Dataset Viewer
Auto-converted to Parquet Duplicate
id
stringlengths
21
21
source
stringclasses
1 value
family
stringclasses
2 values
group
stringclasses
1 value
split
stringclasses
1 value
input
stringlengths
144
1.12k
answer
stringlengths
48
2.65k
options
listlengths
tier
stringclasses
1 value
label_source
stringclasses
1 value
audit_accuracy
float32
provenance
stringclasses
0 values
record
stringlengths
1.28k
19.8k
pref:29b598b2ad96cd35
lemma-v1
lemma.derivations.prove
preference
train
Prove the goal from the premises. Number every line; for each derived line name the rule and cite the earlier lines it uses. Premises: 1. either the zorb is not frell or the dax is not plimmed 2. either the dax is not plimmed or the zorb is frell Goal: either the dax is not plimmed or the dax is not plimmed
1. either the zorb is not frell or the dax is not plimmed (premise) 2. either the dax is not plimmed or the zorb is frell (premise) 3. either the zorb is frell or the dax is not plimmed, by Commutation (Disjunction) from line 2 4. either the dax is not plimmed or the dax is not plimmed, by Resolution from lines 1 and 3
null
verified
checker
null
null
{"schema_version": 1, "pair_id": "pref:29b598b2ad96cd35", "source_item_id": "derivations.prove:203836b90613f969", "source_family": "derivations.prove", "construct": "construct:resolution", "prompt": "Prove the goal from the premises. Number every line; for each derived line name the rule and cite the earlier lines it u...
pref:7ac0e77761232536
lemma-v1
lemma.derivations.prove
preference
train
Prove the goal from the premises. Number every line; for each derived line name the rule and cite the earlier lines it uses. Premises: 1. either the zorb is not frell or the dax is not plimmed 2. either the dax is not plimmed or the zorb is frell Goal: either the dax is not plimmed or the dax is not plimmed
1. either the zorb is not frell or the dax is not plimmed (premise) 2. either the dax is not plimmed or the zorb is frell (premise) 3. either the zorb is frell or the dax is not plimmed, by Commutation (Disjunction) from line 2 4. either the dax is not plimmed or the dax is not plimmed, by Resolution from lines 1 and 3
null
verified
checker
null
null
{"schema_version": 1, "pair_id": "pref:7ac0e77761232536", "source_item_id": "derivations.prove:203836b90613f969", "source_family": "derivations.prove", "construct": "construct:resolution", "prompt": "Prove the goal from the premises. Number every line; for each derived line name the rule and cite the earlier lines it u...
pref:d05668e037eef950
lemma-v1
lemma.derivations.prove
preference
train
Prove the goal from the premises. Number every line; for each derived line name the rule and cite the earlier lines it uses. Premises: 1. either the zorb is not frell or the dax is not plimmed 2. either the dax is not plimmed or the zorb is frell Goal: either the dax is not plimmed or the dax is not plimmed
1. either the zorb is not frell or the dax is not plimmed (premise) 2. either the dax is not plimmed or the zorb is frell (premise) 3. either the zorb is frell or the dax is not plimmed, by Commutation (Disjunction) from line 2 4. either the dax is not plimmed or the dax is not plimmed, by Resolution from lines 1 and 3
null
verified
checker
null
null
{"schema_version": 1, "pair_id": "pref:d05668e037eef950", "source_item_id": "derivations.prove:203836b90613f969", "source_family": "derivations.prove", "construct": "construct:resolution", "prompt": "Prove the goal from the premises. Number every line; for each derived line name the rule and cite the earlier lines it u...
pref:b6a994ee83713f0e
lemma-v1
lemma.derivations.prove
preference
train
Prove the goal from the premises. Number every line; for each derived line name the rule and cite the earlier lines it uses. Premises: 1. either the zorb is not frell or the dax is not plimmed 2. either the dax is not plimmed or the zorb is frell Goal: either the dax is not plimmed or the dax is not plimmed
1. either the zorb is not frell or the dax is not plimmed (premise) 2. either the dax is not plimmed or the zorb is frell (premise) 3. either the zorb is frell or the dax is not plimmed, by Commutation (Disjunction) from line 2 4. either the dax is not plimmed or the dax is not plimmed, by Resolution from lines 1 and 3
null
verified
checker
null
null
{"schema_version": 1, "pair_id": "pref:b6a994ee83713f0e", "source_item_id": "derivations.prove:203836b90613f969", "source_family": "derivations.prove", "construct": "construct:resolution", "prompt": "Prove the goal from the premises. Number every line; for each derived line name the rule and cite the earlier lines it u...
pref:1e73bce1f26944c9
lemma-v1
lemma.derivations.prove
preference
train
Prove the goal from the premises. Number every line; for each derived line name the rule and cite the earlier lines it uses. Premises: 1. either the zorb is not frell or the dax is not plimmed 2. either the dax is not plimmed or the zorb is frell Goal: either the dax is not plimmed or the dax is not plimmed
1. either the zorb is not frell or the dax is not plimmed (premise) 2. either the dax is not plimmed or the zorb is frell (premise) 3. either the zorb is frell or the dax is not plimmed, by Commutation (Disjunction) from line 2 4. either the dax is not plimmed or the dax is not plimmed, by Resolution from lines 1 and 3
null
verified
checker
null
null
{"schema_version": 1, "pair_id": "pref:1e73bce1f26944c9", "source_item_id": "derivations.prove:203836b90613f969", "source_family": "derivations.prove", "construct": "construct:resolution", "prompt": "Prove the goal from the premises. Number every line; for each derived line name the rule and cite the earlier lines it u...
pref:28d5f31ae5b71317
lemma-v1
lemma.derivations.prove
preference
train
Prove the goal from the premises. Number every line; for each derived line name the rule and cite the earlier lines it uses. Premises: 1. either the zorb is not frell or the dax is not plimmed 2. either the dax is not plimmed or the zorb is frell Goal: either the dax is not plimmed or the dax is not plimmed
1. either the zorb is not frell or the dax is not plimmed (premise) 2. either the dax is not plimmed or the zorb is frell (premise) 3. either the dax is not plimmed or the dax is not plimmed, by Resolution from lines 1 and 2
null
verified
checker
null
null
{"schema_version": 1, "pair_id": "pref:28d5f31ae5b71317", "source_item_id": "derivations.prove:203836b90613f969", "source_family": "derivations.prove", "construct": "construct:resolution", "prompt": "Prove the goal from the premises. Number every line; for each derived line name the rule and cite the earlier lines it u...
pref:f9daba24fd7016af
lemma-v1
lemma.derivations.prove
preference
train
Prove the goal from the premises. Number every line; for each derived line name the rule and cite the earlier lines it uses. Key: P = the lights are off; Q = it is raining; R = Sara buys tickets. Premises: 1. P → ¬Q 2. ¬Q → R 3. ¬R ∨ P Goal: R ↔ ¬Q
1. P → ¬Q (premise) 2. ¬Q → R (premise) 3. ¬R ∨ P (premise) 4. R → P, by Material Implication from line 3 5. R → ¬Q, by Hypothetical Syllogism from lines 1 and 4 6. R ↔ ¬Q, by Biconditional Introduction from lines 2 and 5
null
verified
checker
null
null
{"schema_version": 1, "pair_id": "pref:f9daba24fd7016af", "source_item_id": "derivations.prove:5dea267860414159", "source_family": "derivations.prove", "construct": "construct:biconditional-introduction", "prompt": "Prove the goal from the premises. Number every line; for each derived line name the rule and cite the ea...
pref:4dc87e9ee92f7535
lemma-v1
lemma.derivations.prove
preference
train
Prove the goal from the premises. Number every line; for each derived line name the rule and cite the earlier lines it uses. Key: P = the lights are off; Q = it is raining; R = Sara buys tickets. Premises: 1. P → ¬Q 2. ¬Q → R 3. ¬R ∨ P Goal: R ↔ ¬Q
1. P → ¬Q (premise) 2. ¬Q → R (premise) 3. ¬R ∨ P (premise) 4. R → P, by Material Implication from line 3 5. R → ¬Q, by Hypothetical Syllogism from lines 1 and 4 6. R ↔ ¬Q, by Biconditional Introduction from lines 2 and 5
null
verified
checker
null
null
{"schema_version": 1, "pair_id": "pref:4dc87e9ee92f7535", "source_item_id": "derivations.prove:5dea267860414159", "source_family": "derivations.prove", "construct": "construct:biconditional-introduction", "prompt": "Prove the goal from the premises. Number every line; for each derived line name the rule and cite the ea...
pref:b3760f8ffade136c
lemma-v1
lemma.derivations.prove
preference
train
Prove the goal from the premises. Number every line; for each derived line name the rule and cite the earlier lines it uses. Key: P = the lights are off; Q = it is raining; R = Sara buys tickets. Premises: 1. P → ¬Q 2. ¬Q → R 3. ¬R ∨ P Goal: R ↔ ¬Q
1. P → ¬Q (premise) 2. ¬Q → R (premise) 3. ¬R ∨ P (premise) 4. R → P, by Material Implication from line 3 5. R → ¬Q, by Hypothetical Syllogism from lines 1 and 4 6. R ↔ ¬Q, by Biconditional Introduction from lines 2 and 5
null
verified
checker
null
null
{"schema_version": 1, "pair_id": "pref:b3760f8ffade136c", "source_item_id": "derivations.prove:5dea267860414159", "source_family": "derivations.prove", "construct": "construct:biconditional-introduction", "prompt": "Prove the goal from the premises. Number every line; for each derived line name the rule and cite the ea...
pref:a31071bce9f35380
lemma-v1
lemma.derivations.prove
preference
train
Prove the goal from the premises. Number every line; for each derived line name the rule and cite the earlier lines it uses. Key: P = the lights are off; Q = it is raining; R = Sara buys tickets. Premises: 1. P → ¬Q 2. ¬Q → R 3. ¬R ∨ P Goal: R ↔ ¬Q
1. P → ¬Q (premise) 2. ¬Q → R (premise) 3. ¬R ∨ P (premise) 4. R → P, by Material Implication from line 3 5. R → ¬Q, by Hypothetical Syllogism from lines 1 and 4 6. R ↔ ¬Q, by Biconditional Introduction from lines 2 and 5
null
verified
checker
null
null
{"schema_version": 1, "pair_id": "pref:a31071bce9f35380", "source_item_id": "derivations.prove:5dea267860414159", "source_family": "derivations.prove", "construct": "construct:biconditional-introduction", "prompt": "Prove the goal from the premises. Number every line; for each derived line name the rule and cite the ea...
pref:f8e32aff85873124
lemma-v1
lemma.derivations.prove
preference
train
Prove the goal from the premises. Number every line; for each derived line name the rule and cite the earlier lines it uses. Key: P = the lights are off; Q = it is raining; R = Sara buys tickets. Premises: 1. P → ¬Q 2. ¬Q → R 3. ¬R ∨ P Goal: R ↔ ¬Q
1. P → ¬Q (premise) 2. ¬Q → R (premise) 3. ¬R ∨ P (premise) 4. R → P, by Material Implication from line 3 5. R → ¬Q, by Hypothetical Syllogism from lines 1 and 4 6. R ↔ ¬Q, by Biconditional Introduction from lines 2 and 5
null
verified
checker
null
null
{"schema_version": 1, "pair_id": "pref:f8e32aff85873124", "source_item_id": "derivations.prove:5dea267860414159", "source_family": "derivations.prove", "construct": "construct:biconditional-introduction", "prompt": "Prove the goal from the premises. Number every line; for each derived line name the rule and cite the ea...
pref:f922de7eae4a8347
lemma-v1
lemma.derivations.prove
preference
train
Prove the goal from the premises. Number every line; for each derived line name the rule and cite the earlier lines it uses. Key: P = the lights are off; Q = it is raining; R = Sara buys tickets. Premises: 1. P → ¬Q 2. ¬Q → R 3. ¬R ∨ P Goal: R ↔ ¬Q
1. P → ¬Q (premise) 2. ¬Q → R (premise) 3. ¬R ∨ P (premise) 4. R → ¬Q, by Hypothetical Syllogism from lines 1 and 3 5. R ↔ ¬Q, by Biconditional Introduction from lines 2 and 4
null
verified
checker
null
null
{"schema_version": 1, "pair_id": "pref:f922de7eae4a8347", "source_item_id": "derivations.prove:5dea267860414159", "source_family": "derivations.prove", "construct": "construct:biconditional-introduction", "prompt": "Prove the goal from the premises. Number every line; for each derived line name the rule and cite the ea...
pref:9a755e744f96970f
lemma-v1
lemma.derivations.prove
preference
train
Prove the goal from the premises. Number every line; for each derived line name the rule and cite the earlier lines it uses. Key: P = Leo misses the meeting; Q = the train is full; R = Sara buys tickets; S = the shop is open; T = Ana takes an umbrella. Premises: 1. (P or (Q and R)) or ((S and T) or not S) 2. not not R ...
1. (P or (Q and R)) or ((S and T) or not S) (premise) 2. not not R (premise) 3. if (Q and R) then not R (premise) 4. S or T (premise) 5. not (S and T) (premise) 6. not P (premise) 7. P or ((Q and R) or ((S and T) or not S)), by Association (Disjunction) from line 1 8. (Q and R) or ((S and T) or not S), by Disjunctive S...
null
verified
checker
null
null
{"schema_version": 1, "pair_id": "pref:9a755e744f96970f", "source_item_id": "derivations.prove:8f831d804f6b42bd", "source_family": "derivations.prove", "construct": "construct:disjunctive-syllogism", "prompt": "Prove the goal from the premises. Number every line; for each derived line name the rule and cite the earlier...
pref:d868a4f16544d2ba
lemma-v1
lemma.derivations.prove
preference
train
Prove the goal from the premises. Number every line; for each derived line name the rule and cite the earlier lines it uses. Key: P = Leo misses the meeting; Q = the train is full; R = Sara buys tickets; S = the shop is open; T = Ana takes an umbrella. Premises: 1. (P or (Q and R)) or ((S and T) or not S) 2. not not R ...
1. (P or (Q and R)) or ((S and T) or not S) (premise) 2. not not R (premise) 3. if (Q and R) then not R (premise) 4. S or T (premise) 5. not (S and T) (premise) 6. not P (premise) 7. P or ((Q and R) or ((S and T) or not S)), by Association (Disjunction) from line 1 8. (Q and R) or ((S and T) or not S), by Disjunctive S...
null
verified
checker
null
null
{"schema_version": 1, "pair_id": "pref:d868a4f16544d2ba", "source_item_id": "derivations.prove:8f831d804f6b42bd", "source_family": "derivations.prove", "construct": "construct:disjunctive-syllogism", "prompt": "Prove the goal from the premises. Number every line; for each derived line name the rule and cite the earlier...
pref:446f90dd135669e4
lemma-v1
lemma.derivations.prove
preference
train
Prove the goal from the premises. Number every line; for each derived line name the rule and cite the earlier lines it uses. Key: P = Leo misses the meeting; Q = the train is full; R = Sara buys tickets; S = the shop is open; T = Ana takes an umbrella. Premises: 1. (P or (Q and R)) or ((S and T) or not S) 2. not not R ...
1. (P or (Q and R)) or ((S and T) or not S) (premise) 2. not not R (premise) 3. if (Q and R) then not R (premise) 4. S or T (premise) 5. not (S and T) (premise) 6. not P (premise) 7. P or ((Q and R) or ((S and T) or not S)), by Association (Disjunction) from line 1 8. (Q and R) or ((S and T) or not S), by Disjunctive S...
null
verified
checker
null
null
{"schema_version": 1, "pair_id": "pref:446f90dd135669e4", "source_item_id": "derivations.prove:8f831d804f6b42bd", "source_family": "derivations.prove", "construct": "construct:disjunctive-syllogism", "prompt": "Prove the goal from the premises. Number every line; for each derived line name the rule and cite the earlier...
pref:55758de7e87035a0
lemma-v1
lemma.derivations.prove
preference
train
Prove the goal from the premises. Number every line; for each derived line name the rule and cite the earlier lines it uses. Key: P = Leo misses the meeting; Q = the train is full; R = Sara buys tickets; S = the shop is open; T = Ana takes an umbrella. Premises: 1. (P or (Q and R)) or ((S and T) or not S) 2. not not R ...
1. (P or (Q and R)) or ((S and T) or not S) (premise) 2. not not R (premise) 3. if (Q and R) then not R (premise) 4. S or T (premise) 5. not (S and T) (premise) 6. not P (premise) 7. P or ((Q and R) or ((S and T) or not S)), by Association (Disjunction) from line 1 8. (Q and R) or ((S and T) or not S), by Disjunctive S...
null
verified
checker
null
null
{"schema_version": 1, "pair_id": "pref:55758de7e87035a0", "source_item_id": "derivations.prove:8f831d804f6b42bd", "source_family": "derivations.prove", "construct": "construct:disjunctive-syllogism", "prompt": "Prove the goal from the premises. Number every line; for each derived line name the rule and cite the earlier...
pref:95fe5166b4d5bc54
lemma-v1
lemma.derivations.prove
preference
train
Prove the goal from the premises. Number every line; for each derived line name the rule and cite the earlier lines it uses. Key: P = Leo misses the meeting; Q = the train is full; R = Sara buys tickets; S = the shop is open; T = Ana takes an umbrella. Premises: 1. (P or (Q and R)) or ((S and T) or not S) 2. not not R ...
1. (P or (Q and R)) or ((S and T) or not S) (premise) 2. not not R (premise) 3. if (Q and R) then not R (premise) 4. S or T (premise) 5. not (S and T) (premise) 6. not P (premise) 7. P or ((Q and R) or ((S and T) or not S)), by Association (Disjunction) from line 1 8. (Q and R) or ((S and T) or not S), by Disjunctive S...
null
verified
checker
null
null
{"schema_version": 1, "pair_id": "pref:95fe5166b4d5bc54", "source_item_id": "derivations.prove:8f831d804f6b42bd", "source_family": "derivations.prove", "construct": "construct:disjunctive-syllogism", "prompt": "Prove the goal from the premises. Number every line; for each derived line name the rule and cite the earlier...
pref:775c2447d80b4890
lemma-v1
lemma.derivations.prove
preference
train
Prove the goal from the premises. Number every line; for each derived line name the rule and cite the earlier lines it uses. Key: P = Leo misses the meeting; Q = the train is full; R = Sara buys tickets; S = the shop is open; T = Ana takes an umbrella. Premises: 1. (P or (Q and R)) or ((S and T) or not S) 2. not not R ...
1. (P or (Q and R)) or ((S and T) or not S) (premise) 2. not not R (premise) 3. if (Q and R) then not R (premise) 4. S or T (premise) 5. not (S and T) (premise) 6. not P (premise) 7. P or ((Q and R) or ((S and T) or not S)), by Association (Disjunction) from line 1 8. (Q and R) or ((S and T) or not S), by Disjunctive S...
null
verified
checker
null
null
{"schema_version": 1, "pair_id": "pref:775c2447d80b4890", "source_item_id": "derivations.prove:8f831d804f6b42bd", "source_family": "derivations.prove", "construct": "construct:disjunctive-syllogism", "prompt": "Prove the goal from the premises. Number every line; for each derived line name the rule and cite the earlier...
pref:3a14a575136ca38c
lemma-v1
lemma.derivations.prove
preference
train
Prove the goal from the premises. Number every line; for each derived line name the rule and cite the earlier lines it uses. Premises: 1. the ice does not melt 2. the voltage does not drop 3. either (if the ice does not melt, then ((either the voltage does not drop or the ice does not melt) and the cells do not divide)...
1. the ice does not melt (premise) 2. the voltage does not drop (premise) 3. either (if the ice does not melt, then ((either the voltage does not drop or the ice does not melt) and the cells do not divide)) or the voltage drops (premise) 4. either the voltage drops or (if the ice does not melt, then ((either the voltag...
null
verified
checker
null
null
{"schema_version": 1, "pair_id": "pref:3a14a575136ca38c", "source_item_id": "derivations.prove:47c4ff066c1aa62d", "source_family": "derivations.prove", "construct": "construct:distribution-conjunction-over-disjunction", "prompt": "Prove the goal from the premises. Number every line; for each derived line name the rule ...
pref:00b2b3f533dbf941
lemma-v1
lemma.derivations.prove
preference
train
Prove the goal from the premises. Number every line; for each derived line name the rule and cite the earlier lines it uses. Premises: 1. the ice does not melt 2. the voltage does not drop 3. either (if the ice does not melt, then ((either the voltage does not drop or the ice does not melt) and the cells do not divide)...
1. the ice does not melt (premise) 2. the voltage does not drop (premise) 3. either (if the ice does not melt, then ((either the voltage does not drop or the ice does not melt) and the cells do not divide)) or the voltage drops (premise) 4. either the voltage drops or (if the ice does not melt, then ((either the voltag...
null
verified
checker
null
null
{"schema_version": 1, "pair_id": "pref:00b2b3f533dbf941", "source_item_id": "derivations.prove:47c4ff066c1aa62d", "source_family": "derivations.prove", "construct": "construct:distribution-conjunction-over-disjunction", "prompt": "Prove the goal from the premises. Number every line; for each derived line name the rule ...
pref:f51c8ed9bffa2c8a
lemma-v1
lemma.derivations.prove
preference
train
Prove the goal from the premises. Number every line; for each derived line name the rule and cite the earlier lines it uses. Premises: 1. the ice does not melt 2. the voltage does not drop 3. either (if the ice does not melt, then ((either the voltage does not drop or the ice does not melt) and the cells do not divide)...
1. the ice does not melt (premise) 2. the voltage does not drop (premise) 3. either (if the ice does not melt, then ((either the voltage does not drop or the ice does not melt) and the cells do not divide)) or the voltage drops (premise) 4. either the voltage drops or (if the ice does not melt, then ((either the voltag...
null
verified
checker
null
null
{"schema_version": 1, "pair_id": "pref:f51c8ed9bffa2c8a", "source_item_id": "derivations.prove:47c4ff066c1aa62d", "source_family": "derivations.prove", "construct": "construct:distribution-conjunction-over-disjunction", "prompt": "Prove the goal from the premises. Number every line; for each derived line name the rule ...
pref:18aa0db99d4a2b9b
lemma-v1
lemma.derivations.prove
preference
train
Prove the goal from the premises. Number every line; for each derived line name the rule and cite the earlier lines it uses. Premises: 1. the ice does not melt 2. the voltage does not drop 3. either (if the ice does not melt, then ((either the voltage does not drop or the ice does not melt) and the cells do not divide)...
1. the ice does not melt (premise) 2. the voltage does not drop (premise) 3. either (if the ice does not melt, then ((either the voltage does not drop or the ice does not melt) and the cells do not divide)) or the voltage drops (premise) 4. either the voltage drops or (if the ice does not melt, then ((either the voltag...
null
verified
checker
null
null
{"schema_version": 1, "pair_id": "pref:18aa0db99d4a2b9b", "source_item_id": "derivations.prove:47c4ff066c1aa62d", "source_family": "derivations.prove", "construct": "construct:distribution-conjunction-over-disjunction", "prompt": "Prove the goal from the premises. Number every line; for each derived line name the rule ...
pref:7599444815d0e56d
lemma-v1
lemma.derivations.prove
preference
train
Prove the goal from the premises. Number every line; for each derived line name the rule and cite the earlier lines it uses. Premises: 1. the ice does not melt 2. the voltage does not drop 3. either (if the ice does not melt, then ((either the voltage does not drop or the ice does not melt) and the cells do not divide)...
1. the ice does not melt (premise) 2. the voltage does not drop (premise) 3. either (if the ice does not melt, then ((either the voltage does not drop or the ice does not melt) and the cells do not divide)) or the voltage drops (premise) 4. either the voltage drops or (if the ice does not melt, then ((either the voltag...
null
verified
checker
null
null
{"schema_version": 1, "pair_id": "pref:7599444815d0e56d", "source_item_id": "derivations.prove:47c4ff066c1aa62d", "source_family": "derivations.prove", "construct": "construct:distribution-conjunction-over-disjunction", "prompt": "Prove the goal from the premises. Number every line; for each derived line name the rule ...
pref:55305fad17b2fcc9
lemma-v1
lemma.derivations.prove
preference
train
Prove the goal from the premises. Number every line; for each derived line name the rule and cite the earlier lines it uses. Premises: 1. the ice does not melt 2. the voltage does not drop 3. either (if the ice does not melt, then ((either the voltage does not drop or the ice does not melt) and the cells do not divide)...
1. the ice does not melt (premise) 2. the voltage does not drop (premise) 3. either (if the ice does not melt, then ((either the voltage does not drop or the ice does not melt) and the cells do not divide)) or the voltage drops (premise) 4. either the voltage drops or (if the ice does not melt, then ((either the voltag...
null
verified
checker
null
null
{"schema_version": 1, "pair_id": "pref:55305fad17b2fcc9", "source_item_id": "derivations.prove:47c4ff066c1aa62d", "source_family": "derivations.prove", "construct": "construct:distribution-conjunction-over-disjunction", "prompt": "Prove the goal from the premises. Number every line; for each derived line name the rule ...
pref:03554c034afd9001
lemma-v1
lemma.derivations.prove
preference
train
Prove the goal from the premises. Number every line; for each derived line name the rule and cite the earlier lines it uses. Premises: 1. either the kiki is not snarfy or ((the kiki is snarfy and the fep is tarpy) if and only if the zorb is frell) 2. the kiki is snarfy and the fep is tarpy 3. if the zorb is frell, then...
1. either the kiki is not snarfy or ((the kiki is snarfy and the fep is tarpy) if and only if the zorb is frell) (premise) 2. the kiki is snarfy and the fep is tarpy (premise) 3. if the zorb is frell, then (it is not the case that the kiki is not snarfy) (premise) 4. the gazzer is plimmed (premise) 5. if the gazzer is ...
null
verified
checker
null
null
{"schema_version": 1, "pair_id": "pref:03554c034afd9001", "source_item_id": "derivations.prove:2c619d6df0b6d278", "source_family": "derivations.prove", "construct": "construct:modus-ponens", "prompt": "Prove the goal from the premises. Number every line; for each derived line name the rule and cite the earlier lines it...
pref:fed5e05b1cac3ef9
lemma-v1
lemma.derivations.prove
preference
train
Prove the goal from the premises. Number every line; for each derived line name the rule and cite the earlier lines it uses. Premises: 1. either the kiki is not snarfy or ((the kiki is snarfy and the fep is tarpy) if and only if the zorb is frell) 2. the kiki is snarfy and the fep is tarpy 3. if the zorb is frell, then...
1. either the kiki is not snarfy or ((the kiki is snarfy and the fep is tarpy) if and only if the zorb is frell) (premise) 2. the kiki is snarfy and the fep is tarpy (premise) 3. if the zorb is frell, then (it is not the case that the kiki is not snarfy) (premise) 4. the gazzer is plimmed (premise) 5. if the gazzer is ...
null
verified
checker
null
null
{"schema_version": 1, "pair_id": "pref:fed5e05b1cac3ef9", "source_item_id": "derivations.prove:2c619d6df0b6d278", "source_family": "derivations.prove", "construct": "construct:modus-ponens", "prompt": "Prove the goal from the premises. Number every line; for each derived line name the rule and cite the earlier lines it...
End of preview. Expand in Data Studio

OpenLemma v0.1: verified preference pairs

74,862 chosen/rejected pairs for post-training. The chosen answers are complete, verified derivations; each rejected answer has a flaw that the checker constructed and proved (a wrong step, a missing justification, an invalid rule). They are not part of the pretraining documents. input is the prompt, answer the chosen response, and record holds both responses, the flaw and its proof.

Provenance and verification

Every row comes from OpenLemma (code: MIT; the documentation in docs/ covers every source).

  • Generation: procedural generators and gpt-6-luna (OpenAI, flex, reasoning effort low). Some upstream retrieval material was written by gpt-5.4-mini.
  • Auditing only: gpt-6-sol.
  • Checks:
    • verified: an independent checker, solver (axeyum), CAS route or truth table recomputed the answer;
    • constructed: the label is fixed by how the item was built (planted values, code corruptions, the sense a sentence was written for);
    • agreed: a model-proposed label that independent blind model checks agreed with, in a family whose gpt-6-sol audit is >= 95% (default) or 80-95% (extended, with audit_accuracy on every row);
    • prose: model-written explanatory text about verified facts.

Anti-copy packing. k-shot documents (k in {0, 1, 3, 8}) never reward copying the previous answer:

  • open answers are pairwise distinct;
  • label answers repeat the last demonstration's label only at the base rate 1/n, with labels balanced over the demonstrations;
  • copy traps and symbol labels appear on 10% of documents each.

Batches v0/v1 were originally packed so that "any label but the last one" was always right; this release repacks those families.

Plain text. Documents in default/extended contain no control tokens. ALEA-style <|start|>/<|end|> boundaries are added at tokenization. Reasoning glyphs (① ∴ ∵ ⊢ ● ⚠ …) are ordinary characters. The special_tokens config keeps the original ALEA control-token renderings for replication.

Token counts use the ALEA tokenizer alea-p1-prefix-16k.

Licence and attribution

CC-BY-4.0. Attribute OpenLemma (https://github.com/mjbommar/openlemma). Upstream sources:

  • axeyum (MIT OR Apache-2.0): curriculum, facts, scenarios, CAS and solver checks;
  • OpenGloss v2.4 (CC-BY-4.0): lexical seeds and grounding;
  • WordNet 3.0: rows derived from WordNet senses carry the WordNet licence, included as LICENSE-WordNet.txt;
  • alea-quality-model: the 93 foundational reasoning constructs.

Generated text was produced with OpenAI models and is subject to the provider's terms.

Known limitations

  • agreed labels are model-checked, not proven; read audit_accuracy and the per-family audits in the repository docs.
  • OpenGloss v2.4 has known defects (about 10% of common senses invalid, unreliable etymologies). Etymology tasks are excluded, and seed senses were validity-checked for the newer runs.
  • Two deontic constructs are thin (Permission Operator, Prohibition Operator).
  • This release was published before any model was trained on it. It makes no claim about downstream gains.

Citation

@misc{openlemma2026,
  title  = {OpenLemma: verified, bottom-up synthetic data for logic, reasoning, algorithms and language},
  author = {Bommarito, Michael J.},
  year   = {2026},
  note   = {Version 0.1},
  url    = {https://github.com/mjbommar/openlemma}
}
Downloads last month
57