diff --git a/resources_servers/reasoning_gym/README.md b/resources_servers/reasoning_gym/README.md new file mode 100644 index 000000000..41ac8f2cc --- /dev/null +++ b/resources_servers/reasoning_gym/README.md @@ -0,0 +1,96 @@ +# Reasoning Gym Resources Server + +Integration of reasoning gym: https://github.com/open-thought/reasoning-gym + +From reasoning gym's readme, "It currently provides more than 100 tasks over many domains, including but not limited to algebra, arithmetic, computation, cognition, geometry, graph theory, logic, and many common games." + +# Dataset prep + +**Single task:** +```bash +python scripts/create_dataset.py \ + --task knights_knaves \ + --size 500 \ + --seed 42 \ + --output data/train_knights_knaves.jsonl +``` + +**Multiple tasks (composite):** +```bash +python scripts/create_dataset.py \ + --tasks knights_knaves,syllogisms,leg_counting \ + --size 1000 \ + --output data/train_composite.jsonl +``` + +**All tasks in a category:** +```bash +python scripts/create_dataset.py \ + --category logic \ + --size 1000 \ + --output data/train_logic.jsonl +``` + + +**All tasks in all categories:** +```bash +python scripts/create_dataset.py \ + --all-tasks \ + --size 1000 \ + --output data/train_all.jsonl +``` + + +**With custom config:** +```bash +python scripts/create_dataset.py \ + --task knights_knaves \ + --size 500 \ + --config '{"n_people": 3, "depth_constraint": 3}' \ + --output data/train_hard.jsonl +``` + +# Rollout collection + +## Start a vllm server + +```bash +pip install -U "vllm>=0.12.0" + +wget https://huggingface.co/nvidia/NVIDIA-Nemotron-3-Nano-30B-A3B-BF16/resolve/main/nano_v3_reasoning_parser.py + +vllm serve nvidia/NVIDIA-Nemotron-3-Nano-30B-A3B-BF16 \ + --max-num-seqs 8 \ + --tensor-parallel-size 1 \ + --max-model-len 262144 \ + --port 10240 \ + --trust-remote-code \ + --tool-call-parser qwen3_coder \ + --reasoning-parser-plugin nano_v3_reasoning_parser.py \ + --reasoning-parser nano_v3 +``` + +## Create env.yaml: + + +``` +policy_base_url: http://localhost:10240/v1 +policy_api_key: EMPTY +policy_model_name: nvidia/NVIDIA-Nemotron-3-Nano-30B-A3B-BF16 +``` + +## Launch nemo gym servers + +```bash +ng_run "+config_paths=[resources_servers/reasoning_gym/configs/reasoning_gym.yaml,responses_api_models/vllm_model/configs/vllm_model.yaml]" +``` + +## Collect rollouts + +```bash +ng_collect_rollouts \ + +agent_name=reasoning_gym_simple_agent \ + +input_jsonl_fpath=resources_servers/reasoning_gym/data/example.jsonl \ + +output_jsonl_fpath=results/reasoning_gym_rollouts.jsonl \ + +limit=5 +``` \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/resources_servers/reasoning_gym/app.py b/resources_servers/reasoning_gym/app.py new file mode 100644 index 000000000..c63d9997a --- /dev/null +++ b/resources_servers/reasoning_gym/app.py @@ -0,0 +1,112 @@ +# Copyright (c) 2025, NVIDIA CORPORATION. All rights reserved. +# +# Licensed under the Apache License, Version 2.0 (the "License"); +# you may not use this file except in compliance with the License. +# You may obtain a copy of the License at +# +# http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0 +# +# Unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing, software +# distributed under the License is distributed on an "AS IS" BASIS, +# WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY KIND, either express or implied. +# See the License for the specific language governing permissions and +# limitations under the License. + +import re +from typing import Any, Optional + +import reasoning_gym +from fastapi import FastAPI +from reasoning_gym.utils import extract_answer + +from nemo_gym.base_resources_server import ( + BaseResourcesServerConfig, + BaseVerifyRequest, + BaseVerifyResponse, + SimpleResourcesServer, +) + + +class ReasoningGymResourcesServerConfig(BaseResourcesServerConfig): + pass + + +class ReasoningGymVerifyRequest(BaseVerifyRequest): + question: str + answer: Optional[str] + metadata: dict[str, Any] + + +class ReasoningGymVerifyResponse(BaseVerifyResponse): + task_name: str + score: float + extracted_answer: Optional[str] + + +class ReasoningGymResourcesServer(SimpleResourcesServer): + config: ReasoningGymResourcesServerConfig + + def setup_webserver(self) -> FastAPI: + app = super().setup_webserver() + return app + + async def verify(self, body: ReasoningGymVerifyRequest) -> ReasoningGymVerifyResponse: + """Uses reasoning gym verifier""" + model_answer = self._extract_answer_from_response(body.response) + + task_name = body.metadata.get("source_dataset") + + if not task_name: + raise ValueError(f"No task name found in metadata: {body.metadata}") + + entry = { + "question": body.question, + "answer": body.answer, + "metadata": body.metadata, + } + try: + score_fn = reasoning_gym.get_score_answer_fn(task_name) + score = float(score_fn(answer=model_answer, entry=entry)) + except Exception as e: + print(f"Error scoring answer for task {task_name}: {e}") + score = 0.0 + + return ReasoningGymVerifyResponse( + **body.model_dump(), + reward=score, + task_name=task_name, + score=score, + extracted_answer=model_answer, + ) + + def _extract_answer_from_response(self, response) -> str: + assistant_responses = [] + for output_item in response.output: + if output_item.type != "message": + continue + for content_item in output_item.content: + if content_item.type != "output_text": + continue + assistant_responses.append(content_item.text) + + full_text = "".join(assistant_responses) + + # Try tags first (reasoning gym default) + extracted = extract_answer(full_text, tag_name="answer") + if extracted is not None: + return extracted + + # Try \boxed{} if tags fail + # this could be a slight instruction following issue, if model is prompted to use but uses boxed instead + # found for deepseek-distill-qwen-1.5b it fails to use tags in favor of boxed, hence this fallback + # may advise commenting this out for large models who follow instructions to use well + boxed_match = re.search(r"\\boxed\{([^}]+)\}", full_text) + if boxed_match: + return boxed_match.group(1).strip() + + # return full text if or \boxed{} fail + return full_text.strip() if full_text.strip() else "" + + +if __name__ == "__main__": + ReasoningGymResourcesServer.run_webserver() diff --git a/resources_servers/reasoning_gym/configs/reasoning_gym.yaml b/resources_servers/reasoning_gym/configs/reasoning_gym.yaml new file mode 100644 index 000000000..d0cac5c54 --- /dev/null +++ b/resources_servers/reasoning_gym/configs/reasoning_gym.yaml @@ -0,0 +1,25 @@ +reasoning_gym: + resources_servers: + reasoning_gym: + entrypoint: app.py + domain: knowledge + verified: true +reasoning_gym_simple_agent: + responses_api_agents: + simple_agent: + entrypoint: app.py + resources_server: + type: resources_servers + name: reasoning_gym + model_server: + type: responses_api_models + name: policy_model + datasets: + - name: train + type: train + jsonl_fpath: resources_servers/reasoning_gym/data/train_knights_knaves.jsonl + gitlab_identifier: + dataset_name: knights_knaves_reasoning_gym + version: 1.0.0 + artifact_fpath: train_knights_knaves.jsonl + license: Apache 2.0 diff --git a/resources_servers/reasoning_gym/configs/resources_only.yaml b/resources_servers/reasoning_gym/configs/resources_only.yaml new file mode 100644 index 000000000..da6afcc31 --- /dev/null +++ b/resources_servers/reasoning_gym/configs/resources_only.yaml @@ -0,0 +1,7 @@ +reasoning_gym: + resources_servers: + reasoning_gym: + entrypoint: app.py + domain: knowledge + verified: false + diff --git a/resources_servers/reasoning_gym/data/example.jsonl b/resources_servers/reasoning_gym/data/example.jsonl new file mode 100644 index 000000000..533ef47c8 --- /dev/null +++ b/resources_servers/reasoning_gym/data/example.jsonl @@ -0,0 +1,5 @@ +{"responses_create_params": {"input": [{"role": "user", "content": "A very special island is inhabited only by sages and fools. Sages always tell the truth, and fools always lie. You meet 2 inhabitants: Zoey, and Riley. Zoey commented, \"Riley is a fool\". In Riley's words: \"Zoey is a sage or Riley is a sage\". So who is a sage and who is a fool? (Format your answer like: \"Zoey is a sage/fool, and Riley is a sage/fool\")"}]}, "question": "A very special island is inhabited only by sages and fools. Sages always tell the truth, and fools always lie. You meet 2 inhabitants: Zoey, and Riley. Zoey commented, \"Riley is a fool\". In Riley's words: \"Zoey is a sage or Riley is a sage\". So who is a sage and who is a fool? (Format your answer like: \"Zoey is a sage/fool, and Riley is a sage/fool\")", "answer": "Zoey is a fool, and Riley is a sage.", "metadata": {"source_dataset": "knights_knaves", "source_index": 0, "statements": [["lying", 1], ["or", ["telling-truth", 0], ["telling-truth", 1]]], "solution": [false, true], "names": ["Zoey", "Riley"], "knight_knave_terms": {"knight": "sage", "knave": "fool", "a_knight": "a sage", "a_knave": "a fool", "Knight": "Sage", "Knave": "Fool"}, "difficulty": {"n_people": 2, "depth_constraint": 2, "width_constraint": 2}}} +{"responses_create_params": {"input": [{"role": "user", "content": "A very special island is inhabited only by pioneers and laggards. Pioneers always tell the truth, and laggards always lie. You meet 2 inhabitants: Riley, and Olivia. \"if Riley is a pioneer then Olivia is a laggard\" - Riley. Olivia stated, \"Olivia is a pioneer and Riley is a laggard\". So who is a pioneer and who is a laggard? (Format your answer like: \"Riley is a pioneer/laggard, and Olivia is a pioneer/laggard\")"}]}, "question": "A very special island is inhabited only by pioneers and laggards. Pioneers always tell the truth, and laggards always lie. You meet 2 inhabitants: Riley, and Olivia. \"if Riley is a pioneer then Olivia is a laggard\" - Riley. Olivia stated, \"Olivia is a pioneer and Riley is a laggard\". So who is a pioneer and who is a laggard? (Format your answer like: \"Riley is a pioneer/laggard, and Olivia is a pioneer/laggard\")", "answer": "Riley is a pioneer, and Olivia is a laggard.", "metadata": {"source_dataset": "knights_knaves", "source_index": 1, "statements": [["->", ["telling-truth", 0], ["lying", 1]], ["and", ["telling-truth", 1], ["lying", 0]]], "solution": [true, false], "names": ["Riley", "Olivia"], "knight_knave_terms": {"knight": "pioneer", "knave": "laggard", "a_knight": "a pioneer", "a_knave": "a laggard", "Knight": "Pioneer", "Knave": "Laggard"}, "difficulty": {"n_people": 2, "depth_constraint": 2, "width_constraint": 2}}} +{"responses_create_params": {"input": [{"role": "user", "content": "A very special island is inhabited only by saints and sinners. Saints always tell the truth, and sinners always lie. You meet 2 inhabitants: Samuel, and Jacob. Samuel expressed that if Samuel is a saint then Jacob is a sinner. Jacob was heard saying, \"if Samuel is a saint then Samuel is a sinner\". So who is a saint and who is a sinner? (Format your answer like: \"Samuel is a saint/sinner, and Jacob is a saint/sinner\")"}]}, "question": "A very special island is inhabited only by saints and sinners. Saints always tell the truth, and sinners always lie. You meet 2 inhabitants: Samuel, and Jacob. Samuel expressed that if Samuel is a saint then Jacob is a sinner. Jacob was heard saying, \"if Samuel is a saint then Samuel is a sinner\". So who is a saint and who is a sinner? (Format your answer like: \"Samuel is a saint/sinner, and Jacob is a saint/sinner\")", "answer": "Samuel is a saint, and Jacob is a sinner.", "metadata": {"source_dataset": "knights_knaves", "source_index": 2, "statements": [["->", ["telling-truth", 0], ["lying", 1]], ["->", ["telling-truth", 0], ["lying", 0]]], "solution": [true, false], "names": ["Samuel", "Jacob"], "knight_knave_terms": {"knight": "saint", "knave": "sinner", "a_knight": "a saint", "a_knave": "a sinner", "Knight": "Saint", "Knave": "Sinner"}, "difficulty": {"n_people": 2, "depth_constraint": 2, "width_constraint": 2}}} +{"responses_create_params": {"input": [{"role": "user", "content": "A very special island is inhabited only by pioneers and laggards. Pioneers always tell the truth, and laggards always lie. You meet 2 inhabitants: Olivia, and Lily. \"Lily is a laggard and Lily is a pioneer\" - Olivia. Lily noted, \"if Olivia is a pioneer then Lily is a pioneer\". So who is a pioneer and who is a laggard? (Format your answer like: \"Olivia is a pioneer/laggard, and Lily is a pioneer/laggard\")"}]}, "question": "A very special island is inhabited only by pioneers and laggards. Pioneers always tell the truth, and laggards always lie. You meet 2 inhabitants: Olivia, and Lily. \"Lily is a laggard and Lily is a pioneer\" - Olivia. Lily noted, \"if Olivia is a pioneer then Lily is a pioneer\". So who is a pioneer and who is a laggard? (Format your answer like: \"Olivia is a pioneer/laggard, and Lily is a pioneer/laggard\")", "answer": "Olivia is a laggard, and Lily is a pioneer.", "metadata": {"source_dataset": "knights_knaves", "source_index": 3, "statements": [["and", ["lying", 1], ["telling-truth", 1]], ["->", ["telling-truth", 0], ["telling-truth", 1]]], "solution": [false, true], "names": ["Olivia", "Lily"], "knight_knave_terms": {"knight": "pioneer", "knave": "laggard", "a_knight": "a pioneer", "a_knave": "a laggard", "Knight": "Pioneer", "Knave": "Laggard"}, "difficulty": {"n_people": 2, "depth_constraint": 2, "width_constraint": 2}}} +{"responses_create_params": {"input": [{"role": "user", "content": "A very special island is inhabited only by altruists and egoists. Altruists always tell the truth, and egoists always lie. You meet 2 inhabitants: Mason, and Jack. Mason expressed that if Jack is an egoist then Mason is an altruist. In Jack's words: \"Mason is an egoist\". So who is an altruist and who is an egoist? (Format your answer like: \"Mason is a altruist/egoist, and Jack is a altruist/egoist\")"}]}, "question": "A very special island is inhabited only by altruists and egoists. Altruists always tell the truth, and egoists always lie. You meet 2 inhabitants: Mason, and Jack. Mason expressed that if Jack is an egoist then Mason is an altruist. In Jack's words: \"Mason is an egoist\". So who is an altruist and who is an egoist? (Format your answer like: \"Mason is a altruist/egoist, and Jack is a altruist/egoist\")", "answer": "Mason is an altruist, and Jack is an egoist.", "metadata": {"source_dataset": "knights_knaves", "source_index": 4, "statements": [["->", ["lying", 1], ["telling-truth", 0]], ["not", ["telling-truth", 0]]], "solution": [true, false], "names": ["Mason", "Jack"], "knight_knave_terms": {"knight": "altruist", "knave": "egoist", "a_knight": "an altruist", "a_knave": "an egoist", "Knight": "Altruist", "Knave": "Egoist"}, "difficulty": {"n_people": 2, "depth_constraint": 2, "width_constraint": 2}}} diff --git a/resources_servers/reasoning_gym/data/example_metrics.json b/resources_servers/reasoning_gym/data/example_metrics.json new file mode 100644 index 000000000..a80171ca4 --- /dev/null +++ b/resources_servers/reasoning_gym/data/example_metrics.json @@ -0,0 +1,49 @@ +{ + "name": "example", + "type": "example", + "jsonl_fpath": "resources_servers/reasoning_gym/data/example.jsonl", + "num_repeats": 1, + "gitlab_identifier": null, + "license": null, + "Number of examples": 5, + "Number of tools": { + "Total # non-null values": 0, + "Average": 0.0, + "Min": 0.0, + "Max": 0.0, + "Median": 0.0, + "Standard deviation": 0.0 + }, + "Json-dumped number of words (proxy for token count)": { + "Total # non-null values": 5, + "Average": 76.2, + "Min": 72.0, + "Max": 81.0, + "Median": 76.0, + "Standard deviation": 3.42 + }, + "Number of turns": { + "Total # non-null values": 5, + "Average": 1.0, + "Min": 1.0, + "Max": 1.0, + "Median": 1.0, + "Standard deviation": 0.0 + }, + "Temperature": { + "Total # non-null values": 0, + "Average": 0.0, + "Min": 0.0, + "Max": 0.0, + "Median": 0.0, + "Standard deviation": 0.0 + }, + "question": { + "unique_count": 5, + "total_count": 5 + }, + "answer": { + "unique_count": 5, + "total_count": 5 + } +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/resources_servers/reasoning_gym/data/example_rollouts.jsonl b/resources_servers/reasoning_gym/data/example_rollouts.jsonl new file mode 100644 index 000000000..c68fb318e --- /dev/null +++ b/resources_servers/reasoning_gym/data/example_rollouts.jsonl @@ -0,0 +1,5 @@ +{"responses_create_params": {"background": null, "include": null, "input": [{"content": "A very special island is inhabited only by pioneers and laggards. Pioneers always tell the truth, and laggards always lie. You meet 2 inhabitants: Olivia, and Lily. \"Lily is a laggard and Lily is a pioneer\" - Olivia. Lily noted, \"if Olivia is a pioneer then Lily is a pioneer\". So who is a pioneer and who is a laggard? (Format your answer like: \"Olivia is a pioneer/laggard, and Lily is a pioneer/laggard\")", "role": "user", "type": "message"}], "instructions": null, "max_output_tokens": null, "max_tool_calls": null, "metadata": null, "model": null, "parallel_tool_calls": true, "previous_response_id": null, "prompt": null, "reasoning": null, "service_tier": null, "store": null, "temperature": null, "text": null, "tool_choice": "auto", "tools": [], "top_logprobs": null, "top_p": null, "truncation": null, "user": null, "stream": null}, "response": {"id": "resp_2848c8844c17470ca5e23beb469c625d", "created_at": 1759381830.0, "error": null, "incomplete_details": null, "instructions": null, "metadata": null, "model": "Qwen/Qwen3-30B-A3B", "object": "response", "output": [{"id": "rs_7867d634a2be457bb0512c20383e1085", "summary": [{"text": "\nOkay, let's try to figure out this logic puzzle. So, there are two people: Olivia and Lily. The island has pioneers who always tell the truth and laggards who always lie. \n\nFirst, Olivia says, \"Lily is a laggard and Lily is a pioneer.\" Hmm, that seems contradictory. Because if Lily is both a laggard and a pioneer, that can't be possible since each person is either one or the other. So Olivia's statement is a conjunction of two things: Lily is a laggard AND Lily is a pioneer. But since those are mutually exclusive, the whole statement is false. \n\nWait, but if Olivia is a pioneer, she must be telling the truth. But her statement is impossible, so that would mean Olivia can't be a pioneer. Therefore, Olivia must be a laggard. Because if she's a laggard, her statement is a lie. So the negation of her statement would be \"Lily is not a laggard OR Lily is not a pioneer.\" Which simplifies to \"Lily is not both a laggard and a pioneer,\" which is always true because they can't be both. So that makes sense. So Olivia is a laggard.\n\nNow, let's look at Lily's statement: \"If Olivia is a pioneer then Lily is a pioneer.\" So that's a conditional statement. Let's analyze that. \n\nFirst, we already think Olivia is a laggard, so the antecedent of Lily's statement (\"Olivia is a pioneer\") is false. In logic, if the antecedent is false, the entire conditional statement is true, regardless of the consequent. So if Lily is a pioneer (truth-teller), then her statement must be true. Since Olivia is a laggard, the antecedent is false, so the statement is true. That works. \n\nBut what if Lily is a laggard? Then her statement must be false. For a conditional statement to be false, the antecedent must be true and the consequent false. So if Lily is lying, then \"If Olivia is a pioneer, then Lily is a pioneer\" is false. That would require Olivia is a pioneer (antecedent true) and Lily is not a pioneer (consequent false). But we already deduced that Olivia is a laggard, so Olivia can't be a pioneer. Therefore, the antecedent is false, making the whole statement true. But if Lily is a laggard, she must be lying, so her statement should be false. However, since the antecedent is false, the statement is true, which contradicts her being a laggard. Therefore, Lily cannot be a laggard. \n\nTherefore, Lily must be a pioneer. \n\nSo putting it all together: Olivia is a laggard, Lily is a pioneer. Let me check again. \n\nOlivia's statement: \"Lily is a laggard and a pioneer.\" Since Olivia is a laggard, she lies. So the actual truth is that Lily is not both. Which is true because Lily is a pioneer, so she's not a laggard. So that checks out. \n\nLily's statement: \"If Olivia is a pioneer, then Lily is a pioneer.\" Since Olivia is a laggard, the \"if\" part is false, so the implication is true. Since Lily is a pioneer, she tells the truth. So that's consistent. \n\nTherefore, the answer should be Olivia is a laggard, Lily is a pioneer.\n", "type": "summary_text"}], "type": "reasoning", "encrypted_content": null}, {"id": "msg_df4bc2fff36c4eb093951ed8bd3dc900", "content": [{"annotations": [], "text": "\n\nOlivia is a laggard, and Lily is a pioneer.", "type": "output_text", "logprobs": null}], "role": "assistant", "status": "completed", "type": "message"}], "parallel_tool_calls": true, "temperature": null, "tool_choice": "auto", "tools": [], "top_p": null, "background": null, "max_output_tokens": null, "max_tool_calls": null, "previous_response_id": null, "prompt": null, "reasoning": null, "service_tier": null, "status": null, "text": null, "top_logprobs": null, "truncation": null, "usage": null, "user": null}, "reward": 1.0, "task_name": "knights_knaves", "score": 1.0, "extracted_answer": "\n\nOlivia is a laggard, and Lily is a pioneer."} +{"responses_create_params": {"background": null, "include": null, "input": [{"content": "A very special island is inhabited only by pioneers and laggards. Pioneers always tell the truth, and laggards always lie. You meet 2 inhabitants: Riley, and Olivia. \"if Riley is a pioneer then Olivia is a laggard\" - Riley. Olivia stated, \"Olivia is a pioneer and Riley is a laggard\". So who is a pioneer and who is a laggard? (Format your answer like: \"Riley is a pioneer/laggard, and Olivia is a pioneer/laggard\")", "role": "user", "type": "message"}], "instructions": null, "max_output_tokens": null, "max_tool_calls": null, "metadata": null, "model": null, "parallel_tool_calls": true, "previous_response_id": null, "prompt": null, "reasoning": null, "service_tier": null, "store": null, "temperature": null, "text": null, "tool_choice": "auto", "tools": [], "top_logprobs": null, "top_p": null, "truncation": null, "user": null, "stream": null}, "response": {"id": "resp_36066c7f62b744c28f83e4fc8747f635", "created_at": 1759381833.0, "error": null, "incomplete_details": null, "instructions": null, "metadata": null, "model": "Qwen/Qwen3-30B-A3B", "object": "response", "output": [{"id": "rs_3df2804465df47a8a7ea5e7179a2411b", "summary": [{"text": "\nOkay, let's try to figure out who is a pioneer and who is a laggard here. So, we have two people: Riley and Olivia. Pioneers always tell the truth, and laggards always lie. \n\nFirst, let's note down what each of them said. \n\nRiley says: \"If Riley is a pioneer then Olivia is a laggard.\" \n\nOlivia says: \"Olivia is a pioneer and Riley is a laggard.\"\n\nHmm. Let me break this down. Let's consider the possibilities. There are two possibilities for each person: either they are a pioneer (truth-teller) or a laggard (liar). So there are four possible combinations:\n\n1. Riley is a pioneer, Olivia is a pioneer.\n2. Riley is a pioneer, Olivia is a laggard.\n3. Riley is a laggard, Olivia is a pioneer.\n4. Riley is a laggard, Olivia is a laggard.\n\nBut we need to check which of these combinations are consistent with their statements.\n\nLet me start with the first possibility: Riley is a pioneer (so he tells the truth), and Olivia is a pioneer (so she also tells the truth). \n\nIf Riley is a pioneer, then his statement \"If Riley is a pioneer then Olivia is a laggard\" must be true. But since in this scenario, Olivia is a pioneer, then the conclusion of the implication (\"Olivia is a laggard\") is false. However, the premise (\"Riley is a pioneer\") is true. So the implication \"If P then Q\" is only false when P is true and Q is false. Therefore, in this case, Riley's statement would be false. But Riley is supposed to be a pioneer (truth-teller), so this is a contradiction. Therefore, this scenario is impossible. So case 1 is invalid.\n\nNext, case 2: Riley is a pioneer, Olivia is a laggard. \n\nSince Riley is a pioneer, his statement must be true. His statement is \"If Riley is a pioneer, then Olivia is a laggard.\" Well, in this case, the premise is true (Riley is a pioneer) and the conclusion is also true (Olivia is a laggard). So the implication holds. So that's good. Now check Olivia's statement. Olivia is a laggard, so she must be lying. What did she say? \"Olivia is a pioneer and Riley is a laggard.\" Since she's lying, the negation of her statement must be true. The original statement is \"A and B\", where A is \"Olivia is a pioneer\" and B is \"Riley is a laggard.\" The negation would be \"not A or not B.\" So either Olivia is not a pioneer (which is true, since she's a laggard) or Riley is not a laggard (which is also true, since Riley is a pioneer). Therefore, the negation is true, so Olivia's lie is consistent. So this case seems possible. Let me check the other cases to be thorough.\n\nCase 3: Riley is a laggard, Olivia is a pioneer.\n\nSo Riley is a laggard, so his statement is a lie. His statement was \"If Riley is a pioneer, then Olivia is a laggard.\" Since he's lying, the actual truth is the opposite of his statement. But what's the opposite of an implication? The implication \"If P then Q\" is logically equivalent to \"not P or Q.\" So the negation would be \"P and not Q.\" So the negation of Riley's statement is \"Riley is a pioneer and Olivia is not a laggard.\" But in this case, Riley is a laggard (so P is false), so the negation would be \"P and not Q\" which would be false. Wait, this is getting confusing. Let me think again.\n\nIf Riley is a laggard, his statement is false. His statement is \"If P then Q\", where P is \"Riley is a pioneer\" and Q is \"Olivia is a laggard.\" For the implication to be false, P must be true and Q must be false. But in this case, Riley is a laggard, so P (Riley is a pioneer) is false. Therefore, the implication \"If P then Q\" would be true (since an implication with a false premise is always true). But Riley is supposed to be lying, so his statement should be false. However, in this scenario, his statement is actually true. That's a contradiction. Therefore, case 3 is invalid. Because if Riley is a laggard, his statement would be true, which can't happen. So case 3 is impossible.\n\nCase 4: Riley is a laggard, Olivia is a laggard.\n\nSo both are liars. Let's check their statements.\n\nRiley's statement: \"If Riley is a pioneer then Olivia is a laggard.\" Since Riley is a laggard, his statement is a lie. The actual truth should be the opposite of his statement. As before, the negation of \"If P then Q\" is \"P and not Q.\" So the truth would be \"Riley is a pioneer and Olivia is not a laggard.\" But in this case, Riley is a laggard (so P is false) and Olivia is a laggard (so Q is true, so not Q is false). Therefore, \"P and not Q\" would be false. Wait, but Riley is lying, so his statement's negation must be true. However, the negation here is false. So that's a contradiction. Therefore, case 4 is invalid.\n\nSo the only valid case is case 2: Riley is a pioneer, Olivia is a laggard. Let me check Olivia's statement again in that case. Olivia is a laggard, so her statement \"Olivia is a pioneer and Riley is a laggard\" is a lie. The actual truth is that Olivia is not a pioneer (she's a laggard) and Riley is not a laggard (he's a pioneer). So the negation of her statement is \"Olivia is not a pioneer OR Riley is not a laggard,\" which is true because both parts are true. So that works. \n\nTherefore, the answer should be Riley is a pioneer and Olivia is a laggard.\n", "type": "summary_text"}], "type": "reasoning", "encrypted_content": null}, {"id": "msg_02606f63d0794e8fba6aef3c3a9af7a4", "content": [{"annotations": [], "text": "\n\nRiley is a pioneer, and Olivia is a laggard.", "type": "output_text", "logprobs": null}], "role": "assistant", "status": "completed", "type": "message"}], "parallel_tool_calls": true, "temperature": null, "tool_choice": "auto", "tools": [], "top_p": null, "background": null, "max_output_tokens": null, "max_tool_calls": null, "previous_response_id": null, "prompt": null, "reasoning": null, "service_tier": null, "status": null, "text": null, "top_logprobs": null, "truncation": null, "usage": null, "user": null}, "reward": 1.0, "task_name": "knights_knaves", "score": 1.0, "extracted_answer": "\n\nRiley is a pioneer, and Olivia is a laggard."} +{"responses_create_params": {"background": null, "include": null, "input": [{"content": "A very special island is inhabited only by altruists and egoists. Altruists always tell the truth, and egoists always lie. You meet 2 inhabitants: Mason, and Jack. Mason expressed that if Jack is an egoist then Mason is an altruist. In Jack's words: \"Mason is an egoist\". So who is an altruist and who is an egoist? (Format your answer like: \"Mason is a altruist/egoist, and Jack is a altruist/egoist\")", "role": "user", "type": "message"}], "instructions": null, "max_output_tokens": null, "max_tool_calls": null, "metadata": null, "model": null, "parallel_tool_calls": true, "previous_response_id": null, "prompt": null, "reasoning": null, "service_tier": null, "store": null, "temperature": null, "text": null, "tool_choice": "auto", "tools": [], "top_logprobs": null, "top_p": null, "truncation": null, "user": null, "stream": null}, "response": {"id": "resp_3dcd2d5ef4624b8382c4e7ba6bbfe079", "created_at": 1759381835.0, "error": null, "incomplete_details": null, "instructions": null, "metadata": null, "model": "Qwen/Qwen3-30B-A3B", "object": "response", "output": [{"id": "rs_3c7fc953107c4f2c809b6266d54ab24e", "summary": [{"text": "\nOkay, let's try to figure out this logic puzzle. So, there are two people, Mason and Jack. The island has altruists who always tell the truth and egoists who always lie. \n\nMason says, \"If Jack is an egoist, then Mason is an altruist.\" And Jack says, \"Mason is an egoist.\" We need to determine who is which.\n\nFirst, let me recall that in logic, an implication \"If P then Q\" is only false when P is true and Q is false. Otherwise, it's true. So, if Mason is an altruist (truth-teller), then his statement must be true. If he's an egoist (liar), then his statement is false.\n\nLet me consider the possibilities. There are two possibilities for each person: altruist (A) or egoist (E). So four combinations:\n\n1. Mason A, Jack A\n2. Mason A, Jack E\n3. Mason E, Jack A\n4. Mason E, Jack E\n\nLet me check each case.\n\nCase 1: Mason is A, Jack is A. Then Mason's statement must be true. His statement is \"If Jack is E, then Mason is A.\" But Jack is actually A here, so the antecedent \"Jack is E\" is false. In logic, if the antecedent is false, the whole implication is true regardless. So Mason's statement is true, which is consistent with him being an altruist. Now, Jack says \"Mason is E.\" But Jack is an altruist here, so he must be telling the truth. But Mason is actually an altruist, so Jack's statement is false. That's a contradiction. Therefore, Case 1 is impossible.\n\nCase 2: Mason A, Jack E. So Mason is truthful. His statement: \"If Jack is E, then Mason is A.\" Since Jack is E (antecedent is true), then the consequent must be true. Mason is A, so that's true. So the implication holds. So Mason's statement is true, which is consistent. Now Jack is an egoist, so his statement \"Mason is E\" is a lie. Since Jack is lying, Mason is not an egoist, which is true because Mason is an altruist. So this case works. So this is possible.\n\nCase 3: Mason E, Jack A. So Mason is an egoist, so his statement is false. His statement is \"If Jack is E, then Mason is A.\" Let's evaluate the truth of this implication. Since Jack is actually A here, the antecedent \"Jack is E\" is false. So the implication is true (because false implies anything). But Mason is supposed to be lying, so his statement should be false. However, the implication is true, which contradicts him being a liar. Therefore, Case 3 is invalid.\n\nCase 4: Mason E, Jack E. Mason is lying. His statement is \"If Jack is E, then Mason is A.\" Let's check the truth of this implication. Jack is E (antecedent is true), so the implication becomes \"True implies Mason is A.\" But Mason is actually an egoist, so \"Mason is A\" is false. Therefore, the implication is false (since True implies False is False). So Mason's statement is false, which is consistent with him being an egoist. Now, Jack is an egoist, so his statement \"Mason is E\" is a lie. But if Jack is lying, then Mason is not an egoist. However, in this case, Mason is an egoist. So Jack's lie would mean Mason is not an egoist, but he is. Contradiction. Therefore, Case 4 is invalid.\n\nSo only Case 2 works: Mason is an altruist, Jack is an egoist.\n\nWait, let me double-check. In Case 2, Jack is an egoist, so his statement \"Mason is E\" is a lie. Therefore, Mason is not an egoist, which is true because Mason is an altruist. That's correct. And Mason's statement is true because if Jack is an egoist (which he is), then Mason is an altruist (which he is). So that's all consistent.\n\nYes, that seems right. So the answer should be Mason is an altruist, Jack is an egoist.\n", "type": "summary_text"}], "type": "reasoning", "encrypted_content": null}, {"id": "msg_35a3f5160ab24047885af3a66607966c", "content": [{"annotations": [], "text": "\n\nTo determine the identities of Mason and Jack, we analyze their statements in the context of the rules of the island: **altruists always tell the truth**, and **egoists always lie**.\n\n---\n\n### Step 1: Analyze Mason's Statement\n\nMason says: \n**\"If Jack is an egoist, then Mason is an altruist.\"**\n\nThis is a logical implication: \n**If P (Jack is an egoist), then Q (Mason is an altruist).**\n\nIn logic, an implication is **false only when P is true and Q is false**. Otherwise, it's true.\n\n---\n\n### Step 2: Analyze Jack's Statement\n\nJack says: \n**\"Mason is an egoist.\"**\n\nSo if Jack is an **altruist**, he must be telling the truth, and Mason is an egoist. \nIf Jack is an **egoist**, he is lying, and Mason is **not** an egoist (i.e., an altruist).\n\n---\n\n### Step 3: Consider All Possible Cases\n\nLet\u2019s consider all combinations of their identities and test for consistency.\n\n#### Case 1: Mason = Altruist, Jack = Altruist \n- Mason tells the truth: \"If Jack is an egoist, then Mason is an altruist.\" \n - Jack is **not** an egoist \u2192 antecedent is false \u2192 implication is **true** \u2192 consistent.\n- Jack tells the truth: \"Mason is an egoist.\" \n - But Mason is **not** an egoist \u2192 Jack is lying \u2192 contradiction. \n \u2705 **Invalid**\n\n---\n\n#### Case 2: Mason = Altruist, Jack = Egoist \n- Mason tells the truth: \"If Jack is an egoist, then Mason is an altruist.\" \n - Jack **is** an egoist \u2192 antecedent is true \n - Mason **is** an altruist \u2192 consequent is true \n - Implication is **true** \u2192 consistent.\n- Jack lies: \"Mason is an egoist.\" \n - Since Jack is lying, Mason is **not** an egoist \u2192 Mason is an altruist \u2192 consistent. \n \u2705 **Valid**\n\n---\n\n#### Case 3: Mason = Egoist, Jack = Altruist \n- Mason lies: \"If Jack is an egoist, then Mason is an altruist.\" \n - Jack is **not** an egoist \u2192 antecedent is false \u2192 implication is **true** \n - But Mason is lying \u2192 implication should be **false** \u2192 contradiction. \n \u2705 **Invalid**\n\n---\n\n#### Case 4: Mason = Egoist, Jack = Egoist \n- Mason lies: \"If Jack is an egoist, then Mason is an altruist.\" \n - Jack **is** an egoist \u2192 antecedent is true \n - Mason is **not** an altruist \u2192 consequent is false \n - Implication is **false** \u2192 consistent with lying.\n- Jack lies: \"Mason is an egoist.\" \n - Since Jack is lying, Mason is **not** an egoist \u2192 contradiction (Mason **is** an egoist) \n \u2705 **Invalid**\n\n---\n\n### Final Conclusion\n\nOnly **Case 2** is logically consistent: \n- Mason is an **altruist** (truth-teller) \n- Jack is an **egoist** (liar)\n\n---\n\n### Final Answer:\n\n**Mason is an altruist, and Jack is an egoist**.", "type": "output_text", "logprobs": null}], "role": "assistant", "status": "completed", "type": "message"}], "parallel_tool_calls": true, "temperature": null, "tool_choice": "auto", "tools": [], "top_p": null, "background": null, "max_output_tokens": null, "max_tool_calls": null, "previous_response_id": null, "prompt": null, "reasoning": null, "service_tier": null, "status": null, "text": null, "top_logprobs": null, "truncation": null, "usage": null, "user": null}, "reward": 0.0, "task_name": "knights_knaves", "score": 0.0, "extracted_answer": "\n\nTo determine the identities of Mason and Jack, we analyze their statements in the context of the rules of the island: **altruists always tell the truth**, and **egoists always lie**.\n\n---\n\n### Step 1: Analyze Mason's Statement\n\nMason says: \n**\"If Jack is an egoist, then Mason is an altruist.\"**\n\nThis is a logical implication: \n**If P (Jack is an egoist), then Q (Mason is an altruist).**\n\nIn logic, an implication is **false only when P is true and Q is false**. Otherwise, it's true.\n\n---\n\n### Step 2: Analyze Jack's Statement\n\nJack says: \n**\"Mason is an egoist.\"**\n\nSo if Jack is an **altruist**, he must be telling the truth, and Mason is an egoist. \nIf Jack is an **egoist**, he is lying, and Mason is **not** an egoist (i.e., an altruist).\n\n---\n\n### Step 3: Consider All Possible Cases\n\nLet\u2019s consider all combinations of their identities and test for consistency.\n\n#### Case 1: Mason = Altruist, Jack = Altruist \n- Mason tells the truth: \"If Jack is an egoist, then Mason is an altruist.\" \n - Jack is **not** an egoist \u2192 antecedent is false \u2192 implication is **true** \u2192 consistent.\n- Jack tells the truth: \"Mason is an egoist.\" \n - But Mason is **not** an egoist \u2192 Jack is lying \u2192 contradiction. \n \u2705 **Invalid**\n\n---\n\n#### Case 2: Mason = Altruist, Jack = Egoist \n- Mason tells the truth: \"If Jack is an egoist, then Mason is an altruist.\" \n - Jack **is** an egoist \u2192 antecedent is true \n - Mason **is** an altruist \u2192 consequent is true \n - Implication is **true** \u2192 consistent.\n- Jack lies: \"Mason is an egoist.\" \n - Since Jack is lying, Mason is **not** an egoist \u2192 Mason is an altruist \u2192 consistent. \n \u2705 **Valid**\n\n---\n\n#### Case 3: Mason = Egoist, Jack = Altruist \n- Mason lies: \"If Jack is an egoist, then Mason is an altruist.\" \n - Jack is **not** an egoist \u2192 antecedent is false \u2192 implication is **true** \n - But Mason is lying \u2192 implication should be **false** \u2192 contradiction. \n \u2705 **Invalid**\n\n---\n\n#### Case 4: Mason = Egoist, Jack = Egoist \n- Mason lies: \"If Jack is an egoist, then Mason is an altruist.\" \n - Jack **is** an egoist \u2192 antecedent is true \n - Mason is **not** an altruist \u2192 consequent is false \n - Implication is **false** \u2192 consistent with lying.\n- Jack lies: \"Mason is an egoist.\" \n - Since Jack is lying, Mason is **not** an egoist \u2192 contradiction (Mason **is** an egoist) \n \u2705 **Invalid**\n\n---\n\n### Final Conclusion\n\nOnly **Case 2** is logically consistent: \n- Mason is an **altruist** (truth-teller) \n- Jack is an **egoist** (liar)\n\n---\n\n### Final Answer:\n\n**Mason is an altruist, and Jack is an egoist**."} +{"responses_create_params": {"background": null, "include": null, "input": [{"content": "A very special island is inhabited only by saints and sinners. Saints always tell the truth, and sinners always lie. You meet 2 inhabitants: Samuel, and Jacob. Samuel expressed that if Samuel is a saint then Jacob is a sinner. Jacob was heard saying, \"if Samuel is a saint then Samuel is a sinner\". So who is a saint and who is a sinner? (Format your answer like: \"Samuel is a saint/sinner, and Jacob is a saint/sinner\")", "role": "user", "type": "message"}], "instructions": null, "max_output_tokens": null, "max_tool_calls": null, "metadata": null, "model": null, "parallel_tool_calls": true, "previous_response_id": null, "prompt": null, "reasoning": null, "service_tier": null, "store": null, "temperature": null, "text": null, "tool_choice": "auto", "tools": [], "top_logprobs": null, "top_p": null, "truncation": null, "user": null, "stream": null}, "response": {"id": "resp_93a725a406914620941de062eec4f3ac", "created_at": 1759381837.0, "error": null, "incomplete_details": null, "instructions": null, "metadata": null, "model": "Qwen/Qwen3-30B-A3B", "object": "response", "output": [{"id": "rs_21fd777df41346308b0c7b139a50ec53", "summary": [{"text": "\nOkay, let's try to figure out who is a saint and who is a sinner here. So, we have Samuel and Jacob. Saints always tell the truth, and sinners always lie. \n\nFirst, let me note down what each of them said. Samuel said, \"If Samuel is a saint, then Jacob is a sinner.\" And Jacob said, \"If Samuel is a saint, then Samuel is a sinner.\" Hmm, okay. Let's break this down step by step.\n\nLet me start by considering the possibilities. There are two people, each can be either a saint or a sinner. So there are four possible combinations:\n\n1. Samuel is a saint, Jacob is a saint.\n2. Samuel is a saint, Jacob is a sinner.\n3. Samuel is a sinner, Jacob is a saint.\n4. Samuel is a sinner, Jacob is a sinner.\n\nI need to check which of these scenarios are possible based on their statements.\n\nStarting with the first case: Samuel is a saint. Since saints tell the truth, Samuel's statement must be true. His statement is \"If Samuel is a saint, then Jacob is a sinner.\" Since we're assuming Samuel is a saint, the antecedent (Samuel is a saint) is true. Therefore, the consequent (Jacob is a sinner) must also be true. So in this case, Jacob must be a sinner. But in this first case, we assumed Jacob is a saint. That's a contradiction. Therefore, case 1 is impossible.\n\nMoving on to case 2: Samuel is a saint, Jacob is a sinner. Let's check if this works. Samuel is a saint, so his statement must be true. His statement is \"If Samuel is a saint, then Jacob is a sinner.\" Since Samuel is a saint, the antecedent is true, and Jacob is indeed a sinner, so the implication holds. So that's good. Now check Jacob's statement. Jacob is a sinner, so he must be lying. His statement is \"If Samuel is a saint, then Samuel is a sinner.\" Let's analyze this. The statement is \"If P then Q\", where P is \"Samuel is a saint\" and Q is \"Samuel is a sinner.\" Since Samuel is a saint (as per our assumption), P is true. Q is false because Samuel is a saint, not a sinner. Therefore, the implication \"If P then Q\" would be false (since true implies false is false). But Jacob is supposed to be lying, so his statement must be false. Which matches because the statement is indeed false. Therefore, case 2 is possible. Let me note that.\n\nNow check case 3: Samuel is a sinner, Jacob is a saint. Let's see. Samuel is a sinner, so his statement is a lie. His statement is \"If Samuel is a saint, then Jacob is a sinner.\" Since he's lying, the actual truth is the opposite of his statement. The original statement is \"If P then Q,\" where P is \"Samuel is a saint\" and Q is \"Jacob is a sinner.\" The negation of \"If P then Q\" is \"P and not Q.\" So the truth would be that Samuel is a saint and Jacob is not a sinner (i.e., Jacob is a saint). However, in this case, we are assuming Samuel is a sinner, so P (\"Samuel is a saint\") is false. Therefore, the original statement \"If P then Q\" would be true (since a false antecedent makes the implication true). But Samuel is a sinner, so he must be lying. Therefore, his statement should be false. However, if the statement is actually true (because P is false), then Samuel's statement is true, which contradicts him being a sinner. Therefore, case 3 is impossible.\n\nNow case 4: Samuel is a sinner, Jacob is a sinner. Let's check. Samuel is a sinner, so his statement is a lie. His statement is \"If Samuel is a saint, then Jacob is a sinner.\" The negation of this is \"Samuel is a saint and Jacob is not a sinner.\" But since Samuel is a sinner in this case, the negation would require Samuel to be a saint, which he isn't. Therefore, the original statement's truth value? Let's think. The original statement is \"If P then Q,\" where P is \"Samuel is a saint\" (which is false here) and Q is \"Jacob is a sinner\" (which is true, since Jacob is a sinner in this case). So \"If false then true\" is true. Therefore, the statement is true, but Samuel is supposed to be lying. Therefore, contradiction. Hence, case 4 is impossible.\n\nSo the only possible case is case 2: Samuel is a saint and Jacob is a sinner. Let me just verify again. Samuel is a saint, so his statement \"If I'm a saint, then Jacob is a sinner\" is true. Since he is a saint, Jacob must be a sinner. Jacob is a sinner, so his statement \"If Samuel is a saint, then Samuel is a sinner\" is a lie. The actual truth is that Samuel is a saint, so the statement \"If Samuel is a saint, then Samuel is a sinner\" is false (because the antecedent is true and the consequent is false). Therefore, Jacob's lie is correct. So yes, that checks out.\n\nWait, but let me think again about Jacob's statement. Jacob says, \"If Samuel is a saint, then Samuel is a sinner.\" If Samuel is a saint, then the antecedent is true. The consequent is \"Samuel is a sinner,\" which is false. So the implication is false. Since Jacob is a sinner, he lies, so his statement must be false. Which it is. So that's correct. So case 2 is valid.\n\nTherefore, the answer is Samuel is a saint and Jacob is a sinner.\n", "type": "summary_text"}], "type": "reasoning", "encrypted_content": null}, {"id": "msg_0e27bf8b4aa8404fa4472b77b67ef187", "content": [{"annotations": [], "text": "\n\nTo determine who is a saint and who is a sinner, we analyze the logical implications of the statements made by Samuel and Jacob, under the assumption that **saints always tell the truth** and **sinners always lie**.\n\n---\n\n### Step 1: Analyze Samuel's Statement\n\nSamuel says: \n> \"If I am a saint, then Jacob is a sinner.\"\n\nThis is a conditional statement: \n**If P, then Q**, where \n- P: Samuel is a saint \n- Q: Jacob is a sinner\n\nLet\u2019s consider two possibilities for Samuel:\n\n#### Case 1: Samuel is a **saint** \nIf Samuel is a saint, then his statement must be **true**. \nSo the implication **\"If I am a saint, then Jacob is a sinner\"** must be true. \nSince P is true (Samuel is a saint), for the implication to be true, Q must also be true \u2192 **Jacob is a sinner**.\n\nNow, check Jacob\u2019s statement under this assumption.\n\n---\n\n### Step 2: Analyze Jacob's Statement\n\nJacob says: \n> \"If Samuel is a saint, then Samuel is a sinner.\"\n\nThis is also a conditional: \n**If P, then Q**, where \n- P: Samuel is a saint \n- Q: Samuel is a sinner\n\nNow, in this scenario, we\u2019ve assumed Samuel is a **saint**, so P is true. \nBut Q is false (Samuel is not a sinner), so the implication **\"If P then Q\"** is **false**.\n\nSince Jacob is a **sinner**, he must be **lying**, and a false statement is consistent with a sinner. \nTherefore, **this scenario is valid**.\n\n---\n\n### Step 3: Eliminate Other Possibilities\n\nLet\u2019s briefly consider the other cases to confirm there are no contradictions.\n\n#### Case 2: Samuel is a **sinner** \nThen his statement must be **false**. \nThe statement is: \"If I am a saint, then Jacob is a sinner.\" \nThis is logically equivalent to: **\"I am a saint AND Jacob is not a sinner.\"** \nBut if Samuel is a sinner, then the first part (\"I am a saint\") is false, making the entire implication **true**, not false. \nThis contradicts the assumption that Samuel is a sinner. \nSo this case is **invalid**.\n\n#### Case 3: Samuel is a **sinner**, Jacob is a **saint** \nSamuel\u2019s statement must be false. \nBut again, the implication \"If I am a saint, then Jacob is a sinner\" is **true** (because the antecedent is false), so the statement is **true**, which contradicts the assumption that Samuel is a sinner. \nSo this case is also **invalid**.\n\n#### Case 4: Both are sinners \nThen Samuel's statement must be false. \nAs before, the implication \"If I am a saint, then Jacob is a sinner\" is **true** (because the antecedent is false). \nSo the statement is true, which contradicts Samuel being a sinner. \nThis case is **invalid**.\n\n---\n\n### Final Conclusion\n\nThe **only consistent scenario** is:\n\n- **Samuel is a saint**, and his statement is **true**.\n- **Jacob is a sinner**, and his statement is **false**, which is consistent with his nature.\n\n---\n\n### Final Answer:\n\n**Samuel is a saint, and Jacob is a sinner**.", "type": "output_text", "logprobs": null}], "role": "assistant", "status": "completed", "type": "message"}], "parallel_tool_calls": true, "temperature": null, "tool_choice": "auto", "tools": [], "top_p": null, "background": null, "max_output_tokens": null, "max_tool_calls": null, "previous_response_id": null, "prompt": null, "reasoning": null, "service_tier": null, "status": null, "text": null, "top_logprobs": null, "truncation": null, "usage": null, "user": null}, "reward": 0.0, "task_name": "knights_knaves", "score": 0.0, "extracted_answer": "\n\nTo determine who is a saint and who is a sinner, we analyze the logical implications of the statements made by Samuel and Jacob, under the assumption that **saints always tell the truth** and **sinners always lie**.\n\n---\n\n### Step 1: Analyze Samuel's Statement\n\nSamuel says: \n> \"If I am a saint, then Jacob is a sinner.\"\n\nThis is a conditional statement: \n**If P, then Q**, where \n- P: Samuel is a saint \n- Q: Jacob is a sinner\n\nLet\u2019s consider two possibilities for Samuel:\n\n#### Case 1: Samuel is a **saint** \nIf Samuel is a saint, then his statement must be **true**. \nSo the implication **\"If I am a saint, then Jacob is a sinner\"** must be true. \nSince P is true (Samuel is a saint), for the implication to be true, Q must also be true \u2192 **Jacob is a sinner**.\n\nNow, check Jacob\u2019s statement under this assumption.\n\n---\n\n### Step 2: Analyze Jacob's Statement\n\nJacob says: \n> \"If Samuel is a saint, then Samuel is a sinner.\"\n\nThis is also a conditional: \n**If P, then Q**, where \n- P: Samuel is a saint \n- Q: Samuel is a sinner\n\nNow, in this scenario, we\u2019ve assumed Samuel is a **saint**, so P is true. \nBut Q is false (Samuel is not a sinner), so the implication **\"If P then Q\"** is **false**.\n\nSince Jacob is a **sinner**, he must be **lying**, and a false statement is consistent with a sinner. \nTherefore, **this scenario is valid**.\n\n---\n\n### Step 3: Eliminate Other Possibilities\n\nLet\u2019s briefly consider the other cases to confirm there are no contradictions.\n\n#### Case 2: Samuel is a **sinner** \nThen his statement must be **false**. \nThe statement is: \"If I am a saint, then Jacob is a sinner.\" \nThis is logically equivalent to: **\"I am a saint AND Jacob is not a sinner.\"** \nBut if Samuel is a sinner, then the first part (\"I am a saint\") is false, making the entire implication **true**, not false. \nThis contradicts the assumption that Samuel is a sinner. \nSo this case is **invalid**.\n\n#### Case 3: Samuel is a **sinner**, Jacob is a **saint** \nSamuel\u2019s statement must be false. \nBut again, the implication \"If I am a saint, then Jacob is a sinner\" is **true** (because the antecedent is false), so the statement is **true**, which contradicts the assumption that Samuel is a sinner. \nSo this case is also **invalid**.\n\n#### Case 4: Both are sinners \nThen Samuel's statement must be false. \nAs before, the implication \"If I am a saint, then Jacob is a sinner\" is **true** (because the antecedent is false). \nSo the statement is true, which contradicts Samuel being a sinner. \nThis case is **invalid**.\n\n---\n\n### Final Conclusion\n\nThe **only consistent scenario** is:\n\n- **Samuel is a saint**, and his statement is **true**.\n- **Jacob is a sinner**, and his statement is **false**, which is consistent with his nature.\n\n---\n\n### Final Answer:\n\n**Samuel is a saint, and Jacob is a sinner**."} +{"responses_create_params": {"background": null, "include": null, "input": [{"content": "A very special island is inhabited only by sages and fools. Sages always tell the truth, and fools always lie. You meet 2 inhabitants: Zoey, and Riley. Zoey commented, \"Riley is a fool\". In Riley's words: \"Zoey is a sage or Riley is a sage\". So who is a sage and who is a fool? (Format your answer like: \"Zoey is a sage/fool, and Riley is a sage/fool\")", "role": "user", "type": "message"}], "instructions": null, "max_output_tokens": null, "max_tool_calls": null, "metadata": null, "model": null, "parallel_tool_calls": true, "previous_response_id": null, "prompt": null, "reasoning": null, "service_tier": null, "store": null, "temperature": null, "text": null, "tool_choice": "auto", "tools": [], "top_logprobs": null, "top_p": null, "truncation": null, "user": null, "stream": null}, "response": {"id": "resp_8f37661e472f4ca795e7c69ab155b83f", "created_at": 1759381840.0, "error": null, "incomplete_details": null, "instructions": null, "metadata": null, "model": "Qwen/Qwen3-30B-A3B", "object": "response", "output": [{"id": "rs_6e7d8b1b82b24302b4349e9859d5dab9", "summary": [{"text": "\nOkay, let's try to figure out who is a sage and who is a fool here. So, we have two people: Zoey and Riley. Sages always tell the truth, and fools always lie. \n\nFirst, Zoey says, \"Riley is a fool.\" Then Riley says, \"Zoey is a sage or Riley is a sage.\" Hmm. Let me break this down step by step.\n\nLet me consider the possibilities. There are two possibilities for each person: either they are a sage or a fool. So there are four possible combinations:\n\n1. Zoey is a sage, Riley is a sage.\n2. Zoey is a sage, Riley is a fool.\n3. Zoey is a fool, Riley is a sage.\n4. Zoey is a fool, Riley is a fool.\n\nI need to check which of these combinations are consistent with their statements.\n\nStarting with the first possibility: If Zoey is a sage, then her statement \"Riley is a fool\" must be true. So Riley would be a fool. Then, let's check Riley's statement. Since Riley is a fool, he must be lying. His statement is \"Zoey is a sage or Riley is a sage.\" Let's parse that. The statement is a logical OR, so for it to be false (since he's lying), both parts must be false. That means \"Zoey is a sage\" is false, and \"Riley is a sage\" is also false. But wait, in this scenario, we assumed Zoey is a sage. So \"Zoey is a sage\" is true. Therefore, the entire OR statement would be true. But Riley is supposed to be lying, so his statement should be false. But here, the statement is true. That's a contradiction. So this scenario (Zoey sage, Riley sage) is impossible because it leads to a contradiction. So possibility 1 is out.\n\nNext, possibility 2: Zoey is a sage, Riley is a fool. Let's check. Zoey's statement \"Riley is a fool\" is true, which is consistent with her being a sage. Now Riley is a fool, so his statement must be a lie. His statement is \"Zoey is a sage or Riley is a sage.\" Let's evaluate that. Since Zoey is a sage, \"Zoey is a sage\" is true. Therefore, the OR statement is true. But since Riley is a fool, he must lie, meaning his statement should be false. But here, the statement is true. Contradiction again. Wait, so this scenario also leads to a contradiction? That can't be right. Did I do something wrong here?\n\nWait, maybe I made a mistake. Let me check again. If Riley is a fool, his statement is a lie. The original statement is \"Zoey is a sage OR Riley is a sage.\" For the OR statement to be false, both parts must be false. So \"Zoey is a sage\" must be false, and \"Riley is a sage\" must be false. But in this scenario, Zoey is a sage, so \"Zoey is a sage\" is true. Therefore, the OR statement is true. So Riley's statement is true, but he's supposed to be lying. Therefore, this scenario is impossible. So possibility 2 is invalid. Hmm. So both possibilities where Zoey is a sage lead to contradictions? That can't be. Maybe I need to check the other possibilities.\n\nPossibility 3: Zoey is a fool, Riley is a sage. Let's check. Since Zoey is a fool, her statement \"Riley is a fool\" is a lie. Therefore, the truth is that Riley is a sage. Which matches our assumption here. Now, Riley is a sage, so his statement must be true. His statement is \"Zoey is a sage OR Riley is a sage.\" Let's check. \"Zoey is a sage\" is false (since we're assuming she's a fool), and \"Riley is a sage\" is true. So the OR statement is true. Therefore, Riley's statement is true, which is consistent with him being a sage. So this scenario works. No contradiction here. So possibility 3 is possible.\n\nPossibility 4: Zoey is a fool, Riley is a fool. Let's check. Zoey's statement \"Riley is a fool\" is a lie. Therefore, the truth is that Riley is a sage. But in this scenario, we're assuming Riley is a fool. Contradiction. Therefore, this scenario is invalid.\n\nSo the only valid possibility is possibility 3: Zoey is a fool, Riley is a sage. Wait, but let me check again. Let me make sure I didn't miss anything.\n\nSo, if Zoey is a fool, then her statement \"Riley is a fool\" is false, so Riley is a sage. Then Riley, being a sage, says \"Zoey is a sage or Riley is a sage.\" Since Zoey is a fool, \"Zoey is a sage\" is false, but \"Riley is a sage\" is true. So the OR statement is true. Therefore, Riley's statement is true, which is correct. So that works. \n\nBut let me check if there's another way. Let me think about the logical structure. Let's denote Z for Zoey is a sage, R for Riley is a sage. Then, Zoey's statement is \"Riley is a fool\", which is equivalent to \u00acR. Since sages tell the truth, if Z is true, then \u00acR is true. So Z \u2192 \u00acR. Similarly, Riley's statement is \"Zoey is a sage or Riley is a sage\", which is Z \u2228 R. Since Riley is either a sage or a fool. If R is true (Riley is a sage), then his statement must be true, so Z \u2228 R must be true. If R is false (Riley is a fool), then his statement must be false, so \u00ac(Z \u2228 R) must be true, which is \u00acZ \u2227 \u00acR. \n\nSo let's formalize:\n\nFrom Zoey's statement: If Z is true, then \u00acR. So Z \u2192 \u00acR.\n\nFrom Riley's statement: If R is true, then Z \u2228 R is true. Which is always true because R is true. So that's okay. If R is false, then Z \u2228 R must be false, so Z must be false and R must be false. So \u00acZ \u2227 \u00acR.\n\nSo let's consider possibilities.\n\nCase 1: Z is true (Zoey is a sage). Then from Z \u2192 \u00acR, we have \u00acR (Riley is a fool). Then, since R is false, we have from Riley's statement that \u00acZ \u2227 \u00acR must be true. But Z is true here, so \u00acZ is false. Therefore, \u00acZ \u2227 \u00acR is false. Which contradicts the requirement that Riley's statement is false (since he's a fool). Therefore, Case 1 is invalid.\n\nCase 2: Z is false (Zoey is a fool). Then, from Zoey's statement being a lie, the truth is that Riley is not a fool, so R is true (Riley is a sage). Now, since R is true, Riley's statement must be true. His statement is Z \u2228 R. Since R is true, Z \u2228 R is true regardless of Z. So that's okay. Therefore, this case holds. So Z is false, R is true. Which is the same as possibility 3.\n\nTherefore, the conclusion is Zoey is a fool, and Riley is a sage.\n\nWait, but let me check again. If Zoey is a fool, then her statement \"Riley is a fool\" is a lie, so Riley is a sage. Then Riley, being a sage, says \"Zoey is a sage or Riley is a sage.\" Since Zoey is a fool, the first part is false, but the second part is true. So the OR is true, which is correct. So that's consistent.\n\nSo the answer should be Zoey is a fool, and Riley is a sage.\n", "type": "summary_text"}], "type": "reasoning", "encrypted_content": null}, {"id": "msg_13cb8b46d83f4a4aa632a50167031257", "content": [{"annotations": [], "text": "\n\nTo determine who is a sage and who is a fool, we analyze the statements made by Zoey and Riley, keeping in mind the rules of the island: **sages always tell the truth**, and **fools always lie**.\n\n---\n\n### Step 1: Analyze Zoey's Statement \n**Zoey says:** \"Riley is a fool.\"\n\nLet\u2019s consider the two possible identities of Zoey:\n\n- **If Zoey is a sage**, then her statement must be **true**, so **Riley is a fool**.\n- **If Zoey is a fool**, then her statement must be **false**, so **Riley is not a fool** (i.e., Riley is a sage).\n\n---\n\n### Step 2: Analyze Riley's Statement \n**Riley says:** \"Zoey is a sage or Riley is a sage.\"\n\nThis is a logical **OR** statement. It is **true** if **either** part is true. Let\u2019s consider the two possibilities for Riley:\n\n- **If Riley is a sage**, then his statement must be **true**.\n- **If Riley is a fool**, then his statement must be **false**, which only occurs if **both** parts of the OR are false: i.e., **Zoey is not a sage** and **Riley is not a sage**.\n\n---\n\n### Step 3: Test Possible Scenarios\n\n#### **Case 1: Zoey is a sage, Riley is a fool**\n- Zoey says \"Riley is a fool\" \u2192 **True** (consistent with her being a sage).\n- Riley is a fool \u2192 His statement must be **false**.\n- Riley says: \"Zoey is a sage or Riley is a sage\" \u2192 This is **true** because \"Zoey is a sage\" is true.\n- **Contradiction**: Riley is a fool, but his statement is true \u2192 Invalid.\n\n#### **Case 2: Zoey is a sage, Riley is a sage**\n- Zoey says \"Riley is a fool\" \u2192 **False** (Riley is a sage), so Zoey is lying \u2192 Contradiction (Zoey is a sage and must tell the truth).\n- **Invalid**.\n\n#### **Case 3: Zoey is a fool, Riley is a sage**\n- Zoey says \"Riley is a fool\" \u2192 **False** (Riley is a sage), so her statement is a lie \u2192 Consistent with her being a fool.\n- Riley is a sage \u2192 His statement must be **true**.\n- Riley says: \"Zoey is a sage or Riley is a sage\" \u2192 \"Zoey is a sage\" is **false**, \"Riley is a sage\" is **true** \u2192 OR is **true** \u2192 Consistent.\n- **No contradiction** \u2192 **Valid**.\n\n#### **Case 4: Zoey is a fool, Riley is a fool**\n- Zoey says \"Riley is a fool\" \u2192 **True** (Riley is a fool), but she is a **fool**, so she must lie \u2192 Contradiction.\n- **Invalid**.\n\n---\n\n### Final Conclusion\n\nOnly **Case 3** is logically consistent:\n\n- **Zoey is a fool**, so her statement \"Riley is a fool\" is a **lie** \u2192 Riley is a **sage**.\n- **Riley is a sage**, so his statement \"Zoey is a sage or Riley is a sage\" is **true** \u2192 Consistent.\n\n---\n\n### \u2705 Final Answer:\n**Zoey is a fool, and Riley is a sage**.", "type": "output_text", "logprobs": null}], "role": "assistant", "status": "completed", "type": "message"}], "parallel_tool_calls": true, "temperature": null, "tool_choice": "auto", "tools": [], "top_p": null, "background": null, "max_output_tokens": null, "max_tool_calls": null, "previous_response_id": null, "prompt": null, "reasoning": null, "service_tier": null, "status": null, "text": null, "top_logprobs": null, "truncation": null, "usage": null, "user": null}, "reward": 0.0, "task_name": "knights_knaves", "score": 0.0, "extracted_answer": "\n\nTo determine who is a sage and who is a fool, we analyze the statements made by Zoey and Riley, keeping in mind the rules of the island: **sages always tell the truth**, and **fools always lie**.\n\n---\n\n### Step 1: Analyze Zoey's Statement \n**Zoey says:** \"Riley is a fool.\"\n\nLet\u2019s consider the two possible identities of Zoey:\n\n- **If Zoey is a sage**, then her statement must be **true**, so **Riley is a fool**.\n- **If Zoey is a fool**, then her statement must be **false**, so **Riley is not a fool** (i.e., Riley is a sage).\n\n---\n\n### Step 2: Analyze Riley's Statement \n**Riley says:** \"Zoey is a sage or Riley is a sage.\"\n\nThis is a logical **OR** statement. It is **true** if **either** part is true. Let\u2019s consider the two possibilities for Riley:\n\n- **If Riley is a sage**, then his statement must be **true**.\n- **If Riley is a fool**, then his statement must be **false**, which only occurs if **both** parts of the OR are false: i.e., **Zoey is not a sage** and **Riley is not a sage**.\n\n---\n\n### Step 3: Test Possible Scenarios\n\n#### **Case 1: Zoey is a sage, Riley is a fool**\n- Zoey says \"Riley is a fool\" \u2192 **True** (consistent with her being a sage).\n- Riley is a fool \u2192 His statement must be **false**.\n- Riley says: \"Zoey is a sage or Riley is a sage\" \u2192 This is **true** because \"Zoey is a sage\" is true.\n- **Contradiction**: Riley is a fool, but his statement is true \u2192 Invalid.\n\n#### **Case 2: Zoey is a sage, Riley is a sage**\n- Zoey says \"Riley is a fool\" \u2192 **False** (Riley is a sage), so Zoey is lying \u2192 Contradiction (Zoey is a sage and must tell the truth).\n- **Invalid**.\n\n#### **Case 3: Zoey is a fool, Riley is a sage**\n- Zoey says \"Riley is a fool\" \u2192 **False** (Riley is a sage), so her statement is a lie \u2192 Consistent with her being a fool.\n- Riley is a sage \u2192 His statement must be **true**.\n- Riley says: \"Zoey is a sage or Riley is a sage\" \u2192 \"Zoey is a sage\" is **false**, \"Riley is a sage\" is **true** \u2192 OR is **true** \u2192 Consistent.\n- **No contradiction** \u2192 **Valid**.\n\n#### **Case 4: Zoey is a fool, Riley is a fool**\n- Zoey says \"Riley is a fool\" \u2192 **True** (Riley is a fool), but she is a **fool**, so she must lie \u2192 Contradiction.\n- **Invalid**.\n\n---\n\n### Final Conclusion\n\nOnly **Case 3** is logically consistent:\n\n- **Zoey is a fool**, so her statement \"Riley is a fool\" is a **lie** \u2192 Riley is a **sage**.\n- **Riley is a sage**, so his statement \"Zoey is a sage or Riley is a sage\" is **true** \u2192 Consistent.\n\n---\n\n### \u2705 Final Answer:\n**Zoey is a fool, and Riley is a sage**."} diff --git a/resources_servers/reasoning_gym/requirements.txt b/resources_servers/reasoning_gym/requirements.txt new file mode 100644 index 000000000..e7b4a28f5 --- /dev/null +++ b/resources_servers/reasoning_gym/requirements.txt @@ -0,0 +1,2 @@ +-e nemo-gym[dev] @ ../../ +reasoning-gym>=0.1.19 diff --git a/resources_servers/reasoning_gym/scripts/create_dataset.py b/resources_servers/reasoning_gym/scripts/create_dataset.py new file mode 100644 index 000000000..aa0bb53bd --- /dev/null +++ b/resources_servers/reasoning_gym/scripts/create_dataset.py @@ -0,0 +1,314 @@ +# Copyright (c) 2025, NVIDIA CORPORATION. All rights reserved. +# +# Licensed under the Apache License, Version 2.0 (the "License"); +# you may not use this file except in compliance with the License. +# You may obtain a copy of the License at +# +# http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0 +# +# Unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing, software +# distributed under the License is distributed on an "AS IS" BASIS, +# WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY KIND, either express or implied. +# See the License for the specific language governing permissions and +# limitations under the License. + +""" +# Single task with default config +python create_dataset.py --task knights_knaves --size 500 --seed 42 --output data/train.jsonl + +# Multiple tasks (creates composite dataset with equal weights) +python create_dataset.py --tasks knights_knaves,syllogism --size 500 --output data/train.jsonl + +# All tasks in a category +python create_dataset.py --category logic --size 500 --output data/train.jsonl + +# All tasks from all categories +python create_dataset.py --all-tasks --size 5000 --output data/train_all.jsonl + +# Single task with custom config +python create_dataset.py --task knights_knaves --size 500 --config '{"n_people": 3}' --output data/train.jsonl +""" + +import argparse +import json +import sys +from pathlib import Path + +import reasoning_gym +from reasoning_gym.composite import DatasetSpec + + +TASK_CATEGORIES = { + "logic": [ + "knights_knaves", + "syllogism", + "propositional_logic", + "zebra_puzzles", + "aiw", + "circuit_logic", + "self_reference", + ], + "arithmetic": [ + "basic_arithmetic", + "chain_sum", + "leg_counting", + "prime_factorization", + "gcd", + "lcm", + "time_intervals", + "calendar_arithmetic", + "dice", + "products", + "decimal_chain_sum", + "decimal_arithmetic", + "count_bits", + "bitwise_arithmetic", + "number_format", + "fraction_simplification", + "power_function", + "gsm_symbolic", + ], + "algebra": [ + "simple_equations", + "polynomial_equations", + "polynomial_multiplication", + "simple_integration", + "intermediate_integration", + "complex_arithmetic", + ], + "algorithmic": [ + "word_sorting", + "string_insertion", + "sentence_reordering", + "count_primes", + "binary_alternation", + "manipulate_matrix", + "pool_matrix", + "base_conversion", + "jugs", + "graph_color", + "spiral_matrix", + "cryptarithm", + "ab", + "spell_backward", + "letter_counting", + "letter_jumble", + "number_sorting", + "caesar_cipher", + "rotate_matrix", + "rotten_oranges", + "palindrome_generation", + "palindrome_partitioning", + "game_of_life", + "game_of_life_halting", + "group_anagrams", + "isomorphic_strings", + "string_synthesis", + "binary_matrix", + "word_sequence_reversal", + "number_filtering", + "word_ladder", + "string_manipulation", + "ransom_note", + "string_splitting", + ], + "cognition": [ + "figlet_font", + "needle_haystack", + "modulo_grid", + "number_sequence", + "rubiks_cube", + "color_cube_rotation", + "rectangle_count", + ], + "arc": [ + "arc_1d", + "arc_agi", + "rearc", + ], + "code": [ + "bf", + "codeio", + ], + "games": [ + "boxnet", + "countdown", + "emoji_mystery", + "futoshiki", + "kakurasu", + "knight_swap", + "mahjong_puzzle", + "maze", + "mini_sudoku", + "n_queens", + "puzzle24", + "rush_hour", + "sokoban", + "sudoku", + "survo", + "tower_of_hanoi", + "tsumego", + ], + "geometry": [ + "advanced_geometry", + "simple_geometry", + ], + "graphs": [ + "course_schedule", + "family_relationships", + "largest_island", + "quantum_lock", + "shortest_path", + ], + "induction": [ + "acre", + "list_functions", + ], + "probability": [ + "coin_flip", + ], +} + + +def format_entry_to_nemo_gym(entry: dict) -> dict: + return { + "responses_create_params": { + "input": [{"role": "user", "content": entry["question"]}], + }, + **entry, + } + + +def create_single_task_dataset(task_name: str, size: int, seed: int, config: dict = None) -> list[dict]: + config = config or {} + config["size"] = size + config["seed"] = seed + + print(f"Creating {task_name} dataset with {size} samples (seed={seed})...") + try: + dataset = reasoning_gym.create_dataset(task_name, **config) + except Exception as e: + print(f"Error creating dataset {task_name}: {e}") + return [] + + entries = [] + for i in range(size): + try: + entry = dataset[i] + entries.append(format_entry_to_nemo_gym(entry)) + except Exception as e: + print(f"Error generating entry {i} for {task_name}: {e}") + continue + + print(f"Generated {len(entries)} entries for {task_name}") + return entries + + +def create_composite_dataset(task_names: list[str], size: int, seed: int, config: dict = None) -> list[dict]: + config = config or {} + + specs = [DatasetSpec(name=name, weight=1.0, config=config.get(name, {})) for name in task_names] + + print(f"Creating composite dataset with {len(task_names)} tasks: {', '.join(task_names)}") + print(f"Total samples: {size}, seed: {seed}") + + try: + dataset = reasoning_gym.create_dataset("composite", size=size, seed=seed, datasets=specs) + except Exception as e: + print(f"Error creating composite dataset: {e}") + return [] + + entries = [] + for i in range(size): + try: + entry = dataset[i] + entries.append(format_entry_to_nemo_gym(entry)) + except Exception as e: + print(f"Error generating entry {i}: {e}") + continue + + task_counts = {} + for entry in entries: + task = entry["metadata"]["source_dataset"] + task_counts[task] = task_counts.get(task, 0) + 1 + + print(f"\nGenerated {len(entries)} total entries") + print("Task distribution:") + for task, count in sorted(task_counts.items()): + print(f" {task}: {count}") + + return entries + + +def main(): + parser = argparse.ArgumentParser( + description="Create reasoning_gym datasets in NeMo Gym format", + formatter_class=argparse.RawDescriptionHelpFormatter, + epilog=__doc__, + ) + + task_group = parser.add_mutually_exclusive_group(required=True) + task_group.add_argument("--task", type=str, help="Single task name (e.g., knights_knaves)") + task_group.add_argument("--tasks", type=str, help="Comma-separated list of tasks") + task_group.add_argument( + "--category", type=str, choices=list(TASK_CATEGORIES.keys()), help="Task category (e.g., logic, arithmetic)" + ) + task_group.add_argument("--all-tasks", action="store_true", help="Use all tasks from all categories") + + parser.add_argument("--size", type=int, default=500, help="Number of samples to generate (default: 500)") + parser.add_argument("--seed", type=int, default=42, help="Random seed (default: 42)") + parser.add_argument( + "--config", + type=str, + default="{}", + help="Task-specific config as JSON string (e.g., '{\"n_people\": 3}')", + ) + + parser.add_argument( + "--output", type=str, required=True, help="Output JSONL file path (e.g., data/train_knights_knaves.jsonl)" + ) + + args = parser.parse_args() + + try: + config = json.loads(args.config) + except json.JSONDecodeError as e: + print(f"Error parsing config JSON: {e}") + sys.exit(1) + + if args.task: + task_names = [args.task] + elif args.tasks: + task_names = [t.strip() for t in args.tasks.split(",")] + elif args.category: + task_names = TASK_CATEGORIES[args.category] + elif args.all_tasks: + task_names = [] + for category_tasks in TASK_CATEGORIES.values(): + task_names.extend(category_tasks) + else: + print("Error: Must specify --task, --tasks, --category, or --all-tasks") + sys.exit(1) + + if len(task_names) == 1: + entries = create_single_task_dataset(task_names[0], args.size, args.seed, config) + else: + entries = create_composite_dataset(task_names, args.size, args.seed, config) + + if not entries: + print("Error: No entries generated") + sys.exit(1) + + output_path = Path(args.output) + output_path.parent.mkdir(parents=True, exist_ok=True) + + with open(output_path, "w") as f: + for entry in entries: + f.write(json.dumps(entry) + "\n") + + print(f"\nDataset saved to {output_path}") + print(f"Total entries: {len(entries)}") + + +if __name__ == "__main__": + main() diff --git a/resources_servers/reasoning_gym/tests/test_app.py b/resources_servers/reasoning_gym/tests/test_app.py new file mode 100644 index 000000000..b1bffe039 --- /dev/null +++ b/resources_servers/reasoning_gym/tests/test_app.py @@ -0,0 +1,138 @@ +# Copyright (c) 2025, NVIDIA CORPORATION. All rights reserved. +# +# Licensed under the Apache License, Version 2.0 (the "License"); +# you may not use this file except in compliance with the License. +# You may obtain a copy of the License at +# +# http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0 +# +# Unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing, software +# distributed under the License is distributed on an "AS IS" BASIS, +# WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY KIND, either express or implied. +# See the License for the specific language governing permissions and +# limitations under the License. + +from unittest.mock import MagicMock + +import pytest +import reasoning_gym + +from nemo_gym.openai_utils import ( + NeMoGymResponse, + NeMoGymResponseCreateParamsNonStreaming, + NeMoGymResponseOutputMessage, + NeMoGymResponseOutputText, +) +from nemo_gym.server_utils import ServerClient +from resources_servers.reasoning_gym.app import ( + ReasoningGymResourcesServer, + ReasoningGymResourcesServerConfig, + ReasoningGymVerifyRequest, +) + + +class TestApp: + @pytest.fixture + def config(self) -> ReasoningGymResourcesServerConfig: + return ReasoningGymResourcesServerConfig( + host="0.0.0.0", + port=8080, + entrypoint="", + name="", + ) + + @pytest.fixture + def server(self, config) -> ReasoningGymResourcesServer: + return ReasoningGymResourcesServer(config=config, server_client=MagicMock(spec=ServerClient)) + + def _create_response(self, text: str, msg_id: str = "test_msg") -> NeMoGymResponse: + return NeMoGymResponse( + id="test_response_id", + created_at=1234567890.0, + model="test_model", + object="response", + output=[ + NeMoGymResponseOutputMessage( + id=msg_id, + role="assistant", + type="message", + content=[ + NeMoGymResponseOutputText( + type="output_text", + text=text, + annotations=[], + ) + ], + ) + ], + parallel_tool_calls=False, + tool_choice="none", + tools=[], + ) + + @pytest.mark.asyncio + async def test_reasoning_gym_verify_correct_answer(self, server): + dataset = reasoning_gym.create_dataset("knights_knaves", size=1, seed=42) + entry = dataset[0] + + response = self._create_response(text=entry["answer"], msg_id="test_msg_1") + + verify_request = ReasoningGymVerifyRequest( + responses_create_params=NeMoGymResponseCreateParamsNonStreaming( + input=[{"role": "user", "content": entry["question"]}] + ), + response=response, + question=entry["question"], + answer=entry["answer"], + metadata=entry["metadata"], + ) + + verify_response = await server.verify(verify_request) + + assert verify_response.reward >= 0.9, f"Expected high reward for correct answer, got {verify_response.reward}" + + @pytest.mark.asyncio + async def test_reasoning_gym_verify_incorrect_answer(self, server): + dataset = reasoning_gym.create_dataset("knights_knaves", size=1, seed=42) + entry = dataset[0] + + response = self._create_response(text="This is completely wrong", msg_id="test_msg_2") + + verify_request = ReasoningGymVerifyRequest( + responses_create_params=NeMoGymResponseCreateParamsNonStreaming( + input=[{"role": "user", "content": entry["question"]}] + ), + response=response, + question=entry["question"], + answer=entry["answer"], + metadata=entry["metadata"], + ) + + verify_response = await server.verify(verify_request) + + assert verify_response.reward <= 0.1, f"Expected low reward for incorrect answer, got {verify_response.reward}" + + @pytest.mark.asyncio + async def test_reasoning_gym_verify_multiple_tasks(self, server): + tasks_to_test = ["knights_knaves", "leg_counting", "basic_arithmetic"] + + for task_name in tasks_to_test: + dataset = reasoning_gym.create_dataset(task_name, size=1, seed=42) + entry = dataset[0] + + response = self._create_response(text=entry["answer"], msg_id=f"test_msg_{task_name}") + + verify_request = ReasoningGymVerifyRequest( + responses_create_params=NeMoGymResponseCreateParamsNonStreaming( + input=[{"role": "user", "content": entry["question"]}] + ), + response=response, + question=entry["question"], + answer=entry["answer"], + metadata=entry["metadata"], + ) + + verify_response = await server.verify(verify_request) + + assert verify_response.reward >= 0.9, f"Task {task_name} failed: reward={verify_response.reward}" + assert verify_response.task_name == task_name