useful for explaining, not arguing | The reply describing a T480s struggling under a webapp-heavy workflow | D | The reply describing a T480s struggling under a webapp-heavy workflow |
hn_46375174 | hackernews | q12 | C1 | Local social meaning | One comment advises Mac skeptics to turn a MacBook Pro into a minimal shell-and-browser setup. How many of its direct replies fully endorse the recipe — no hedging, no skeptical questions, no rejection? | Zero replies | One reply | Two replies | Three replies | A | Zero replies |
hn_46375174 | hackernews | q14 | C4 | Temporal dynamics | One comment dismisses the blog's on-screen colour-comparison photos as meaningless without hardware calibration. The article author replies more than once. At which reply does his tone first shift from a measured defence to a sharp rebuke? | His earlier reply defending the photos as illustrative, not scientific | His reply supplying Wayland display-profile context on LUT issues | His reply giving an extended DCI-P3 calibration lecture to the author | His reply citing a photography background to push back on the calibration lecture | D | His reply citing a photography background to push back on the calibration lecture |
hn_46375174 | hackernews | q15 | C4 | Temporal dynamics | Walk down this episode's longest reply chain. Where does the conversation first pivot from defending Framework's value proposition into an ethical boycott / politics debate that takes over every later turn? | The turn introducing a sponsored-distro maintainer as openly racist | The turn invoking conversion-therapy advocacy as incompatible with existence | The turn citing California Civil Code Section 51 as a personally affecting statute | The turn recounting a local-gym locker-room access dispute | A | The turn introducing a sponsored-distro maintainer as openly racist |
hn_46375174 | hackernews | q17 | C1 | Local social meaning | Look at the replies to the comment accusing the blog author of not knowing what he wants and of misunderstanding Framework's offerings. Just one is sarcastic rather than earnest. Which? | The reply sarcastically accepting blame for clicking Buy without thinking | The reply launching its own 16-inch-laptops-are-scarcely-mobile critique | The reply proposing wire-EDM machining to eliminate visible case lines | The reply observing the author's 16-inch MacBook Pro is also near two kilograms | A | The reply sarcastically accepting blame for clicking Buy without thinking |
hn_46375174 | hackernews | q18 | C5 | Participant profile | Among the comments by this episode's most prolific user, exactly one explains his pro-repairability stance by admitting he's a hoarder. Which? | The comment listing HP, Asus, and Razer laptop failures over successive years | The comment arguing a two-kilogram Asus carries fine one-handed in daily use | The comment describing his $2,800 current laptop as top-spec for work | The comment admitting he keeps his PlayStation 2 and every old laptop for parts | D | The comment admitting he keeps his PlayStation 2 and every old laptop for parts |
hn_46375174 | hackernews | q19 | C6 | Cross-subdiscussion variation | Find the participant who appears across the largest number of top-level discussions. In how many of those discussions is their only comment just a clarifying question to another commenter, rather than a defence or explanation of their own article? | None | One | Two | Three | B | One |
hn_46375174 | hackernews | q20 | C5 | Participant profile | Take the top-level thread of at least ten comments where activity is most concentrated among a few users. One participant in that thread repeatedly catalogues Apple engineering failures across their comments. Of that participant's comments, how many name a specific failure or lawsuit, rather than just hitting back rhet... | Two comments | Three comments | Four comments | Five comments | C | Four comments |
hn_46375174 | hackernews | q21 | C5 | Participant profile | In the top-level thread of at least ten comments where activity is most concentrated among a few users, how many comments by the most active author are multi-item lists of MacBook positives, rather than rebuttals to Mac criticism? | One comment | Two comments | Three comments | Four comments | A | One comment |
hn_46375174 | hackernews | q23 | C3 | Collective structure | Among the direct replies to the largest top-level discussion's opening comment, how many ground their argument in a personal Framework ownership report — positive or negative — rather than arguing from principle, economics, or third-party references? Bare agreement without a personal ownership detail does not count. | Ten replies | Eight replies | Twelve replies | Fourteen replies | A | Ten replies |
hn_46375174 | hackernews | q25 | C3 | Collective structure | In the sub-discussion about whether laptop hardware has advanced, how many comments argue that Apple trackpads remain in a class of their own versus how many argue non-Apple trackpads have meaningfully closed the gap? | Four Apple-ahead; two gap-closing | Three Apple-ahead; three gap-closing | Two Apple-ahead; four gap-closing | Five Apple-ahead; one gap-closing | A | Four Apple-ahead; two gap-closing |
hn_46375174 | hackernews | q26 | C4 | Temporal dynamics | Walk down the episode's longest reply chain. Position 1 is the top-level comment. At which position does the conversation first pivot from debating repairability economics into discussing the historical origins of non-upgradable laptop design? | Position 6 | Position 5 | Position 7 | Position 8 | A | Position 6 |
hn_46375174 | hackernews | q29 | C1 | Local social meaning | In the sub-discussion about whether €2,000 still counts as a premium laptop price, one reply uses a pop-culture reference to mock the claim that €2,000 is merely mid-range. Which? | The reply arguing MacBooks are premium regardless of memory | The reply quoting 'It's one banana, Michael' from Arrested Development | The reply insisting that 99% of users won't notice the difference between 16GB and 64GB | The reply declaring that nothing is more than its specs | B | The reply quoting 'It's one banana, Michael' from Arrested Development |
hn_46375174 | hackernews | q30 | C5 | Participant profile | The second-most prolific user in this episode contributes comments across multiple sub-discussions inside the largest top-level thread. Of that user's comments, how many are primarily defending Apple or MacBooks against criticism, rather than critiquing Framework or discussing general laptop technology? | Five comments | Seven comments | Nine comments | Six comments | A | Five comments |
hn_46375174 | hackernews | q42 | C5 | Participant profile | Among the comments by the user who argues most persistently that repairability doesn't solve real problems because Framework's aftermarket options are too limited, exactly one concedes the opposing side has a valid point about freedom. Which? | The comment calling Framework's customization restricted compared to other non-soldered-RAM laptops | The comment acknowledging the open-source freedom analogy is true to an extent | The comment calculating Framework would save at most two hundred dollars every five to eight years | The comment comparing the situation to a car where you cannot customize the engine | B | The comment acknowledging the open-source freedom analogy is true to an extent |
hn_46375174 | hackernews | q44 | C6 | Cross-subdiscussion variation | The article author participates in nine distinct top-level discussions. In how many does he respond by defending or clarifying the blog post's claims, versus how many does he ask questions or concede errors? | Seven defending; two non-defence | Five defending; four non-defence | Six defending; three non-defence | Eight defending; one non-defence | A | Seven defending; two non-defence |
hn_46375174 | hackernews | q46 | C5 | Participant profile | Consider the user with the fourth-highest comment count in this episode. Of their eleven comments, how many are structured as a direct rebuttal that quotes or directly challenges a specific claim from the parent, versus how many introduce a new point or shift the topic? | Six rebuttals; five new-point comments | Four rebuttals; seven new-point comments | Seven rebuttals; four new-point comments | Five rebuttals; six new-point comments | C | Seven rebuttals; four new-point comments |
hn_46392115 | hackernews | q1 | C3 | Collective structure | In the largest top-level thread, how many direct replies to the lead comment explicitly say that Rob Pike retired from or left Google? | Two replies | Three replies | Four replies | Six replies | C | Four replies |
hn_46392115 | hackernews | q2 | C3 | Collective structure | In the second-largest top-level thread, how many direct replies to the lead comment frame the thank-you letter as something the AI system wrote on its own, rather than as a human-prompted message? | One reply | Two replies | Four replies | Five replies | C | Four replies |
hn_46392115 | hackernews | q4 | C3 | Collective structure | Look at the replies to the top-level comment doubting whether AI is delivering economic value yet. How many concede that AI does have some real value while still acknowledging the overvaluation or narrow-payoff concern? Indirect concessions through analogy or reframing count too. | One reply | Two replies | Four replies | Seven replies | C | Four replies |
hn_46392115 | hackernews | q5 | C3 | Collective structure | One top-level comment reports a broad shift in public sentiment against AI. How many of its direct replies push back by pointing to continued mass usage, a contrary community, or historical inevitability? Metaphorical or indirect invocations count. | One reply | Two replies | Three replies | Five replies | C | Three replies |
hn_46392115 | hackernews | q6 | C5 | Participant profile | How many distinct top-level threads does this episode's most prolific user comment in? | Five | Six | Eight | Eleven | C | Eight |
hn_46392115 | hackernews | q11 | C3 | Collective structure | In the second-largest top-level thread, one comment argues AI can help people express their own ideas. How many of its direct replies push back by treating writing itself as a human act that AI cannot substitute for? Indirect reframings through labour, effort, or thought count. | One reply | Two replies | Four replies | Six replies | C | Four replies |
hn_46392115 | hackernews | q13 | C3 | Collective structure | A top-level comment identifies the letter's sender as the 'AI Village' project rather than Anthropic itself. Of its direct replies, how many are dismissive or mocking toward the project, rather than neutral or positive observations? Question-form mockery and mild disdain count if the main thrust is dismissive. | Two replies | Three replies | Four replies | Seven replies | C | Four replies |
hn_46392115 | hackernews | q14 | C1 | Local social meaning | One top-level comment opens by wondering whether Rob Pike has retired from Google. Of its direct replies, how many engage with the substance of Pike's anti-AI or power critique, rather than just resolving biographical context or the screenshot's authenticity? Attacks on the cited evidence (e.g., critiquing the AI lette... | One reply | Two replies | Three replies | Five replies | B | Two replies |
hn_46392115 | hackernews | q17 | C5 | Participant profile | One user in this episode posts twelve comments, all inside a single top-level thread. That thread's opening comment has several main reply branches. How many of those branches contain at least one of this user's comments? | One | Three | Five | Six | A | One |
hn_46392115 | hackernews | q18 | C1 | Local social meaning | Look at the top-level comment invoking Mark V. Shaney's Markov chain to accuse Pike of 'glass houses' hypocrisy. Of its direct replies, how many rebut by specifically citing training-scale disparity, mass copyright ingestion, or the spambot nature of the AI-Village setup? | Two replies | Three replies | Four replies | Five replies | B | Three replies |
hn_46392115 | hackernews | q19 | C1 | Local social meaning | There's a top-level comment listing Pike's inventions (UTF-8, Go, Plan 9) and asking what famous tech products LLMs have produced. Of its direct replies, how many offer a concrete named product or artefact as a counterexample, whether sincerely or sarcastically? | One reply | Two replies | Four replies | Five replies | B | Two replies |
hn_46392115 | hackernews | q21 | C3 | Collective structure | In the third-largest top-level thread, one comment's text is no longer shown and survives only in quotations. Among the comments below it, how many pursue the comparison with ready-made greetings, and how many turn to the conduct of people who dislike the technology? | Ten and ten | Twelve and eight | Eight and twelve | Thirteen and seven | A | Ten and ten |
hn_46392115 | hackernews | q25 | C3 | Collective structure | In the largest top-level thread, one reply says that cutting trees for paper to send a letter also burned resources with nobody gaining. Among the comments below it, how many put their own experience of receiving letters on the record? | Two comments | Six comments | Three comments | Four comments | D | Four comments |
hn_46392115 | hackernews | q27 | C3 | Collective structure | One top-level comment says the technology lets a large software company devour open-source work and that software licences are now worthless. Among the replies in its thread, how many argue that nothing new is happening by pointing to something people were already doing beforehand? | Three replies | Four replies | Five replies | Seven replies | C | Five replies |
hn_46392115 | hackernews | q28 | C3 | Collective structure | One top-level comment says the post warmed the commenter's heart and insists Rob Pike should be remembered for his pre-Google work. Among the comments below it, how many argue about how to tell an honest question from one asked in bad faith? | Six comments | Seven comments | Eleven comments | Nine comments | D | Nine comments |
hn_46392115 | hackernews | q37 | C1 | Local social meaning | One top-level comment asks that this anger be redirected, setting the technology's environmental cost against suburban sprawl and a single irrigated crop. Among the replies in its thread, how many refuse the move of measuring the complaint against a larger harm? | One reply | Three replies | Two replies | Five replies | C | Two replies |
hn_46392115 | hackernews | q38 | C1 | Local social meaning | One top-level comment calls Go one of the best languages for these models to write in, because its verbosity and types leave little room to go wrong. Among the replies in its thread, how many report a first-hand attempt that came out the other way? | Three replies | Four replies | Five replies | Six replies | A | Three replies |
hn_46392115 | hackernews | q39 | C2 | Reply-pair interaction | In the second-largest top-level thread, one comment defends describing these systems in human terms by comparing it with the way people talk about plants. In posting order, what sequence of moves do its four direct replies make? | Outside testimony, denial of the shared premise, joke about the public, argument about meaning | Denial of the shared premise, argument about meaning, outside testimony, joke about the public | Argument about meaning, denial of the shared premise, outside testimony, joke about the public | Denial of the shared premise, outside testimony, argument about meaning, joke about the public | D | Denial of the shared premise, outside testimony, argument about meaning, joke about the public |
hn_46392115 | hackernews | q40 | C2 | Reply-pair interaction | One top-level comment explains that the letter came from a non-profit that hands computer-using models an open-ended task each day. In posting order, what sequence of moves do its four direct replies make? | Comic-strip recognition, pun and objection, a second recipient's report, warning about connection | A second recipient's report, pun and objection, comic-strip recognition, warning about connection | Pun and objection about feeling, a second recipient's report, comic-strip recognition, warning about connection | Pun and objection about feeling, comic-strip recognition, a second recipient's report, warning about connection | C | Pun and objection about feeling, a second recipient's report, comic-strip recognition, warning about connection |
hn_46392115 | hackernews | q41 | C4 | Temporal dynamics | Walk down the longest reply chain in the thread opening with a quoted claim that intellectual property is corporate rent-seeking. At which turn does it leave the law behind for an argument about one country's capacity to invent? Count the opening comment as turn one. | Turn three | Turn four | Turn six | Turn eight | B | Turn four |
hn_46392115 | hackernews | q43 | C6 | Cross-subdiscussion variation | One participant has eight comments spread over seven threads. In how many of those threads does at least one of their comments defend a named person or company against a charge made against them, rather than adding to the complaint? | Two threads | Four threads | Six threads | Three threads | D | Three threads |
hn_46392115 | hackernews | q47 | C2 | Reply-pair interaction | One comment argues that people attacking a new technology guarantees it is important, citing this as a pattern from technological history. Of its four direct replies, which one undermines the argument by applying the same logic to a case the commenter would not endorse? | The one comparing it to leaded gasoline promotion | The one noting people were viciously attacking NFTs | The one calling the framing a sign the product is grift | The one simply stating the commenter has tested it and it is trash | B | The one noting people were viciously attacking NFTs |
hn_46392115 | hackernews | q49 | C2 | Reply-pair interaction | One comment argues that neither of two points raised in a prior comment about why tech workers oppose AI is the real problem, and that the real issue is when AI wastes people's time. What relationship does this comment have with the comment it replies to? | It dismisses the entire premise of the prior comment as a rationalisation rather than a genuine explanation | It agrees with the first point but rejects the second, then combines elements of both into a synthesis | It provides concrete examples that support both points but under a different umbrella label | It rejects both points and introduces a third concern that the prior comment did not raise, framing it as the actual issue | D | It rejects both points and introduces a third concern that the prior comment did not raise, framing it as the actual issue |
hn_46419970 | hackernews | q1 | C3 | Collective structure | In the largest top-level discussion, the lead comment says the train should not make an unscheduled stop. How many direct replies defend that decision by citing passenger safety, knock-on operational disruption, or legal liability? | Four replies | Six replies | Eight replies | Eleven replies | C | Eight replies |
hn_46419970 | hackernews | q2 | C3 | Collective structure | One top-level discussion begins with a first-person story about confusion at Munich Airport when a train split, resolved with help from an elderly stranger. Among its direct replies, how many share their own story about a train splitting into different sections or destinations, on DB or another operator? Missed-stop or... | Four replies | Six replies | Eleven replies | Eight replies | D | Eight replies |
hn_46419970 | hackernews | q3 | C3 | Collective structure | A top-level comment asks, from a South American perspective, whether German and Swiss trains are really always on time. Its direct replies fall into three themes: Switzerland is still strong while DB has declined, language barriers, and pushback about reading the instructions. Which counts are correct? | Nine Swiss/DB-decline, four language-barrier, three read-the-instructions pushbacks | Five Swiss/DB-decline, six language-barrier, five read-the-instructions pushbacks | Four Swiss/DB-decline, nine language-barrier, three read-the-instructions pushbacks | Seven Swiss/DB-decline, five language-barrier, four read-the-instructions pushbacks | A | Nine Swiss/DB-decline, four language-barrier, three read-the-instructions pushbacks |
hn_46419970 | hackernews | q4 | C3 | Collective structure | A heavily replied-to comment below the main post criticizes the 'just follow the rules' posture. Among its direct replies, how many continue or sharpen that critique, rather than qualifying it or defending the rule-following view? | Five replies | Ten replies | Seven replies | Thirteen replies | B | Ten replies |
hn_46419970 | hackernews | q14 | C6 | Cross-subdiscussion variation | Which option describes how this episode's most prolific user distributes their comments across top-level discussions? | Two discussions with fifteen comments each, plus three discussions with two each | One discussion with eighteen comments, plus four discussions with four or five each | Five discussions with roughly seven comments each | Three discussions with ten comments each, plus two discussions with three each | D | Three discussions with ten comments each, plus two discussions with three each |
hn_46419970 | hackernews | q16 | C5 | Participant profile | The user with the most comments inside a top-level discussion she started has thirteen comments in the episode. Across those comments, how many distinct top-level discussions does she enter? | One discussion | Three discussions | Five discussions | Seven discussions | B | Three discussions |
hn_46419970 | hackernews | q22 | C3 | Collective structure | One reply traces the operator's troubles to a network run far past its limits and to staff who have learned they have no agency. Among the comments below it, how many argue that rail cannot be made competitive because of what a network physically is, rather than because of ownership or funding? | Five comments | Three comments | Seven comments | Four comments | A | Five comments |
hn_46419970 | hackernews | q23 | C5 | Participant profile | One participant writes six comments in the episode, all of them inside a single argument over whether the state-owned operator counts as privatised. Which of them is the only one that offers evidence about what the company has actually done, rather than about what its legal form means? | The one saying the company was turned into a corporation under private law in the nineties | The one saying that something being more true elsewhere does not make it untrue here | The one reporting profitable years and dividends paid to the owner | The one saying the company is private in law while public in ownership | C | The one reporting profitable years and dividends paid to the owner |
hn_46419970 | hackernews | q24 | C3 | Collective structure | One reply likens the cover-your-back account of German working life to industrial safety culture, where blame falls on the process and not on the worker. Among the comments below it, how many argue that such a system is safe only because of the people inside it, rather than because of the process? | Three comments | Seven comments | Four comments | Five comments | D | Five comments |
hn_46419970 | hackernews | q25 | C3 | Collective structure | One reply defends following a rule on the ground that the worker on the spot cannot see the bigger picture. Among the comments below it, how many defend rule-following by pointing to the effect on someone who is watching, rather than to the danger of the act itself? | Three comments | Four comments | Five comments | Six comments | A | Three comments |
hn_46419970 | hackernews | q28 | C3 | Collective structure | One direct reply explains vague delay announcements by the different compensation obligations that different causes create. Among the comments below it, how many report a case in which the commenter themselves obtained money, a hotel or a taxi from the carrier? | Three comments | Six comments | Seven comments | Four comments | D | Four comments |
hn_46419970 | hackernews | q32 | C5 | Participant profile | One participant argues in more than one comment that a company whose only shareholder is the state is free to be given whatever target its owner likes. Of that participant's eight comments in the episode, how many correct another commenter's claim about who owns or runs a railway? | Four comments | Five comments | Six comments | Seven comments | A | Four comments |
hn_46419970 | hackernews | q34 | C6 | Cross-subdiscussion variation | Among the participants who join four separate top-level discussions without opening any of them, take the one with the most comments. In how many of those discussions do they refuse a justification another commenter has offered for the operator, rather than only adding a view of their own? | One discussion | Two discussions | Three discussions | All four discussions | C | Three discussions |
hn_46419970 | hackernews | q39 | C1 | Local social meaning | In the top-level discussion that opens by saying this is what happens in a failed state, one participant answers the other's flat denial. What does that answer do? | Names the phrases he read as coded and asks what they meant | Withdraws the charge entirely and accepts the flat denial at face value | Restates the charge and adds examples of crumbling bridges and rising crime | Says the denial is not credible because no other cause was named | A | Names the phrases he read as coded and asks what they meant |
hn_46424233 | hackernews | q2 | C3 | Collective structure | In the second-largest top-level discussion, the opening comment draws a line around what counts as “real programming.” How many direct replies explicitly challenge that definition? Bare agreement or one-word reactions don't count. | All fourteen replies | Seven replies | Five replies | Nine replies | B | Seven replies |
hn_46424233 | hackernews | q3 | C3 | Collective structure | In the third-largest top-level discussion, the opening comment warns that today's cheap AI tools may get much more expensive. How many direct replies push back by citing cheaper hardware, open-weight models, price-per-seat math, or similar cost alternatives? | Five replies | Four replies | Seven replies | Nine replies | C | Seven replies |
hn_46424233 | hackernews | q7 | C3 | Collective structure | In the largest top-level discussion, one comment posts three adversarial tests for LLMs. How many of its direct replies actually run one of the tests and report the outcome? | Two replies | Four replies | Three replies | All five replies | C | Three replies |
hn_46424233 | hackernews | q8 | C3 | Collective structure | A top-level comment argues that LLM improvement has a hard cap because future training data will be diluted by AI-generated code. Of its direct replies, how many dispute that data scarcity is the binding constraint? | Two replies | All four replies | One reply | Three replies | D | Three replies |
hn_46424233 | hackernews | q11 | C1 | Local social meaning | In the third-largest top-level discussion, one direct reply sarcastically pretends to agree with the opening comment while really criticizing HN's discourse norms. Which move is it? | A sincere extension about near-zero-margin AI company economics | A sincere Uber-2012 analogy about cheap prices and later post-subsidy costs | A sarcastic apology saying level-headed, realistic takes are unacceptable on HN | A numbered parody of HN's contradictory LLM complaints | C | A sarcastic apology saying level-headed, realistic takes are unacceptable on HN |
hn_46424233 | hackernews | q12 | C1 | Local social meaning | Among the direct replies to the most-replied-to comment below the main post, exactly one concedes the skeptic's point while still arguing that a smaller productivity gain would justify adoption. Which move is it? | A categorical defense of the newest Codex and Sonnet | An offer to share a GitHub experiment repo | A terse request to name the model used | A concession that even a smaller multiplier would justify using the tools | D | A concession that even a smaller multiplier would justify using the tools |
hn_46424233 | hackernews | q14 | C2 | Reply-pair interaction | One top-level discussion uses a Swiss-cheese analogy for LLM safety. How many direct replies fully reject that analogy rather than accepting it with a practice caveat? | One reply | Two replies | Three replies | All four replies | B | Two replies |
hn_46424233 | hackernews | q15 | C4 | Temporal dynamics | Walk down the episode's longest reply chain. At what depth, counting the root as one, does the exchange first turn into an accusation about the other user's account identity or prior banned-user history? | Depth six | Depth ten | Depth sixteen | Depth twelve | C | Depth sixteen |
hn_46424233 | hackernews | q16 | C4 | Temporal dynamics | In the episode's longest reply chain, two users each contribute five of the nineteen comments. Which pair is tied for the most comments in that chain? | user_095 and user_057 | user_171 and user_107 | user_107 and user_057 | user_171 and user_095 | D | user_171 and user_095 |
hn_46424233 | hackernews | q18 | C5 | Participant profile | Take the user with the highest total comment count among those who join more than one top-level discussion. Across that user's comments, how many use an aviation-industry analogy? | Five comments | Seven comments | Three comments | One comment | C | Three comments |
hn_46424233 | hackernews | q21 | C6 | Cross-subdiscussion variation | Take the user with the highest total comment count among those who join more than one top-level discussion. In how many of that user's top-level discussions do they use their aviation-industry analogy? | Only in the smaller discussion | In both discussions | Only in the larger discussion | In neither discussion | B | In both discussions |
hn_46424233 | hackernews | q22 | C3 | Collective structure | In the second-largest top-level discussion, the opening comment claims LLMs are useless for real programming. How many direct replies offer a first-person anecdote of productive LLM use as a counterexample? Bare agreement or meta-commentary excluded. | Eight replies | Six replies | Ten replies | Four replies | B | Six replies |
hn_46424233 | hackernews | q24 | C5 | Participant profile | Take the user with the highest total comment count in the episode. Across that user's comments, how many invoke a historical technology analogy to argue AI's trajectory is real? Passing mentions of technology without drawing an analogy don't count. | Five comments | Seven comments | Three comments | Nine comments | C | Three comments |
hn_46424233 | hackernews | q26 | C4 | Temporal dynamics | In the episode's longest reply chain, at what depth does the exchange first shift from debating AI capabilities to making accusations about the opponent's account age or posting behavior? Count the root as depth one. | Depth thirteen | Depth eleven | Depth nine | Depth seven | C | Depth nine |
hn_46424233 | hackernews | q30 | C1 | Local social meaning | In the third-largest top-level discussion, one direct reply posts a numbered list of past LLM criticisms arranged as a progression timeline. What rhetorical move does that comment make? | It sincerely catalogs the history of LLM failures to support the opening comment's cost worry | It neutrally summarizes both sides of the LLM debate without taking a position | It uses ironic escalation to imply all prior criticisms have been superseded | It sarcastically mocks AI boosters by listing increasingly absurd promises | C | It uses ironic escalation to imply all prior criticisms have been superseded |
hn_46424233 | hackernews | q31 | C3 | Collective structure | In the largest top-level discussion, one comment divides HN developers into boilerplate-heavy and novelty-heavy camps. Across the full subtree beneath that comment, how many comments agree that AI excels at boilerplate but fails at novel work? Comments must explicitly state both halves of that distinction. | Six comments | Four comments | Eight comments | Ten comments | A | Six comments |
hn_46424233 | hackernews | q33 | C3 | Collective structure | In the largest top-level discussion, consider all comments in the subtree beneath the comment that accuses the opening post of shilling. How many comments in that subtree satisfy both conditions: (a) the commenter claims personal professional experience with AI tools, AND (b) the commenter acknowledges at least one con... | Five comments | Seven comments | Nine comments | Three comments | B | Seven comments |
hn_46424233 | hackernews | q35 | C3 | Collective structure | Across the full subtree of the comment that uses a chef-and-food analogy to argue humans will always be preferred over AI-made software, how many comments extend the food or cooking metaphor rather than switching to a different domain analogy? | Three comments | Five comments | One comment | Seven comments | A | Three comments |
hn_46424233 | hackernews | q39 | C5 | Participant profile | Take the user with the highest total comment count in the episode. Which one of that user's comments is the only one that concedes AI may be bad for society while still maintaining it is transformative? | The comment describing a farm GPS tracking app built in a week | The comment saying AI is bad for us but changing the world is an orthogonal argument | The comment calling out both sides for emotional responses | The comment predicting their own job will disappear within a decade | B | The comment saying AI is bad for us but changing the world is an orthogonal argument |
hn_46424233 | hackernews | q40 | C3 | Collective structure | In the largest top-level discussion, consider the subtree beneath the comment warning about learned helplessness from LLMs. How many comments in that subtree argue that LLMs have actually enhanced rather than diminished the commenter's skills or motivation? | Seven comments | Five comments | Three comments | One comment | C | Three comments |
hn_46424233 | hackernews | q43 | C3 | Collective structure | One top-level comment argues this wave is different because LLMs are only getting better, listing four supporting points. Across the full subtree of that comment, how many replies substantively challenge at least one of those four points rather than adding new supporting points or making tangential remarks? | Three replies | Five replies | One reply | Seven replies | A | Three replies |
hn_46425198 | hackernews | q2 | C3 | Collective structure | In the second-largest top-level discussion, how many direct replies to the opening comment specifically probe or challenge its claim about Reddit ad performance? | Two replies | Four replies | Three replies | Six replies | B | Four replies |
hn_46425198 | hackernews | q5 | C3 | Collective structure | In the top-level discussion started by the episode's most frequent commenter, the comments split across several AI-and-adtech arguments. Ignoring bare agreement, which argument appears in exactly two comments? | AI directly caused the open web’s death | Google ad decay started before AI | AI is in a particular economic phase | AI will inevitably pollute AI answers | A | AI directly caused the open web’s death |
hn_46425198 | hackernews | q9 | C5 | Participant profile | How many distinct top-level discussions does the episode's most prolific commenter participate in? | Twenty-one discussions | Seventeen discussions | Fourteen discussions | Twenty-five discussions | A | Twenty-one discussions |
hn_46425198 | hackernews | q11 | C5 | Participant profile | The user whose comments attract the most direct replies writes three comments in the episode. How many of those comments extrapolate from a present observation to a broader economic or measurement-level consequence? | All three comments | One comment | Two comments | None of the comments | C | Two comments |
hn_46425198 | hackernews | q16 | C3 | Collective structure | A top-level comment suggests the author's Hacker News placement might itself be a marketing move. Exactly one direct reply is by the blog author. What does that reply do? | Speculates about GEO/SEO and search engines or LLMs picking up the thread | Rejects the accusation as bad-faith assumption-hunting | Observes that the HN comments already summarize the post | Concedes that the server is down, implicitly showing HN’s traffic weight | D | Concedes that the server is down, implicitly showing HN’s traffic weight |
hn_46425198 | hackernews | q20 | C3 | Collective structure | Outside the largest top-level discussion, look at the comment below a thread opener that receives the most direct replies. Its replies split between meta explanations for why the post was upvoted and substantive reasons for the upvotes. What is the split? | Two meta; four substantive | Three meta; three substantive | Five meta; one substantive | Four meta; two substantive | D | Four meta; two substantive |
hn_46425198 | hackernews | q23 | C1 | Local social meaning | One comment says the way to get a product known now is through an influencer and dares readers to admit whether they shop by asking a chatbot. How many direct replies answer with an account of their own use rather than a general argument? | Eight replies | Ten replies | Nine replies | Seven replies | B | Ten replies |
hn_46425198 | hackernews | q26 | C1 | Local social meaning | In the sub-discussion opened by a lifelong hockey fan who says he never understood the complaint about not being able to follow the puck, how many comments reject the comparison that opening comment draws between the two sports? | Three comments | Two comments | Four comments | Six comments | A | Three comments |
hn_46425198 | hackernews | q27 | C2 | Reply-pair interaction | One comment in the chat-platform thread asks why a privacy-focused messenger never won the following the other group apps have. Which of its direct replies answers by rejecting the question's premise rather than by naming something the app lacks? | The one saying it has no separate text and voice channels | The one saying that in some places it does have that following | The one saying it was long invitation-only and means little to non-technical users | The one saying it lacks moderation and server-side history for large groups | B | The one saying that in some places it does have that following |
hn_46425198 | hackernews | q28 | C2 | Reply-pair interaction | A comment reports that the small software-business owners its author knows have all found paid search less and less profitable. Which of its direct replies answers with the same kind of evidence but the opposite conclusion? | The reply describing the commenter's own slow decline and shrinking budget | The reply asking what other approaches the commenter uses instead | The reply describing many owners in other lines of business whose results have held up | The reply describing twenty years of running such campaigns and rising complexity | C | The reply describing many owners in other lines of business whose results have held up |
hn_46425198 | hackernews | q29 | C4 | Temporal dynamics | Follow the longest reply chain in the top-level discussion that opens by asking advertisers to go and fill some other platform instead. At which position does it stop arguing about advertising and start advising this one business? Position 1 is the chain's opening comment. | Position 3 | Position 2 | Position 4 | Position 5 | A | Position 3 |
hn_46425198 | hackernews | q30 | C6 | Cross-subdiscussion variation | Among users who join four separate top-level discussions without opening any of them, take the one with the most comments. In how many of those discussions does their contribution put a question back to the person they answer instead of stating a view? | One discussion | Three discussions | All four discussions | Two discussions | D | Two discussions |
hn_46425198 | hackernews | q32 | C3 | Collective structure | One comment mourns Google's own social network and says it looked empty because everything on it was private. How many of its direct replies blame a decision pushed onto users of its other products? Link-only replies don't count; the blame may sit anywhere. | Two replies | Five replies | Three replies | Four replies | C | Three replies |
hn_46425198 | hackernews | q34 | C5 | Participant profile | Take the user with the most comments inside the episode's longest reply chain outside the largest top-level discussion. Of that user's comments anywhere in the episode, which is the only one that does not rest on aggregate figures? | The one asking why the post drew so many votes | The one pointing to the published count of searches per year | The one arguing that bids would have fallen if bots were doing the clicking | The one asking why usage keeps rising if the results are a waste of time | A | The one asking why the post drew so many votes |
hn_46425198 | hackernews | q36 | C3 | Collective structure | In the exchange growing out of the one-line reply that tells the opener to skate to where the puck is going, how many comments claim that advertising arises unavoidably once a society reaches a certain size? Merely accepting someone else's account does not count. | Two comments | Five comments | Three comments | Four comments | C | Three comments |
hn_46425198 | hackernews | q38 | C3 | Collective structure | In the sub-discussion hoping several tech-savvy relatives will each keep copies of the family photographs instead of posting them to a social app, how many comments report a machine of the commenter's own that is already running or being set up? | Three comments | Five comments | Four comments | Seven comments | A | Three comments |
hn_46425198 | hackernews | q40 | C3 | Collective structure | Take the sub-discussion that starts with the blog author thanking a commenter for the reminder about video ads. How many of its comments are about being banned or shut out of a platform rather than about where to post? | Five comments | Four comments | Six comments | Seven comments | D | Seven comments |
hn_46425198 | hackernews | q41 | C3 | Collective structure | In the sub-discussion that begins by objecting that the published usage figures show no retreat from online life, exactly one of the replies argues that such a withdrawal would still register in those figures. Which is it? | The one saying people who withdraw leave the sample entirely | The one asking whether automated traffic sits inside the totals | The one proposing public posts per person as the better measure | The one saying reduced interaction would itself show up in the counts | D | The one saying reduced interaction would itself show up in the counts |
hn_46427586 | hackernews | q5 | C4 | Temporal dynamics | Walk down this episode's longest reply chain. At which position does the conversation permanently move away from the opening topic of audio intelligibility? Count the starting comment as position one. | Position four | Position six | Position ten | Position eight | D | Position eight |
hn_46427586 | hackernews | q9 | C3 | Collective structure | In the thread comparing the show to the final seasons of another fantasy series, how many comments criticize the current season's writing by naming a concrete flaw, such as implausible behavior, formulaic dialogue, or plot contradictions? Bare claims that the show is bad don't count. | Seven comments | Three comments | Five comments | Nine comments | C | Five comments |
hn_46427586 | hackernews | q10 | C5 | Participant profile | Among user_011's comments in the episode, which single comment offers a concrete technical workaround to another user, rather than arguing about frame rates or criticizing someone? The comment must name a specific tool or technique. | The comment about displaying a test pattern to check bit depth | The comment recommending an audio-normalization filter for a media player | The comment noting that game mode causes unwanted brightness boosting | The comment about Blu-ray format not supporting a specific frame rate | B | The comment recommending an audio-normalization filter for a media player |
hn_46427586 | hackernews | q11 | C4 | Temporal dynamics | In the creator-intent discussion, one chain features a sustained debate about whether the soap-opera effect exists. Reading only the comments from the user who says low frame rates give them headaches, what sequence of rhetorical moves do they make? | Concession, then assertive claim, then personal evidence, then escalation | Personal evidence, then assertive claim, then escalation, then disengagement | Assertive claim, then personal evidence, then concession with reframe, then disengagement | Assertive claim throughout, with no concession or disengagement | C | Assertive claim, then personal evidence, then concession with reframe, then disengagement |
hn_46427586 | hackernews | q14 | C1 | Local social meaning | Which top-level comment specifically argues that people dislike motion smoothing because they are simply not used to it? | The root asking whether any creators have adopted high frame rates | The root blaming dislike of the effect on viewers' past viewing habits | The root defending motion smoothing as a matter of personal perspective | The root expressing frustration at other people's TV settings | B | The root blaming dislike of the effect on viewers' past viewing habits |
End of preview. Expand in Data Studio
LongSocialBench
LongSocialBench is a multiple-choice benchmark for long-context understanding of online discussion threads. It contains 1,462 questions over 94 complete discussion episodes from Hacker News, Reddit r/ChangeMyView, and Stack Exchange. Each question has four options, one correct answer, and one capability label (C1–C6).
Paper: LongSocialBench: Do Long-Context LLMs Understand Online Discussion Threads? (EMNLP 2026, Main Conference)
Authors: Xinyi Liu, Rinat Khaziev, Dilek Hakkani-Tür, Tarek F. Abdelzaher
Usage
import json
from datasets import load_dataset
questions = load_dataset(
"Tracyyyy1997/LongSocialBench",
"questions",
split="test",
) # 1,462 rows
episodes = load_dataset(
"Tracyyyy1997/LongSocialBench",
"episodes",
split="test",
) # 94 rows
episode = {e["episode_id"]: e for e in episodes}[questions[0]["episode_id"]]
nodes = json.loads(episode["nodes_json"]) # list of comments with reply structure
The two configs join on episode_id. The evaluation metric is accuracy of the predicted option letter against gold_letter.
Contents
| Platform | platform |
Episodes | Questions |
|---|---|---|---|
| Hacker News | hackernews |
43 | 696 |
| Reddit r/ChangeMyView | reddit |
30 | 470 |
| Stack Exchange | stackexchange |
21 | 296 |
| Total | 94 | 1,462 |
| Capability | Name | Tests | Questions |
|---|---|---|---|
| C1 | Local social meaning | One comment's role in its nearby context. | 165 |
| C2 | Reply-pair interaction | How a reply relates to the parent comment it answers. | 89 |
| C3 | Collective structure | Positions or roles organizing a scoped discussion region. | 687 |
| C4 | Temporal dynamics | Turning points in an ordered exchange or reply chain. | 185 |
| C5 | Participant profile | One author's stance or strategy across multiple comments. | 218 |
| C6 | Cross-subdiscussion variation | Similarity or change across separate branches or sub-discussions. | 118 |
Fields
questions
| Column | Description |
|---|---|
episode_id |
Episode the question is about. |
platform |
hackernews, reddit, or stackexchange. |
question_id |
Unique within the episode. (episode_id, question_id) is the global key. |
capability, capability_name |
C1 to C6, and its name. |
question |
Question text. |
option_a, option_b, option_c, option_d |
The four answer options. |
gold_letter |
Correct option: A, B, C, or D. |
gold_answer |
Text of the correct option. |
episodes
| Column | Description |
|---|---|
episode_id |
Episode ID. |
platform |
hackernews, reddit, or stackexchange. |
site |
Stack Exchange site name; null otherwise. |
title |
Thread title. |
post_author |
Root post author (pseudonym); null for Stack Exchange. |
post_time |
Root post time; same format as comment time. |
post_content |
Root post: body text (Reddit), thread link (Hacker News), empty (Stack Exchange). |
url |
Source link: discussed page (Hacker News), thread (Reddit), site (Stack Exchange). |
source_question_ids |
Stack Exchange only: JSON list of source question IDs (<url>/q/<id>). |
num_nodes |
Number of comments. |
num_questions |
Number of questions. |
nodes_json |
JSON list of all comments in thread order. |
Comments in nodes_json
| Field | Description |
|---|---|
node_id |
Unique within the episode. |
parent_id |
Parent's node_id. Top-level comments are null (Hacker News, Stack Exchange) or "OP" (Reddit). |
author |
Pseudonym user_NNN, or a platform marker such as [deleted]. |
time |
Relative string (Hacker News), ISO-8601 UTC (Reddit), null (Stack Exchange). |
text |
Comment text. |
depth |
Reply depth. |
score, is_accepted, type |
Stack Exchange only: vote score, accepted-answer flag, and question / answer / comment. |
License and data rights
- Benchmark questions, answer options, and labels created by the authors are released under CC BY 4.0.
- Discussion content originates from publicly accessible pages on Hacker News, Reddit, and Stack Exchange. Copyright and other rights in the source content remain with the respective rightsholders and are subject to the applicable platform terms and licenses. The authors do not grant additional rights to third-party content.
- Stack Exchange content is subject to the applicable CC BY-SA version associated with each contribution.
- Usernames are replaced with per-episode pseudonyms (
user_001,user_002, ...) that are not linked across episodes.
To request removal of content, open a discussion on this repository.
Citation
@inproceedings{liu2026longsocialbench,
title = {LongSocialBench: Do Long-Context LLMs Understand Online Discussion Threads?},
author = {Liu, Xinyi and Khaziev, Rinat and Hakkani-T{\"u}r, Dilek and Abdelzaher, Tarek F.},
booktitle = {Proceedings of the 2026 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing},
year = {2026}
}
- Downloads last month
- 54