Dataset Viewer
Auto-converted to Parquet Duplicate
id
string
tile_id
string
task
string
question
string
answer
string
answer_value
unknown
answer_type
string
rendered_target_value
string
decision_value
string
target_column
string
phrase_id
int64
split
string
training_target
string
target_format
string
response_instruction
string
C51:E56N23_x5672050_y2300050:p05
E56N23_x5672050_y2300050
C51
Please summarize monitoring priority for this area.
This area has no additional monitoring priority.
"none"
categorical
null
none
C51_monitoring_priority
5
train
This area has no additional monitoring priority.
natural
B31:E47N23_x4760050_y2306050:p15
E47N23_x4760050_y2306050
B31
What conclusion can be drawn about sinking tail velocity here?
The sinking-tail velocity is -1.50 mm/yr at the 10th percentile.
-1.5
numeric
-1.50
null
B31_velocity_p10_mm_yr
15
train
The sinking-tail velocity is -1.50 mm/yr at the 10th percentile.
natural
A21:E34N27_x3490050_y2718050:p17
E34N27_x3490050_y2718050
A21
How does this area look in terms of temporal reconstruction quality?
The reconstructed deformation history has a normalized mean-squared error of 0.050 z^2.
0.0500394776
numeric
0.050
null
A21_masked_global_mse_z
17
train
The reconstructed deformation history has a normalized mean-squared error of 0.050 z^2.
natural
X26:E57N14_x5790050_y1485850:p07
E57N14_x5790050_y1485850
X26
For this area, can you rank this exact area against every other possible location?
I cannot assign an open-ended rank such as the worst site in Europe without a defined comparison set and ranking method. I can report only the predefined relative severity and rarity classes.
"refusal"
refusal
null
refusal
X26_unsupported_ranking_superlative_refusal
7
train
I cannot assign an open-ended rank such as the worst site in Europe without a defined comparison set and ranking method. I can report only the predefined relative severity and rarity classes.
natural
S12:E44N27_x4478050_y2760050:p14
E44N27_x4478050_y2760050
S12
For a ground-motion screening report, how close is this area to its nearest reference profile?
The distance to the nearest reference profile is 0.093.
0.09293586
numeric
0.093
null
S12_reference_anchor_distance
14
train
The distance to the nearest reference profile is 0.093.
natural
B41:E56N17_x5642050_y1718050:p09
E56N17_x5642050_y1718050
B41
What is the result for acceleration strength in this area?
The acceleration magnitude is 0.550 mm/yr^2 at the 90th percentile.
0.5500000119
numeric
0.550
null
B41_acc_abs_p90
9
train
The acceleration magnitude is 0.550 mm/yr^2 at the 90th percentile.
natural
S32:E43N22_x4351950_y2284050:p06
E43N22_x4351950_y2284050
S32
What should I know about relationship between representation rarity and monitoring severity here?
Representation rarity and monitoring severity are closely aligned.
"aligned"
categorical
null
aligned
S32_representation_monitoring_rarity_relation
6
train
Representation rarity and monitoring severity are closely aligned.
natural
D35:E30N18_x3042050_y1824050:p09
E30N18_x3042050_y1824050
D35
What is the result for intensification hotspot location in this area?
The main intensification hotspot is not detected.
"none"
categorical
null
none
D35_intensification_hotspot_location
9
train
The main intensification hotspot is not detected.
natural
B35:E50N19_x5042050_y1930050:p12
E50N19_x5042050_y1930050
B35
What do the historical measurements show about worst-point significance?
The worst local motion has moderate statistical significance.
"moderate"
categorical
null
moderate
B35_worst_point_significance
12
train
The worst local motion has moderate statistical significance.
natural
C13:E53N20_x5354050_y2018050:p18
E53N20_x5354050_y2018050
C13
Please give the area-level result for location of the strongest moving bin.
The strongest moving part is in row 6, column 3 of the 8-by-8 monitoring grid.
"r5c2"
categorical
null
r5c2
C13_moving_bin_location
18
train
The strongest moving part is in row 6, column 3 of the 8-by-8 monitoring grid.
natural
S14:E49N29_x4906050_y2972050:p02
E49N29_x4906050_y2972050
S14
Based on the available deformation measurements, is the reference-profile assignment clear or borderline?
The reference-profile assignment is transitional or only weakly matched.
"transition_or_weakly_anchored"
categorical
null
transition_or_weakly_anchored
S14_reference_assignment_status
2
train
The reference-profile assignment is transitional or only weakly matched.
natural
B21:E35N31_x3584050_y3173050:p04
E35N31_x3584050_y3173050
B21
How would you assess mean vertical velocity in this area?
The mean vertical ground velocity is -1.27 mm/yr.
-1.2708892244
numeric
-1.27
null
B21_mean_velocity_mm_yr
4
train
The mean vertical ground velocity is -1.27 mm/yr.
natural
B31:E50N27_x5000050_y2766050:p11
E50N27_x5000050_y2766050
B31
Please report sinking tail velocity for this area.
The sinking-tail velocity is -0.700 mm/yr at the 10th percentile.
-0.6999999881
numeric
-0.700
null
B31_velocity_p10_mm_yr
11
train
The sinking-tail velocity is -0.700 mm/yr at the 10th percentile.
natural
C22:E29N20_x2900050_y2060050:p04
E29N20_x2900050_y2060050
C22
How would you assess motion concentration class in this area?
The deformation pattern is mildly concentrated.
"mildly_concentrated"
categorical
null
mildly_concentrated
C22_spatial_concentration_class
4
train
The deformation pattern is mildly concentrated.
natural
D24:E54N15_x5484450_y1553150:p12
E54N15_x5484450_y1553150
D24
What do the historical measurements show about seasonal amplitude change?
The change in seasonal deformation amplitude over the observation period is -0.036 mm.
-0.0357147574
numeric
-0.036
null
D24_seasonal_amplitude_change_mm
12
train
The change in seasonal deformation amplitude over the observation period is -0.036 mm.
natural
D35:E48N28_x4866050_y2812050:p18
E48N28_x4866050_y2812050
D35
Please give the area-level result for intensification hotspot location.
The main intensification hotspot is row 4, column 4 of the 8-by-8 monitoring grid.
"r3c3"
categorical
null
r3c3
D35_intensification_hotspot_location
18
train
The main intensification hotspot is row 4, column 4 of the 8-by-8 monitoring grid.
natural
D24:E34N23_x3400050_y2306050:p09
E34N23_x3400050_y2306050
D24
What is the result for seasonal amplitude change in this area?
The change in seasonal deformation amplitude over the observation period is 0.141 mm.
0.1409638224
numeric
0.141
null
D24_seasonal_amplitude_change_mm
9
train
The change in seasonal deformation amplitude over the observation period is 0.141 mm.
natural
D33:E39N28_x3948050_y2848050:p07
E39N28_x3948050_y2848050
D33
For monitoring purposes, how broadly is intensification distributed in the area?
The spatial spread of intensification is 0.340 mm/yr^2.
0.3399999849
numeric
0.340
null
D33_intensification_spread_mm_yr2
7
train
The spatial spread of intensification is 0.340 mm/yr^2.
natural
A21:E44N23_x4442050_y2378050:p00
E44N23_x4442050_y2378050
A21
How well can the historical deformation time series be reconstructed?
The reconstructed deformation history has a normalized mean-squared error of 0.091 z^2.
0.0911246166
numeric
0.091
null
A21_masked_global_mse_z
0
train
The reconstructed deformation history has a normalized mean-squared error of 0.091 z^2.
natural
B34:E36N31_x3618050_y3174950:p03
E36N31_x3618050_y3174950
B34
What does the deformation record indicate about uplift versus non-uplift direction?
The dominant vertical-motion direction is not uplift.
"non_uplift"
categorical
null
non_uplift
B34_uplift_protected_direction
3
train
The dominant vertical-motion direction is not uplift.
natural
D31:E43N28_x4306050_y2884050:p01
E43N28_x4306050_y2884050
D31
Could you tell me: is the ground motion intensifying recently?
Recent motion intensification is 0.030 mm/yr^2.
0.0299999993
numeric
0.030
null
D31_motion_intensification_mm_yr2
1
train
Recent motion intensification is 0.030 mm/yr^2.
natural
S31:E35N26_x3584050_y2630050:p15
E35N26_x3584050_y2630050
S31
What conclusion can be drawn about gap between representation rarity and monitoring severity here?
The signed percentile gap between representation rarity and monitoring severity is -51.084.
-51.084
numeric
-51.084
null
S31_representation_monitoring_rarity_gap_p
15
train
The signed percentile gap between representation rarity and monitoring severity is -51.084.
natural
A51:E39N28_x3906050_y2884050:p18
E39N28_x3906050_y2884050
A51
Please give the area-level result for monitoring usability.
This tile is usable for monitoring.
"usable"
categorical
null
usable
A51_monitoring_usability_class
18
train
This tile is usable for monitoring.
natural
B32:E47N20_x4766050_y2090050:p17
E47N20_x4766050_y2090050
B32
How does this area look in terms of upper-tail vertical velocity?
The upper-tail vertical velocity is -0.500 mm/yr.
-0.5
numeric
-0.500
null
B32_velocity_p90_mm_yr
17
train
The upper-tail vertical velocity is -0.500 mm/yr.
natural
D12:E36N23_x3624050_y2360050:p10
E36N23_x3624050_y2360050
D12
How should trend curvature strength be described here?
The long-term trend curvature strength is 0.044.
0.043590638
numeric
0.044
null
D12_curvature_strength
10
train
The long-term trend curvature strength is 0.044.
natural
S31:E63N16_x6353950_y1606050:p05
E63N16_x6353950_y1606050
S31
Please summarize gap between representation rarity and monitoring severity for this area.
The signed percentile gap between representation rarity and monitoring severity is -2.549.
-2.54925
numeric
-2.549
null
S31_representation_monitoring_rarity_gap_p
5
train
The signed percentile gap between representation rarity and monitoring severity is -2.549.
natural
X11:E45N33_x4584050_y3396050:p14
E45N33_x4584050_y3396050
X11
Can you answer this from the EGMS record: what is the cause of the deformation in this area?
I cannot determine the cause from deformation measurements alone. They describe how the ground moved, while causal attribution requires external evidence such as geology, groundwater, construction, or mining records.
"refusal"
refusal
null
refusal
X11_causal_attribution_refusal
14
train
I cannot determine the cause from deformation measurements alone. They describe how the ground moved, while causal attribution requires external evidence such as geology, groundwater, construction, or mining records.
natural
S12:E39N32_x3990050_y3290050:p19
E39N32_x3990050_y3290050
S12
From a monitoring perspective, how close is this area to its nearest reference profile?
The distance to the nearest reference profile is 0.497.
0.49703634
numeric
0.497
null
S12_reference_anchor_distance
19
train
The distance to the nearest reference profile is 0.497.
natural
D42:E34N38_x3454050_y3806050:p10
E34N38_x3454050_y3806050
D42
How should temporal evolution pattern be described here?
The temporal evolution is a mixture of trend and acceleration.
"trend_acceleration_mixed"
categorical
null
trend_acceleration_mixed
D42_temporal_evolution_archetype
10
train
The temporal evolution is a mixture of trend and acceleration.
natural
S33:E33N34_x3375250_y3448050:p06
E33N34_x3375250_y3448050
S33
What should I know about most distinctive monitoring dimension here?
The area is most distinctive in its spatial behavior.
"spatial"
categorical
null
spatial
S33_monitoring_distinctive_dimension
6
train
The area is most distinctive in its spatial behavior.
natural
B33:E33N19_x3366050_y1942050:p11
E33N19_x3366050_y1942050
B33
Please report strongest local motion magnitude for this area.
The absolute vertical velocity is 2.80 mm/yr at the 90th percentile.
2.8
numeric
2.80
null
B33_vel_abs_p90_mm_yr
11
train
The absolute vertical velocity is 2.80 mm/yr at the 90th percentile.
natural
B36:E30N20_x3018050_y2066050:p07
E30N20_x3018050_y2066050
B36
For monitoring purposes, how unusual is this area's velocity compared with the European background?
The area's vertical velocity is within the lower part of the typical European range.
"typ_low"
categorical
null
typ_low
B36_european_velocity_typicality
7
train
The area's vertical velocity is within the lower part of the typical European range.
natural
A21:E41N24_x4136050_y2484050:p10
E41N24_x4136050_y2484050
A21
How should temporal reconstruction quality be described here?
The reconstructed deformation history has a normalized mean-squared error of 0.159 z^2.
0.1589402407
numeric
0.159
null
A21_masked_global_mse_z
10
train
The reconstructed deformation history has a normalized mean-squared error of 0.159 z^2.
natural
X25:E56N25_x5630050_y2596050:p10
E56N25_x5630050_y2596050
X25
Can you answer this from the EGMS record: what is happening in this area today?
I cannot report live conditions beyond the historical observation period because these measurements are not a real-time feed. I can describe what was observed during the available period.
"refusal"
refusal
null
refusal
X25_live_status_refusal
10
train
I cannot report live conditions beyond the historical observation period because these measurements are not a real-time feed. I can describe what was observed during the available period.
natural
D11:E33N21_x3372050_y2190050:p15
E33N21_x3372050_y2190050
D11
What conclusion can be drawn about long-term trend shape here?
The long-term deformation follows an approximately linear trend.
"linear_trend"
categorical
null
linear_trend
D11_long_term_trend_shape
15
train
The long-term deformation follows an approximately linear trend.
natural
B41:E32N16_x3242050_y1609650:p07
E32N16_x3242050_y1609650
B41
For monitoring purposes, how strong is the recent acceleration signal?
The acceleration magnitude is 0.490 mm/yr^2 at the 90th percentile.
0.4900000095
numeric
0.490
null
B41_acc_abs_p90
7
train
The acceleration magnitude is 0.490 mm/yr^2 at the 90th percentile.
natural
C13:E35N35_x3530050_y3566050:p13
E35N35_x3530050_y3566050
C13
Can you assess location of the strongest moving bin from this area's deformation record?
The strongest moving part is in row 4, column 8 of the 8-by-8 monitoring grid.
"r3c7"
categorical
null
r3c7
C13_moving_bin_location
13
train
The strongest moving part is in row 4, column 8 of the 8-by-8 monitoring grid.
natural
D13:E47N19_x4778050_y1978050:p01
E47N19_x4778050_y1978050
D13
Could you tell me: how confident is the strongest detected change point?
The strongest detected change point has a confidence score of 0.148.
0.1481760512
numeric
0.148
null
D13_changepoint_strength
1
train
The strongest detected change point has a confidence score of 0.148.
natural
A41:E29N18_x2936050_y1818050:p15
E29N18_x2936050_y1818050
A41
What conclusion can be drawn about measurement noise here?
The median measurement uncertainty is 1.30 mm.
1.3
numeric
1.30
null
A41_median_rmse_mm
15
train
The median measurement uncertainty is 1.30 mm.
natural
D42:E51N18_x5168750_y1884550:p19
E51N18_x5168750_y1884550
D42
From a monitoring perspective, what overall time-evolution pattern does this area show?
The temporal evolution is a mixture of seasonal motion and acceleration.
"seasonal_acceleration_mixed"
categorical
null
seasonal_acceleration_mixed
D42_temporal_evolution_archetype
19
train
The temporal evolution is a mixture of seasonal motion and acceleration.
natural
D33:E37N27_x3712050_y2790050:p01
E37N27_x3712050_y2790050
D33
Could you tell me: how broadly is intensification distributed in the area?
The spatial spread of intensification is 0.350 mm/yr^2.
0.34999999400000004
numeric
0.350
null
D33_intensification_spread_mm_yr2
1
train
The spatial spread of intensification is 0.350 mm/yr^2.
natural
D42:E41N33_x4142050_y3378050:p08
E41N33_x4142050_y3378050
D42
Looking at the observed ground motion, what overall time-evolution pattern does this area show?
The temporal evolution is dominated by seasonal motion with inconsistent phase.
"incoherent_seasonal_dominated"
categorical
null
incoherent_seasonal_dominated
D42_temporal_evolution_archetype
8
train
The temporal evolution is dominated by seasonal motion with inconsistent phase.
natural
B12:E36N23_x3624050_y2312050:p01
E36N23_x3624050_y2312050
B12
Could you tell me: does this area show a clear average subsidence signal?
This area shows a clear average subsidence signal.
"clear_subsidence"
categorical
null
clear_subsidence
B12_clear_subsidence_class
1
train
This area shows a clear average subsidence signal.
natural
D33:E46N27_x4600050_y2706050:p11
E46N27_x4600050_y2706050
D33
Please report spread of intensification for this area.
The spatial spread of intensification is 0.747 mm/yr^2.
0.7469999999
numeric
0.747
null
D33_intensification_spread_mm_yr2
11
train
The spatial spread of intensification is 0.747 mm/yr^2.
natural
S41:E44N24_x4406050_y2400050:p13
E44N24_x4406050_y2400050
S41
Can you assess learned local-structure strength from this area's deformation record?
The learned local-structure strength is 0.121.
0.1213065765
numeric
0.121
null
S41_encoder_perceived_local_structure_strength
13
train
The learned local-structure strength is 0.121.
natural
B12:E37N18_x3742050_y1869850:p05
E37N18_x3742050_y1869850
B12
Please summarize clear average subsidence for this area.
This area shows a clear average subsidence signal.
"clear_subsidence"
categorical
null
clear_subsidence
B12_clear_subsidence_class
5
train
This area shows a clear average subsidence signal.
natural
X32:E39N24_x3912050_y2424050:p19
E39N24_x3912050_y2424050
X32
A monitoring user asks, "Does the representation show what caused the deformation?" What should you say?
I cannot use representation similarity, profile membership, or rarity as proof of a real-world cause. Those quantities describe learned patterns, not causal mechanisms.
"refusal"
refusal
null
refusal
X32_representation_causality_refusal
19
train
I cannot use representation similarity, profile membership, or rarity as proof of a real-world cause. Those quantities describe learned patterns, not causal mechanisms.
natural
S21:E32N19_x3218050_y1972050:p17
E32N19_x3218050_y1972050
S21
How does this area look in terms of representation isolation?
The representation isolation score is 0.081.
0.0808863789
numeric
0.081
null
S21_local_isolation_score
17
train
The representation isolation score is 0.081.
natural
B11:E27N18_x2706050_y1806050:p05
E27N18_x2706050_y1806050
B11
Please summarize average subsidence signal strength for this area.
The average subsidence signal-to-noise ratio is 1.23.
1.2334280748
numeric
1.23
null
B11_subsidence_snr
5
train
The average subsidence signal-to-noise ratio is 1.23.
natural
B51:E28N20_x2884050_y2018050:p00
E28N20_x2884050_y2018050
B51
How strong is the seasonal deformation component?
The seasonal deformation amplitude is 1.00 mm at the 90th percentile.
1
numeric
1.00
null
B51_seasonality_p90
0
train
The seasonal deformation amplitude is 1.00 mm at the 90th percentile.
natural
C33:E44N33_x4436050_y3336050:p08
E44N33_x4436050_y3336050
C33
Looking at the observed ground motion, how sharp is the deformation front?
The strongest deformation front is moderately sharp.
"moderate"
categorical
null
moderate
C33_deformation_front_strength_class
8
train
The strongest deformation front is moderately sharp.
natural
D21:E46N28_x4648050_y2800050:p16
E46N28_x4648050_y2800050
D21
Using the available observations, in which season does the deformation cycle peak?
The seasonal deformation has no clear seasonal peak.
"no_clear_seasonal_peak"
categorical
null
no_clear_seasonal_peak
D21_dominant_seasonal_peak
16
train
The seasonal deformation has no clear seasonal peak.
natural
D33:E48N19_x4872050_y1990050:p13
E48N19_x4872050_y1990050
D33
Can you assess spread of intensification from this area's deformation record?
This result is not available for this area because the measurements do not meet the requirements for this calculation.
"__not_available__"
missing
null
not_available
D33_intensification_spread_mm_yr2
13
train
This result is not available for this area because the measurements do not meet the requirements for this calculation.
natural
A11:E35N17_x3565250_y1794250:p02
E35N17_x3565250_y1794250
A11
Based on the available deformation measurements, how sensitive is the area summary if some radar points are missing?
The normalized angular change in the area summary after removing most observations is 0.00398.
0.0039810185
numeric
0.00398
null
A11_global_angular_drift
2
train
The normalized angular change in the area summary after removing most observations is 0.00398.
natural
B22:E30N23_x3024050_y2342050:p19
E30N23_x3024050_y2342050
B22
From a monitoring perspective, how severe is the average subsidence in this area?
Average vertical motion is in the middle severity band.
"mid"
categorical
null
mid
B22_mean_subsidence_intensity_band
19
train
Average vertical motion is in the middle severity band.
natural
C11:E30N23_x3066050_y2324050:p16
E30N23_x3066050_y2324050
C11
Using the available observations, what fraction of the observed points are moving beyond noise?
The fraction of observed points moving beyond their noise level is 0.543.
0.543470483
numeric
0.543
null
C11_noise_aware_moving_fraction
16
train
The fraction of observed points moving beyond their noise level is 0.543.
natural
C21:E54N22_x5460050_y2272050:p00
E54N22_x5460050_y2272050
C21
How concentrated is the deformation pattern?
The spatial concentration score is 0.187, with larger values indicating more localized motion.
0.1865380953
numeric
0.187
null
C21_spatial_concentration_score
0
train
The spatial concentration score is 0.187, with larger values indicating more localized motion.
natural
D14:E46N29_x4612050_y2990050:p06
E46N29_x4612050_y2990050
D14
What should I know about timing of the strongest change point here?
This result is not available for this area because the measurements do not meet the requirements for this calculation.
"__not_available__"
missing
null
not_available
D14_dominant_changepoint_time_year
6
train
This result is not available for this area because the measurements do not meet the requirements for this calculation.
natural
A21:E41N30_x4148050_y3024050:p09
E41N30_x4148050_y3024050
A21
What is the result for temporal reconstruction quality in this area?
The reconstructed deformation history has a normalized mean-squared error of 0.035 z^2.
0.035433027900000004
numeric
0.035
null
A21_masked_global_mse_z
9
train
The reconstructed deformation history has a normalized mean-squared error of 0.035 z^2.
natural
A32:E52N19_x5236050_y1906050:p16
E52N19_x5236050_y1906050
A32
Using the available observations, is the radar point coverage dense enough for monitoring?
Radar observations are well spread across the area.
"well_spread"
categorical
null
well_spread
A32_spatial_coverage_class
16
train
Radar observations are well spread across the area.
natural
X26:E52N26_x5242050_y2624050:p19
E52N26_x5242050_y2624050
X26
A monitoring user asks, "Where does this tile rank globally among all assets?" What should you say?
I cannot assign an open-ended rank such as the worst site in Europe without a defined comparison set and ranking method. I can report only the predefined relative severity and rarity classes.
"refusal"
refusal
null
refusal
X26_unsupported_ranking_superlative_refusal
19
train
I cannot assign an open-ended rank such as the worst site in Europe without a defined comparison set and ranking method. I can report only the predefined relative severity and rarity classes.
natural
X32:E31N21_x3184050_y2148050:p02
E31N21_x3184050_y2148050
X32
Does the anchor assignment prove a physical mechanism?
I cannot use representation similarity, profile membership, or rarity as proof of a real-world cause. Those quantities describe learned patterns, not causal mechanisms.
"refusal"
refusal
null
refusal
X32_representation_causality_refusal
2
train
I cannot use representation similarity, profile membership, or rarity as proof of a real-world cause. Those quantities describe learned patterns, not causal mechanisms.
natural
B34:E45N33_x4590050_y3378050:p02
E45N33_x4590050_y3378050
B34
Based on the available deformation measurements, is this area mainly uplift or non-uplift?
The dominant vertical-motion direction is not uplift.
"non_uplift"
categorical
null
non_uplift
B34_uplift_protected_direction
2
train
The dominant vertical-motion direction is not uplift.
natural
D33:E43N32_x4336050_y3224050:p18
E43N32_x4336050_y3224050
D33
Please give the area-level result for spread of intensification.
The spatial spread of intensification is 0.420 mm/yr^2.
0.4200000018
numeric
0.420
null
D33_intensification_spread_mm_yr2
18
train
The spatial spread of intensification is 0.420 mm/yr^2.
natural
D35:E46N31_x4636050_y3154050:p03
E46N31_x4636050_y3154050
D35
What does the deformation record indicate about intensification hotspot location?
The main intensification hotspot is row 8, column 7 of the 8-by-8 monitoring grid.
"r7c6"
categorical
null
r7c6
D35_intensification_hotspot_location
3
train
The main intensification hotspot is row 8, column 7 of the 8-by-8 monitoring grid.
natural
A42:E41N33_x4112050_y3360050:p01
E41N33_x4112050_y3360050
A42
Could you tell me: is the measurement noise low or high?
Measurement noise is low.
"low_noise"
categorical
null
low_noise
A42_noise_level_class
1
train
Measurement noise is low.
natural
D33:E44N23_x4436050_y2306050:p00
E44N23_x4436050_y2306050
D33
How broadly is intensification distributed in the area?
This result is not available for this area because the measurements do not meet the requirements for this calculation.
"__not_available__"
missing
null
not_available
D33_intensification_spread_mm_yr2
0
train
This result is not available for this area because the measurements do not meet the requirements for this calculation.
natural
B35:E42N31_x4242050_y3124050:p03
E42N31_x4242050_y3124050
B35
What does the deformation record indicate about worst-point significance?
The worst local motion has very low statistical significance.
"very_low"
categorical
null
very_low
B35_worst_point_significance
3
train
The worst local motion has very low statistical significance.
natural
C32:E18N9_x1806050_y0962250:p15
E18N9_x1806050_y0962250
C32
What conclusion can be drawn about deformation front location here?
The strongest deformation front lies between row 5, column 4 and row 6, column 4 of the 8-by-8 monitoring grid.
"r4c3-r5c3"
categorical
null
r4c3-r5c3
C32_front_location
15
train
The strongest deformation front lies between row 5, column 4 and row 6, column 4 of the 8-by-8 monitoring grid.
natural
D21:E42N34_x4223850_y3406050:p09
E42N34_x4223850_y3406050
D21
What is the result for seasonal peak timing in this area?
The seasonal deformation peaks in summer.
"summer_peak"
categorical
null
summer_peak
D21_dominant_seasonal_peak
9
train
The seasonal deformation peaks in summer.
natural
B41:E38N29_x3860050_y2900050:p02
E38N29_x3860050_y2900050
B41
Based on the available deformation measurements, how strong is the recent acceleration signal?
The acceleration magnitude is 0.705 mm/yr^2 at the 90th percentile.
0.7049999833
numeric
0.705
null
B41_acc_abs_p90
2
train
The acceleration magnitude is 0.705 mm/yr^2 at the 90th percentile.
natural
S33:E44N24_x4406050_y2400050:p04
E44N24_x4406050_y2400050
S33
How would you assess most distinctive monitoring dimension in this area?
The area is most distinctive in its spatial behavior.
"spatial"
categorical
null
spatial
S33_monitoring_distinctive_dimension
4
train
The area is most distinctive in its spatial behavior.
natural
A12:E57N26_x5742050_y2600050:p19
E57N26_x5742050_y2600050
A12
From a monitoring perspective, is the area summary stable enough to trust?
The area summary is stable when observations are removed.
"stable"
categorical
null
stable
A12_representation_stability_class
19
train
The area summary is stable when observations are removed.
natural
D21:E56N27_x5654050_y2706050:p01
E56N27_x5654050_y2706050
D21
Could you tell me: in which season does the deformation cycle peak?
The seasonal deformation peaks in spring.
"spring_peak"
categorical
null
spring_peak
D21_dominant_seasonal_peak
1
train
The seasonal deformation peaks in spring.
natural
S43:E53N23_x5384750_y2306050:p08
E53N23_x5384750_y2306050
S43
Looking at the observed ground motion, how concentrated is the learned local structure?
The learned local structure has a concentration score of 0.156.
0.15558814270000002
numeric
0.156
null
S43_encoder_perceived_local_structure_concentration
8
train
The learned local structure has a concentration score of 0.156.
natural
S33:E38N28_x3878050_y2896050:p06
E38N28_x3878050_y2896050
S33
What should I know about most distinctive monitoring dimension here?
The area is most distinctive in its spatial behavior.
"spatial"
categorical
null
spatial
S33_monitoring_distinctive_dimension
6
train
The area is most distinctive in its spatial behavior.
natural
B32:E45N32_x4524050_y3272050:p17
E45N32_x4524050_y3272050
B32
How does this area look in terms of upper-tail vertical velocity?
The upper-tail vertical velocity is -0.100 mm/yr.
-0.1000000015
numeric
-0.100
null
B32_velocity_p90_mm_yr
17
train
The upper-tail vertical velocity is -0.100 mm/yr.
natural
B41:E58N16_x5842050_y1666050:p18
E58N16_x5842050_y1666050
B41
Please give the area-level result for acceleration strength.
The acceleration magnitude is 0.580 mm/yr^2 at the 90th percentile.
0.5799999833
numeric
0.580
null
B41_acc_abs_p90
18
train
The acceleration magnitude is 0.580 mm/yr^2 at the 90th percentile.
natural
D14:E47N15_x4748050_y1523650:p11
E47N15_x4748050_y1523650
D14
Please report timing of the strongest change point for this area.
This result is not available for this area because the measurements do not meet the requirements for this calculation.
"__not_available__"
missing
null
not_available
D14_dominant_changepoint_time_year
11
train
This result is not available for this area because the measurements do not meet the requirements for this calculation.
natural
B34:E12N22_x1285650_y2256050:p10
E12N22_x1285650_y2256050
B34
How should uplift versus non-uplift direction be described here?
The dominant vertical-motion direction is not uplift.
"non_uplift"
categorical
null
non_uplift
B34_uplift_protected_direction
10
train
The dominant vertical-motion direction is not uplift.
natural
S41:E36N33_x3618050_y3396050:p05
E36N33_x3618050_y3396050
S41
Please summarize learned local-structure strength for this area.
The learned local-structure strength is 0.114.
0.1144921658
numeric
0.114
null
S41_encoder_perceived_local_structure_strength
5
train
The learned local-structure strength is 0.114.
natural
S41:E20N10_x2018050_y1025650:p05
E20N10_x2018050_y1025650
S41
Please summarize learned local-structure strength for this area.
The learned local-structure strength is 0.244.
0.2444888114
numeric
0.244
null
S41_encoder_perceived_local_structure_strength
5
train
The learned local-structure strength is 0.244.
natural
D12:E31N16_x3112050_y1685250:p04
E31N16_x3112050_y1685250
D12
How would you assess trend curvature strength in this area?
The long-term trend curvature strength is 0.001.
0.0014125203000000001
numeric
0.001
null
D12_curvature_strength
4
train
The long-term trend curvature strength is 0.001.
natural
D23:E39N32_x3954050_y3254050:p14
E39N32_x3954050_y3254050
D23
For a ground-motion screening report, how spread out are the seasonal phases across the area?
The seasonal phases have a spread of 73.2 days.
73.1549239215
numeric
73.2
null
D23_phase_dispersion_days
14
train
The seasonal phases have a spread of 73.2 days.
natural
S41:E50N29_x5060050_y2930050:p02
E50N29_x5060050_y2930050
S41
Based on the available deformation measurements, how much local deformation structure stands out in this area?
The learned local-structure strength is 0.159.
0.1591734653
numeric
0.159
null
S41_encoder_perceived_local_structure_strength
2
train
The learned local-structure strength is 0.159.
natural
X12:E40N30_x4072050_y3078050:p16
E40N30_x4072050_y3078050
X12
A monitoring user asks, "Is the deformation going to get worse in the future?" What should you say?
I cannot forecast what will happen after the observation period from these historical measurements alone. I can describe the observed trend, seasonal behavior, change points, and recent acceleration.
"refusal"
refusal
null
refusal
X12_future_forecast_refusal
16
train
I cannot forecast what will happen after the observation period from these historical measurements alone. I can describe the observed trend, seasonal behavior, change points, and recent acceleration.
natural
D14:E36N22_x3666050_y2278050:p17
E36N22_x3666050_y2278050
D14
How does this area look in terms of timing of the strongest change point?
This result is not available for this area because the measurements do not meet the requirements for this calculation.
"__not_available__"
missing
null
not_available
D14_dominant_changepoint_time_year
17
train
This result is not available for this area because the measurements do not meet the requirements for this calculation.
natural
B12:E43N34_x4390050_y3478050:p16
E43N34_x4390050_y3478050
B12
Using the available observations, does this area show a clear average subsidence signal?
This area does not show a clear average subsidence signal.
"no_clear_subsidence"
categorical
null
no_clear_subsidence
B12_clear_subsidence_class
16
train
This area does not show a clear average subsidence signal.
natural
A42:E57N14_x5736050_y1491850:p15
E57N14_x5736050_y1491850
A42
What conclusion can be drawn about noise level here?
Measurement noise is low.
"low_noise"
categorical
null
low_noise
A42_noise_level_class
15
train
Measurement noise is low.
natural
S14:E38N26_x3806050_y2630050:p14
E38N26_x3806050_y2630050
S14
For a ground-motion screening report, is the reference-profile assignment clear or borderline?
The reference-profile assignment is transitional or only weakly matched.
"transition_or_weakly_anchored"
categorical
null
transition_or_weakly_anchored
S14_reference_assignment_status
14
train
The reference-profile assignment is transitional or only weakly matched.
natural
B36:E46N22_x4618050_y2236050:p16
E46N22_x4618050_y2236050
B36
Using the available observations, how unusual is this area's velocity compared with the European background?
The area's vertical velocity is within the lower part of the typical European range.
"typ_low"
categorical
null
typ_low
B36_european_velocity_typicality
16
train
The area's vertical velocity is within the lower part of the typical European range.
natural
X15:E51N26_x5100050_y2666050:p03
E51N26_x5100050_y2666050
X15
What construction action should authorities take?
I cannot recommend an engineering intervention or operational action from these monitoring results alone. An appropriate response requires site-specific investigation and professional engineering judgment.
"refusal"
refusal
null
refusal
X15_intervention_recommendation_refusal
3
train
I cannot recommend an engineering intervention or operational action from these monitoring results alone. An appropriate response requires site-specific investigation and professional engineering judgment.
natural
B32:E54N27_x5430050_y2784050:p15
E54N27_x5430050_y2784050
B32
What conclusion can be drawn about upper-tail vertical velocity here?
The upper-tail vertical velocity is -0.300 mm/yr.
-0.30000001190000003
numeric
-0.300
null
B32_velocity_p90_mm_yr
15
train
The upper-tail vertical velocity is -0.300 mm/yr.
natural
B12:E54N17_x5436050_y1706050:p07
E54N17_x5436050_y1706050
B12
For monitoring purposes, does this area show a clear average subsidence signal?
This area does not show a clear average subsidence signal.
"no_clear_subsidence"
categorical
null
no_clear_subsidence
B12_clear_subsidence_class
7
train
This area does not show a clear average subsidence signal.
natural
C22:E27N23_x2790250_y2348050:p05
E27N23_x2790250_y2348050
C22
Please summarize motion concentration class for this area.
The deformation pattern is diffuse.
"diffuse"
categorical
null
diffuse
C22_spatial_concentration_class
5
train
The deformation pattern is diffuse.
natural
A31:E32N22_x3212050_y2290050:p16
E32N22_x3212050_y2290050
A31
Using the available observations, how well do the radar points cover the area?
The spatial coverage fraction is 1.000 across the 8-by-8 monitoring grid.
1
numeric
1.000
null
A31_valid_bin_fraction_8x8
16
train
The spatial coverage fraction is 1.000 across the 8-by-8 monitoring grid.
natural
C52:E42N29_x4236050_y2900050:p14
E42N29_x4236050_y2900050
C52
For a ground-motion screening report, is there a local risk that the average motion would hide?
The average motion does not appear to hide a localized high-motion area.
"no"
categorical
null
no
C52_hidden_local_risk
14
train
The average motion does not appear to hide a localized high-motion area.
natural
D21:E40N29_x4090050_y2906050:p11
E40N29_x4090050_y2906050
D21
Please report seasonal peak timing for this area.
The seasonal deformation peaks in summer.
"summer_peak"
categorical
null
summer_peak
D21_dominant_seasonal_peak
11
train
The seasonal deformation peaks in summer.
natural
S41:E34N32_x3406050_y3272050:p00
E34N32_x3406050_y3272050
S41
How much local deformation structure stands out in this area?
The learned local-structure strength is 0.165.
0.1648173896
numeric
0.165
null
S41_encoder_perceived_local_structure_strength
0
train
The learned local-structure strength is 0.165.
natural
C52:E42N32_x4230050_y3230050:p19
E42N32_x4230050_y3230050
C52
From a monitoring perspective, is there a local risk that the average motion would hide?
The average motion does not appear to hide a localized high-motion area.
"no"
categorical
null
no
C52_hidden_local_risk
19
train
The average motion does not appear to hide a localized high-motion area.
natural
End of preview. Expand in Data Studio

EGMS-QA Dataset

Natural-language question–answer records over European Ground Motion Service (EGMS) displacement time series. The release includes the prepared tiles, encoder tokens, labels, reference tables, and metadata behind those records.

Use the data

Read the published records with the QA example below. For code installation, label reconstruction, and new QA generation, use the GitHub QA construction guide. The Encoder and Translator repositories provide the associated model weights and recipes.

QA use

Install a current version of datasets:

pip install -U datasets

Read a QA record without downloading the full release:

from datasets import load_dataset

qa = load_dataset("risenyard/egms-qa-dataset", streaming=True)
print(next(iter(qa["test"])))

The default configuration exposes the three QA splits. Streaming reads records on demand. Omit streaming=True to download the QA splits. Source tiles and model artifacts are separate from this QA loading configuration.

QA records

HF split record split value tiles QA records
train train 8,000 554,000
validation val 1,000 68,200
test test 1,000 68,200

Each record pairs a tile and task with a question phrasing and reference answer. Task definitions are listed in the GitHub task catalog.

field meaning
id record identifier combining task, tile, and phrasing
tile_id, split source tile and its fixed split assignment
task, target_column task identifier and corresponding reference-table column
question, answer visible natural-language question and reference answer
answer_type numeric, categorical, refusal, or missing
answer_value underlying target value or marker; its type depends on answer_type
rendered_target_value, decision_value formatted numeric value or categorical decision used for rendering
phrase_id identifier of the selected question phrasing
training_target, target_format, response_instruction supervision text and response-format metadata

The files in data/qa/ are the fixed published splits. The GitHub generator can render additional corpora from the released labels and approved phrasings.

Release layers

path role
data/qa/ train, validation, and test QA JSONL files
artifacts/source_tiles/ 10,000 model-ready 7 km tiles in NPZ format
artifacts/representations/ egms_tokens_10k.pt cache and metadata, with 65×256 tokens per tile
artifacts/labels/ target table and metadata for the token-dependent tasks
artifacts/reference_tables/ per-group reference tables and frozen S3 temporal inputs
metadata/ data configuration, normalization, splits, audits, and integrity records

The GitHub installation workflow downloads the full release and maps it to the runtime paths used by the code.

Source-tile contract

The NPZ files contain processed measurements from the EGMS Level-3 Ortho Vertical product for 2019–2023.

array contents
coords [N,2] EPSG:3035 easting and northing
time_series [N,294] model-ready vertical displacement in millimeters
pid [N] persistent-scatterer identifiers
bbox [4] tile bounding box

Auxiliary fields include height, RMSE, mean velocity, acceleration, seasonality, and their uncertainty fields. The encoder consumes stored indices [0,294), which correspond exactly to [8,302) on the 304-step source-preparation axis. The data config preserves the source offset and six-day cadence.

The split is fixed at tile level. Tiles overlap, so a persistent-scatterer ID may occur in more than one tile.

Reference tables

Each task group has a <group>_final_table.csv under artifacts/reference_tables/<group>/. The task implementation index links the definitions and computational methods.

S3 also uses frozen temporal inputs and their metadata. These contain posterior trend order and changepoint probability estimated with BEAST and define the temporal inputs to the published S3 targets. The S3 method documents their provenance and the variability of newly fitted estimates.

Normalization contract

metadata/normalization.json records the displacement mean, standard deviation, and linear-detrended residual standard deviation. They were fitted on the 8,000 training tiles over the stored [0,294) window. The identical file is provided with the released encoder.

Integrity

metadata/files.sha256 lists checksums for the released files. It excludes itself, metadata/release_manifest.json, and the Hub-managed .gitattributes. The release manifest summarizes the inventory and record counts, while the tile manifest records tile paths and hashes. Verification commands are in the GitHub setup guide.

Provenance, terms, and limitations

Generated using European Union's Copernicus Land Monitoring Service information; https://doi.org/10.2909/4a14a29b-7db7-40e4-81ad-df3aa8dfbc6f

The EGMS measurements were selected, arranged into overlapping 7 km research tiles, and combined with EGMS-QA-created labels and questions. This is not an official EU, EEA, Copernicus, or EGMS product; no endorsement is implied.

The QA records, derived labels/tables, and token cache are CC-BY-4.0. The Copernicus-derived measurements retain the CLMS attribution and modification conditions. See DATA_TERMS.md and SOURCE_PROVENANCE.md.

The data describe measured deformation histories. They do not establish cause, forecast future motion, certify structural safety, or replace expert InSAR and geotechnical assessment.

Downloads last month
141

Models trained or fine-tuned on risenyard/egms-qa-dataset

Collection including risenyard/egms-qa-dataset