aveni-ai/aveni-bench-tat-hqa huggingface dataset:
Base Salary. The base salary for each NEO is determined on the basis of the following factors: scope of responsibilities, experience, skills, performance, expected future contribution, base salary levels in effect for comparable positions at the companies in the Peer Group (as described on page 42 below under “Use of Peer Group Compensation Data”) and other competitive market factors. Generally, the Committee reviews the base salary levels of our NEOs annually as part of the Company’s performance review process as well as upon a promotion or other change of position or level of responsibility. Merit-based increases to the base salaries of our NEOs (other than our CEO) are recommended by our CEO to the Committee, and all increases are based on the Committee’s (and in the case of our CEO, the Board’s) review and assessment of the factors described above. The Compensation Committee reviews compensation levels at the beginning of each fiscal year and adjusts as needed based upon market data and executive achievement. The Committee reviewed the base salaries of our executive officers, including our NEOs, for fiscal year 2019 and increased the salaries of our CEO and CFO in light of their contributions in fiscal year 2018, including, among other considerations, the successful execution and integration of the AvComm and Wireless acquisition and to reflect the Committee’s review of current peer and market compensation data. Mr. Staley’s salary was also increased to reflect the Committee’s review of current peer and market compensation data as well as his contributions in fiscal year 2019, including the integration of AvComm and Wireless sales into our global sales organization. The Committee did not increase the salaries of any of our other NEOs because the Committee determined that the existing base salaries were appropriate for each of these NEOs. Actual base salaries paid to our NEOs in fiscal year 2019 are set forth in the “Salary” column of the Fiscal 2019 Summary Compensation Table on page 44. <table> <tbody> <tr><td></td><td>Fiscal Year 2018</td><td>Fiscal Year 2019</td><td></td></tr> <tr><td>Named Executive Officer</td><td>Base Salary</td><td>Base Salary</td><td>Percentage Increase</td></tr> <tr><td>Oleg Khaykin</td><td>$750,000</td><td>$800,000</td><td>6.7%</td></tr> <tr><td>Amar Maletira</td><td>$425,000</td><td>$500,000</td><td>17.7%</td></tr> <tr><td>Paul McNab</td><td>$435,000</td><td>$435,000</td><td>—</td></tr> <tr><td>Luke Scrivanich</td><td>$372,000</td><td>$372,000</td><td>—</td></tr> <tr><td>Gary Staley</td><td>$360,000</td><td>$375,000</td><td>4.2%</td></tr> </tbody> </table>

Question: What would the total base salary of all Named Executive Officers in 2018 be if Gary Staley's base salary was $400,000 instead?
Answer: 2382000

Question: How much would the top 3 base salaries in 2019 add up to be if Luke Scrivanich's base salary was $600,000 instead?
Answer: 1900000

Question: What would the difference in base salary between Paul McNab and Luke Scrivanch in 2018 be if Luke Scrivanch's base salary was $400,000 instead?
Answer: 35000
Original Equipment Manufacturers (“OEM”) are the end-customers to which we provide direct marketing application engineering support, while Distribution customers refers to the distributors and representatives that we engage to distribute our products around the world. By market channel, our fourth quarter revenues in Distribution amounted to 28% of our total revenues, flat compared to the previous quarter and decreasing on a year-over-year basis. <table> <tbody> <tr><td></td><td></td><td>Three Months Ended</td><td></td></tr> <tr><td></td><td>December 31, 2019</td><td>September 29, 2019</td><td>December 31, 2018</td></tr> <tr><td></td><td></td><td>(Unaudited, in %)</td><td></td></tr> <tr><td>OEM</td><td>72%</td><td>72%</td><td>69%</td></tr> <tr><td>Distribution</td><td>28</td><td>28</td><td>31</td></tr> <tr><td>Total</td><td>100%</td><td>100%</td><td>100%</td></tr> </tbody> </table>

Question: If the net revenues from OEM in 2019 is increased to 86%, what is the revised average for the period December 31, 2019 and 2018?
Answer: 77.5

Question: If the net revenues from Distribution in 2019 is increased to 34% million, what is the revised average for the period December 31, 2019 and 2018?
Answer: 32.5

Question: What would be the increase/ (decrease) if OEM in 2019 is increased to 86%?
Answer: 17
* Recast to reflect segment changes. The year-to-year improvements in margins and pre-tax income in GBS were the result of the shift to higher-value offerings, realignment of resources to key skill areas, increased productivity and utilization as well as a benefit from currency, due to the company’s global delivery model. <table> <tbody> <tr><td>($ in millions)</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr> <tr><td>For the year ended December 31:</td><td>2018*</td><td>2017*</td><td>Yr.-to-Yr. Percent/ Margin Change</td></tr> <tr><td>Global Business Services</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr> <tr><td>External gross profit</td><td>$4,448</td><td>$4,033</td><td>10.3%</td></tr> <tr><td>External gross profit margin</td><td>26.8%</td><td>25.1%</td><td>1.7pts</td></tr> <tr><td>Pre-tax income</td><td>$1,629</td><td>$1,303</td><td>25.0%</td></tr> <tr><td>Pre-tax margin</td><td>9.6%</td><td>7.9%</td><td>1.7pts</td></tr> </tbody> </table>

Question: If external gross profit changed to 6,000 million in 2018, what is the increase / (decrease) from 2017 to 2018?
Answer: 1967

Question: If the Pre-tax income in 2018 changed to 2,000 million, what is the average?
Answer: 1651.5

Question: If Pre-tax margin in 2018 changed to 10.0%, what is the increase / (decrease) from 2017 to 2018?
Answer: 2.1
The maximum exposure to credit risk for trade receivables at the reporting date by type of customer was: The Group’s most significant customer accounts for £0.5m (2018: £0.6m) of net trade receivables as at 31 March 2019. <table> <tbody> <tr><td></td><td>2019</td><td>2018</td></tr> <tr><td></td><td>£m</td><td>£m</td></tr> <tr><td>Retailers</td><td>20.4</td><td>21.7</td></tr> <tr><td>Manufacturer and Agency</td><td>3.2</td><td>3.0</td></tr> <tr><td>Other</td><td>1.3</td><td>0.7</td></tr> <tr><td>Total</td><td>24.9</td><td>25.4</td></tr> </tbody> </table>

Question: In which year would the amount of Other be larger if the amount in 2018 was 1.7 million instead?
Answer: 2018

Question: What would the change in Other in 2019 from 2018 be if the amount in 2019 was 1.4 million instead?
Answer: 0.7

Question: What would the percentage change in Other in 2019 from 2018 be if the amount in 2019 was 1.4 million instead?
Answer: 100
At December 31, 2019, the Company’s net operating losses and credit carryforwards are: (1) Excludes federal and state net operating losses of $60.2 million and $0.8 million, respectively, from prior acquisitions that the Company expects will expire unutilized (2) Excludes federal and state tax credits of $0.1 million and $8.3 million, respectively, that the Company expects will expire unutilized Carryforward losses and credits expire between 2020 and 2038, except for the 2019 federal net operating loss of $43.9 million and $1 million of state credits, which both have unlimited carryforward periods. The Company’s India subsidiary is primarily located in Special Economic Zones (“SEZs”) and is entitled to a tax holiday in India. The tax holiday reduces or eliminates income tax in India. The tax holiday in the Hyderabad SEZ is scheduled to expire in 2024. The tax holiday in the Bangalore SEZ is scheduled to expire in 2022. For 2019, 2018 and 2017, the income tax holiday reduced the Company’s provision for income taxes by $1.9 million, $1.3 million, and $1 million, respectively. <table> <tbody> <tr><td>(in thousands)</td><td>Federal</td><td>State</td></tr> <tr><td>Net operating losses (1)</td><td>$120,722</td><td>$3,337</td></tr> <tr><td>Net operating losses due to acquisitions (1)</td><td>$76,827</td><td>$778</td></tr> <tr><td>Credit carryforwards (2)</td><td>$8,202</td><td>$1,958</td></tr> <tr><td>Credit carryforwards due to acquisitions</td><td>$640</td><td>$227</td></tr> </tbody> </table>

Question: What would be the difference between the company's federal and state net operating losses if the state losses is doubled and then increased by $5,000,000?
Answer: 109048

Question: What would be the total federal and state credit carryforwards if the value of the state carryforwards is halved and then decreased by $50,000?
Answer: 9131

Question: What would be the average federal and state credit carryforwards due to acquisitions if the state credit carryforwards is decreased by $7,000?
Answer: 430
Profitability Measures Net Income: Our net income in the fiscal year ended February 28, 2019 was $18.4 million as compared to net income of $16.6 million in the same period last year. The increase is due to a $11.7 million increase in operating income, $3.0 million increase in investment income and $12.0 million decrease in income tax provision. The increase in operating income was primarily attributable to $21.0 million decrease in general and administrative expense due to reduced legal provision and related costs as further discussed in Note 19 and partially offset by $8.0 million of restructuring expense. Adjusted EBITDA for Telematics Systems in the fiscal year ended February 28, 2019 decreased $8.1 million compared to the same period last year due to lower revenues as described above and the impact of high margin revenue earned on a strategic technology partnership arrangement in fiscal 2018. These factors were coupled with higher operating expenses in Telematics Systems as a result of increased headcount and outsourced professional service fees. Adjusted EBITDA for Software and Subscription Services increased $4.9 million compared to the same period last year due primarily to continued growth in revenues and gross profit from our Italia market and higher gross profit from our fleet management services. See Note 20 for reconciliation of Adjusted EBITDA by reportable segments and a reconciliation to GAAP-basis net income (loss). <table> <tbody> <tr><td></td><td>Fiscal years ended</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr> <tr><td></td><td>February 28,</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr> <tr><td>(In thousands)</td><td>2019</td><td>2018</td><td>$ Change</td><td>% Change</td></tr> <tr><td></td><td>Segment</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr> <tr><td>Telematics Systems</td><td>$40,821</td><td>$48,943</td><td>$(8,122)</td><td>(17.0%)</td></tr> <tr><td>Software &amp; Subscription Services</td><td>13,093</td><td>8,233</td><td>4,860</td><td>59.0%</td></tr> <tr><td>Corporate Expense</td><td>(5,699)</td><td>(4,794)</td><td>(905)</td><td>19.0%</td></tr> <tr><td>Total Adjusted EBITDA</td><td>$48,215</td><td>$52,382</td><td>$(4,167)</td><td>(8.0%)</td></tr> </tbody> </table>

Question: What is the total Adjusted EBITDA for Telematics Systems and Software & Subscription Services in 2019 if adjusted EBITDA for Telematics Systems was $30,000 thousand?
Answer: 43093

Question: What is the total Adjusted EBITDA for Telematics Systems and Software & Subscription Services in 2018 if adjusted EBITDA for Telematics Systems was $30,000 thousand?
Answer: 38233

Question: What was the average Corporate Expense for both years, 2018 and 2019 if Corporate Expense for 2018 was $5,000 thousand?
Answer: -5349.5
The following table sets forth activity during the years ended December 31, 2019 and 2018 related to finite-lived intangible assets: The Company regularly reviews the carrying amounts of its long-lived assets subject to depreciation and amortization, as well as the related useful lives, to determine whether indicators of impairment may exist which warrant adjustments to carrying values or estimated useful lives. An impairment loss is recognized when the sum of the expected future undiscounted net cash flows is less than the carrying amount of the asset. Should impairment exist, the impairment loss is measured based on the excess of the carrying amount of the asset over the asset’s fair value. During the years ended December 31, 2019 and 2017, no impairment losses related to finite-lived intangible assets were recognized. Impairment loss related to finite-lived intangible assets for the year ended December 31, 2018 was $2.2 million and related to acquired developed technology. <table> <tbody> <tr><td></td><td>Years Ended December 31,</td><td></td></tr> <tr><td></td><td>2019</td><td>2018</td></tr> <tr><td></td><td>(in thousands)</td><td></td></tr> <tr><td>Beginning balance</td><td>$240,500</td><td>$310,645</td></tr> <tr><td>Other additions</td><td>86</td><td>—</td></tr> <tr><td>Transfers to developed technology from IPR&amp;D</td><td>4,400</td><td>—</td></tr> <tr><td>Amortization</td><td>(57,015)</td><td>(67,947)</td></tr> <tr><td>Impairment losses</td><td>—</td><td>(2,198)</td></tr> <tr><td>Ending balance</td><td>$187,971</td><td>240,500</td></tr> </tbody> </table>

Question: If Beginning balance in 2019 was 320,000 thousands, what would be the change from 2018 to 2019?
Answer: 9355

Question: If other additions in 2018 was 90 thousands, what would be the average for 2018 and 2019?
Answer: 88

Question: If Transfers to developed technology from IPR&D in 2018 was 5,000 thousands, in which year would it be greater than 4,000 thousands?
Answer: 2019, 2018
G. PROPERTY, PLANT AND EQUIPMENT Property, plant and equipment, net consisted of the following at December 31, 2019 and 2018: Depreciation of property, plant and equipment for the years ended December 31, 2019, 2018, and 2017 was $70.8 million, $67.4 million, and $66.1 million, respectively. As of December 31, 2019 and 2018, the gross book value included in machinery and equipment for internally manufactured test systems being leased by customers was $5.4 million and $5.5 million, respectively. As of December 31, 2019 and 2018, the accumulated depreciation on these test systems was $5.1 million and $5.2 million, respectively. <table> <tbody> <tr><td></td><td>2019</td><td>2018</td></tr> <tr><td></td><td>(in thousands)</td><td></td></tr> <tr><td>Land</td><td>$16,561</td><td>$16,561</td></tr> <tr><td>Buildings</td><td>107,282</td><td>105,935</td></tr> <tr><td>Machinery, equipment and software</td><td>834,970</td><td>752,722</td></tr> <tr><td>Furniture and fixtures</td><td>29,157</td><td>27,432</td></tr> <tr><td>Leasehold improvements</td><td>59,378</td><td>52,536</td></tr> <tr><td>Construction in progress</td><td>2,537</td><td>6,276</td></tr> <tr><td></td><td>1,049,885</td><td>961,462</td></tr> <tr><td>Less: accumulated depreciation</td><td>729,669</td><td>681,641</td></tr> <tr><td></td><td>$320,216</td><td>$279,821</td></tr> </tbody> </table>

Question: In which year would Construction in progress be larger if the amount in 2019 was $6,537 thousand instead?
Answer: 2019

Question: What would the change in the amount of Land from 2018 to 2019 be if the amount in 2019 was $17,000 thousand instead?
Answer: 439

Question: What would the percentage change in the amount of Land from 2018 to 2019 be if the amount in 2019 was $17,000 thousand instead?
Answer: 2.65
Note 5. Fair Value of Financial Instruments The Company measures and reports certain cash equivalents, including money market funds and certificates of deposit, in addition to its long-term investments at fair value in accordance with the provisions of the authoritative accounting guidance that addresses fair value measurements. This guidance establishes a hierarchy for inputs used in measuring fair value that maximizes the use of observable inputs and minimizes the use of unobservable inputs by requiring that the most observable inputs be used when available The hierarchy is broken down into three levels based on the reliability of the inputs as follows: Level 1: Observable inputs that reflect unadjusted quoted prices in active markets for identical assets or liabilities Level 2: Other inputs, such as quoted prices for similar assets or liabilities, quoted prices for identical or similar assets or liabilities in inactive markets, or other inputs that are observable or can be corroborated by observable market data for substantially the full term of the asset or liability Level 3: Unobservable inputs that are supported by little or no market activity and that are based on management’s assumptions, including fair value measurements determined by using pricing models, discounted cash flow methodologies or similar techniques The financial assets carried at fair value were determined using the following inputs (in thousands): The Company’s other financial instruments, including accounts receivable, accounts payable, and other current liabilities, are carried at cost, which approximates fair-value due to the relatively short maturity of those instruments. <table> <tbody> <tr><td></td><td>Fair value at December 31, 2019</td><td>Level 1</td><td>Level 2</td><td>Level 3</td></tr> <tr><td>Cash equivalents:</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr> <tr><td>Money market funds</td><td>$297,311</td><td>$297,311</td><td>$ -</td><td>$ -</td></tr> <tr><td>Noncurrent assets:</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr> <tr><td>Long-term investments</td><td>132,188</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>132,188</td></tr> <tr><td></td><td>Fair value at December 31, 2018</td><td>Level 1</td><td>Level 2</td><td>Level 3</td></tr> <tr><td>Cash equivalents:</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr> <tr><td>Money market funds</td><td>$485,872</td><td>$485,872</td><td>$ -</td><td>$ -</td></tr> <tr><td>Noncurrent assets:</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr> <tr><td>Long-term investments</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td></tr> </tbody> </table>

Question: What would be the total fair value of money market funds and long-term investments at December 31, 2019 if the fair value of money market funds is decreased by 10%?
Answer: 399767.9

Question: What would be the total value of money market funds in 2018 and 2019 if the value of money market funds in 2018 is halved and then decreased by $5,000?
Answer: 540242

Question: What would be the percentage change in the company's money market funds between 2018 and 2019 if the 2019 value is increased by $500,000?
Answer: -38.71
Note 3: Debt A summary of debt is as follows (amounts in thousands): (1) Amount shown is net of discount, bank issuance costs and other indirect issuance costs of $13.3 million as of March 31, 2018. (2) Amount shown is net of discount, bank issuance costs and other indirect issuance costs of $8.7 million as of March 31, 2019. (3) Amount shown is net of discount of $2.1 million as of March 31, 2019. (4) Amounts shown are net of discounts of $0.6 million and $0.5 million as of March 31, 2019 and 2018, respectively. <table> <tbody> <tr><td></td><td>March 31,</td><td></td></tr> <tr><td></td><td>2019</td><td>2018</td></tr> <tr><td>Term Loan Credit Agreement (1)</td><td>$—</td><td>$318,782</td></tr> <tr><td>TOKIN Term Loan Facility (2)</td><td>276,808</td><td>—</td></tr> <tr><td>Customer Advances (3)</td><td>11,270</td><td>—</td></tr> <tr><td>Other, net (4)</td><td>6,393</td><td>5,841</td></tr> <tr><td>Total debt</td><td>294,471</td><td>324,623</td></tr> <tr><td>Current maturities</td><td>(28,430)</td><td>(20,540)</td></tr> <tr><td>Total long-term debt</td><td>$266,041</td><td>$304,083</td></tr> </tbody> </table>

Question: What would be the change in Total debt between 2018 and 2019 if total debt in 2018 was $200,000 thousand instead?
Answer: 94471

Question: What would be the change in current maturities between 2018 and 2019 if current maturities in 2019 were -$30,000 thousand instead?
Answer: -9460

Question: What would be the percentage change in total long-term debt between 2018 and 2019 if total long-term debt in 2019 was $400,000 thousand instead?
Answer: 31.54
The credit quality and credit concentration of cash equivalents, current asset investments and derivative financial assets are detailed in the tables below. Where the opinion of Moody’s and Standard & Poor’s (S&P) differ, the lower rating is used. a We hold cash collateral of £638m (2017/18: £492m, 2016/17: £702m) in respect of derivative financial assets with certain counterparties. The concentration of credit risk for our trading balances is provided in note 17, which analyses outstanding balances by customerfacing unit. Where multiple transactions are undertaken with a single financial counterparty or group of related counterparties, we enter into netting arrangements to reduce our exposure to credit risk by making use of standard International Swaps and Derivatives Association (ISDA) documentation. We have also entered into credit support agreements with certain swap counterparties whereby, on a daily, weekly and monthly basis, the fair value position on notional £3,289m of long dated cross-currency swaps and interest rate swaps is collateralised. The related net cash inflow during the year was £129m (2017/18: outflow £220m, 2016/17: inflow £100m). The collateral paid and received is recognised within current asset investments and loans and other borrowings, respectively. <table> <tbody> <tr><td></td><td>2019</td><td>2018</td><td>2017</td></tr> <tr><td>Moody’s / S&amp;P credit rating of counterparty</td><td>£m</td><td>£m</td><td>£m</td></tr> <tr><td>Aa2/AA and above</td><td>2,522</td><td>2,575</td><td>1,444</td></tr> <tr><td>Aa3/AA–</td><td>1,376</td><td>313</td><td>208</td></tr> <tr><td>A1/A+a</td><td>1,145</td><td>651</td><td>952</td></tr> <tr><td>A2/Aa</td><td>649</td><td>628</td><td>370</td></tr> <tr><td>A3/A–a</td><td>50</td><td>180</td><td>204</td></tr> <tr><td>Baa1/BBB+a</td><td>75</td><td>59</td><td>561</td></tr> <tr><td>Baa2/BBB and below a</td><td>160</td><td>207</td><td>86</td></tr> <tr><td></td><td>5,977</td><td>4,613</td><td>3,825</td></tr> </tbody> </table>

Question: If Aa2/AA and above in 2019 was 3,000 million, what would be the change in the Aa2/AA and above from 2018 to 2019?
Answer: 425

Question: If Aa3/AA– in 2019 was 1,000 million, what would be the average Aa3/AA– for 2017-2019?
Answer: 507

Question: If A1/A+a in 2019 was 600 million, in which year(s) would A1/A+a be under 1,000 million?
Answer: 2019, 2018, 2017
Other Intangible Assets, Net Other intangible assets include developed technologies, customer relationships, trade names, patents, user lists and the related accumulated amortization. These assets are shown as “Developed technologies, net” and as part of “Other assets” in the Consolidated Balance Sheet. The majority of Autodesk’s other intangible assets are amortized to expense over the estimated economic life of the product, which ranges from two to ten years. Amortization expense for developed technologies, customer relationships, trade names, patents, and user lists was $33.5 million in fiscal 2019, $36.6 million in fiscal 2018 and $72.2 million in fiscal 2017. Other intangible assets and related accumulated amortization at January 31 were as follows: (1) Included in “Other assets” in the accompanying Consolidated Balance Sheets. (2) Includes the effects of foreign currency translation. <table> <tbody> <tr><td></td><td>2019</td><td>2018</td></tr> <tr><td>Developed technologies, at cost</td><td>$670.2</td><td>$578.5</td></tr> <tr><td>Customer relationships, trade names, patents, and user lists, at cost (1)</td><td>533.1</td><td>372.5</td></tr> <tr><td>Other intangible assets, at cost (2)</td><td>1,203.3</td><td>951.0</td></tr> <tr><td>Less: accumulated amortization</td><td>(922.5)</td><td>(895.8)</td></tr> <tr><td>Other intangible assets, net</td><td>$280.8</td><td>$55.2</td></tr> </tbody> </table>

Question: If the customer relationships, trade names, patents, and user lists, at cost is now $650million, what is the difference in customer relationships, trade names, patents, and user lists, at cost from 2018 to 2019?
Answer: 116.9

Question: How much did developed technologies, at cost gain in 2019 over 2018 if it was 600 million in 2019?
Answer: 3.72

Question: If the net other tangible assets for 2019 is now $160 million, what is the increase in net other tangible assets from 2018 to 2019?
Answer: 104.8