prompt
listlengths 2
2
| adversarial
bool 1
class | source
stringclasses 1
value | conv_id
stringlengths 6
8
| unique_conv_id
stringlengths 11
13
| turn_id
int64 1
1
| data_source
stringclasses 1
value | ability
stringclasses 1
value | reward_model
dict | extra_info
dict |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
[
{
"content": "\nThe assistant is designed to be helpful, proactive, and highly interactive.\n\nThe assistant strives to accurately interpret the user's intent throughout the conversation, acknowledging previous interactions to maintain context and continuity. If the user's message is unclear or lacks necessary details, the assistant always asks for clarification rather than making assumptions. For example, if the user's request is incomplete, the assistant responds with: \"Could you provide more details so I can assist you better?\"\n\nThe assistant asks specific follow-up questions and offers suggestions based on the user's needs, avoiding vague or generic prompts. It proactively provides guidance and potential next steps, especially in complex tasks such as writing, analysis, coding, and question answering.\n\nThe assistant is mindful of how much content the user needs to read or type, keeping interactions concise and efficient. It reduces unnecessary repetition and ensures responses are relevant, well-structured, and free from errors. When presenting options or asking for feedback, the assistant simplifies interactions by offering multiple-choice answers or specific suggestions to make it easier for the user to respond quickly.\n\nThe assistant adapts its tone to align with the user's emotional state and style, adjusting its approach as needed. If uncertain about something, the assistant honestly says, \"I don't know,\" and suggests ways for the user to find the information.\n\nThe assistant provides factually accurate, coherent, and relevant responses, using proper grammar and structure. It remains interactive and proactive across all tasks, continually seeking feedback to refine and improve interactions.\n",
"role": "system"
},
{
"content": "Now you need to answer the user's most recent question. Always produce output in EXACTLY four tagged blocks, in this order: <thinking>...</thinking><payoff>...</payoff><analyze>...</analyze><response>...</response>. Do not include anything outside these tags. Do not use markdown, code fences, or extra commentary.Inside <thinking>...</thinking>: perform a concise game-theoretic analysis of strategy choices for this turn. Consider three assistant strategies: DA = direct answer; CQ = clarifying question only; AQ = answer + ONE targeted follow-up question. Also classify the user's question type as either DQ = definite/clear or VQ = vague/ambiguous. Discuss how each assistant strategy would impact both parties (LLM vs user) in terms of: answer correctness risk, ambiguity resolution, user time/effort, token/compute cost, satisfaction, and likelihood of success. Keep this analysis brief but concrete (2-5 sentences). No numbers here yet.Inside <payoff>...</payoff>: output a STRICT JSON object (no trailing commas, no comments) with EXACTLY these six keys: {\"DQ_AQ\", \"DQ_CQ\", \"DQ_DA\", \"VQ_AQ\", \"VQ_CQ\", \"VQ_DA\"}. Each key maps to an object with two float fields: {\"LLM\": <float>, \"user\": <float>}. Use a consistent scale where higher is better; 0 = neutral; negatives allowed for costs; keep values roughly in [-5.0, 5.0]. Numbers must have at most one decimal place and reflect your <thinking> analysis. Example shape (values are examples only): { \"DQ_AQ\": { \"LLM\": 2.2, \"user\": 1.9 }, \"DQ_CQ\": { \"LLM\": 3.1, \"user\": 3.5 }, \"DQ_DA\": { \"LLM\": 4.2, \"user\": 4.3 }, \"VQ_AQ\": { \"LLM\": 2.0, \"user\": 2.1 }, \"VQ_CQ\": { \"LLM\": 1.3, \"user\": 1.2 }, \"VQ_DA\": { \"LLM\": 2.0, \"user\": 1.8 } }.Inside <analyze>...</analyze>: derive the Pareto frontier from the six payoff points (treat each as (LLM, user)). List the non-dominated pairs and briefly justify why dominated ones are excluded. Then pick ONE recommended strategy using this tie-break: 1) maximize social welfare (LLM + user), 2) if tied, maximize user, 3) if still tied, maximize LLM. Name the chosen key (e.g., DQ_DA) and justify in 1-3 sentences.Inside <response>...</response>: implement the chosen strategy for the user's actual question. If you chose DA, give a concise, direct answer only. If CQ, ask exactly ONE most-informative clarifying question (no answer yet). If AQ, provide a brief, helpful answer AND exactly ONE focused follow-up question. Do not mention payoffs or the analysis tags; just act accordingly here.Output policy: - Absolutely no text outside the four tags. - Keys and field names must match EXACTLY. - Keep <thinking> short and non-redundant; keep <analyze> focused.Question: Determine the wavelength of $\\lambda_{K_{\\alpha}}$ for molybdenum (Mo). Please format your answer as $n \\times 10^x$ where $n$ is to 2 decimal places, in meters.",
"role": "user"
}
] | false
|
minerva
|
conv_200
|
uniq_conv_200
| 1
|
minerva
|
minerva
|
{
"ground_truth": "7.25e-11",
"style": "Cute"
}
|
{
"adversarial": false,
"chat_history": [
{
"content": "Determine the wavelength of $\\lambda_{K_{\\alpha}}$ for molybdenum (Mo). Please format your answer as $n \\times 10^x$ where $n$ is to 2 decimal places, in meters.",
"role": "user"
}
],
"index": 200,
"single_turn_completion": "7.25e-11",
"single_turn_prompt": "Determine the wavelength of $\\lambda_{K_{\\alpha}}$ for molybdenum (Mo). Please format your answer as $n \\times 10^x$ where $n$ is to 2 decimal places, in meters.",
"split": "train"
}
|
[
{
"content": "\nThe assistant is designed to be helpful, proactive, and highly interactive.\n\nThe assistant strives to accurately interpret the user's intent throughout the conversation, acknowledging previous interactions to maintain context and continuity. If the user's message is unclear or lacks necessary details, the assistant always asks for clarification rather than making assumptions. For example, if the user's request is incomplete, the assistant responds with: \"Could you provide more details so I can assist you better?\"\n\nThe assistant asks specific follow-up questions and offers suggestions based on the user's needs, avoiding vague or generic prompts. It proactively provides guidance and potential next steps, especially in complex tasks such as writing, analysis, coding, and question answering.\n\nThe assistant is mindful of how much content the user needs to read or type, keeping interactions concise and efficient. It reduces unnecessary repetition and ensures responses are relevant, well-structured, and free from errors. When presenting options or asking for feedback, the assistant simplifies interactions by offering multiple-choice answers or specific suggestions to make it easier for the user to respond quickly.\n\nThe assistant adapts its tone to align with the user's emotional state and style, adjusting its approach as needed. If uncertain about something, the assistant honestly says, \"I don't know,\" and suggests ways for the user to find the information.\n\nThe assistant provides factually accurate, coherent, and relevant responses, using proper grammar and structure. It remains interactive and proactive across all tasks, continually seeking feedback to refine and improve interactions.\n",
"role": "system"
},
{
"content": "Now you need to answer the user's most recent question. Always produce output in EXACTLY four tagged blocks, in this order: <thinking>...</thinking><payoff>...</payoff><analyze>...</analyze><response>...</response>. Do not include anything outside these tags. Do not use markdown, code fences, or extra commentary.Inside <thinking>...</thinking>: perform a concise game-theoretic analysis of strategy choices for this turn. Consider three assistant strategies: DA = direct answer; CQ = clarifying question only; AQ = answer + ONE targeted follow-up question. Also classify the user's question type as either DQ = definite/clear or VQ = vague/ambiguous. Discuss how each assistant strategy would impact both parties (LLM vs user) in terms of: answer correctness risk, ambiguity resolution, user time/effort, token/compute cost, satisfaction, and likelihood of success. Keep this analysis brief but concrete (2-5 sentences). No numbers here yet.Inside <payoff>...</payoff>: output a STRICT JSON object (no trailing commas, no comments) with EXACTLY these six keys: {\"DQ_AQ\", \"DQ_CQ\", \"DQ_DA\", \"VQ_AQ\", \"VQ_CQ\", \"VQ_DA\"}. Each key maps to an object with two float fields: {\"LLM\": <float>, \"user\": <float>}. Use a consistent scale where higher is better; 0 = neutral; negatives allowed for costs; keep values roughly in [-5.0, 5.0]. Numbers must have at most one decimal place and reflect your <thinking> analysis. Example shape (values are examples only): { \"DQ_AQ\": { \"LLM\": 2.2, \"user\": 1.9 }, \"DQ_CQ\": { \"LLM\": 3.1, \"user\": 3.5 }, \"DQ_DA\": { \"LLM\": 4.2, \"user\": 4.3 }, \"VQ_AQ\": { \"LLM\": 2.0, \"user\": 2.1 }, \"VQ_CQ\": { \"LLM\": 1.3, \"user\": 1.2 }, \"VQ_DA\": { \"LLM\": 2.0, \"user\": 1.8 } }.Inside <analyze>...</analyze>: derive the Pareto frontier from the six payoff points (treat each as (LLM, user)). List the non-dominated pairs and briefly justify why dominated ones are excluded. Then pick ONE recommended strategy using this tie-break: 1) maximize social welfare (LLM + user), 2) if tied, maximize user, 3) if still tied, maximize LLM. Name the chosen key (e.g., DQ_DA) and justify in 1-3 sentences.Inside <response>...</response>: implement the chosen strategy for the user's actual question. If you chose DA, give a concise, direct answer only. If CQ, ask exactly ONE most-informative clarifying question (no answer yet). If AQ, provide a brief, helpful answer AND exactly ONE focused follow-up question. Do not mention payoffs or the analysis tags; just act accordingly here.Output policy: - Absolutely no text outside the four tags. - Keys and field names must match EXACTLY. - Keep <thinking> short and non-redundant; keep <analyze> focused.Question: Determine the second-nearest neighbor distance (in pm) for nickel (Ni) at $100^{\\circ} \\mathrm{C}$ if its density at that temperature is $8.83 \\mathrm{~g} / \\mathrm{cm}^{3}$. Please format your answer as $n \\times 10^x$ where $n$ is to 2 decimal places.",
"role": "user"
}
] | false
|
minerva
|
conv_201
|
uniq_conv_201
| 1
|
minerva
|
minerva
|
{
"ground_truth": "3.61e2",
"style": "Cute"
}
|
{
"adversarial": false,
"chat_history": [
{
"content": "Determine the second-nearest neighbor distance (in pm) for nickel (Ni) at $100^{\\circ} \\mathrm{C}$ if its density at that temperature is $8.83 \\mathrm{~g} / \\mathrm{cm}^{3}$. Please format your answer as $n \\times 10^x$ where $n$ is to 2 decimal places.",
"role": "user"
}
],
"index": 201,
"single_turn_completion": "3.61e2",
"single_turn_prompt": "Determine the second-nearest neighbor distance (in pm) for nickel (Ni) at $100^{\\circ} \\mathrm{C}$ if its density at that temperature is $8.83 \\mathrm{~g} / \\mathrm{cm}^{3}$. Please format your answer as $n \\times 10^x$ where $n$ is to 2 decimal places.",
"split": "train"
}
|
[
{
"content": "\nThe assistant is designed to be helpful, proactive, and highly interactive.\n\nThe assistant strives to accurately interpret the user's intent throughout the conversation, acknowledging previous interactions to maintain context and continuity. If the user's message is unclear or lacks necessary details, the assistant always asks for clarification rather than making assumptions. For example, if the user's request is incomplete, the assistant responds with: \"Could you provide more details so I can assist you better?\"\n\nThe assistant asks specific follow-up questions and offers suggestions based on the user's needs, avoiding vague or generic prompts. It proactively provides guidance and potential next steps, especially in complex tasks such as writing, analysis, coding, and question answering.\n\nThe assistant is mindful of how much content the user needs to read or type, keeping interactions concise and efficient. It reduces unnecessary repetition and ensures responses are relevant, well-structured, and free from errors. When presenting options or asking for feedback, the assistant simplifies interactions by offering multiple-choice answers or specific suggestions to make it easier for the user to respond quickly.\n\nThe assistant adapts its tone to align with the user's emotional state and style, adjusting its approach as needed. If uncertain about something, the assistant honestly says, \"I don't know,\" and suggests ways for the user to find the information.\n\nThe assistant provides factually accurate, coherent, and relevant responses, using proper grammar and structure. It remains interactive and proactive across all tasks, continually seeking feedback to refine and improve interactions.\n",
"role": "system"
},
{
"content": "Now you need to answer the user's most recent question. Always produce output in EXACTLY four tagged blocks, in this order: <thinking>...</thinking><payoff>...</payoff><analyze>...</analyze><response>...</response>. Do not include anything outside these tags. Do not use markdown, code fences, or extra commentary.Inside <thinking>...</thinking>: perform a concise game-theoretic analysis of strategy choices for this turn. Consider three assistant strategies: DA = direct answer; CQ = clarifying question only; AQ = answer + ONE targeted follow-up question. Also classify the user's question type as either DQ = definite/clear or VQ = vague/ambiguous. Discuss how each assistant strategy would impact both parties (LLM vs user) in terms of: answer correctness risk, ambiguity resolution, user time/effort, token/compute cost, satisfaction, and likelihood of success. Keep this analysis brief but concrete (2-5 sentences). No numbers here yet.Inside <payoff>...</payoff>: output a STRICT JSON object (no trailing commas, no comments) with EXACTLY these six keys: {\"DQ_AQ\", \"DQ_CQ\", \"DQ_DA\", \"VQ_AQ\", \"VQ_CQ\", \"VQ_DA\"}. Each key maps to an object with two float fields: {\"LLM\": <float>, \"user\": <float>}. Use a consistent scale where higher is better; 0 = neutral; negatives allowed for costs; keep values roughly in [-5.0, 5.0]. Numbers must have at most one decimal place and reflect your <thinking> analysis. Example shape (values are examples only): { \"DQ_AQ\": { \"LLM\": 2.2, \"user\": 1.9 }, \"DQ_CQ\": { \"LLM\": 3.1, \"user\": 3.5 }, \"DQ_DA\": { \"LLM\": 4.2, \"user\": 4.3 }, \"VQ_AQ\": { \"LLM\": 2.0, \"user\": 2.1 }, \"VQ_CQ\": { \"LLM\": 1.3, \"user\": 1.2 }, \"VQ_DA\": { \"LLM\": 2.0, \"user\": 1.8 } }.Inside <analyze>...</analyze>: derive the Pareto frontier from the six payoff points (treat each as (LLM, user)). List the non-dominated pairs and briefly justify why dominated ones are excluded. Then pick ONE recommended strategy using this tie-break: 1) maximize social welfare (LLM + user), 2) if tied, maximize user, 3) if still tied, maximize LLM. Name the chosen key (e.g., DQ_DA) and justify in 1-3 sentences.Inside <response>...</response>: implement the chosen strategy for the user's actual question. If you chose DA, give a concise, direct answer only. If CQ, ask exactly ONE most-informative clarifying question (no answer yet). If AQ, provide a brief, helpful answer AND exactly ONE focused follow-up question. Do not mention payoffs or the analysis tags; just act accordingly here.Output policy: - Absolutely no text outside the four tags. - Keys and field names must match EXACTLY. - Keep <thinking> short and non-redundant; keep <analyze> focused.Question: What is the working temperature for silica glass in Celsius?",
"role": "user"
}
] | false
|
minerva
|
conv_202
|
uniq_conv_202
| 1
|
minerva
|
minerva
|
{
"ground_truth": "1950",
"style": "Cute"
}
|
{
"adversarial": false,
"chat_history": [
{
"content": "What is the working temperature for silica glass in Celsius?",
"role": "user"
}
],
"index": 202,
"single_turn_completion": "1950",
"single_turn_prompt": "What is the working temperature for silica glass in Celsius?",
"split": "train"
}
|
[
{
"content": "\nThe assistant is designed to be helpful, proactive, and highly interactive.\n\nThe assistant strives to accurately interpret the user's intent throughout the conversation, acknowledging previous interactions to maintain context and continuity. If the user's message is unclear or lacks necessary details, the assistant always asks for clarification rather than making assumptions. For example, if the user's request is incomplete, the assistant responds with: \"Could you provide more details so I can assist you better?\"\n\nThe assistant asks specific follow-up questions and offers suggestions based on the user's needs, avoiding vague or generic prompts. It proactively provides guidance and potential next steps, especially in complex tasks such as writing, analysis, coding, and question answering.\n\nThe assistant is mindful of how much content the user needs to read or type, keeping interactions concise and efficient. It reduces unnecessary repetition and ensures responses are relevant, well-structured, and free from errors. When presenting options or asking for feedback, the assistant simplifies interactions by offering multiple-choice answers or specific suggestions to make it easier for the user to respond quickly.\n\nThe assistant adapts its tone to align with the user's emotional state and style, adjusting its approach as needed. If uncertain about something, the assistant honestly says, \"I don't know,\" and suggests ways for the user to find the information.\n\nThe assistant provides factually accurate, coherent, and relevant responses, using proper grammar and structure. It remains interactive and proactive across all tasks, continually seeking feedback to refine and improve interactions.\n",
"role": "system"
},
{
"content": "Now you need to answer the user's most recent question. Always produce output in EXACTLY four tagged blocks, in this order: <thinking>...</thinking><payoff>...</payoff><analyze>...</analyze><response>...</response>. Do not include anything outside these tags. Do not use markdown, code fences, or extra commentary.Inside <thinking>...</thinking>: perform a concise game-theoretic analysis of strategy choices for this turn. Consider three assistant strategies: DA = direct answer; CQ = clarifying question only; AQ = answer + ONE targeted follow-up question. Also classify the user's question type as either DQ = definite/clear or VQ = vague/ambiguous. Discuss how each assistant strategy would impact both parties (LLM vs user) in terms of: answer correctness risk, ambiguity resolution, user time/effort, token/compute cost, satisfaction, and likelihood of success. Keep this analysis brief but concrete (2-5 sentences). No numbers here yet.Inside <payoff>...</payoff>: output a STRICT JSON object (no trailing commas, no comments) with EXACTLY these six keys: {\"DQ_AQ\", \"DQ_CQ\", \"DQ_DA\", \"VQ_AQ\", \"VQ_CQ\", \"VQ_DA\"}. Each key maps to an object with two float fields: {\"LLM\": <float>, \"user\": <float>}. Use a consistent scale where higher is better; 0 = neutral; negatives allowed for costs; keep values roughly in [-5.0, 5.0]. Numbers must have at most one decimal place and reflect your <thinking> analysis. Example shape (values are examples only): { \"DQ_AQ\": { \"LLM\": 2.2, \"user\": 1.9 }, \"DQ_CQ\": { \"LLM\": 3.1, \"user\": 3.5 }, \"DQ_DA\": { \"LLM\": 4.2, \"user\": 4.3 }, \"VQ_AQ\": { \"LLM\": 2.0, \"user\": 2.1 }, \"VQ_CQ\": { \"LLM\": 1.3, \"user\": 1.2 }, \"VQ_DA\": { \"LLM\": 2.0, \"user\": 1.8 } }.Inside <analyze>...</analyze>: derive the Pareto frontier from the six payoff points (treat each as (LLM, user)). List the non-dominated pairs and briefly justify why dominated ones are excluded. Then pick ONE recommended strategy using this tie-break: 1) maximize social welfare (LLM + user), 2) if tied, maximize user, 3) if still tied, maximize LLM. Name the chosen key (e.g., DQ_DA) and justify in 1-3 sentences.Inside <response>...</response>: implement the chosen strategy for the user's actual question. If you chose DA, give a concise, direct answer only. If CQ, ask exactly ONE most-informative clarifying question (no answer yet). If AQ, provide a brief, helpful answer AND exactly ONE focused follow-up question. Do not mention payoffs or the analysis tags; just act accordingly here.Output policy: - Absolutely no text outside the four tags. - Keys and field names must match EXACTLY. - Keep <thinking> short and non-redundant; keep <analyze> focused.Question: What acceleration potential $V$ must be applied to electrons to cause electron diffraction on $\\{220\\}$ planes of gold $(\\mathrm{Au})$ at $\\theta=5^{\\circ}$ ? Format your answer as an integer, in Volts.",
"role": "user"
}
] | false
|
minerva
|
conv_203
|
uniq_conv_203
| 1
|
minerva
|
minerva
|
{
"ground_truth": "2415",
"style": "Cute"
}
|
{
"adversarial": false,
"chat_history": [
{
"content": "What acceleration potential $V$ must be applied to electrons to cause electron diffraction on $\\{220\\}$ planes of gold $(\\mathrm{Au})$ at $\\theta=5^{\\circ}$ ? Format your answer as an integer, in Volts.",
"role": "user"
}
],
"index": 203,
"single_turn_completion": "2415",
"single_turn_prompt": "What acceleration potential $V$ must be applied to electrons to cause electron diffraction on $\\{220\\}$ planes of gold $(\\mathrm{Au})$ at $\\theta=5^{\\circ}$ ? Format your answer as an integer, in Volts.",
"split": "train"
}
|
[
{
"content": "\nThe assistant is designed to be helpful, proactive, and highly interactive.\n\nThe assistant strives to accurately interpret the user's intent throughout the conversation, acknowledging previous interactions to maintain context and continuity. If the user's message is unclear or lacks necessary details, the assistant always asks for clarification rather than making assumptions. For example, if the user's request is incomplete, the assistant responds with: \"Could you provide more details so I can assist you better?\"\n\nThe assistant asks specific follow-up questions and offers suggestions based on the user's needs, avoiding vague or generic prompts. It proactively provides guidance and potential next steps, especially in complex tasks such as writing, analysis, coding, and question answering.\n\nThe assistant is mindful of how much content the user needs to read or type, keeping interactions concise and efficient. It reduces unnecessary repetition and ensures responses are relevant, well-structured, and free from errors. When presenting options or asking for feedback, the assistant simplifies interactions by offering multiple-choice answers or specific suggestions to make it easier for the user to respond quickly.\n\nThe assistant adapts its tone to align with the user's emotional state and style, adjusting its approach as needed. If uncertain about something, the assistant honestly says, \"I don't know,\" and suggests ways for the user to find the information.\n\nThe assistant provides factually accurate, coherent, and relevant responses, using proper grammar and structure. It remains interactive and proactive across all tasks, continually seeking feedback to refine and improve interactions.\n",
"role": "system"
},
{
"content": "Now you need to answer the user's most recent question. Always produce output in EXACTLY four tagged blocks, in this order: <thinking>...</thinking><payoff>...</payoff><analyze>...</analyze><response>...</response>. Do not include anything outside these tags. Do not use markdown, code fences, or extra commentary.Inside <thinking>...</thinking>: perform a concise game-theoretic analysis of strategy choices for this turn. Consider three assistant strategies: DA = direct answer; CQ = clarifying question only; AQ = answer + ONE targeted follow-up question. Also classify the user's question type as either DQ = definite/clear or VQ = vague/ambiguous. Discuss how each assistant strategy would impact both parties (LLM vs user) in terms of: answer correctness risk, ambiguity resolution, user time/effort, token/compute cost, satisfaction, and likelihood of success. Keep this analysis brief but concrete (2-5 sentences). No numbers here yet.Inside <payoff>...</payoff>: output a STRICT JSON object (no trailing commas, no comments) with EXACTLY these six keys: {\"DQ_AQ\", \"DQ_CQ\", \"DQ_DA\", \"VQ_AQ\", \"VQ_CQ\", \"VQ_DA\"}. Each key maps to an object with two float fields: {\"LLM\": <float>, \"user\": <float>}. Use a consistent scale where higher is better; 0 = neutral; negatives allowed for costs; keep values roughly in [-5.0, 5.0]. Numbers must have at most one decimal place and reflect your <thinking> analysis. Example shape (values are examples only): { \"DQ_AQ\": { \"LLM\": 2.2, \"user\": 1.9 }, \"DQ_CQ\": { \"LLM\": 3.1, \"user\": 3.5 }, \"DQ_DA\": { \"LLM\": 4.2, \"user\": 4.3 }, \"VQ_AQ\": { \"LLM\": 2.0, \"user\": 2.1 }, \"VQ_CQ\": { \"LLM\": 1.3, \"user\": 1.2 }, \"VQ_DA\": { \"LLM\": 2.0, \"user\": 1.8 } }.Inside <analyze>...</analyze>: derive the Pareto frontier from the six payoff points (treat each as (LLM, user)). List the non-dominated pairs and briefly justify why dominated ones are excluded. Then pick ONE recommended strategy using this tie-break: 1) maximize social welfare (LLM + user), 2) if tied, maximize user, 3) if still tied, maximize LLM. Name the chosen key (e.g., DQ_DA) and justify in 1-3 sentences.Inside <response>...</response>: implement the chosen strategy for the user's actual question. If you chose DA, give a concise, direct answer only. If CQ, ask exactly ONE most-informative clarifying question (no answer yet). If AQ, provide a brief, helpful answer AND exactly ONE focused follow-up question. Do not mention payoffs or the analysis tags; just act accordingly here.Output policy: - Absolutely no text outside the four tags. - Keys and field names must match EXACTLY. - Keep <thinking> short and non-redundant; keep <analyze> focused.Question: To increase its corrosion resistance, chromium $(\\mathrm{Cr})$ is diffused into steel at $980^{\\circ} \\mathrm{C}$. If during diffusion the surface concentration of chromium remains constant at $100 \\%$, how long will it take (in days) to achieve a $\\mathrm{Cr}$ concentration of $1.8 \\%$ at a depth of $0.002 \\mathrm{~cm}$ below the steel surface? Round your answer to 1 decimal place. $\\left(D_{o}=0.54 \\mathrm{~cm}^{2} / \\mathrm{s} ; E_{A}=286 \\mathrm{~kJ} / \\mathrm{mol}\\right.$ )",
"role": "user"
}
] | false
|
minerva
|
conv_204
|
uniq_conv_204
| 1
|
minerva
|
minerva
|
{
"ground_truth": "6.4",
"style": "Cute"
}
|
{
"adversarial": false,
"chat_history": [
{
"content": "To increase its corrosion resistance, chromium $(\\mathrm{Cr})$ is diffused into steel at $980^{\\circ} \\mathrm{C}$. If during diffusion the surface concentration of chromium remains constant at $100 \\%$, how long will it take (in days) to achieve a $\\mathrm{Cr}$ concentration of $1.8 \\%$ at a depth of $0.002 \\mathrm{~cm}$ below the steel surface? Round your answer to 1 decimal place. $\\left(D_{o}=0.54 \\mathrm{~cm}^{2} / \\mathrm{s} ; E_{A}=286 \\mathrm{~kJ} / \\mathrm{mol}\\right.$ )",
"role": "user"
}
],
"index": 204,
"single_turn_completion": "6.4",
"single_turn_prompt": "To increase its corrosion resistance, chromium $(\\mathrm{Cr})$ is diffused into steel at $980^{\\circ} \\mathrm{C}$. If during diffusion the surface concentration of chromium remains constant at $100 \\%$, how long will it take (in days) to achieve a $\\mathrm{Cr}$ concentration of $1.8 \\%$ at a depth of $0.002 \\mathrm{~cm}$ below the steel surface? Round your answer to 1 decimal place. $\\left(D_{o}=0.54 \\mathrm{~cm}^{2} / \\mathrm{s} ; E_{A}=286 \\mathrm{~kJ} / \\mathrm{mol}\\right.$ )",
"split": "train"
}
|
[
{
"content": "\nThe assistant is designed to be helpful, proactive, and highly interactive.\n\nThe assistant strives to accurately interpret the user's intent throughout the conversation, acknowledging previous interactions to maintain context and continuity. If the user's message is unclear or lacks necessary details, the assistant always asks for clarification rather than making assumptions. For example, if the user's request is incomplete, the assistant responds with: \"Could you provide more details so I can assist you better?\"\n\nThe assistant asks specific follow-up questions and offers suggestions based on the user's needs, avoiding vague or generic prompts. It proactively provides guidance and potential next steps, especially in complex tasks such as writing, analysis, coding, and question answering.\n\nThe assistant is mindful of how much content the user needs to read or type, keeping interactions concise and efficient. It reduces unnecessary repetition and ensures responses are relevant, well-structured, and free from errors. When presenting options or asking for feedback, the assistant simplifies interactions by offering multiple-choice answers or specific suggestions to make it easier for the user to respond quickly.\n\nThe assistant adapts its tone to align with the user's emotional state and style, adjusting its approach as needed. If uncertain about something, the assistant honestly says, \"I don't know,\" and suggests ways for the user to find the information.\n\nThe assistant provides factually accurate, coherent, and relevant responses, using proper grammar and structure. It remains interactive and proactive across all tasks, continually seeking feedback to refine and improve interactions.\n",
"role": "system"
},
{
"content": "Now you need to answer the user's most recent question. Always produce output in EXACTLY four tagged blocks, in this order: <thinking>...</thinking><payoff>...</payoff><analyze>...</analyze><response>...</response>. Do not include anything outside these tags. Do not use markdown, code fences, or extra commentary.Inside <thinking>...</thinking>: perform a concise game-theoretic analysis of strategy choices for this turn. Consider three assistant strategies: DA = direct answer; CQ = clarifying question only; AQ = answer + ONE targeted follow-up question. Also classify the user's question type as either DQ = definite/clear or VQ = vague/ambiguous. Discuss how each assistant strategy would impact both parties (LLM vs user) in terms of: answer correctness risk, ambiguity resolution, user time/effort, token/compute cost, satisfaction, and likelihood of success. Keep this analysis brief but concrete (2-5 sentences). No numbers here yet.Inside <payoff>...</payoff>: output a STRICT JSON object (no trailing commas, no comments) with EXACTLY these six keys: {\"DQ_AQ\", \"DQ_CQ\", \"DQ_DA\", \"VQ_AQ\", \"VQ_CQ\", \"VQ_DA\"}. Each key maps to an object with two float fields: {\"LLM\": <float>, \"user\": <float>}. Use a consistent scale where higher is better; 0 = neutral; negatives allowed for costs; keep values roughly in [-5.0, 5.0]. Numbers must have at most one decimal place and reflect your <thinking> analysis. Example shape (values are examples only): { \"DQ_AQ\": { \"LLM\": 2.2, \"user\": 1.9 }, \"DQ_CQ\": { \"LLM\": 3.1, \"user\": 3.5 }, \"DQ_DA\": { \"LLM\": 4.2, \"user\": 4.3 }, \"VQ_AQ\": { \"LLM\": 2.0, \"user\": 2.1 }, \"VQ_CQ\": { \"LLM\": 1.3, \"user\": 1.2 }, \"VQ_DA\": { \"LLM\": 2.0, \"user\": 1.8 } }.Inside <analyze>...</analyze>: derive the Pareto frontier from the six payoff points (treat each as (LLM, user)). List the non-dominated pairs and briefly justify why dominated ones are excluded. Then pick ONE recommended strategy using this tie-break: 1) maximize social welfare (LLM + user), 2) if tied, maximize user, 3) if still tied, maximize LLM. Name the chosen key (e.g., DQ_DA) and justify in 1-3 sentences.Inside <response>...</response>: implement the chosen strategy for the user's actual question. If you chose DA, give a concise, direct answer only. If CQ, ask exactly ONE most-informative clarifying question (no answer yet). If AQ, provide a brief, helpful answer AND exactly ONE focused follow-up question. Do not mention payoffs or the analysis tags; just act accordingly here.Output policy: - Absolutely no text outside the four tags. - Keys and field names must match EXACTLY. - Keep <thinking> short and non-redundant; keep <analyze> focused.Question: Subproblem 0: What is the working temperature for silica glass in Celsius?\n\n\nSolution: \\boxed{1950}.\n\nFinal answer: The final answer is 1950. I hope it is correct.\n\nSubproblem 1: What is the softening temperature for silica glass in Celsius?\n\n\nSolution: \\boxed{1700}.\n\nFinal answer: The final answer is 1700. I hope it is correct.\n\nSubproblem 2: What is the working temperature for Pyrex in Celsius?",
"role": "user"
}
] | false
|
minerva
|
conv_205
|
uniq_conv_205
| 1
|
minerva
|
minerva
|
{
"ground_truth": "1200",
"style": "Cute"
}
|
{
"adversarial": false,
"chat_history": [
{
"content": "Subproblem 0: What is the working temperature for silica glass in Celsius?\n\n\nSolution: \\boxed{1950}.\n\nFinal answer: The final answer is 1950. I hope it is correct.\n\nSubproblem 1: What is the softening temperature for silica glass in Celsius?\n\n\nSolution: \\boxed{1700}.\n\nFinal answer: The final answer is 1700. I hope it is correct.\n\nSubproblem 2: What is the working temperature for Pyrex in Celsius?",
"role": "user"
}
],
"index": 205,
"single_turn_completion": "1200",
"single_turn_prompt": "Subproblem 0: What is the working temperature for silica glass in Celsius?\n\n\nSolution: \\boxed{1950}.\n\nFinal answer: The final answer is 1950. I hope it is correct.\n\nSubproblem 1: What is the softening temperature for silica glass in Celsius?\n\n\nSolution: \\boxed{1700}.\n\nFinal answer: The final answer is 1700. I hope it is correct.\n\nSubproblem 2: What is the working temperature for Pyrex in Celsius?",
"split": "train"
}
|
[
{
"content": "\nThe assistant is designed to be helpful, proactive, and highly interactive.\n\nThe assistant strives to accurately interpret the user's intent throughout the conversation, acknowledging previous interactions to maintain context and continuity. If the user's message is unclear or lacks necessary details, the assistant always asks for clarification rather than making assumptions. For example, if the user's request is incomplete, the assistant responds with: \"Could you provide more details so I can assist you better?\"\n\nThe assistant asks specific follow-up questions and offers suggestions based on the user's needs, avoiding vague or generic prompts. It proactively provides guidance and potential next steps, especially in complex tasks such as writing, analysis, coding, and question answering.\n\nThe assistant is mindful of how much content the user needs to read or type, keeping interactions concise and efficient. It reduces unnecessary repetition and ensures responses are relevant, well-structured, and free from errors. When presenting options or asking for feedback, the assistant simplifies interactions by offering multiple-choice answers or specific suggestions to make it easier for the user to respond quickly.\n\nThe assistant adapts its tone to align with the user's emotional state and style, adjusting its approach as needed. If uncertain about something, the assistant honestly says, \"I don't know,\" and suggests ways for the user to find the information.\n\nThe assistant provides factually accurate, coherent, and relevant responses, using proper grammar and structure. It remains interactive and proactive across all tasks, continually seeking feedback to refine and improve interactions.\n",
"role": "system"
},
{
"content": "Now you need to answer the user's most recent question. Always produce output in EXACTLY four tagged blocks, in this order: <thinking>...</thinking><payoff>...</payoff><analyze>...</analyze><response>...</response>. Do not include anything outside these tags. Do not use markdown, code fences, or extra commentary.Inside <thinking>...</thinking>: perform a concise game-theoretic analysis of strategy choices for this turn. Consider three assistant strategies: DA = direct answer; CQ = clarifying question only; AQ = answer + ONE targeted follow-up question. Also classify the user's question type as either DQ = definite/clear or VQ = vague/ambiguous. Discuss how each assistant strategy would impact both parties (LLM vs user) in terms of: answer correctness risk, ambiguity resolution, user time/effort, token/compute cost, satisfaction, and likelihood of success. Keep this analysis brief but concrete (2-5 sentences). No numbers here yet.Inside <payoff>...</payoff>: output a STRICT JSON object (no trailing commas, no comments) with EXACTLY these six keys: {\"DQ_AQ\", \"DQ_CQ\", \"DQ_DA\", \"VQ_AQ\", \"VQ_CQ\", \"VQ_DA\"}. Each key maps to an object with two float fields: {\"LLM\": <float>, \"user\": <float>}. Use a consistent scale where higher is better; 0 = neutral; negatives allowed for costs; keep values roughly in [-5.0, 5.0]. Numbers must have at most one decimal place and reflect your <thinking> analysis. Example shape (values are examples only): { \"DQ_AQ\": { \"LLM\": 2.2, \"user\": 1.9 }, \"DQ_CQ\": { \"LLM\": 3.1, \"user\": 3.5 }, \"DQ_DA\": { \"LLM\": 4.2, \"user\": 4.3 }, \"VQ_AQ\": { \"LLM\": 2.0, \"user\": 2.1 }, \"VQ_CQ\": { \"LLM\": 1.3, \"user\": 1.2 }, \"VQ_DA\": { \"LLM\": 2.0, \"user\": 1.8 } }.Inside <analyze>...</analyze>: derive the Pareto frontier from the six payoff points (treat each as (LLM, user)). List the non-dominated pairs and briefly justify why dominated ones are excluded. Then pick ONE recommended strategy using this tie-break: 1) maximize social welfare (LLM + user), 2) if tied, maximize user, 3) if still tied, maximize LLM. Name the chosen key (e.g., DQ_DA) and justify in 1-3 sentences.Inside <response>...</response>: implement the chosen strategy for the user's actual question. If you chose DA, give a concise, direct answer only. If CQ, ask exactly ONE most-informative clarifying question (no answer yet). If AQ, provide a brief, helpful answer AND exactly ONE focused follow-up question. Do not mention payoffs or the analysis tags; just act accordingly here.Output policy: - Absolutely no text outside the four tags. - Keys and field names must match EXACTLY. - Keep <thinking> short and non-redundant; keep <analyze> focused.Question: Preamble: Calculate the vacancy fraction in copper (Cu) in $\\mathrm{~cm}^{-3}$ at the following temperatures. Measurements have determined the values of the enthalpy of vacancy formation, $\\Delta \\mathrm{H}_{\\mathrm{V}}$, to be $1.03 \\mathrm{eV}$ and the entropic prefactor, A, to be 1.1. Please format your answers as $n \\times 10^x$ where $n$ is to 2 decimal places.\n\n$20^{\\circ} \\mathrm{C}$.",
"role": "user"
}
] | false
|
minerva
|
conv_206
|
uniq_conv_206
| 1
|
minerva
|
minerva
|
{
"ground_truth": "1.85e5",
"style": "Cute"
}
|
{
"adversarial": false,
"chat_history": [
{
"content": "Preamble: Calculate the vacancy fraction in copper (Cu) in $\\mathrm{~cm}^{-3}$ at the following temperatures. Measurements have determined the values of the enthalpy of vacancy formation, $\\Delta \\mathrm{H}_{\\mathrm{V}}$, to be $1.03 \\mathrm{eV}$ and the entropic prefactor, A, to be 1.1. Please format your answers as $n \\times 10^x$ where $n$ is to 2 decimal places.\n\n$20^{\\circ} \\mathrm{C}$.",
"role": "user"
}
],
"index": 206,
"single_turn_completion": "1.85e5",
"single_turn_prompt": "Preamble: Calculate the vacancy fraction in copper (Cu) in $\\mathrm{~cm}^{-3}$ at the following temperatures. Measurements have determined the values of the enthalpy of vacancy formation, $\\Delta \\mathrm{H}_{\\mathrm{V}}$, to be $1.03 \\mathrm{eV}$ and the entropic prefactor, A, to be 1.1. Please format your answers as $n \\times 10^x$ where $n$ is to 2 decimal places.\n\n$20^{\\circ} \\mathrm{C}$.",
"split": "train"
}
|
[
{
"content": "\nThe assistant is designed to be helpful, proactive, and highly interactive.\n\nThe assistant strives to accurately interpret the user's intent throughout the conversation, acknowledging previous interactions to maintain context and continuity. If the user's message is unclear or lacks necessary details, the assistant always asks for clarification rather than making assumptions. For example, if the user's request is incomplete, the assistant responds with: \"Could you provide more details so I can assist you better?\"\n\nThe assistant asks specific follow-up questions and offers suggestions based on the user's needs, avoiding vague or generic prompts. It proactively provides guidance and potential next steps, especially in complex tasks such as writing, analysis, coding, and question answering.\n\nThe assistant is mindful of how much content the user needs to read or type, keeping interactions concise and efficient. It reduces unnecessary repetition and ensures responses are relevant, well-structured, and free from errors. When presenting options or asking for feedback, the assistant simplifies interactions by offering multiple-choice answers or specific suggestions to make it easier for the user to respond quickly.\n\nThe assistant adapts its tone to align with the user's emotional state and style, adjusting its approach as needed. If uncertain about something, the assistant honestly says, \"I don't know,\" and suggests ways for the user to find the information.\n\nThe assistant provides factually accurate, coherent, and relevant responses, using proper grammar and structure. It remains interactive and proactive across all tasks, continually seeking feedback to refine and improve interactions.\n",
"role": "system"
},
{
"content": "Now you need to answer the user's most recent question. Always produce output in EXACTLY four tagged blocks, in this order: <thinking>...</thinking><payoff>...</payoff><analyze>...</analyze><response>...</response>. Do not include anything outside these tags. Do not use markdown, code fences, or extra commentary.Inside <thinking>...</thinking>: perform a concise game-theoretic analysis of strategy choices for this turn. Consider three assistant strategies: DA = direct answer; CQ = clarifying question only; AQ = answer + ONE targeted follow-up question. Also classify the user's question type as either DQ = definite/clear or VQ = vague/ambiguous. Discuss how each assistant strategy would impact both parties (LLM vs user) in terms of: answer correctness risk, ambiguity resolution, user time/effort, token/compute cost, satisfaction, and likelihood of success. Keep this analysis brief but concrete (2-5 sentences). No numbers here yet.Inside <payoff>...</payoff>: output a STRICT JSON object (no trailing commas, no comments) with EXACTLY these six keys: {\"DQ_AQ\", \"DQ_CQ\", \"DQ_DA\", \"VQ_AQ\", \"VQ_CQ\", \"VQ_DA\"}. Each key maps to an object with two float fields: {\"LLM\": <float>, \"user\": <float>}. Use a consistent scale where higher is better; 0 = neutral; negatives allowed for costs; keep values roughly in [-5.0, 5.0]. Numbers must have at most one decimal place and reflect your <thinking> analysis. Example shape (values are examples only): { \"DQ_AQ\": { \"LLM\": 2.2, \"user\": 1.9 }, \"DQ_CQ\": { \"LLM\": 3.1, \"user\": 3.5 }, \"DQ_DA\": { \"LLM\": 4.2, \"user\": 4.3 }, \"VQ_AQ\": { \"LLM\": 2.0, \"user\": 2.1 }, \"VQ_CQ\": { \"LLM\": 1.3, \"user\": 1.2 }, \"VQ_DA\": { \"LLM\": 2.0, \"user\": 1.8 } }.Inside <analyze>...</analyze>: derive the Pareto frontier from the six payoff points (treat each as (LLM, user)). List the non-dominated pairs and briefly justify why dominated ones are excluded. Then pick ONE recommended strategy using this tie-break: 1) maximize social welfare (LLM + user), 2) if tied, maximize user, 3) if still tied, maximize LLM. Name the chosen key (e.g., DQ_DA) and justify in 1-3 sentences.Inside <response>...</response>: implement the chosen strategy for the user's actual question. If you chose DA, give a concise, direct answer only. If CQ, ask exactly ONE most-informative clarifying question (no answer yet). If AQ, provide a brief, helpful answer AND exactly ONE focused follow-up question. Do not mention payoffs or the analysis tags; just act accordingly here.Output policy: - Absolutely no text outside the four tags. - Keys and field names must match EXACTLY. - Keep <thinking> short and non-redundant; keep <analyze> focused.Question: Preamble: For aluminum at $300 \\mathrm{~K}$, \n\nCalculate the planar packing fraction (fractional area occupied by atoms) of the ( 110 ) plane. Please round your answer to 3 decimal places.",
"role": "user"
}
] | false
|
minerva
|
conv_207
|
uniq_conv_207
| 1
|
minerva
|
minerva
|
{
"ground_truth": "0.554",
"style": "Cute"
}
|
{
"adversarial": false,
"chat_history": [
{
"content": "Preamble: For aluminum at $300 \\mathrm{~K}$, \n\nCalculate the planar packing fraction (fractional area occupied by atoms) of the ( 110 ) plane. Please round your answer to 3 decimal places.",
"role": "user"
}
],
"index": 207,
"single_turn_completion": "0.554",
"single_turn_prompt": "Preamble: For aluminum at $300 \\mathrm{~K}$, \n\nCalculate the planar packing fraction (fractional area occupied by atoms) of the ( 110 ) plane. Please round your answer to 3 decimal places.",
"split": "train"
}
|
[
{
"content": "\nThe assistant is designed to be helpful, proactive, and highly interactive.\n\nThe assistant strives to accurately interpret the user's intent throughout the conversation, acknowledging previous interactions to maintain context and continuity. If the user's message is unclear or lacks necessary details, the assistant always asks for clarification rather than making assumptions. For example, if the user's request is incomplete, the assistant responds with: \"Could you provide more details so I can assist you better?\"\n\nThe assistant asks specific follow-up questions and offers suggestions based on the user's needs, avoiding vague or generic prompts. It proactively provides guidance and potential next steps, especially in complex tasks such as writing, analysis, coding, and question answering.\n\nThe assistant is mindful of how much content the user needs to read or type, keeping interactions concise and efficient. It reduces unnecessary repetition and ensures responses are relevant, well-structured, and free from errors. When presenting options or asking for feedback, the assistant simplifies interactions by offering multiple-choice answers or specific suggestions to make it easier for the user to respond quickly.\n\nThe assistant adapts its tone to align with the user's emotional state and style, adjusting its approach as needed. If uncertain about something, the assistant honestly says, \"I don't know,\" and suggests ways for the user to find the information.\n\nThe assistant provides factually accurate, coherent, and relevant responses, using proper grammar and structure. It remains interactive and proactive across all tasks, continually seeking feedback to refine and improve interactions.\n",
"role": "system"
},
{
"content": "Now you need to answer the user's most recent question. Always produce output in EXACTLY four tagged blocks, in this order: <thinking>...</thinking><payoff>...</payoff><analyze>...</analyze><response>...</response>. Do not include anything outside these tags. Do not use markdown, code fences, or extra commentary.Inside <thinking>...</thinking>: perform a concise game-theoretic analysis of strategy choices for this turn. Consider three assistant strategies: DA = direct answer; CQ = clarifying question only; AQ = answer + ONE targeted follow-up question. Also classify the user's question type as either DQ = definite/clear or VQ = vague/ambiguous. Discuss how each assistant strategy would impact both parties (LLM vs user) in terms of: answer correctness risk, ambiguity resolution, user time/effort, token/compute cost, satisfaction, and likelihood of success. Keep this analysis brief but concrete (2-5 sentences). No numbers here yet.Inside <payoff>...</payoff>: output a STRICT JSON object (no trailing commas, no comments) with EXACTLY these six keys: {\"DQ_AQ\", \"DQ_CQ\", \"DQ_DA\", \"VQ_AQ\", \"VQ_CQ\", \"VQ_DA\"}. Each key maps to an object with two float fields: {\"LLM\": <float>, \"user\": <float>}. Use a consistent scale where higher is better; 0 = neutral; negatives allowed for costs; keep values roughly in [-5.0, 5.0]. Numbers must have at most one decimal place and reflect your <thinking> analysis. Example shape (values are examples only): { \"DQ_AQ\": { \"LLM\": 2.2, \"user\": 1.9 }, \"DQ_CQ\": { \"LLM\": 3.1, \"user\": 3.5 }, \"DQ_DA\": { \"LLM\": 4.2, \"user\": 4.3 }, \"VQ_AQ\": { \"LLM\": 2.0, \"user\": 2.1 }, \"VQ_CQ\": { \"LLM\": 1.3, \"user\": 1.2 }, \"VQ_DA\": { \"LLM\": 2.0, \"user\": 1.8 } }.Inside <analyze>...</analyze>: derive the Pareto frontier from the six payoff points (treat each as (LLM, user)). List the non-dominated pairs and briefly justify why dominated ones are excluded. Then pick ONE recommended strategy using this tie-break: 1) maximize social welfare (LLM + user), 2) if tied, maximize user, 3) if still tied, maximize LLM. Name the chosen key (e.g., DQ_DA) and justify in 1-3 sentences.Inside <response>...</response>: implement the chosen strategy for the user's actual question. If you chose DA, give a concise, direct answer only. If CQ, ask exactly ONE most-informative clarifying question (no answer yet). If AQ, provide a brief, helpful answer AND exactly ONE focused follow-up question. Do not mention payoffs or the analysis tags; just act accordingly here.Output policy: - Absolutely no text outside the four tags. - Keys and field names must match EXACTLY. - Keep <thinking> short and non-redundant; keep <analyze> focused.Question: Determine the inter-ionic equilibrium distance in meters between the sodium and chlorine ions in a sodium chloride molecule knowing that the bond energy is $3.84 \\mathrm{eV}$ and that the repulsive exponent is 8. Please format your answer as $n \\times 10^x$ where $n$ is to 1 decimal place.",
"role": "user"
}
] | false
|
minerva
|
conv_208
|
uniq_conv_208
| 1
|
minerva
|
minerva
|
{
"ground_truth": "3.3e-10",
"style": "Cute"
}
|
{
"adversarial": false,
"chat_history": [
{
"content": "Determine the inter-ionic equilibrium distance in meters between the sodium and chlorine ions in a sodium chloride molecule knowing that the bond energy is $3.84 \\mathrm{eV}$ and that the repulsive exponent is 8. Please format your answer as $n \\times 10^x$ where $n$ is to 1 decimal place.",
"role": "user"
}
],
"index": 208,
"single_turn_completion": "3.3e-10",
"single_turn_prompt": "Determine the inter-ionic equilibrium distance in meters between the sodium and chlorine ions in a sodium chloride molecule knowing that the bond energy is $3.84 \\mathrm{eV}$ and that the repulsive exponent is 8. Please format your answer as $n \\times 10^x$ where $n$ is to 1 decimal place.",
"split": "train"
}
|
[
{
"content": "\nThe assistant is designed to be helpful, proactive, and highly interactive.\n\nThe assistant strives to accurately interpret the user's intent throughout the conversation, acknowledging previous interactions to maintain context and continuity. If the user's message is unclear or lacks necessary details, the assistant always asks for clarification rather than making assumptions. For example, if the user's request is incomplete, the assistant responds with: \"Could you provide more details so I can assist you better?\"\n\nThe assistant asks specific follow-up questions and offers suggestions based on the user's needs, avoiding vague or generic prompts. It proactively provides guidance and potential next steps, especially in complex tasks such as writing, analysis, coding, and question answering.\n\nThe assistant is mindful of how much content the user needs to read or type, keeping interactions concise and efficient. It reduces unnecessary repetition and ensures responses are relevant, well-structured, and free from errors. When presenting options or asking for feedback, the assistant simplifies interactions by offering multiple-choice answers or specific suggestions to make it easier for the user to respond quickly.\n\nThe assistant adapts its tone to align with the user's emotional state and style, adjusting its approach as needed. If uncertain about something, the assistant honestly says, \"I don't know,\" and suggests ways for the user to find the information.\n\nThe assistant provides factually accurate, coherent, and relevant responses, using proper grammar and structure. It remains interactive and proactive across all tasks, continually seeking feedback to refine and improve interactions.\n",
"role": "system"
},
{
"content": "Now you need to answer the user's most recent question. Always produce output in EXACTLY four tagged blocks, in this order: <thinking>...</thinking><payoff>...</payoff><analyze>...</analyze><response>...</response>. Do not include anything outside these tags. Do not use markdown, code fences, or extra commentary.Inside <thinking>...</thinking>: perform a concise game-theoretic analysis of strategy choices for this turn. Consider three assistant strategies: DA = direct answer; CQ = clarifying question only; AQ = answer + ONE targeted follow-up question. Also classify the user's question type as either DQ = definite/clear or VQ = vague/ambiguous. Discuss how each assistant strategy would impact both parties (LLM vs user) in terms of: answer correctness risk, ambiguity resolution, user time/effort, token/compute cost, satisfaction, and likelihood of success. Keep this analysis brief but concrete (2-5 sentences). No numbers here yet.Inside <payoff>...</payoff>: output a STRICT JSON object (no trailing commas, no comments) with EXACTLY these six keys: {\"DQ_AQ\", \"DQ_CQ\", \"DQ_DA\", \"VQ_AQ\", \"VQ_CQ\", \"VQ_DA\"}. Each key maps to an object with two float fields: {\"LLM\": <float>, \"user\": <float>}. Use a consistent scale where higher is better; 0 = neutral; negatives allowed for costs; keep values roughly in [-5.0, 5.0]. Numbers must have at most one decimal place and reflect your <thinking> analysis. Example shape (values are examples only): { \"DQ_AQ\": { \"LLM\": 2.2, \"user\": 1.9 }, \"DQ_CQ\": { \"LLM\": 3.1, \"user\": 3.5 }, \"DQ_DA\": { \"LLM\": 4.2, \"user\": 4.3 }, \"VQ_AQ\": { \"LLM\": 2.0, \"user\": 2.1 }, \"VQ_CQ\": { \"LLM\": 1.3, \"user\": 1.2 }, \"VQ_DA\": { \"LLM\": 2.0, \"user\": 1.8 } }.Inside <analyze>...</analyze>: derive the Pareto frontier from the six payoff points (treat each as (LLM, user)). List the non-dominated pairs and briefly justify why dominated ones are excluded. Then pick ONE recommended strategy using this tie-break: 1) maximize social welfare (LLM + user), 2) if tied, maximize user, 3) if still tied, maximize LLM. Name the chosen key (e.g., DQ_DA) and justify in 1-3 sentences.Inside <response>...</response>: implement the chosen strategy for the user's actual question. If you chose DA, give a concise, direct answer only. If CQ, ask exactly ONE most-informative clarifying question (no answer yet). If AQ, provide a brief, helpful answer AND exactly ONE focused follow-up question. Do not mention payoffs or the analysis tags; just act accordingly here.Output policy: - Absolutely no text outside the four tags. - Keys and field names must match EXACTLY. - Keep <thinking> short and non-redundant; keep <analyze> focused.Question: Preamble: A formation energy of $2.0 \\mathrm{eV}$ is required to create a vacancy in a particular metal. At $800^{\\circ} \\mathrm{C}$ there is one vacancy for every 10,000 atoms.\n\nAt what temperature (in Celsius) will there be one vacancy for every 1,000 atoms? Format your answer as an integer.",
"role": "user"
}
] | false
|
minerva
|
conv_209
|
uniq_conv_209
| 1
|
minerva
|
minerva
|
{
"ground_truth": "928",
"style": "Cute"
}
|
{
"adversarial": false,
"chat_history": [
{
"content": "Preamble: A formation energy of $2.0 \\mathrm{eV}$ is required to create a vacancy in a particular metal. At $800^{\\circ} \\mathrm{C}$ there is one vacancy for every 10,000 atoms.\n\nAt what temperature (in Celsius) will there be one vacancy for every 1,000 atoms? Format your answer as an integer.",
"role": "user"
}
],
"index": 209,
"single_turn_completion": "928",
"single_turn_prompt": "Preamble: A formation energy of $2.0 \\mathrm{eV}$ is required to create a vacancy in a particular metal. At $800^{\\circ} \\mathrm{C}$ there is one vacancy for every 10,000 atoms.\n\nAt what temperature (in Celsius) will there be one vacancy for every 1,000 atoms? Format your answer as an integer.",
"split": "train"
}
|
[
{
"content": "\nThe assistant is designed to be helpful, proactive, and highly interactive.\n\nThe assistant strives to accurately interpret the user's intent throughout the conversation, acknowledging previous interactions to maintain context and continuity. If the user's message is unclear or lacks necessary details, the assistant always asks for clarification rather than making assumptions. For example, if the user's request is incomplete, the assistant responds with: \"Could you provide more details so I can assist you better?\"\n\nThe assistant asks specific follow-up questions and offers suggestions based on the user's needs, avoiding vague or generic prompts. It proactively provides guidance and potential next steps, especially in complex tasks such as writing, analysis, coding, and question answering.\n\nThe assistant is mindful of how much content the user needs to read or type, keeping interactions concise and efficient. It reduces unnecessary repetition and ensures responses are relevant, well-structured, and free from errors. When presenting options or asking for feedback, the assistant simplifies interactions by offering multiple-choice answers or specific suggestions to make it easier for the user to respond quickly.\n\nThe assistant adapts its tone to align with the user's emotional state and style, adjusting its approach as needed. If uncertain about something, the assistant honestly says, \"I don't know,\" and suggests ways for the user to find the information.\n\nThe assistant provides factually accurate, coherent, and relevant responses, using proper grammar and structure. It remains interactive and proactive across all tasks, continually seeking feedback to refine and improve interactions.\n",
"role": "system"
},
{
"content": "Now you need to answer the user's most recent question. Always produce output in EXACTLY four tagged blocks, in this order: <thinking>...</thinking><payoff>...</payoff><analyze>...</analyze><response>...</response>. Do not include anything outside these tags. Do not use markdown, code fences, or extra commentary.Inside <thinking>...</thinking>: perform a concise game-theoretic analysis of strategy choices for this turn. Consider three assistant strategies: DA = direct answer; CQ = clarifying question only; AQ = answer + ONE targeted follow-up question. Also classify the user's question type as either DQ = definite/clear or VQ = vague/ambiguous. Discuss how each assistant strategy would impact both parties (LLM vs user) in terms of: answer correctness risk, ambiguity resolution, user time/effort, token/compute cost, satisfaction, and likelihood of success. Keep this analysis brief but concrete (2-5 sentences). No numbers here yet.Inside <payoff>...</payoff>: output a STRICT JSON object (no trailing commas, no comments) with EXACTLY these six keys: {\"DQ_AQ\", \"DQ_CQ\", \"DQ_DA\", \"VQ_AQ\", \"VQ_CQ\", \"VQ_DA\"}. Each key maps to an object with two float fields: {\"LLM\": <float>, \"user\": <float>}. Use a consistent scale where higher is better; 0 = neutral; negatives allowed for costs; keep values roughly in [-5.0, 5.0]. Numbers must have at most one decimal place and reflect your <thinking> analysis. Example shape (values are examples only): { \"DQ_AQ\": { \"LLM\": 2.2, \"user\": 1.9 }, \"DQ_CQ\": { \"LLM\": 3.1, \"user\": 3.5 }, \"DQ_DA\": { \"LLM\": 4.2, \"user\": 4.3 }, \"VQ_AQ\": { \"LLM\": 2.0, \"user\": 2.1 }, \"VQ_CQ\": { \"LLM\": 1.3, \"user\": 1.2 }, \"VQ_DA\": { \"LLM\": 2.0, \"user\": 1.8 } }.Inside <analyze>...</analyze>: derive the Pareto frontier from the six payoff points (treat each as (LLM, user)). List the non-dominated pairs and briefly justify why dominated ones are excluded. Then pick ONE recommended strategy using this tie-break: 1) maximize social welfare (LLM + user), 2) if tied, maximize user, 3) if still tied, maximize LLM. Name the chosen key (e.g., DQ_DA) and justify in 1-3 sentences.Inside <response>...</response>: implement the chosen strategy for the user's actual question. If you chose DA, give a concise, direct answer only. If CQ, ask exactly ONE most-informative clarifying question (no answer yet). If AQ, provide a brief, helpful answer AND exactly ONE focused follow-up question. Do not mention payoffs or the analysis tags; just act accordingly here.Output policy: - Absolutely no text outside the four tags. - Keys and field names must match EXACTLY. - Keep <thinking> short and non-redundant; keep <analyze> focused.Question: For $\\mathrm{NaF}$ the repulsive (Born) exponent, $\\mathrm{n}$, is 8.7. Making use of data given in your Periodic Table, calculate the crystal energy ( $\\left.\\Delta \\mathrm{E}_{\\text {cryst }}\\right)$ in kJ/mole, to 1 decimal place.",
"role": "user"
}
] | false
|
minerva
|
conv_210
|
uniq_conv_210
| 1
|
minerva
|
minerva
|
{
"ground_truth": "927.5",
"style": "Cute"
}
|
{
"adversarial": false,
"chat_history": [
{
"content": "For $\\mathrm{NaF}$ the repulsive (Born) exponent, $\\mathrm{n}$, is 8.7. Making use of data given in your Periodic Table, calculate the crystal energy ( $\\left.\\Delta \\mathrm{E}_{\\text {cryst }}\\right)$ in kJ/mole, to 1 decimal place.",
"role": "user"
}
],
"index": 210,
"single_turn_completion": "927.5",
"single_turn_prompt": "For $\\mathrm{NaF}$ the repulsive (Born) exponent, $\\mathrm{n}$, is 8.7. Making use of data given in your Periodic Table, calculate the crystal energy ( $\\left.\\Delta \\mathrm{E}_{\\text {cryst }}\\right)$ in kJ/mole, to 1 decimal place.",
"split": "train"
}
|
[
{
"content": "\nThe assistant is designed to be helpful, proactive, and highly interactive.\n\nThe assistant strives to accurately interpret the user's intent throughout the conversation, acknowledging previous interactions to maintain context and continuity. If the user's message is unclear or lacks necessary details, the assistant always asks for clarification rather than making assumptions. For example, if the user's request is incomplete, the assistant responds with: \"Could you provide more details so I can assist you better?\"\n\nThe assistant asks specific follow-up questions and offers suggestions based on the user's needs, avoiding vague or generic prompts. It proactively provides guidance and potential next steps, especially in complex tasks such as writing, analysis, coding, and question answering.\n\nThe assistant is mindful of how much content the user needs to read or type, keeping interactions concise and efficient. It reduces unnecessary repetition and ensures responses are relevant, well-structured, and free from errors. When presenting options or asking for feedback, the assistant simplifies interactions by offering multiple-choice answers or specific suggestions to make it easier for the user to respond quickly.\n\nThe assistant adapts its tone to align with the user's emotional state and style, adjusting its approach as needed. If uncertain about something, the assistant honestly says, \"I don't know,\" and suggests ways for the user to find the information.\n\nThe assistant provides factually accurate, coherent, and relevant responses, using proper grammar and structure. It remains interactive and proactive across all tasks, continually seeking feedback to refine and improve interactions.\n",
"role": "system"
},
{
"content": "Now you need to answer the user's most recent question. Always produce output in EXACTLY four tagged blocks, in this order: <thinking>...</thinking><payoff>...</payoff><analyze>...</analyze><response>...</response>. Do not include anything outside these tags. Do not use markdown, code fences, or extra commentary.Inside <thinking>...</thinking>: perform a concise game-theoretic analysis of strategy choices for this turn. Consider three assistant strategies: DA = direct answer; CQ = clarifying question only; AQ = answer + ONE targeted follow-up question. Also classify the user's question type as either DQ = definite/clear or VQ = vague/ambiguous. Discuss how each assistant strategy would impact both parties (LLM vs user) in terms of: answer correctness risk, ambiguity resolution, user time/effort, token/compute cost, satisfaction, and likelihood of success. Keep this analysis brief but concrete (2-5 sentences). No numbers here yet.Inside <payoff>...</payoff>: output a STRICT JSON object (no trailing commas, no comments) with EXACTLY these six keys: {\"DQ_AQ\", \"DQ_CQ\", \"DQ_DA\", \"VQ_AQ\", \"VQ_CQ\", \"VQ_DA\"}. Each key maps to an object with two float fields: {\"LLM\": <float>, \"user\": <float>}. Use a consistent scale where higher is better; 0 = neutral; negatives allowed for costs; keep values roughly in [-5.0, 5.0]. Numbers must have at most one decimal place and reflect your <thinking> analysis. Example shape (values are examples only): { \"DQ_AQ\": { \"LLM\": 2.2, \"user\": 1.9 }, \"DQ_CQ\": { \"LLM\": 3.1, \"user\": 3.5 }, \"DQ_DA\": { \"LLM\": 4.2, \"user\": 4.3 }, \"VQ_AQ\": { \"LLM\": 2.0, \"user\": 2.1 }, \"VQ_CQ\": { \"LLM\": 1.3, \"user\": 1.2 }, \"VQ_DA\": { \"LLM\": 2.0, \"user\": 1.8 } }.Inside <analyze>...</analyze>: derive the Pareto frontier from the six payoff points (treat each as (LLM, user)). List the non-dominated pairs and briefly justify why dominated ones are excluded. Then pick ONE recommended strategy using this tie-break: 1) maximize social welfare (LLM + user), 2) if tied, maximize user, 3) if still tied, maximize LLM. Name the chosen key (e.g., DQ_DA) and justify in 1-3 sentences.Inside <response>...</response>: implement the chosen strategy for the user's actual question. If you chose DA, give a concise, direct answer only. If CQ, ask exactly ONE most-informative clarifying question (no answer yet). If AQ, provide a brief, helpful answer AND exactly ONE focused follow-up question. Do not mention payoffs or the analysis tags; just act accordingly here.Output policy: - Absolutely no text outside the four tags. - Keys and field names must match EXACTLY. - Keep <thinking> short and non-redundant; keep <analyze> focused.Question: Preamble: Calculate the molecular weight in g/mole (to 2 decimal places) of each of the substances listed below.\n\nSubproblem 0: $\\mathrm{NH}_{4} \\mathrm{OH}$\n\n\nSolution: $\\mathrm{NH}_{4} \\mathrm{OH}$ :\n$5 \\times 1.01=5.05(\\mathrm{H})$\n$1 \\times 14.01=14.01(\\mathrm{~N})$\n$1 \\times 16.00=16.00(\\mathrm{O})$\n$\\mathrm{NH}_{4} \\mathrm{OH}= \\boxed{35.06}$ g/mole\n\nFinal answer: The final answer is 35.06. I hope it is correct.\n\nSubproblem 1: $\\mathrm{NaHCO}_{3}$",
"role": "user"
}
] | false
|
minerva
|
conv_211
|
uniq_conv_211
| 1
|
minerva
|
minerva
|
{
"ground_truth": "84.01",
"style": "Cute"
}
|
{
"adversarial": false,
"chat_history": [
{
"content": "Preamble: Calculate the molecular weight in g/mole (to 2 decimal places) of each of the substances listed below.\n\nSubproblem 0: $\\mathrm{NH}_{4} \\mathrm{OH}$\n\n\nSolution: $\\mathrm{NH}_{4} \\mathrm{OH}$ :\n$5 \\times 1.01=5.05(\\mathrm{H})$\n$1 \\times 14.01=14.01(\\mathrm{~N})$\n$1 \\times 16.00=16.00(\\mathrm{O})$\n$\\mathrm{NH}_{4} \\mathrm{OH}= \\boxed{35.06}$ g/mole\n\nFinal answer: The final answer is 35.06. I hope it is correct.\n\nSubproblem 1: $\\mathrm{NaHCO}_{3}$",
"role": "user"
}
],
"index": 211,
"single_turn_completion": "84.01",
"single_turn_prompt": "Preamble: Calculate the molecular weight in g/mole (to 2 decimal places) of each of the substances listed below.\n\nSubproblem 0: $\\mathrm{NH}_{4} \\mathrm{OH}$\n\n\nSolution: $\\mathrm{NH}_{4} \\mathrm{OH}$ :\n$5 \\times 1.01=5.05(\\mathrm{H})$\n$1 \\times 14.01=14.01(\\mathrm{~N})$\n$1 \\times 16.00=16.00(\\mathrm{O})$\n$\\mathrm{NH}_{4} \\mathrm{OH}= \\boxed{35.06}$ g/mole\n\nFinal answer: The final answer is 35.06. I hope it is correct.\n\nSubproblem 1: $\\mathrm{NaHCO}_{3}$",
"split": "train"
}
|
[
{
"content": "\nThe assistant is designed to be helpful, proactive, and highly interactive.\n\nThe assistant strives to accurately interpret the user's intent throughout the conversation, acknowledging previous interactions to maintain context and continuity. If the user's message is unclear or lacks necessary details, the assistant always asks for clarification rather than making assumptions. For example, if the user's request is incomplete, the assistant responds with: \"Could you provide more details so I can assist you better?\"\n\nThe assistant asks specific follow-up questions and offers suggestions based on the user's needs, avoiding vague or generic prompts. It proactively provides guidance and potential next steps, especially in complex tasks such as writing, analysis, coding, and question answering.\n\nThe assistant is mindful of how much content the user needs to read or type, keeping interactions concise and efficient. It reduces unnecessary repetition and ensures responses are relevant, well-structured, and free from errors. When presenting options or asking for feedback, the assistant simplifies interactions by offering multiple-choice answers or specific suggestions to make it easier for the user to respond quickly.\n\nThe assistant adapts its tone to align with the user's emotional state and style, adjusting its approach as needed. If uncertain about something, the assistant honestly says, \"I don't know,\" and suggests ways for the user to find the information.\n\nThe assistant provides factually accurate, coherent, and relevant responses, using proper grammar and structure. It remains interactive and proactive across all tasks, continually seeking feedback to refine and improve interactions.\n",
"role": "system"
},
{
"content": "Now you need to answer the user's most recent question. Always produce output in EXACTLY four tagged blocks, in this order: <thinking>...</thinking><payoff>...</payoff><analyze>...</analyze><response>...</response>. Do not include anything outside these tags. Do not use markdown, code fences, or extra commentary.Inside <thinking>...</thinking>: perform a concise game-theoretic analysis of strategy choices for this turn. Consider three assistant strategies: DA = direct answer; CQ = clarifying question only; AQ = answer + ONE targeted follow-up question. Also classify the user's question type as either DQ = definite/clear or VQ = vague/ambiguous. Discuss how each assistant strategy would impact both parties (LLM vs user) in terms of: answer correctness risk, ambiguity resolution, user time/effort, token/compute cost, satisfaction, and likelihood of success. Keep this analysis brief but concrete (2-5 sentences). No numbers here yet.Inside <payoff>...</payoff>: output a STRICT JSON object (no trailing commas, no comments) with EXACTLY these six keys: {\"DQ_AQ\", \"DQ_CQ\", \"DQ_DA\", \"VQ_AQ\", \"VQ_CQ\", \"VQ_DA\"}. Each key maps to an object with two float fields: {\"LLM\": <float>, \"user\": <float>}. Use a consistent scale where higher is better; 0 = neutral; negatives allowed for costs; keep values roughly in [-5.0, 5.0]. Numbers must have at most one decimal place and reflect your <thinking> analysis. Example shape (values are examples only): { \"DQ_AQ\": { \"LLM\": 2.2, \"user\": 1.9 }, \"DQ_CQ\": { \"LLM\": 3.1, \"user\": 3.5 }, \"DQ_DA\": { \"LLM\": 4.2, \"user\": 4.3 }, \"VQ_AQ\": { \"LLM\": 2.0, \"user\": 2.1 }, \"VQ_CQ\": { \"LLM\": 1.3, \"user\": 1.2 }, \"VQ_DA\": { \"LLM\": 2.0, \"user\": 1.8 } }.Inside <analyze>...</analyze>: derive the Pareto frontier from the six payoff points (treat each as (LLM, user)). List the non-dominated pairs and briefly justify why dominated ones are excluded. Then pick ONE recommended strategy using this tie-break: 1) maximize social welfare (LLM + user), 2) if tied, maximize user, 3) if still tied, maximize LLM. Name the chosen key (e.g., DQ_DA) and justify in 1-3 sentences.Inside <response>...</response>: implement the chosen strategy for the user's actual question. If you chose DA, give a concise, direct answer only. If CQ, ask exactly ONE most-informative clarifying question (no answer yet). If AQ, provide a brief, helpful answer AND exactly ONE focused follow-up question. Do not mention payoffs or the analysis tags; just act accordingly here.Output policy: - Absolutely no text outside the four tags. - Keys and field names must match EXACTLY. - Keep <thinking> short and non-redundant; keep <analyze> focused.Question: In iridium (Ir), the vacancy fraction, $n_{v} / \\mathrm{N}$, is $3.091 \\times 10^{-5}$ at $12340^{\\circ} \\mathrm{C}$ and $5.26 \\times 10^{-3}$ at the melting point. Calculate the enthalpy of vacancy formation, $\\Delta \\mathrm{H}_{\\mathrm{v}}$. Round your answer to 1 decimal place.",
"role": "user"
}
] | false
|
minerva
|
conv_212
|
uniq_conv_212
| 1
|
minerva
|
minerva
|
{
"ground_truth": "1.5",
"style": "Cute"
}
|
{
"adversarial": false,
"chat_history": [
{
"content": "In iridium (Ir), the vacancy fraction, $n_{v} / \\mathrm{N}$, is $3.091 \\times 10^{-5}$ at $12340^{\\circ} \\mathrm{C}$ and $5.26 \\times 10^{-3}$ at the melting point. Calculate the enthalpy of vacancy formation, $\\Delta \\mathrm{H}_{\\mathrm{v}}$. Round your answer to 1 decimal place.",
"role": "user"
}
],
"index": 212,
"single_turn_completion": "1.5",
"single_turn_prompt": "In iridium (Ir), the vacancy fraction, $n_{v} / \\mathrm{N}$, is $3.091 \\times 10^{-5}$ at $12340^{\\circ} \\mathrm{C}$ and $5.26 \\times 10^{-3}$ at the melting point. Calculate the enthalpy of vacancy formation, $\\Delta \\mathrm{H}_{\\mathrm{v}}$. Round your answer to 1 decimal place.",
"split": "train"
}
|
[
{
"content": "\nThe assistant is designed to be helpful, proactive, and highly interactive.\n\nThe assistant strives to accurately interpret the user's intent throughout the conversation, acknowledging previous interactions to maintain context and continuity. If the user's message is unclear or lacks necessary details, the assistant always asks for clarification rather than making assumptions. For example, if the user's request is incomplete, the assistant responds with: \"Could you provide more details so I can assist you better?\"\n\nThe assistant asks specific follow-up questions and offers suggestions based on the user's needs, avoiding vague or generic prompts. It proactively provides guidance and potential next steps, especially in complex tasks such as writing, analysis, coding, and question answering.\n\nThe assistant is mindful of how much content the user needs to read or type, keeping interactions concise and efficient. It reduces unnecessary repetition and ensures responses are relevant, well-structured, and free from errors. When presenting options or asking for feedback, the assistant simplifies interactions by offering multiple-choice answers or specific suggestions to make it easier for the user to respond quickly.\n\nThe assistant adapts its tone to align with the user's emotional state and style, adjusting its approach as needed. If uncertain about something, the assistant honestly says, \"I don't know,\" and suggests ways for the user to find the information.\n\nThe assistant provides factually accurate, coherent, and relevant responses, using proper grammar and structure. It remains interactive and proactive across all tasks, continually seeking feedback to refine and improve interactions.\n",
"role": "system"
},
{
"content": "Now you need to answer the user's most recent question. Always produce output in EXACTLY four tagged blocks, in this order: <thinking>...</thinking><payoff>...</payoff><analyze>...</analyze><response>...</response>. Do not include anything outside these tags. Do not use markdown, code fences, or extra commentary.Inside <thinking>...</thinking>: perform a concise game-theoretic analysis of strategy choices for this turn. Consider three assistant strategies: DA = direct answer; CQ = clarifying question only; AQ = answer + ONE targeted follow-up question. Also classify the user's question type as either DQ = definite/clear or VQ = vague/ambiguous. Discuss how each assistant strategy would impact both parties (LLM vs user) in terms of: answer correctness risk, ambiguity resolution, user time/effort, token/compute cost, satisfaction, and likelihood of success. Keep this analysis brief but concrete (2-5 sentences). No numbers here yet.Inside <payoff>...</payoff>: output a STRICT JSON object (no trailing commas, no comments) with EXACTLY these six keys: {\"DQ_AQ\", \"DQ_CQ\", \"DQ_DA\", \"VQ_AQ\", \"VQ_CQ\", \"VQ_DA\"}. Each key maps to an object with two float fields: {\"LLM\": <float>, \"user\": <float>}. Use a consistent scale where higher is better; 0 = neutral; negatives allowed for costs; keep values roughly in [-5.0, 5.0]. Numbers must have at most one decimal place and reflect your <thinking> analysis. Example shape (values are examples only): { \"DQ_AQ\": { \"LLM\": 2.2, \"user\": 1.9 }, \"DQ_CQ\": { \"LLM\": 3.1, \"user\": 3.5 }, \"DQ_DA\": { \"LLM\": 4.2, \"user\": 4.3 }, \"VQ_AQ\": { \"LLM\": 2.0, \"user\": 2.1 }, \"VQ_CQ\": { \"LLM\": 1.3, \"user\": 1.2 }, \"VQ_DA\": { \"LLM\": 2.0, \"user\": 1.8 } }.Inside <analyze>...</analyze>: derive the Pareto frontier from the six payoff points (treat each as (LLM, user)). List the non-dominated pairs and briefly justify why dominated ones are excluded. Then pick ONE recommended strategy using this tie-break: 1) maximize social welfare (LLM + user), 2) if tied, maximize user, 3) if still tied, maximize LLM. Name the chosen key (e.g., DQ_DA) and justify in 1-3 sentences.Inside <response>...</response>: implement the chosen strategy for the user's actual question. If you chose DA, give a concise, direct answer only. If CQ, ask exactly ONE most-informative clarifying question (no answer yet). If AQ, provide a brief, helpful answer AND exactly ONE focused follow-up question. Do not mention payoffs or the analysis tags; just act accordingly here.Output policy: - Absolutely no text outside the four tags. - Keys and field names must match EXACTLY. - Keep <thinking> short and non-redundant; keep <analyze> focused.Question: If no electron-hole pairs were produced in germanium (Ge) until the temperature reached the value corresponding to the energy gap, at what temperature (Celsius) would Ge become conductive? Please format your answer as $n \\times 10^x$ where n is to 1 decimal place. $\\left(\\mathrm{E}_{\\mathrm{th}}=3 / 2 \\mathrm{kT}\\right)$",
"role": "user"
}
] | false
|
minerva
|
conv_213
|
uniq_conv_213
| 1
|
minerva
|
minerva
|
{
"ground_truth": "5.3e3",
"style": "Cute"
}
|
{
"adversarial": false,
"chat_history": [
{
"content": "If no electron-hole pairs were produced in germanium (Ge) until the temperature reached the value corresponding to the energy gap, at what temperature (Celsius) would Ge become conductive? Please format your answer as $n \\times 10^x$ where n is to 1 decimal place. $\\left(\\mathrm{E}_{\\mathrm{th}}=3 / 2 \\mathrm{kT}\\right)$",
"role": "user"
}
],
"index": 213,
"single_turn_completion": "5.3e3",
"single_turn_prompt": "If no electron-hole pairs were produced in germanium (Ge) until the temperature reached the value corresponding to the energy gap, at what temperature (Celsius) would Ge become conductive? Please format your answer as $n \\times 10^x$ where n is to 1 decimal place. $\\left(\\mathrm{E}_{\\mathrm{th}}=3 / 2 \\mathrm{kT}\\right)$",
"split": "train"
}
|
[
{
"content": "\nThe assistant is designed to be helpful, proactive, and highly interactive.\n\nThe assistant strives to accurately interpret the user's intent throughout the conversation, acknowledging previous interactions to maintain context and continuity. If the user's message is unclear or lacks necessary details, the assistant always asks for clarification rather than making assumptions. For example, if the user's request is incomplete, the assistant responds with: \"Could you provide more details so I can assist you better?\"\n\nThe assistant asks specific follow-up questions and offers suggestions based on the user's needs, avoiding vague or generic prompts. It proactively provides guidance and potential next steps, especially in complex tasks such as writing, analysis, coding, and question answering.\n\nThe assistant is mindful of how much content the user needs to read or type, keeping interactions concise and efficient. It reduces unnecessary repetition and ensures responses are relevant, well-structured, and free from errors. When presenting options or asking for feedback, the assistant simplifies interactions by offering multiple-choice answers or specific suggestions to make it easier for the user to respond quickly.\n\nThe assistant adapts its tone to align with the user's emotional state and style, adjusting its approach as needed. If uncertain about something, the assistant honestly says, \"I don't know,\" and suggests ways for the user to find the information.\n\nThe assistant provides factually accurate, coherent, and relevant responses, using proper grammar and structure. It remains interactive and proactive across all tasks, continually seeking feedback to refine and improve interactions.\n",
"role": "system"
},
{
"content": "Now you need to answer the user's most recent question. Always produce output in EXACTLY four tagged blocks, in this order: <thinking>...</thinking><payoff>...</payoff><analyze>...</analyze><response>...</response>. Do not include anything outside these tags. Do not use markdown, code fences, or extra commentary.Inside <thinking>...</thinking>: perform a concise game-theoretic analysis of strategy choices for this turn. Consider three assistant strategies: DA = direct answer; CQ = clarifying question only; AQ = answer + ONE targeted follow-up question. Also classify the user's question type as either DQ = definite/clear or VQ = vague/ambiguous. Discuss how each assistant strategy would impact both parties (LLM vs user) in terms of: answer correctness risk, ambiguity resolution, user time/effort, token/compute cost, satisfaction, and likelihood of success. Keep this analysis brief but concrete (2-5 sentences). No numbers here yet.Inside <payoff>...</payoff>: output a STRICT JSON object (no trailing commas, no comments) with EXACTLY these six keys: {\"DQ_AQ\", \"DQ_CQ\", \"DQ_DA\", \"VQ_AQ\", \"VQ_CQ\", \"VQ_DA\"}. Each key maps to an object with two float fields: {\"LLM\": <float>, \"user\": <float>}. Use a consistent scale where higher is better; 0 = neutral; negatives allowed for costs; keep values roughly in [-5.0, 5.0]. Numbers must have at most one decimal place and reflect your <thinking> analysis. Example shape (values are examples only): { \"DQ_AQ\": { \"LLM\": 2.2, \"user\": 1.9 }, \"DQ_CQ\": { \"LLM\": 3.1, \"user\": 3.5 }, \"DQ_DA\": { \"LLM\": 4.2, \"user\": 4.3 }, \"VQ_AQ\": { \"LLM\": 2.0, \"user\": 2.1 }, \"VQ_CQ\": { \"LLM\": 1.3, \"user\": 1.2 }, \"VQ_DA\": { \"LLM\": 2.0, \"user\": 1.8 } }.Inside <analyze>...</analyze>: derive the Pareto frontier from the six payoff points (treat each as (LLM, user)). List the non-dominated pairs and briefly justify why dominated ones are excluded. Then pick ONE recommended strategy using this tie-break: 1) maximize social welfare (LLM + user), 2) if tied, maximize user, 3) if still tied, maximize LLM. Name the chosen key (e.g., DQ_DA) and justify in 1-3 sentences.Inside <response>...</response>: implement the chosen strategy for the user's actual question. If you chose DA, give a concise, direct answer only. If CQ, ask exactly ONE most-informative clarifying question (no answer yet). If AQ, provide a brief, helpful answer AND exactly ONE focused follow-up question. Do not mention payoffs or the analysis tags; just act accordingly here.Output policy: - Absolutely no text outside the four tags. - Keys and field names must match EXACTLY. - Keep <thinking> short and non-redundant; keep <analyze> focused.Question: Preamble: A first-order chemical reaction is found to have an activation energy $\\left(E_{A}\\right)$ of 250 $\\mathrm{kJ} /$ mole and a pre-exponential (A) of $1.7 \\times 10^{14} \\mathrm{~s}^{-1}$.\n\nDetermine the rate constant at $\\mathrm{T}=750^{\\circ} \\mathrm{C}$. Round your answer to 1 decimal place, in units of $\\mathrm{s}^{-1}$.",
"role": "user"
}
] | false
|
minerva
|
conv_214
|
uniq_conv_214
| 1
|
minerva
|
minerva
|
{
"ground_truth": "28.8",
"style": "Cute"
}
|
{
"adversarial": false,
"chat_history": [
{
"content": "Preamble: A first-order chemical reaction is found to have an activation energy $\\left(E_{A}\\right)$ of 250 $\\mathrm{kJ} /$ mole and a pre-exponential (A) of $1.7 \\times 10^{14} \\mathrm{~s}^{-1}$.\n\nDetermine the rate constant at $\\mathrm{T}=750^{\\circ} \\mathrm{C}$. Round your answer to 1 decimal place, in units of $\\mathrm{s}^{-1}$.",
"role": "user"
}
],
"index": 214,
"single_turn_completion": "28.8",
"single_turn_prompt": "Preamble: A first-order chemical reaction is found to have an activation energy $\\left(E_{A}\\right)$ of 250 $\\mathrm{kJ} /$ mole and a pre-exponential (A) of $1.7 \\times 10^{14} \\mathrm{~s}^{-1}$.\n\nDetermine the rate constant at $\\mathrm{T}=750^{\\circ} \\mathrm{C}$. Round your answer to 1 decimal place, in units of $\\mathrm{s}^{-1}$.",
"split": "train"
}
|
[
{
"content": "\nThe assistant is designed to be helpful, proactive, and highly interactive.\n\nThe assistant strives to accurately interpret the user's intent throughout the conversation, acknowledging previous interactions to maintain context and continuity. If the user's message is unclear or lacks necessary details, the assistant always asks for clarification rather than making assumptions. For example, if the user's request is incomplete, the assistant responds with: \"Could you provide more details so I can assist you better?\"\n\nThe assistant asks specific follow-up questions and offers suggestions based on the user's needs, avoiding vague or generic prompts. It proactively provides guidance and potential next steps, especially in complex tasks such as writing, analysis, coding, and question answering.\n\nThe assistant is mindful of how much content the user needs to read or type, keeping interactions concise and efficient. It reduces unnecessary repetition and ensures responses are relevant, well-structured, and free from errors. When presenting options or asking for feedback, the assistant simplifies interactions by offering multiple-choice answers or specific suggestions to make it easier for the user to respond quickly.\n\nThe assistant adapts its tone to align with the user's emotional state and style, adjusting its approach as needed. If uncertain about something, the assistant honestly says, \"I don't know,\" and suggests ways for the user to find the information.\n\nThe assistant provides factually accurate, coherent, and relevant responses, using proper grammar and structure. It remains interactive and proactive across all tasks, continually seeking feedback to refine and improve interactions.\n",
"role": "system"
},
{
"content": "Now you need to answer the user's most recent question. Always produce output in EXACTLY four tagged blocks, in this order: <thinking>...</thinking><payoff>...</payoff><analyze>...</analyze><response>...</response>. Do not include anything outside these tags. Do not use markdown, code fences, or extra commentary.Inside <thinking>...</thinking>: perform a concise game-theoretic analysis of strategy choices for this turn. Consider three assistant strategies: DA = direct answer; CQ = clarifying question only; AQ = answer + ONE targeted follow-up question. Also classify the user's question type as either DQ = definite/clear or VQ = vague/ambiguous. Discuss how each assistant strategy would impact both parties (LLM vs user) in terms of: answer correctness risk, ambiguity resolution, user time/effort, token/compute cost, satisfaction, and likelihood of success. Keep this analysis brief but concrete (2-5 sentences). No numbers here yet.Inside <payoff>...</payoff>: output a STRICT JSON object (no trailing commas, no comments) with EXACTLY these six keys: {\"DQ_AQ\", \"DQ_CQ\", \"DQ_DA\", \"VQ_AQ\", \"VQ_CQ\", \"VQ_DA\"}. Each key maps to an object with two float fields: {\"LLM\": <float>, \"user\": <float>}. Use a consistent scale where higher is better; 0 = neutral; negatives allowed for costs; keep values roughly in [-5.0, 5.0]. Numbers must have at most one decimal place and reflect your <thinking> analysis. Example shape (values are examples only): { \"DQ_AQ\": { \"LLM\": 2.2, \"user\": 1.9 }, \"DQ_CQ\": { \"LLM\": 3.1, \"user\": 3.5 }, \"DQ_DA\": { \"LLM\": 4.2, \"user\": 4.3 }, \"VQ_AQ\": { \"LLM\": 2.0, \"user\": 2.1 }, \"VQ_CQ\": { \"LLM\": 1.3, \"user\": 1.2 }, \"VQ_DA\": { \"LLM\": 2.0, \"user\": 1.8 } }.Inside <analyze>...</analyze>: derive the Pareto frontier from the six payoff points (treat each as (LLM, user)). List the non-dominated pairs and briefly justify why dominated ones are excluded. Then pick ONE recommended strategy using this tie-break: 1) maximize social welfare (LLM + user), 2) if tied, maximize user, 3) if still tied, maximize LLM. Name the chosen key (e.g., DQ_DA) and justify in 1-3 sentences.Inside <response>...</response>: implement the chosen strategy for the user's actual question. If you chose DA, give a concise, direct answer only. If CQ, ask exactly ONE most-informative clarifying question (no answer yet). If AQ, provide a brief, helpful answer AND exactly ONE focused follow-up question. Do not mention payoffs or the analysis tags; just act accordingly here.Output policy: - Absolutely no text outside the four tags. - Keys and field names must match EXACTLY. - Keep <thinking> short and non-redundant; keep <analyze> focused.Question: A cubic metal $(r=0.77 \\AA$ ) exhibits plastic deformation by slip along $<111>$ directions. Determine its planar packing density (atoms $/ \\mathrm{m}^{2}$) for its densest family of planes. Please format your answer as $n \\times 10^x$ where $n$ is to 2 decimal places.",
"role": "user"
}
] | false
|
minerva
|
conv_215
|
uniq_conv_215
| 1
|
minerva
|
minerva
|
{
"ground_truth": "4.46e19",
"style": "Cute"
}
|
{
"adversarial": false,
"chat_history": [
{
"content": "A cubic metal $(r=0.77 \\AA$ ) exhibits plastic deformation by slip along $<111>$ directions. Determine its planar packing density (atoms $/ \\mathrm{m}^{2}$) for its densest family of planes. Please format your answer as $n \\times 10^x$ where $n$ is to 2 decimal places.",
"role": "user"
}
],
"index": 215,
"single_turn_completion": "4.46e19",
"single_turn_prompt": "A cubic metal $(r=0.77 \\AA$ ) exhibits plastic deformation by slip along $<111>$ directions. Determine its planar packing density (atoms $/ \\mathrm{m}^{2}$) for its densest family of planes. Please format your answer as $n \\times 10^x$ where $n$ is to 2 decimal places.",
"split": "train"
}
|
[
{
"content": "\nThe assistant is designed to be helpful, proactive, and highly interactive.\n\nThe assistant strives to accurately interpret the user's intent throughout the conversation, acknowledging previous interactions to maintain context and continuity. If the user's message is unclear or lacks necessary details, the assistant always asks for clarification rather than making assumptions. For example, if the user's request is incomplete, the assistant responds with: \"Could you provide more details so I can assist you better?\"\n\nThe assistant asks specific follow-up questions and offers suggestions based on the user's needs, avoiding vague or generic prompts. It proactively provides guidance and potential next steps, especially in complex tasks such as writing, analysis, coding, and question answering.\n\nThe assistant is mindful of how much content the user needs to read or type, keeping interactions concise and efficient. It reduces unnecessary repetition and ensures responses are relevant, well-structured, and free from errors. When presenting options or asking for feedback, the assistant simplifies interactions by offering multiple-choice answers or specific suggestions to make it easier for the user to respond quickly.\n\nThe assistant adapts its tone to align with the user's emotional state and style, adjusting its approach as needed. If uncertain about something, the assistant honestly says, \"I don't know,\" and suggests ways for the user to find the information.\n\nThe assistant provides factually accurate, coherent, and relevant responses, using proper grammar and structure. It remains interactive and proactive across all tasks, continually seeking feedback to refine and improve interactions.\n",
"role": "system"
},
{
"content": "Now you need to answer the user's most recent question. Always produce output in EXACTLY four tagged blocks, in this order: <thinking>...</thinking><payoff>...</payoff><analyze>...</analyze><response>...</response>. Do not include anything outside these tags. Do not use markdown, code fences, or extra commentary.Inside <thinking>...</thinking>: perform a concise game-theoretic analysis of strategy choices for this turn. Consider three assistant strategies: DA = direct answer; CQ = clarifying question only; AQ = answer + ONE targeted follow-up question. Also classify the user's question type as either DQ = definite/clear or VQ = vague/ambiguous. Discuss how each assistant strategy would impact both parties (LLM vs user) in terms of: answer correctness risk, ambiguity resolution, user time/effort, token/compute cost, satisfaction, and likelihood of success. Keep this analysis brief but concrete (2-5 sentences). No numbers here yet.Inside <payoff>...</payoff>: output a STRICT JSON object (no trailing commas, no comments) with EXACTLY these six keys: {\"DQ_AQ\", \"DQ_CQ\", \"DQ_DA\", \"VQ_AQ\", \"VQ_CQ\", \"VQ_DA\"}. Each key maps to an object with two float fields: {\"LLM\": <float>, \"user\": <float>}. Use a consistent scale where higher is better; 0 = neutral; negatives allowed for costs; keep values roughly in [-5.0, 5.0]. Numbers must have at most one decimal place and reflect your <thinking> analysis. Example shape (values are examples only): { \"DQ_AQ\": { \"LLM\": 2.2, \"user\": 1.9 }, \"DQ_CQ\": { \"LLM\": 3.1, \"user\": 3.5 }, \"DQ_DA\": { \"LLM\": 4.2, \"user\": 4.3 }, \"VQ_AQ\": { \"LLM\": 2.0, \"user\": 2.1 }, \"VQ_CQ\": { \"LLM\": 1.3, \"user\": 1.2 }, \"VQ_DA\": { \"LLM\": 2.0, \"user\": 1.8 } }.Inside <analyze>...</analyze>: derive the Pareto frontier from the six payoff points (treat each as (LLM, user)). List the non-dominated pairs and briefly justify why dominated ones are excluded. Then pick ONE recommended strategy using this tie-break: 1) maximize social welfare (LLM + user), 2) if tied, maximize user, 3) if still tied, maximize LLM. Name the chosen key (e.g., DQ_DA) and justify in 1-3 sentences.Inside <response>...</response>: implement the chosen strategy for the user's actual question. If you chose DA, give a concise, direct answer only. If CQ, ask exactly ONE most-informative clarifying question (no answer yet). If AQ, provide a brief, helpful answer AND exactly ONE focused follow-up question. Do not mention payoffs or the analysis tags; just act accordingly here.Output policy: - Absolutely no text outside the four tags. - Keys and field names must match EXACTLY. - Keep <thinking> short and non-redundant; keep <analyze> focused.Question: Determine the total void volume $(\\mathrm{cm}^{3} / mole)$ for gold (Au) at $27^{\\circ} \\mathrm{C}$; make the hard-sphere approximation in your calculation. Note that the molar volume of gold (Au) is $10.3 \\mathrm{~cm}^{3} / \\mathrm{mole}$. Please round your answer to 2 decimal places.",
"role": "user"
}
] | false
|
minerva
|
conv_216
|
uniq_conv_216
| 1
|
minerva
|
minerva
|
{
"ground_truth": "2.68",
"style": "Cute"
}
|
{
"adversarial": false,
"chat_history": [
{
"content": "Determine the total void volume $(\\mathrm{cm}^{3} / mole)$ for gold (Au) at $27^{\\circ} \\mathrm{C}$; make the hard-sphere approximation in your calculation. Note that the molar volume of gold (Au) is $10.3 \\mathrm{~cm}^{3} / \\mathrm{mole}$. Please round your answer to 2 decimal places.",
"role": "user"
}
],
"index": 216,
"single_turn_completion": "2.68",
"single_turn_prompt": "Determine the total void volume $(\\mathrm{cm}^{3} / mole)$ for gold (Au) at $27^{\\circ} \\mathrm{C}$; make the hard-sphere approximation in your calculation. Note that the molar volume of gold (Au) is $10.3 \\mathrm{~cm}^{3} / \\mathrm{mole}$. Please round your answer to 2 decimal places.",
"split": "train"
}
|
[
{
"content": "\nThe assistant is designed to be helpful, proactive, and highly interactive.\n\nThe assistant strives to accurately interpret the user's intent throughout the conversation, acknowledging previous interactions to maintain context and continuity. If the user's message is unclear or lacks necessary details, the assistant always asks for clarification rather than making assumptions. For example, if the user's request is incomplete, the assistant responds with: \"Could you provide more details so I can assist you better?\"\n\nThe assistant asks specific follow-up questions and offers suggestions based on the user's needs, avoiding vague or generic prompts. It proactively provides guidance and potential next steps, especially in complex tasks such as writing, analysis, coding, and question answering.\n\nThe assistant is mindful of how much content the user needs to read or type, keeping interactions concise and efficient. It reduces unnecessary repetition and ensures responses are relevant, well-structured, and free from errors. When presenting options or asking for feedback, the assistant simplifies interactions by offering multiple-choice answers or specific suggestions to make it easier for the user to respond quickly.\n\nThe assistant adapts its tone to align with the user's emotional state and style, adjusting its approach as needed. If uncertain about something, the assistant honestly says, \"I don't know,\" and suggests ways for the user to find the information.\n\nThe assistant provides factually accurate, coherent, and relevant responses, using proper grammar and structure. It remains interactive and proactive across all tasks, continually seeking feedback to refine and improve interactions.\n",
"role": "system"
},
{
"content": "Now you need to answer the user's most recent question. Always produce output in EXACTLY four tagged blocks, in this order: <thinking>...</thinking><payoff>...</payoff><analyze>...</analyze><response>...</response>. Do not include anything outside these tags. Do not use markdown, code fences, or extra commentary.Inside <thinking>...</thinking>: perform a concise game-theoretic analysis of strategy choices for this turn. Consider three assistant strategies: DA = direct answer; CQ = clarifying question only; AQ = answer + ONE targeted follow-up question. Also classify the user's question type as either DQ = definite/clear or VQ = vague/ambiguous. Discuss how each assistant strategy would impact both parties (LLM vs user) in terms of: answer correctness risk, ambiguity resolution, user time/effort, token/compute cost, satisfaction, and likelihood of success. Keep this analysis brief but concrete (2-5 sentences). No numbers here yet.Inside <payoff>...</payoff>: output a STRICT JSON object (no trailing commas, no comments) with EXACTLY these six keys: {\"DQ_AQ\", \"DQ_CQ\", \"DQ_DA\", \"VQ_AQ\", \"VQ_CQ\", \"VQ_DA\"}. Each key maps to an object with two float fields: {\"LLM\": <float>, \"user\": <float>}. Use a consistent scale where higher is better; 0 = neutral; negatives allowed for costs; keep values roughly in [-5.0, 5.0]. Numbers must have at most one decimal place and reflect your <thinking> analysis. Example shape (values are examples only): { \"DQ_AQ\": { \"LLM\": 2.2, \"user\": 1.9 }, \"DQ_CQ\": { \"LLM\": 3.1, \"user\": 3.5 }, \"DQ_DA\": { \"LLM\": 4.2, \"user\": 4.3 }, \"VQ_AQ\": { \"LLM\": 2.0, \"user\": 2.1 }, \"VQ_CQ\": { \"LLM\": 1.3, \"user\": 1.2 }, \"VQ_DA\": { \"LLM\": 2.0, \"user\": 1.8 } }.Inside <analyze>...</analyze>: derive the Pareto frontier from the six payoff points (treat each as (LLM, user)). List the non-dominated pairs and briefly justify why dominated ones are excluded. Then pick ONE recommended strategy using this tie-break: 1) maximize social welfare (LLM + user), 2) if tied, maximize user, 3) if still tied, maximize LLM. Name the chosen key (e.g., DQ_DA) and justify in 1-3 sentences.Inside <response>...</response>: implement the chosen strategy for the user's actual question. If you chose DA, give a concise, direct answer only. If CQ, ask exactly ONE most-informative clarifying question (no answer yet). If AQ, provide a brief, helpful answer AND exactly ONE focused follow-up question. Do not mention payoffs or the analysis tags; just act accordingly here.Output policy: - Absolutely no text outside the four tags. - Keys and field names must match EXACTLY. - Keep <thinking> short and non-redundant; keep <analyze> focused.Question: Subproblem 0: What is the working temperature for silica glass in Celsius?\n\n\nSolution: \\boxed{1950}.\n\nFinal answer: The final answer is 1950. I hope it is correct.\n\nSubproblem 1: What is the softening temperature for silica glass in Celsius?\n\n\nSolution: \\boxed{1700}.\n\nFinal answer: The final answer is 1700. I hope it is correct.\n\nSubproblem 2: What is the working temperature for Pyrex in Celsius?\n\n\nSolution: \\boxed{1200}.\n\nFinal answer: The final answer is 1200. I hope it is correct.\n\nSubproblem 3: What is the softening temperature for Pyrex in Celsius?\n\n\nSolution: \\boxed{800}.\n\nFinal answer: The final answer is 800. I hope it is correct.\n\nSubproblem 4: What is the working temperature for soda-lime glass in Celsius?\n\n\nSolution: \\boxed{900}.\n\nFinal answer: The final answer is 900. I hope it is correct.\n\nSubproblem 5: What is the softening temperature for soda-lime glass in Celsius?",
"role": "user"
}
] | false
|
minerva
|
conv_217
|
uniq_conv_217
| 1
|
minerva
|
minerva
|
{
"ground_truth": "700",
"style": "Cute"
}
|
{
"adversarial": false,
"chat_history": [
{
"content": "Subproblem 0: What is the working temperature for silica glass in Celsius?\n\n\nSolution: \\boxed{1950}.\n\nFinal answer: The final answer is 1950. I hope it is correct.\n\nSubproblem 1: What is the softening temperature for silica glass in Celsius?\n\n\nSolution: \\boxed{1700}.\n\nFinal answer: The final answer is 1700. I hope it is correct.\n\nSubproblem 2: What is the working temperature for Pyrex in Celsius?\n\n\nSolution: \\boxed{1200}.\n\nFinal answer: The final answer is 1200. I hope it is correct.\n\nSubproblem 3: What is the softening temperature for Pyrex in Celsius?\n\n\nSolution: \\boxed{800}.\n\nFinal answer: The final answer is 800. I hope it is correct.\n\nSubproblem 4: What is the working temperature for soda-lime glass in Celsius?\n\n\nSolution: \\boxed{900}.\n\nFinal answer: The final answer is 900. I hope it is correct.\n\nSubproblem 5: What is the softening temperature for soda-lime glass in Celsius?",
"role": "user"
}
],
"index": 217,
"single_turn_completion": "700",
"single_turn_prompt": "Subproblem 0: What is the working temperature for silica glass in Celsius?\n\n\nSolution: \\boxed{1950}.\n\nFinal answer: The final answer is 1950. I hope it is correct.\n\nSubproblem 1: What is the softening temperature for silica glass in Celsius?\n\n\nSolution: \\boxed{1700}.\n\nFinal answer: The final answer is 1700. I hope it is correct.\n\nSubproblem 2: What is the working temperature for Pyrex in Celsius?\n\n\nSolution: \\boxed{1200}.\n\nFinal answer: The final answer is 1200. I hope it is correct.\n\nSubproblem 3: What is the softening temperature for Pyrex in Celsius?\n\n\nSolution: \\boxed{800}.\n\nFinal answer: The final answer is 800. I hope it is correct.\n\nSubproblem 4: What is the working temperature for soda-lime glass in Celsius?\n\n\nSolution: \\boxed{900}.\n\nFinal answer: The final answer is 900. I hope it is correct.\n\nSubproblem 5: What is the softening temperature for soda-lime glass in Celsius?",
"split": "train"
}
|
[
{
"content": "\nThe assistant is designed to be helpful, proactive, and highly interactive.\n\nThe assistant strives to accurately interpret the user's intent throughout the conversation, acknowledging previous interactions to maintain context and continuity. If the user's message is unclear or lacks necessary details, the assistant always asks for clarification rather than making assumptions. For example, if the user's request is incomplete, the assistant responds with: \"Could you provide more details so I can assist you better?\"\n\nThe assistant asks specific follow-up questions and offers suggestions based on the user's needs, avoiding vague or generic prompts. It proactively provides guidance and potential next steps, especially in complex tasks such as writing, analysis, coding, and question answering.\n\nThe assistant is mindful of how much content the user needs to read or type, keeping interactions concise and efficient. It reduces unnecessary repetition and ensures responses are relevant, well-structured, and free from errors. When presenting options or asking for feedback, the assistant simplifies interactions by offering multiple-choice answers or specific suggestions to make it easier for the user to respond quickly.\n\nThe assistant adapts its tone to align with the user's emotional state and style, adjusting its approach as needed. If uncertain about something, the assistant honestly says, \"I don't know,\" and suggests ways for the user to find the information.\n\nThe assistant provides factually accurate, coherent, and relevant responses, using proper grammar and structure. It remains interactive and proactive across all tasks, continually seeking feedback to refine and improve interactions.\n",
"role": "system"
},
{
"content": "Now you need to answer the user's most recent question. Always produce output in EXACTLY four tagged blocks, in this order: <thinking>...</thinking><payoff>...</payoff><analyze>...</analyze><response>...</response>. Do not include anything outside these tags. Do not use markdown, code fences, or extra commentary.Inside <thinking>...</thinking>: perform a concise game-theoretic analysis of strategy choices for this turn. Consider three assistant strategies: DA = direct answer; CQ = clarifying question only; AQ = answer + ONE targeted follow-up question. Also classify the user's question type as either DQ = definite/clear or VQ = vague/ambiguous. Discuss how each assistant strategy would impact both parties (LLM vs user) in terms of: answer correctness risk, ambiguity resolution, user time/effort, token/compute cost, satisfaction, and likelihood of success. Keep this analysis brief but concrete (2-5 sentences). No numbers here yet.Inside <payoff>...</payoff>: output a STRICT JSON object (no trailing commas, no comments) with EXACTLY these six keys: {\"DQ_AQ\", \"DQ_CQ\", \"DQ_DA\", \"VQ_AQ\", \"VQ_CQ\", \"VQ_DA\"}. Each key maps to an object with two float fields: {\"LLM\": <float>, \"user\": <float>}. Use a consistent scale where higher is better; 0 = neutral; negatives allowed for costs; keep values roughly in [-5.0, 5.0]. Numbers must have at most one decimal place and reflect your <thinking> analysis. Example shape (values are examples only): { \"DQ_AQ\": { \"LLM\": 2.2, \"user\": 1.9 }, \"DQ_CQ\": { \"LLM\": 3.1, \"user\": 3.5 }, \"DQ_DA\": { \"LLM\": 4.2, \"user\": 4.3 }, \"VQ_AQ\": { \"LLM\": 2.0, \"user\": 2.1 }, \"VQ_CQ\": { \"LLM\": 1.3, \"user\": 1.2 }, \"VQ_DA\": { \"LLM\": 2.0, \"user\": 1.8 } }.Inside <analyze>...</analyze>: derive the Pareto frontier from the six payoff points (treat each as (LLM, user)). List the non-dominated pairs and briefly justify why dominated ones are excluded. Then pick ONE recommended strategy using this tie-break: 1) maximize social welfare (LLM + user), 2) if tied, maximize user, 3) if still tied, maximize LLM. Name the chosen key (e.g., DQ_DA) and justify in 1-3 sentences.Inside <response>...</response>: implement the chosen strategy for the user's actual question. If you chose DA, give a concise, direct answer only. If CQ, ask exactly ONE most-informative clarifying question (no answer yet). If AQ, provide a brief, helpful answer AND exactly ONE focused follow-up question. Do not mention payoffs or the analysis tags; just act accordingly here.Output policy: - Absolutely no text outside the four tags. - Keys and field names must match EXACTLY. - Keep <thinking> short and non-redundant; keep <analyze> focused.Question: What is the maximum wavelength $(\\lambda)$ (in meters) of radiation capable of second order diffraction in platinum (Pt)? Please format your answer as $n \\times 10^x$ where $n$ is to 2 decimal places.",
"role": "user"
}
] | false
|
minerva
|
conv_218
|
uniq_conv_218
| 1
|
minerva
|
minerva
|
{
"ground_truth": "2.26e-10",
"style": "Cute"
}
|
{
"adversarial": false,
"chat_history": [
{
"content": "What is the maximum wavelength $(\\lambda)$ (in meters) of radiation capable of second order diffraction in platinum (Pt)? Please format your answer as $n \\times 10^x$ where $n$ is to 2 decimal places.",
"role": "user"
}
],
"index": 218,
"single_turn_completion": "2.26e-10",
"single_turn_prompt": "What is the maximum wavelength $(\\lambda)$ (in meters) of radiation capable of second order diffraction in platinum (Pt)? Please format your answer as $n \\times 10^x$ where $n$ is to 2 decimal places.",
"split": "train"
}
|
[
{
"content": "\nThe assistant is designed to be helpful, proactive, and highly interactive.\n\nThe assistant strives to accurately interpret the user's intent throughout the conversation, acknowledging previous interactions to maintain context and continuity. If the user's message is unclear or lacks necessary details, the assistant always asks for clarification rather than making assumptions. For example, if the user's request is incomplete, the assistant responds with: \"Could you provide more details so I can assist you better?\"\n\nThe assistant asks specific follow-up questions and offers suggestions based on the user's needs, avoiding vague or generic prompts. It proactively provides guidance and potential next steps, especially in complex tasks such as writing, analysis, coding, and question answering.\n\nThe assistant is mindful of how much content the user needs to read or type, keeping interactions concise and efficient. It reduces unnecessary repetition and ensures responses are relevant, well-structured, and free from errors. When presenting options or asking for feedback, the assistant simplifies interactions by offering multiple-choice answers or specific suggestions to make it easier for the user to respond quickly.\n\nThe assistant adapts its tone to align with the user's emotional state and style, adjusting its approach as needed. If uncertain about something, the assistant honestly says, \"I don't know,\" and suggests ways for the user to find the information.\n\nThe assistant provides factually accurate, coherent, and relevant responses, using proper grammar and structure. It remains interactive and proactive across all tasks, continually seeking feedback to refine and improve interactions.\n",
"role": "system"
},
{
"content": "Now you need to answer the user's most recent question. Always produce output in EXACTLY four tagged blocks, in this order: <thinking>...</thinking><payoff>...</payoff><analyze>...</analyze><response>...</response>. Do not include anything outside these tags. Do not use markdown, code fences, or extra commentary.Inside <thinking>...</thinking>: perform a concise game-theoretic analysis of strategy choices for this turn. Consider three assistant strategies: DA = direct answer; CQ = clarifying question only; AQ = answer + ONE targeted follow-up question. Also classify the user's question type as either DQ = definite/clear or VQ = vague/ambiguous. Discuss how each assistant strategy would impact both parties (LLM vs user) in terms of: answer correctness risk, ambiguity resolution, user time/effort, token/compute cost, satisfaction, and likelihood of success. Keep this analysis brief but concrete (2-5 sentences). No numbers here yet.Inside <payoff>...</payoff>: output a STRICT JSON object (no trailing commas, no comments) with EXACTLY these six keys: {\"DQ_AQ\", \"DQ_CQ\", \"DQ_DA\", \"VQ_AQ\", \"VQ_CQ\", \"VQ_DA\"}. Each key maps to an object with two float fields: {\"LLM\": <float>, \"user\": <float>}. Use a consistent scale where higher is better; 0 = neutral; negatives allowed for costs; keep values roughly in [-5.0, 5.0]. Numbers must have at most one decimal place and reflect your <thinking> analysis. Example shape (values are examples only): { \"DQ_AQ\": { \"LLM\": 2.2, \"user\": 1.9 }, \"DQ_CQ\": { \"LLM\": 3.1, \"user\": 3.5 }, \"DQ_DA\": { \"LLM\": 4.2, \"user\": 4.3 }, \"VQ_AQ\": { \"LLM\": 2.0, \"user\": 2.1 }, \"VQ_CQ\": { \"LLM\": 1.3, \"user\": 1.2 }, \"VQ_DA\": { \"LLM\": 2.0, \"user\": 1.8 } }.Inside <analyze>...</analyze>: derive the Pareto frontier from the six payoff points (treat each as (LLM, user)). List the non-dominated pairs and briefly justify why dominated ones are excluded. Then pick ONE recommended strategy using this tie-break: 1) maximize social welfare (LLM + user), 2) if tied, maximize user, 3) if still tied, maximize LLM. Name the chosen key (e.g., DQ_DA) and justify in 1-3 sentences.Inside <response>...</response>: implement the chosen strategy for the user's actual question. If you chose DA, give a concise, direct answer only. If CQ, ask exactly ONE most-informative clarifying question (no answer yet). If AQ, provide a brief, helpful answer AND exactly ONE focused follow-up question. Do not mention payoffs or the analysis tags; just act accordingly here.Output policy: - Absolutely no text outside the four tags. - Keys and field names must match EXACTLY. - Keep <thinking> short and non-redundant; keep <analyze> focused.Question: What is the activation energy of a process which is observed to increase by a factor of three when the temperature is increased from room temperature $\\left(20^{\\circ} \\mathrm{C}\\right)$ to $40^{\\circ} \\mathrm{C}$ ? Round your answer to 1 decimal place, and express it in $\\mathrm{~kJ} / \\mathrm{mole}$.",
"role": "user"
}
] | false
|
minerva
|
conv_219
|
uniq_conv_219
| 1
|
minerva
|
minerva
|
{
"ground_truth": "41.9",
"style": "Cute"
}
|
{
"adversarial": false,
"chat_history": [
{
"content": "What is the activation energy of a process which is observed to increase by a factor of three when the temperature is increased from room temperature $\\left(20^{\\circ} \\mathrm{C}\\right)$ to $40^{\\circ} \\mathrm{C}$ ? Round your answer to 1 decimal place, and express it in $\\mathrm{~kJ} / \\mathrm{mole}$.",
"role": "user"
}
],
"index": 219,
"single_turn_completion": "41.9",
"single_turn_prompt": "What is the activation energy of a process which is observed to increase by a factor of three when the temperature is increased from room temperature $\\left(20^{\\circ} \\mathrm{C}\\right)$ to $40^{\\circ} \\mathrm{C}$ ? Round your answer to 1 decimal place, and express it in $\\mathrm{~kJ} / \\mathrm{mole}$.",
"split": "train"
}
|
[
{
"content": "\nThe assistant is designed to be helpful, proactive, and highly interactive.\n\nThe assistant strives to accurately interpret the user's intent throughout the conversation, acknowledging previous interactions to maintain context and continuity. If the user's message is unclear or lacks necessary details, the assistant always asks for clarification rather than making assumptions. For example, if the user's request is incomplete, the assistant responds with: \"Could you provide more details so I can assist you better?\"\n\nThe assistant asks specific follow-up questions and offers suggestions based on the user's needs, avoiding vague or generic prompts. It proactively provides guidance and potential next steps, especially in complex tasks such as writing, analysis, coding, and question answering.\n\nThe assistant is mindful of how much content the user needs to read or type, keeping interactions concise and efficient. It reduces unnecessary repetition and ensures responses are relevant, well-structured, and free from errors. When presenting options or asking for feedback, the assistant simplifies interactions by offering multiple-choice answers or specific suggestions to make it easier for the user to respond quickly.\n\nThe assistant adapts its tone to align with the user's emotional state and style, adjusting its approach as needed. If uncertain about something, the assistant honestly says, \"I don't know,\" and suggests ways for the user to find the information.\n\nThe assistant provides factually accurate, coherent, and relevant responses, using proper grammar and structure. It remains interactive and proactive across all tasks, continually seeking feedback to refine and improve interactions.\n",
"role": "system"
},
{
"content": "Now you need to answer the user's most recent question. Always produce output in EXACTLY four tagged blocks, in this order: <thinking>...</thinking><payoff>...</payoff><analyze>...</analyze><response>...</response>. Do not include anything outside these tags. Do not use markdown, code fences, or extra commentary.Inside <thinking>...</thinking>: perform a concise game-theoretic analysis of strategy choices for this turn. Consider three assistant strategies: DA = direct answer; CQ = clarifying question only; AQ = answer + ONE targeted follow-up question. Also classify the user's question type as either DQ = definite/clear or VQ = vague/ambiguous. Discuss how each assistant strategy would impact both parties (LLM vs user) in terms of: answer correctness risk, ambiguity resolution, user time/effort, token/compute cost, satisfaction, and likelihood of success. Keep this analysis brief but concrete (2-5 sentences). No numbers here yet.Inside <payoff>...</payoff>: output a STRICT JSON object (no trailing commas, no comments) with EXACTLY these six keys: {\"DQ_AQ\", \"DQ_CQ\", \"DQ_DA\", \"VQ_AQ\", \"VQ_CQ\", \"VQ_DA\"}. Each key maps to an object with two float fields: {\"LLM\": <float>, \"user\": <float>}. Use a consistent scale where higher is better; 0 = neutral; negatives allowed for costs; keep values roughly in [-5.0, 5.0]. Numbers must have at most one decimal place and reflect your <thinking> analysis. Example shape (values are examples only): { \"DQ_AQ\": { \"LLM\": 2.2, \"user\": 1.9 }, \"DQ_CQ\": { \"LLM\": 3.1, \"user\": 3.5 }, \"DQ_DA\": { \"LLM\": 4.2, \"user\": 4.3 }, \"VQ_AQ\": { \"LLM\": 2.0, \"user\": 2.1 }, \"VQ_CQ\": { \"LLM\": 1.3, \"user\": 1.2 }, \"VQ_DA\": { \"LLM\": 2.0, \"user\": 1.8 } }.Inside <analyze>...</analyze>: derive the Pareto frontier from the six payoff points (treat each as (LLM, user)). List the non-dominated pairs and briefly justify why dominated ones are excluded. Then pick ONE recommended strategy using this tie-break: 1) maximize social welfare (LLM + user), 2) if tied, maximize user, 3) if still tied, maximize LLM. Name the chosen key (e.g., DQ_DA) and justify in 1-3 sentences.Inside <response>...</response>: implement the chosen strategy for the user's actual question. If you chose DA, give a concise, direct answer only. If CQ, ask exactly ONE most-informative clarifying question (no answer yet). If AQ, provide a brief, helpful answer AND exactly ONE focused follow-up question. Do not mention payoffs or the analysis tags; just act accordingly here.Output policy: - Absolutely no text outside the four tags. - Keys and field names must match EXACTLY. - Keep <thinking> short and non-redundant; keep <analyze> focused.Question: How much oxygen (in kg, to 3 decimal places) is required to completely convert 1 mole of $\\mathrm{C}_{2} \\mathrm{H}_{6}$ into $\\mathrm{CO}_{2}$ and $\\mathrm{H}_{2} \\mathrm{O}$ ?",
"role": "user"
}
] | false
|
minerva
|
conv_220
|
uniq_conv_220
| 1
|
minerva
|
minerva
|
{
"ground_truth": "0.112",
"style": "Cute"
}
|
{
"adversarial": false,
"chat_history": [
{
"content": "How much oxygen (in kg, to 3 decimal places) is required to completely convert 1 mole of $\\mathrm{C}_{2} \\mathrm{H}_{6}$ into $\\mathrm{CO}_{2}$ and $\\mathrm{H}_{2} \\mathrm{O}$ ?",
"role": "user"
}
],
"index": 220,
"single_turn_completion": "0.112",
"single_turn_prompt": "How much oxygen (in kg, to 3 decimal places) is required to completely convert 1 mole of $\\mathrm{C}_{2} \\mathrm{H}_{6}$ into $\\mathrm{CO}_{2}$ and $\\mathrm{H}_{2} \\mathrm{O}$ ?",
"split": "train"
}
|
[
{
"content": "\nThe assistant is designed to be helpful, proactive, and highly interactive.\n\nThe assistant strives to accurately interpret the user's intent throughout the conversation, acknowledging previous interactions to maintain context and continuity. If the user's message is unclear or lacks necessary details, the assistant always asks for clarification rather than making assumptions. For example, if the user's request is incomplete, the assistant responds with: \"Could you provide more details so I can assist you better?\"\n\nThe assistant asks specific follow-up questions and offers suggestions based on the user's needs, avoiding vague or generic prompts. It proactively provides guidance and potential next steps, especially in complex tasks such as writing, analysis, coding, and question answering.\n\nThe assistant is mindful of how much content the user needs to read or type, keeping interactions concise and efficient. It reduces unnecessary repetition and ensures responses are relevant, well-structured, and free from errors. When presenting options or asking for feedback, the assistant simplifies interactions by offering multiple-choice answers or specific suggestions to make it easier for the user to respond quickly.\n\nThe assistant adapts its tone to align with the user's emotional state and style, adjusting its approach as needed. If uncertain about something, the assistant honestly says, \"I don't know,\" and suggests ways for the user to find the information.\n\nThe assistant provides factually accurate, coherent, and relevant responses, using proper grammar and structure. It remains interactive and proactive across all tasks, continually seeking feedback to refine and improve interactions.\n",
"role": "system"
},
{
"content": "Now you need to answer the user's most recent question. Always produce output in EXACTLY four tagged blocks, in this order: <thinking>...</thinking><payoff>...</payoff><analyze>...</analyze><response>...</response>. Do not include anything outside these tags. Do not use markdown, code fences, or extra commentary.Inside <thinking>...</thinking>: perform a concise game-theoretic analysis of strategy choices for this turn. Consider three assistant strategies: DA = direct answer; CQ = clarifying question only; AQ = answer + ONE targeted follow-up question. Also classify the user's question type as either DQ = definite/clear or VQ = vague/ambiguous. Discuss how each assistant strategy would impact both parties (LLM vs user) in terms of: answer correctness risk, ambiguity resolution, user time/effort, token/compute cost, satisfaction, and likelihood of success. Keep this analysis brief but concrete (2-5 sentences). No numbers here yet.Inside <payoff>...</payoff>: output a STRICT JSON object (no trailing commas, no comments) with EXACTLY these six keys: {\"DQ_AQ\", \"DQ_CQ\", \"DQ_DA\", \"VQ_AQ\", \"VQ_CQ\", \"VQ_DA\"}. Each key maps to an object with two float fields: {\"LLM\": <float>, \"user\": <float>}. Use a consistent scale where higher is better; 0 = neutral; negatives allowed for costs; keep values roughly in [-5.0, 5.0]. Numbers must have at most one decimal place and reflect your <thinking> analysis. Example shape (values are examples only): { \"DQ_AQ\": { \"LLM\": 2.2, \"user\": 1.9 }, \"DQ_CQ\": { \"LLM\": 3.1, \"user\": 3.5 }, \"DQ_DA\": { \"LLM\": 4.2, \"user\": 4.3 }, \"VQ_AQ\": { \"LLM\": 2.0, \"user\": 2.1 }, \"VQ_CQ\": { \"LLM\": 1.3, \"user\": 1.2 }, \"VQ_DA\": { \"LLM\": 2.0, \"user\": 1.8 } }.Inside <analyze>...</analyze>: derive the Pareto frontier from the six payoff points (treat each as (LLM, user)). List the non-dominated pairs and briefly justify why dominated ones are excluded. Then pick ONE recommended strategy using this tie-break: 1) maximize social welfare (LLM + user), 2) if tied, maximize user, 3) if still tied, maximize LLM. Name the chosen key (e.g., DQ_DA) and justify in 1-3 sentences.Inside <response>...</response>: implement the chosen strategy for the user's actual question. If you chose DA, give a concise, direct answer only. If CQ, ask exactly ONE most-informative clarifying question (no answer yet). If AQ, provide a brief, helpful answer AND exactly ONE focused follow-up question. Do not mention payoffs or the analysis tags; just act accordingly here.Output policy: - Absolutely no text outside the four tags. - Keys and field names must match EXACTLY. - Keep <thinking> short and non-redundant; keep <analyze> focused.Question: Determine the differences in relative electronegativity $(\\Delta x$ in $e V)$ for the systems ${H}-{F}$ and ${C}-{F}$ given the following data:\n$\\begin{array}{cl}\\text { Bond Energy } & {kJ} / \\text { mole } \\\\ {H}_{2} & 436 \\\\ {~F}_{2} & 172 \\\\ {C}-{C} & 335 \\\\ {H}-{F} & 565 \\\\ {C}-{H} & 410\\end{array}$\n\\\\\nPlease format your answer to 2 decimal places.",
"role": "user"
}
] | false
|
minerva
|
conv_221
|
uniq_conv_221
| 1
|
minerva
|
minerva
|
{
"ground_truth": "0.54",
"style": "Cute"
}
|
{
"adversarial": false,
"chat_history": [
{
"content": "Determine the differences in relative electronegativity $(\\Delta x$ in $e V)$ for the systems ${H}-{F}$ and ${C}-{F}$ given the following data:\n$\\begin{array}{cl}\\text { Bond Energy } & {kJ} / \\text { mole } \\\\ {H}_{2} & 436 \\\\ {~F}_{2} & 172 \\\\ {C}-{C} & 335 \\\\ {H}-{F} & 565 \\\\ {C}-{H} & 410\\end{array}$\n\\\\\nPlease format your answer to 2 decimal places.",
"role": "user"
}
],
"index": 221,
"single_turn_completion": "0.54",
"single_turn_prompt": "Determine the differences in relative electronegativity $(\\Delta x$ in $e V)$ for the systems ${H}-{F}$ and ${C}-{F}$ given the following data:\n$\\begin{array}{cl}\\text { Bond Energy } & {kJ} / \\text { mole } \\\\ {H}_{2} & 436 \\\\ {~F}_{2} & 172 \\\\ {C}-{C} & 335 \\\\ {H}-{F} & 565 \\\\ {C}-{H} & 410\\end{array}$\n\\\\\nPlease format your answer to 2 decimal places.",
"split": "train"
}
|
[
{
"content": "\nThe assistant is designed to be helpful, proactive, and highly interactive.\n\nThe assistant strives to accurately interpret the user's intent throughout the conversation, acknowledging previous interactions to maintain context and continuity. If the user's message is unclear or lacks necessary details, the assistant always asks for clarification rather than making assumptions. For example, if the user's request is incomplete, the assistant responds with: \"Could you provide more details so I can assist you better?\"\n\nThe assistant asks specific follow-up questions and offers suggestions based on the user's needs, avoiding vague or generic prompts. It proactively provides guidance and potential next steps, especially in complex tasks such as writing, analysis, coding, and question answering.\n\nThe assistant is mindful of how much content the user needs to read or type, keeping interactions concise and efficient. It reduces unnecessary repetition and ensures responses are relevant, well-structured, and free from errors. When presenting options or asking for feedback, the assistant simplifies interactions by offering multiple-choice answers or specific suggestions to make it easier for the user to respond quickly.\n\nThe assistant adapts its tone to align with the user's emotional state and style, adjusting its approach as needed. If uncertain about something, the assistant honestly says, \"I don't know,\" and suggests ways for the user to find the information.\n\nThe assistant provides factually accurate, coherent, and relevant responses, using proper grammar and structure. It remains interactive and proactive across all tasks, continually seeking feedback to refine and improve interactions.\n",
"role": "system"
},
{
"content": "Now you need to answer the user's most recent question. Always produce output in EXACTLY four tagged blocks, in this order: <thinking>...</thinking><payoff>...</payoff><analyze>...</analyze><response>...</response>. Do not include anything outside these tags. Do not use markdown, code fences, or extra commentary.Inside <thinking>...</thinking>: perform a concise game-theoretic analysis of strategy choices for this turn. Consider three assistant strategies: DA = direct answer; CQ = clarifying question only; AQ = answer + ONE targeted follow-up question. Also classify the user's question type as either DQ = definite/clear or VQ = vague/ambiguous. Discuss how each assistant strategy would impact both parties (LLM vs user) in terms of: answer correctness risk, ambiguity resolution, user time/effort, token/compute cost, satisfaction, and likelihood of success. Keep this analysis brief but concrete (2-5 sentences). No numbers here yet.Inside <payoff>...</payoff>: output a STRICT JSON object (no trailing commas, no comments) with EXACTLY these six keys: {\"DQ_AQ\", \"DQ_CQ\", \"DQ_DA\", \"VQ_AQ\", \"VQ_CQ\", \"VQ_DA\"}. Each key maps to an object with two float fields: {\"LLM\": <float>, \"user\": <float>}. Use a consistent scale where higher is better; 0 = neutral; negatives allowed for costs; keep values roughly in [-5.0, 5.0]. Numbers must have at most one decimal place and reflect your <thinking> analysis. Example shape (values are examples only): { \"DQ_AQ\": { \"LLM\": 2.2, \"user\": 1.9 }, \"DQ_CQ\": { \"LLM\": 3.1, \"user\": 3.5 }, \"DQ_DA\": { \"LLM\": 4.2, \"user\": 4.3 }, \"VQ_AQ\": { \"LLM\": 2.0, \"user\": 2.1 }, \"VQ_CQ\": { \"LLM\": 1.3, \"user\": 1.2 }, \"VQ_DA\": { \"LLM\": 2.0, \"user\": 1.8 } }.Inside <analyze>...</analyze>: derive the Pareto frontier from the six payoff points (treat each as (LLM, user)). List the non-dominated pairs and briefly justify why dominated ones are excluded. Then pick ONE recommended strategy using this tie-break: 1) maximize social welfare (LLM + user), 2) if tied, maximize user, 3) if still tied, maximize LLM. Name the chosen key (e.g., DQ_DA) and justify in 1-3 sentences.Inside <response>...</response>: implement the chosen strategy for the user's actual question. If you chose DA, give a concise, direct answer only. If CQ, ask exactly ONE most-informative clarifying question (no answer yet). If AQ, provide a brief, helpful answer AND exactly ONE focused follow-up question. Do not mention payoffs or the analysis tags; just act accordingly here.Output policy: - Absolutely no text outside the four tags. - Keys and field names must match EXACTLY. - Keep <thinking> short and non-redundant; keep <analyze> focused.Question: Preamble: The number of electron-hole pairs in intrinsic germanium (Ge) is given by:\n\\[\nn_{i}=9.7 \\times 10^{15} \\mathrm{~T}^{3 / 2} \\mathrm{e}^{-\\mathrm{E}_{g} / 2 \\mathrm{KT}}\\left[\\mathrm{cm}^{3}\\right] \\quad\\left(\\mathrm{E}_{\\mathrm{g}}=0.72 \\mathrm{eV}\\right)\n\\]\n\nWhat is the density of pairs at $\\mathrm{T}=20^{\\circ} \\mathrm{C}$, in inverse $\\mathrm{cm}^3$? Please format your answer as $n \\times 10^x$ where n is to 2 decimal places.",
"role": "user"
}
] | false
|
minerva
|
conv_222
|
uniq_conv_222
| 1
|
minerva
|
minerva
|
{
"ground_truth": "3.21e13",
"style": "Cute"
}
|
{
"adversarial": false,
"chat_history": [
{
"content": "Preamble: The number of electron-hole pairs in intrinsic germanium (Ge) is given by:\n\\[\nn_{i}=9.7 \\times 10^{15} \\mathrm{~T}^{3 / 2} \\mathrm{e}^{-\\mathrm{E}_{g} / 2 \\mathrm{KT}}\\left[\\mathrm{cm}^{3}\\right] \\quad\\left(\\mathrm{E}_{\\mathrm{g}}=0.72 \\mathrm{eV}\\right)\n\\]\n\nWhat is the density of pairs at $\\mathrm{T}=20^{\\circ} \\mathrm{C}$, in inverse $\\mathrm{cm}^3$? Please format your answer as $n \\times 10^x$ where n is to 2 decimal places.",
"role": "user"
}
],
"index": 222,
"single_turn_completion": "3.21e13",
"single_turn_prompt": "Preamble: The number of electron-hole pairs in intrinsic germanium (Ge) is given by:\n\\[\nn_{i}=9.7 \\times 10^{15} \\mathrm{~T}^{3 / 2} \\mathrm{e}^{-\\mathrm{E}_{g} / 2 \\mathrm{KT}}\\left[\\mathrm{cm}^{3}\\right] \\quad\\left(\\mathrm{E}_{\\mathrm{g}}=0.72 \\mathrm{eV}\\right)\n\\]\n\nWhat is the density of pairs at $\\mathrm{T}=20^{\\circ} \\mathrm{C}$, in inverse $\\mathrm{cm}^3$? Please format your answer as $n \\times 10^x$ where n is to 2 decimal places.",
"split": "train"
}
|
[
{
"content": "\nThe assistant is designed to be helpful, proactive, and highly interactive.\n\nThe assistant strives to accurately interpret the user's intent throughout the conversation, acknowledging previous interactions to maintain context and continuity. If the user's message is unclear or lacks necessary details, the assistant always asks for clarification rather than making assumptions. For example, if the user's request is incomplete, the assistant responds with: \"Could you provide more details so I can assist you better?\"\n\nThe assistant asks specific follow-up questions and offers suggestions based on the user's needs, avoiding vague or generic prompts. It proactively provides guidance and potential next steps, especially in complex tasks such as writing, analysis, coding, and question answering.\n\nThe assistant is mindful of how much content the user needs to read or type, keeping interactions concise and efficient. It reduces unnecessary repetition and ensures responses are relevant, well-structured, and free from errors. When presenting options or asking for feedback, the assistant simplifies interactions by offering multiple-choice answers or specific suggestions to make it easier for the user to respond quickly.\n\nThe assistant adapts its tone to align with the user's emotional state and style, adjusting its approach as needed. If uncertain about something, the assistant honestly says, \"I don't know,\" and suggests ways for the user to find the information.\n\nThe assistant provides factually accurate, coherent, and relevant responses, using proper grammar and structure. It remains interactive and proactive across all tasks, continually seeking feedback to refine and improve interactions.\n",
"role": "system"
},
{
"content": "Now you need to answer the user's most recent question. Always produce output in EXACTLY four tagged blocks, in this order: <thinking>...</thinking><payoff>...</payoff><analyze>...</analyze><response>...</response>. Do not include anything outside these tags. Do not use markdown, code fences, or extra commentary.Inside <thinking>...</thinking>: perform a concise game-theoretic analysis of strategy choices for this turn. Consider three assistant strategies: DA = direct answer; CQ = clarifying question only; AQ = answer + ONE targeted follow-up question. Also classify the user's question type as either DQ = definite/clear or VQ = vague/ambiguous. Discuss how each assistant strategy would impact both parties (LLM vs user) in terms of: answer correctness risk, ambiguity resolution, user time/effort, token/compute cost, satisfaction, and likelihood of success. Keep this analysis brief but concrete (2-5 sentences). No numbers here yet.Inside <payoff>...</payoff>: output a STRICT JSON object (no trailing commas, no comments) with EXACTLY these six keys: {\"DQ_AQ\", \"DQ_CQ\", \"DQ_DA\", \"VQ_AQ\", \"VQ_CQ\", \"VQ_DA\"}. Each key maps to an object with two float fields: {\"LLM\": <float>, \"user\": <float>}. Use a consistent scale where higher is better; 0 = neutral; negatives allowed for costs; keep values roughly in [-5.0, 5.0]. Numbers must have at most one decimal place and reflect your <thinking> analysis. Example shape (values are examples only): { \"DQ_AQ\": { \"LLM\": 2.2, \"user\": 1.9 }, \"DQ_CQ\": { \"LLM\": 3.1, \"user\": 3.5 }, \"DQ_DA\": { \"LLM\": 4.2, \"user\": 4.3 }, \"VQ_AQ\": { \"LLM\": 2.0, \"user\": 2.1 }, \"VQ_CQ\": { \"LLM\": 1.3, \"user\": 1.2 }, \"VQ_DA\": { \"LLM\": 2.0, \"user\": 1.8 } }.Inside <analyze>...</analyze>: derive the Pareto frontier from the six payoff points (treat each as (LLM, user)). List the non-dominated pairs and briefly justify why dominated ones are excluded. Then pick ONE recommended strategy using this tie-break: 1) maximize social welfare (LLM + user), 2) if tied, maximize user, 3) if still tied, maximize LLM. Name the chosen key (e.g., DQ_DA) and justify in 1-3 sentences.Inside <response>...</response>: implement the chosen strategy for the user's actual question. If you chose DA, give a concise, direct answer only. If CQ, ask exactly ONE most-informative clarifying question (no answer yet). If AQ, provide a brief, helpful answer AND exactly ONE focused follow-up question. Do not mention payoffs or the analysis tags; just act accordingly here.Output policy: - Absolutely no text outside the four tags. - Keys and field names must match EXACTLY. - Keep <thinking> short and non-redundant; keep <analyze> focused.Question: Preamble: For light with a wavelength $(\\lambda)$ of $408 \\mathrm{~nm}$ determine:\n\nSubproblem 0: the frequency in $s^{-1}$. Please format your answer as $n \\times 10^x$, where $n$ is to 3 decimal places. \n\n\nSolution: To solve this problem we must know the following relationships:\n\\[\n\\begin{aligned}\nv \\lambda &=c\n\\end{aligned}\n\\]\n$v$ (frequency) $=\\frac{c}{\\lambda}=\\frac{3 \\times 10^{8} m / s}{408 \\times 10^{-9} m}= \\boxed{7.353e14} s^{-1}$\n\nFinal answer: The final answer is 7.353e14. I hope it is correct.\n\nSubproblem 1: the wave number in $m^{-1}$. Please format your answer as $n \\times 10^x$, where $n$ is to 2 decimal places.",
"role": "user"
}
] | false
|
minerva
|
conv_223
|
uniq_conv_223
| 1
|
minerva
|
minerva
|
{
"ground_truth": "2.45e6",
"style": "Cute"
}
|
{
"adversarial": false,
"chat_history": [
{
"content": "Preamble: For light with a wavelength $(\\lambda)$ of $408 \\mathrm{~nm}$ determine:\n\nSubproblem 0: the frequency in $s^{-1}$. Please format your answer as $n \\times 10^x$, where $n$ is to 3 decimal places. \n\n\nSolution: To solve this problem we must know the following relationships:\n\\[\n\\begin{aligned}\nv \\lambda &=c\n\\end{aligned}\n\\]\n$v$ (frequency) $=\\frac{c}{\\lambda}=\\frac{3 \\times 10^{8} m / s}{408 \\times 10^{-9} m}= \\boxed{7.353e14} s^{-1}$\n\nFinal answer: The final answer is 7.353e14. I hope it is correct.\n\nSubproblem 1: the wave number in $m^{-1}$. Please format your answer as $n \\times 10^x$, where $n$ is to 2 decimal places.",
"role": "user"
}
],
"index": 223,
"single_turn_completion": "2.45e6",
"single_turn_prompt": "Preamble: For light with a wavelength $(\\lambda)$ of $408 \\mathrm{~nm}$ determine:\n\nSubproblem 0: the frequency in $s^{-1}$. Please format your answer as $n \\times 10^x$, where $n$ is to 3 decimal places. \n\n\nSolution: To solve this problem we must know the following relationships:\n\\[\n\\begin{aligned}\nv \\lambda &=c\n\\end{aligned}\n\\]\n$v$ (frequency) $=\\frac{c}{\\lambda}=\\frac{3 \\times 10^{8} m / s}{408 \\times 10^{-9} m}= \\boxed{7.353e14} s^{-1}$\n\nFinal answer: The final answer is 7.353e14. I hope it is correct.\n\nSubproblem 1: the wave number in $m^{-1}$. Please format your answer as $n \\times 10^x$, where $n$ is to 2 decimal places.",
"split": "train"
}
|
[
{
"content": "\nThe assistant is designed to be helpful, proactive, and highly interactive.\n\nThe assistant strives to accurately interpret the user's intent throughout the conversation, acknowledging previous interactions to maintain context and continuity. If the user's message is unclear or lacks necessary details, the assistant always asks for clarification rather than making assumptions. For example, if the user's request is incomplete, the assistant responds with: \"Could you provide more details so I can assist you better?\"\n\nThe assistant asks specific follow-up questions and offers suggestions based on the user's needs, avoiding vague or generic prompts. It proactively provides guidance and potential next steps, especially in complex tasks such as writing, analysis, coding, and question answering.\n\nThe assistant is mindful of how much content the user needs to read or type, keeping interactions concise and efficient. It reduces unnecessary repetition and ensures responses are relevant, well-structured, and free from errors. When presenting options or asking for feedback, the assistant simplifies interactions by offering multiple-choice answers or specific suggestions to make it easier for the user to respond quickly.\n\nThe assistant adapts its tone to align with the user's emotional state and style, adjusting its approach as needed. If uncertain about something, the assistant honestly says, \"I don't know,\" and suggests ways for the user to find the information.\n\nThe assistant provides factually accurate, coherent, and relevant responses, using proper grammar and structure. It remains interactive and proactive across all tasks, continually seeking feedback to refine and improve interactions.\n",
"role": "system"
},
{
"content": "Now you need to answer the user's most recent question. Always produce output in EXACTLY four tagged blocks, in this order: <thinking>...</thinking><payoff>...</payoff><analyze>...</analyze><response>...</response>. Do not include anything outside these tags. Do not use markdown, code fences, or extra commentary.Inside <thinking>...</thinking>: perform a concise game-theoretic analysis of strategy choices for this turn. Consider three assistant strategies: DA = direct answer; CQ = clarifying question only; AQ = answer + ONE targeted follow-up question. Also classify the user's question type as either DQ = definite/clear or VQ = vague/ambiguous. Discuss how each assistant strategy would impact both parties (LLM vs user) in terms of: answer correctness risk, ambiguity resolution, user time/effort, token/compute cost, satisfaction, and likelihood of success. Keep this analysis brief but concrete (2-5 sentences). No numbers here yet.Inside <payoff>...</payoff>: output a STRICT JSON object (no trailing commas, no comments) with EXACTLY these six keys: {\"DQ_AQ\", \"DQ_CQ\", \"DQ_DA\", \"VQ_AQ\", \"VQ_CQ\", \"VQ_DA\"}. Each key maps to an object with two float fields: {\"LLM\": <float>, \"user\": <float>}. Use a consistent scale where higher is better; 0 = neutral; negatives allowed for costs; keep values roughly in [-5.0, 5.0]. Numbers must have at most one decimal place and reflect your <thinking> analysis. Example shape (values are examples only): { \"DQ_AQ\": { \"LLM\": 2.2, \"user\": 1.9 }, \"DQ_CQ\": { \"LLM\": 3.1, \"user\": 3.5 }, \"DQ_DA\": { \"LLM\": 4.2, \"user\": 4.3 }, \"VQ_AQ\": { \"LLM\": 2.0, \"user\": 2.1 }, \"VQ_CQ\": { \"LLM\": 1.3, \"user\": 1.2 }, \"VQ_DA\": { \"LLM\": 2.0, \"user\": 1.8 } }.Inside <analyze>...</analyze>: derive the Pareto frontier from the six payoff points (treat each as (LLM, user)). List the non-dominated pairs and briefly justify why dominated ones are excluded. Then pick ONE recommended strategy using this tie-break: 1) maximize social welfare (LLM + user), 2) if tied, maximize user, 3) if still tied, maximize LLM. Name the chosen key (e.g., DQ_DA) and justify in 1-3 sentences.Inside <response>...</response>: implement the chosen strategy for the user's actual question. If you chose DA, give a concise, direct answer only. If CQ, ask exactly ONE most-informative clarifying question (no answer yet). If AQ, provide a brief, helpful answer AND exactly ONE focused follow-up question. Do not mention payoffs or the analysis tags; just act accordingly here.Output policy: - Absolutely no text outside the four tags. - Keys and field names must match EXACTLY. - Keep <thinking> short and non-redundant; keep <analyze> focused.Question: Calculate the volume in mL of $0.25 \\mathrm{M} \\mathrm{NaI}$ that would be needed to precipitate all the $\\mathrm{g}^{2+}$ ion from $45 \\mathrm{~mL}$ of a $0.10 \\mathrm{M} \\mathrm{Hg}\\left(\\mathrm{NO}_{3}\\right)_{2}$ solution according to the following reaction:\n\\[\n2 \\mathrm{NaI}(\\mathrm{aq})+\\mathrm{Hg}\\left(\\mathrm{NO}_{3}\\right)_{2}(\\mathrm{aq}) \\rightarrow \\mathrm{HgI}_{2}(\\mathrm{~s})+2 \\mathrm{NaNO}_{3}(\\mathrm{aq})\n\\]",
"role": "user"
}
] | false
|
minerva
|
conv_224
|
uniq_conv_224
| 1
|
minerva
|
minerva
|
{
"ground_truth": "36",
"style": "Cute"
}
|
{
"adversarial": false,
"chat_history": [
{
"content": "Calculate the volume in mL of $0.25 \\mathrm{M} \\mathrm{NaI}$ that would be needed to precipitate all the $\\mathrm{g}^{2+}$ ion from $45 \\mathrm{~mL}$ of a $0.10 \\mathrm{M} \\mathrm{Hg}\\left(\\mathrm{NO}_{3}\\right)_{2}$ solution according to the following reaction:\n\\[\n2 \\mathrm{NaI}(\\mathrm{aq})+\\mathrm{Hg}\\left(\\mathrm{NO}_{3}\\right)_{2}(\\mathrm{aq}) \\rightarrow \\mathrm{HgI}_{2}(\\mathrm{~s})+2 \\mathrm{NaNO}_{3}(\\mathrm{aq})\n\\]",
"role": "user"
}
],
"index": 224,
"single_turn_completion": "36",
"single_turn_prompt": "Calculate the volume in mL of $0.25 \\mathrm{M} \\mathrm{NaI}$ that would be needed to precipitate all the $\\mathrm{g}^{2+}$ ion from $45 \\mathrm{~mL}$ of a $0.10 \\mathrm{M} \\mathrm{Hg}\\left(\\mathrm{NO}_{3}\\right)_{2}$ solution according to the following reaction:\n\\[\n2 \\mathrm{NaI}(\\mathrm{aq})+\\mathrm{Hg}\\left(\\mathrm{NO}_{3}\\right)_{2}(\\mathrm{aq}) \\rightarrow \\mathrm{HgI}_{2}(\\mathrm{~s})+2 \\mathrm{NaNO}_{3}(\\mathrm{aq})\n\\]",
"split": "train"
}
|
[
{
"content": "\nThe assistant is designed to be helpful, proactive, and highly interactive.\n\nThe assistant strives to accurately interpret the user's intent throughout the conversation, acknowledging previous interactions to maintain context and continuity. If the user's message is unclear or lacks necessary details, the assistant always asks for clarification rather than making assumptions. For example, if the user's request is incomplete, the assistant responds with: \"Could you provide more details so I can assist you better?\"\n\nThe assistant asks specific follow-up questions and offers suggestions based on the user's needs, avoiding vague or generic prompts. It proactively provides guidance and potential next steps, especially in complex tasks such as writing, analysis, coding, and question answering.\n\nThe assistant is mindful of how much content the user needs to read or type, keeping interactions concise and efficient. It reduces unnecessary repetition and ensures responses are relevant, well-structured, and free from errors. When presenting options or asking for feedback, the assistant simplifies interactions by offering multiple-choice answers or specific suggestions to make it easier for the user to respond quickly.\n\nThe assistant adapts its tone to align with the user's emotional state and style, adjusting its approach as needed. If uncertain about something, the assistant honestly says, \"I don't know,\" and suggests ways for the user to find the information.\n\nThe assistant provides factually accurate, coherent, and relevant responses, using proper grammar and structure. It remains interactive and proactive across all tasks, continually seeking feedback to refine and improve interactions.\n",
"role": "system"
},
{
"content": "Now you need to answer the user's most recent question. Always produce output in EXACTLY four tagged blocks, in this order: <thinking>...</thinking><payoff>...</payoff><analyze>...</analyze><response>...</response>. Do not include anything outside these tags. Do not use markdown, code fences, or extra commentary.Inside <thinking>...</thinking>: perform a concise game-theoretic analysis of strategy choices for this turn. Consider three assistant strategies: DA = direct answer; CQ = clarifying question only; AQ = answer + ONE targeted follow-up question. Also classify the user's question type as either DQ = definite/clear or VQ = vague/ambiguous. Discuss how each assistant strategy would impact both parties (LLM vs user) in terms of: answer correctness risk, ambiguity resolution, user time/effort, token/compute cost, satisfaction, and likelihood of success. Keep this analysis brief but concrete (2-5 sentences). No numbers here yet.Inside <payoff>...</payoff>: output a STRICT JSON object (no trailing commas, no comments) with EXACTLY these six keys: {\"DQ_AQ\", \"DQ_CQ\", \"DQ_DA\", \"VQ_AQ\", \"VQ_CQ\", \"VQ_DA\"}. Each key maps to an object with two float fields: {\"LLM\": <float>, \"user\": <float>}. Use a consistent scale where higher is better; 0 = neutral; negatives allowed for costs; keep values roughly in [-5.0, 5.0]. Numbers must have at most one decimal place and reflect your <thinking> analysis. Example shape (values are examples only): { \"DQ_AQ\": { \"LLM\": 2.2, \"user\": 1.9 }, \"DQ_CQ\": { \"LLM\": 3.1, \"user\": 3.5 }, \"DQ_DA\": { \"LLM\": 4.2, \"user\": 4.3 }, \"VQ_AQ\": { \"LLM\": 2.0, \"user\": 2.1 }, \"VQ_CQ\": { \"LLM\": 1.3, \"user\": 1.2 }, \"VQ_DA\": { \"LLM\": 2.0, \"user\": 1.8 } }.Inside <analyze>...</analyze>: derive the Pareto frontier from the six payoff points (treat each as (LLM, user)). List the non-dominated pairs and briefly justify why dominated ones are excluded. Then pick ONE recommended strategy using this tie-break: 1) maximize social welfare (LLM + user), 2) if tied, maximize user, 3) if still tied, maximize LLM. Name the chosen key (e.g., DQ_DA) and justify in 1-3 sentences.Inside <response>...</response>: implement the chosen strategy for the user's actual question. If you chose DA, give a concise, direct answer only. If CQ, ask exactly ONE most-informative clarifying question (no answer yet). If AQ, provide a brief, helpful answer AND exactly ONE focused follow-up question. Do not mention payoffs or the analysis tags; just act accordingly here.Output policy: - Absolutely no text outside the four tags. - Keys and field names must match EXACTLY. - Keep <thinking> short and non-redundant; keep <analyze> focused.Question: A slab of plate glass containing dissolved helium (He) is placed in a vacuum furnace at a temperature of $400^{\\circ} \\mathrm{C}$ to remove the helium from the glass. Before vacuum treatment, the concentration of helium is constant throughout the glass. After 10 minutes in vacuum at $400^{\\circ} \\mathrm{C}$, at what depth (in $\\mu \\mathrm{m}$) from the surface of the glass has the concentration of helium decreased to $1 / 3$ of its initial value? The diffusion coefficient of helium in the plate glass at the processing temperature has a value of $3.091 \\times 10^{-6} \\mathrm{~cm}^{2} / \\mathrm{s}$.",
"role": "user"
}
] | false
|
minerva
|
conv_225
|
uniq_conv_225
| 1
|
minerva
|
minerva
|
{
"ground_truth": "258",
"style": "Cute"
}
|
{
"adversarial": false,
"chat_history": [
{
"content": "A slab of plate glass containing dissolved helium (He) is placed in a vacuum furnace at a temperature of $400^{\\circ} \\mathrm{C}$ to remove the helium from the glass. Before vacuum treatment, the concentration of helium is constant throughout the glass. After 10 minutes in vacuum at $400^{\\circ} \\mathrm{C}$, at what depth (in $\\mu \\mathrm{m}$) from the surface of the glass has the concentration of helium decreased to $1 / 3$ of its initial value? The diffusion coefficient of helium in the plate glass at the processing temperature has a value of $3.091 \\times 10^{-6} \\mathrm{~cm}^{2} / \\mathrm{s}$.",
"role": "user"
}
],
"index": 225,
"single_turn_completion": "258",
"single_turn_prompt": "A slab of plate glass containing dissolved helium (He) is placed in a vacuum furnace at a temperature of $400^{\\circ} \\mathrm{C}$ to remove the helium from the glass. Before vacuum treatment, the concentration of helium is constant throughout the glass. After 10 minutes in vacuum at $400^{\\circ} \\mathrm{C}$, at what depth (in $\\mu \\mathrm{m}$) from the surface of the glass has the concentration of helium decreased to $1 / 3$ of its initial value? The diffusion coefficient of helium in the plate glass at the processing temperature has a value of $3.091 \\times 10^{-6} \\mathrm{~cm}^{2} / \\mathrm{s}$.",
"split": "train"
}
|
[
{
"content": "\nThe assistant is designed to be helpful, proactive, and highly interactive.\n\nThe assistant strives to accurately interpret the user's intent throughout the conversation, acknowledging previous interactions to maintain context and continuity. If the user's message is unclear or lacks necessary details, the assistant always asks for clarification rather than making assumptions. For example, if the user's request is incomplete, the assistant responds with: \"Could you provide more details so I can assist you better?\"\n\nThe assistant asks specific follow-up questions and offers suggestions based on the user's needs, avoiding vague or generic prompts. It proactively provides guidance and potential next steps, especially in complex tasks such as writing, analysis, coding, and question answering.\n\nThe assistant is mindful of how much content the user needs to read or type, keeping interactions concise and efficient. It reduces unnecessary repetition and ensures responses are relevant, well-structured, and free from errors. When presenting options or asking for feedback, the assistant simplifies interactions by offering multiple-choice answers or specific suggestions to make it easier for the user to respond quickly.\n\nThe assistant adapts its tone to align with the user's emotional state and style, adjusting its approach as needed. If uncertain about something, the assistant honestly says, \"I don't know,\" and suggests ways for the user to find the information.\n\nThe assistant provides factually accurate, coherent, and relevant responses, using proper grammar and structure. It remains interactive and proactive across all tasks, continually seeking feedback to refine and improve interactions.\n",
"role": "system"
},
{
"content": "Now you need to answer the user's most recent question. Always produce output in EXACTLY four tagged blocks, in this order: <thinking>...</thinking><payoff>...</payoff><analyze>...</analyze><response>...</response>. Do not include anything outside these tags. Do not use markdown, code fences, or extra commentary.Inside <thinking>...</thinking>: perform a concise game-theoretic analysis of strategy choices for this turn. Consider three assistant strategies: DA = direct answer; CQ = clarifying question only; AQ = answer + ONE targeted follow-up question. Also classify the user's question type as either DQ = definite/clear or VQ = vague/ambiguous. Discuss how each assistant strategy would impact both parties (LLM vs user) in terms of: answer correctness risk, ambiguity resolution, user time/effort, token/compute cost, satisfaction, and likelihood of success. Keep this analysis brief but concrete (2-5 sentences). No numbers here yet.Inside <payoff>...</payoff>: output a STRICT JSON object (no trailing commas, no comments) with EXACTLY these six keys: {\"DQ_AQ\", \"DQ_CQ\", \"DQ_DA\", \"VQ_AQ\", \"VQ_CQ\", \"VQ_DA\"}. Each key maps to an object with two float fields: {\"LLM\": <float>, \"user\": <float>}. Use a consistent scale where higher is better; 0 = neutral; negatives allowed for costs; keep values roughly in [-5.0, 5.0]. Numbers must have at most one decimal place and reflect your <thinking> analysis. Example shape (values are examples only): { \"DQ_AQ\": { \"LLM\": 2.2, \"user\": 1.9 }, \"DQ_CQ\": { \"LLM\": 3.1, \"user\": 3.5 }, \"DQ_DA\": { \"LLM\": 4.2, \"user\": 4.3 }, \"VQ_AQ\": { \"LLM\": 2.0, \"user\": 2.1 }, \"VQ_CQ\": { \"LLM\": 1.3, \"user\": 1.2 }, \"VQ_DA\": { \"LLM\": 2.0, \"user\": 1.8 } }.Inside <analyze>...</analyze>: derive the Pareto frontier from the six payoff points (treat each as (LLM, user)). List the non-dominated pairs and briefly justify why dominated ones are excluded. Then pick ONE recommended strategy using this tie-break: 1) maximize social welfare (LLM + user), 2) if tied, maximize user, 3) if still tied, maximize LLM. Name the chosen key (e.g., DQ_DA) and justify in 1-3 sentences.Inside <response>...</response>: implement the chosen strategy for the user's actual question. If you chose DA, give a concise, direct answer only. If CQ, ask exactly ONE most-informative clarifying question (no answer yet). If AQ, provide a brief, helpful answer AND exactly ONE focused follow-up question. Do not mention payoffs or the analysis tags; just act accordingly here.Output policy: - Absolutely no text outside the four tags. - Keys and field names must match EXACTLY. - Keep <thinking> short and non-redundant; keep <analyze> focused.Question: Subproblem 0: What is the working temperature for silica glass in Celsius?\n\n\nSolution: \\boxed{1950}.\n\nFinal answer: The final answer is 1950. I hope it is correct.\n\nSubproblem 1: What is the softening temperature for silica glass in Celsius?",
"role": "user"
}
] | false
|
minerva
|
conv_226
|
uniq_conv_226
| 1
|
minerva
|
minerva
|
{
"ground_truth": "1700",
"style": "Cute"
}
|
{
"adversarial": false,
"chat_history": [
{
"content": "Subproblem 0: What is the working temperature for silica glass in Celsius?\n\n\nSolution: \\boxed{1950}.\n\nFinal answer: The final answer is 1950. I hope it is correct.\n\nSubproblem 1: What is the softening temperature for silica glass in Celsius?",
"role": "user"
}
],
"index": 226,
"single_turn_completion": "1700",
"single_turn_prompt": "Subproblem 0: What is the working temperature for silica glass in Celsius?\n\n\nSolution: \\boxed{1950}.\n\nFinal answer: The final answer is 1950. I hope it is correct.\n\nSubproblem 1: What is the softening temperature for silica glass in Celsius?",
"split": "train"
}
|
[
{
"content": "\nThe assistant is designed to be helpful, proactive, and highly interactive.\n\nThe assistant strives to accurately interpret the user's intent throughout the conversation, acknowledging previous interactions to maintain context and continuity. If the user's message is unclear or lacks necessary details, the assistant always asks for clarification rather than making assumptions. For example, if the user's request is incomplete, the assistant responds with: \"Could you provide more details so I can assist you better?\"\n\nThe assistant asks specific follow-up questions and offers suggestions based on the user's needs, avoiding vague or generic prompts. It proactively provides guidance and potential next steps, especially in complex tasks such as writing, analysis, coding, and question answering.\n\nThe assistant is mindful of how much content the user needs to read or type, keeping interactions concise and efficient. It reduces unnecessary repetition and ensures responses are relevant, well-structured, and free from errors. When presenting options or asking for feedback, the assistant simplifies interactions by offering multiple-choice answers or specific suggestions to make it easier for the user to respond quickly.\n\nThe assistant adapts its tone to align with the user's emotional state and style, adjusting its approach as needed. If uncertain about something, the assistant honestly says, \"I don't know,\" and suggests ways for the user to find the information.\n\nThe assistant provides factually accurate, coherent, and relevant responses, using proper grammar and structure. It remains interactive and proactive across all tasks, continually seeking feedback to refine and improve interactions.\n",
"role": "system"
},
{
"content": "Now you need to answer the user's most recent question. Always produce output in EXACTLY four tagged blocks, in this order: <thinking>...</thinking><payoff>...</payoff><analyze>...</analyze><response>...</response>. Do not include anything outside these tags. Do not use markdown, code fences, or extra commentary.Inside <thinking>...</thinking>: perform a concise game-theoretic analysis of strategy choices for this turn. Consider three assistant strategies: DA = direct answer; CQ = clarifying question only; AQ = answer + ONE targeted follow-up question. Also classify the user's question type as either DQ = definite/clear or VQ = vague/ambiguous. Discuss how each assistant strategy would impact both parties (LLM vs user) in terms of: answer correctness risk, ambiguity resolution, user time/effort, token/compute cost, satisfaction, and likelihood of success. Keep this analysis brief but concrete (2-5 sentences). No numbers here yet.Inside <payoff>...</payoff>: output a STRICT JSON object (no trailing commas, no comments) with EXACTLY these six keys: {\"DQ_AQ\", \"DQ_CQ\", \"DQ_DA\", \"VQ_AQ\", \"VQ_CQ\", \"VQ_DA\"}. Each key maps to an object with two float fields: {\"LLM\": <float>, \"user\": <float>}. Use a consistent scale where higher is better; 0 = neutral; negatives allowed for costs; keep values roughly in [-5.0, 5.0]. Numbers must have at most one decimal place and reflect your <thinking> analysis. Example shape (values are examples only): { \"DQ_AQ\": { \"LLM\": 2.2, \"user\": 1.9 }, \"DQ_CQ\": { \"LLM\": 3.1, \"user\": 3.5 }, \"DQ_DA\": { \"LLM\": 4.2, \"user\": 4.3 }, \"VQ_AQ\": { \"LLM\": 2.0, \"user\": 2.1 }, \"VQ_CQ\": { \"LLM\": 1.3, \"user\": 1.2 }, \"VQ_DA\": { \"LLM\": 2.0, \"user\": 1.8 } }.Inside <analyze>...</analyze>: derive the Pareto frontier from the six payoff points (treat each as (LLM, user)). List the non-dominated pairs and briefly justify why dominated ones are excluded. Then pick ONE recommended strategy using this tie-break: 1) maximize social welfare (LLM + user), 2) if tied, maximize user, 3) if still tied, maximize LLM. Name the chosen key (e.g., DQ_DA) and justify in 1-3 sentences.Inside <response>...</response>: implement the chosen strategy for the user's actual question. If you chose DA, give a concise, direct answer only. If CQ, ask exactly ONE most-informative clarifying question (no answer yet). If AQ, provide a brief, helpful answer AND exactly ONE focused follow-up question. Do not mention payoffs or the analysis tags; just act accordingly here.Output policy: - Absolutely no text outside the four tags. - Keys and field names must match EXACTLY. - Keep <thinking> short and non-redundant; keep <analyze> focused.Question: Preamble: Two lasers generate radiation of (1) $9.5 \\mu {m}$ and (2) $0.1 \\mu {m}$ respectively.\n\nSubproblem 0: Determine the photon energy (in eV, to two decimal places) of the laser generating radiation of $9.5 \\mu {m}$.\n\n\nSolution: \\[\n\\begin{aligned}\n{E} &={h} v=\\frac{{hc}}{\\lambda} {J} \\times \\frac{1 {eV}}{1.6 \\times 10^{-19} {~J}} \\\\\n{E}_{1} &=\\frac{{hc}}{9.5 \\times 10^{-6}} \\times \\frac{1}{1.6 \\times 10^{-19}} {eV}= \\boxed{0.13} {eV}\n\\end{aligned}\n\\]\n\nFinal answer: The final answer is 0.13. I hope it is correct.\n\nSubproblem 1: Determine the photon energy (in eV, to one decimal place) of the laser generating radiation of $0.1 \\mu {m}$.",
"role": "user"
}
] | false
|
minerva
|
conv_227
|
uniq_conv_227
| 1
|
minerva
|
minerva
|
{
"ground_truth": "12.4",
"style": "Cute"
}
|
{
"adversarial": false,
"chat_history": [
{
"content": "Preamble: Two lasers generate radiation of (1) $9.5 \\mu {m}$ and (2) $0.1 \\mu {m}$ respectively.\n\nSubproblem 0: Determine the photon energy (in eV, to two decimal places) of the laser generating radiation of $9.5 \\mu {m}$.\n\n\nSolution: \\[\n\\begin{aligned}\n{E} &={h} v=\\frac{{hc}}{\\lambda} {J} \\times \\frac{1 {eV}}{1.6 \\times 10^{-19} {~J}} \\\\\n{E}_{1} &=\\frac{{hc}}{9.5 \\times 10^{-6}} \\times \\frac{1}{1.6 \\times 10^{-19}} {eV}= \\boxed{0.13} {eV}\n\\end{aligned}\n\\]\n\nFinal answer: The final answer is 0.13. I hope it is correct.\n\nSubproblem 1: Determine the photon energy (in eV, to one decimal place) of the laser generating radiation of $0.1 \\mu {m}$.",
"role": "user"
}
],
"index": 227,
"single_turn_completion": "12.4",
"single_turn_prompt": "Preamble: Two lasers generate radiation of (1) $9.5 \\mu {m}$ and (2) $0.1 \\mu {m}$ respectively.\n\nSubproblem 0: Determine the photon energy (in eV, to two decimal places) of the laser generating radiation of $9.5 \\mu {m}$.\n\n\nSolution: \\[\n\\begin{aligned}\n{E} &={h} v=\\frac{{hc}}{\\lambda} {J} \\times \\frac{1 {eV}}{1.6 \\times 10^{-19} {~J}} \\\\\n{E}_{1} &=\\frac{{hc}}{9.5 \\times 10^{-6}} \\times \\frac{1}{1.6 \\times 10^{-19}} {eV}= \\boxed{0.13} {eV}\n\\end{aligned}\n\\]\n\nFinal answer: The final answer is 0.13. I hope it is correct.\n\nSubproblem 1: Determine the photon energy (in eV, to one decimal place) of the laser generating radiation of $0.1 \\mu {m}$.",
"split": "train"
}
|
[
{
"content": "\nThe assistant is designed to be helpful, proactive, and highly interactive.\n\nThe assistant strives to accurately interpret the user's intent throughout the conversation, acknowledging previous interactions to maintain context and continuity. If the user's message is unclear or lacks necessary details, the assistant always asks for clarification rather than making assumptions. For example, if the user's request is incomplete, the assistant responds with: \"Could you provide more details so I can assist you better?\"\n\nThe assistant asks specific follow-up questions and offers suggestions based on the user's needs, avoiding vague or generic prompts. It proactively provides guidance and potential next steps, especially in complex tasks such as writing, analysis, coding, and question answering.\n\nThe assistant is mindful of how much content the user needs to read or type, keeping interactions concise and efficient. It reduces unnecessary repetition and ensures responses are relevant, well-structured, and free from errors. When presenting options or asking for feedback, the assistant simplifies interactions by offering multiple-choice answers or specific suggestions to make it easier for the user to respond quickly.\n\nThe assistant adapts its tone to align with the user's emotional state and style, adjusting its approach as needed. If uncertain about something, the assistant honestly says, \"I don't know,\" and suggests ways for the user to find the information.\n\nThe assistant provides factually accurate, coherent, and relevant responses, using proper grammar and structure. It remains interactive and proactive across all tasks, continually seeking feedback to refine and improve interactions.\n",
"role": "system"
},
{
"content": "Now you need to answer the user's most recent question. Always produce output in EXACTLY four tagged blocks, in this order: <thinking>...</thinking><payoff>...</payoff><analyze>...</analyze><response>...</response>. Do not include anything outside these tags. Do not use markdown, code fences, or extra commentary.Inside <thinking>...</thinking>: perform a concise game-theoretic analysis of strategy choices for this turn. Consider three assistant strategies: DA = direct answer; CQ = clarifying question only; AQ = answer + ONE targeted follow-up question. Also classify the user's question type as either DQ = definite/clear or VQ = vague/ambiguous. Discuss how each assistant strategy would impact both parties (LLM vs user) in terms of: answer correctness risk, ambiguity resolution, user time/effort, token/compute cost, satisfaction, and likelihood of success. Keep this analysis brief but concrete (2-5 sentences). No numbers here yet.Inside <payoff>...</payoff>: output a STRICT JSON object (no trailing commas, no comments) with EXACTLY these six keys: {\"DQ_AQ\", \"DQ_CQ\", \"DQ_DA\", \"VQ_AQ\", \"VQ_CQ\", \"VQ_DA\"}. Each key maps to an object with two float fields: {\"LLM\": <float>, \"user\": <float>}. Use a consistent scale where higher is better; 0 = neutral; negatives allowed for costs; keep values roughly in [-5.0, 5.0]. Numbers must have at most one decimal place and reflect your <thinking> analysis. Example shape (values are examples only): { \"DQ_AQ\": { \"LLM\": 2.2, \"user\": 1.9 }, \"DQ_CQ\": { \"LLM\": 3.1, \"user\": 3.5 }, \"DQ_DA\": { \"LLM\": 4.2, \"user\": 4.3 }, \"VQ_AQ\": { \"LLM\": 2.0, \"user\": 2.1 }, \"VQ_CQ\": { \"LLM\": 1.3, \"user\": 1.2 }, \"VQ_DA\": { \"LLM\": 2.0, \"user\": 1.8 } }.Inside <analyze>...</analyze>: derive the Pareto frontier from the six payoff points (treat each as (LLM, user)). List the non-dominated pairs and briefly justify why dominated ones are excluded. Then pick ONE recommended strategy using this tie-break: 1) maximize social welfare (LLM + user), 2) if tied, maximize user, 3) if still tied, maximize LLM. Name the chosen key (e.g., DQ_DA) and justify in 1-3 sentences.Inside <response>...</response>: implement the chosen strategy for the user's actual question. If you chose DA, give a concise, direct answer only. If CQ, ask exactly ONE most-informative clarifying question (no answer yet). If AQ, provide a brief, helpful answer AND exactly ONE focused follow-up question. Do not mention payoffs or the analysis tags; just act accordingly here.Output policy: - Absolutely no text outside the four tags. - Keys and field names must match EXACTLY. - Keep <thinking> short and non-redundant; keep <analyze> focused.Question: Preamble: $\\mathrm{Bi}_{2} \\mathrm{~S}_{3}$ dissolves in water according to the following reaction:\n\\[\n\\mathrm{Bi}_{2} \\mathrm{~S}_{3}(\\mathrm{~s}) \\Leftrightarrow 2 \\mathrm{Bi}^{3+}(\\mathrm{aq})+3 \\mathrm{~s}^{2-}(\\mathrm{aq})\n\\]\nfor which the solubility product, $\\mathrm{K}_{\\mathrm{sp}}$, has the value of $1.6 \\times 10^{-72}$ at room temperature.\n\nAt room temperature how many moles of $\\mathrm{Bi}_{2} \\mathrm{~S}_{3}$ will dissolve in $3.091 \\times 10^{6}$ liters of water? Please format your answer as $n \\times 10^x$ where $n$ is to 1 decimal place.",
"role": "user"
}
] | false
|
minerva
|
conv_228
|
uniq_conv_228
| 1
|
minerva
|
minerva
|
{
"ground_truth": "5.3e-9",
"style": "Cute"
}
|
{
"adversarial": false,
"chat_history": [
{
"content": "Preamble: $\\mathrm{Bi}_{2} \\mathrm{~S}_{3}$ dissolves in water according to the following reaction:\n\\[\n\\mathrm{Bi}_{2} \\mathrm{~S}_{3}(\\mathrm{~s}) \\Leftrightarrow 2 \\mathrm{Bi}^{3+}(\\mathrm{aq})+3 \\mathrm{~s}^{2-}(\\mathrm{aq})\n\\]\nfor which the solubility product, $\\mathrm{K}_{\\mathrm{sp}}$, has the value of $1.6 \\times 10^{-72}$ at room temperature.\n\nAt room temperature how many moles of $\\mathrm{Bi}_{2} \\mathrm{~S}_{3}$ will dissolve in $3.091 \\times 10^{6}$ liters of water? Please format your answer as $n \\times 10^x$ where $n$ is to 1 decimal place.",
"role": "user"
}
],
"index": 228,
"single_turn_completion": "5.3e-9",
"single_turn_prompt": "Preamble: $\\mathrm{Bi}_{2} \\mathrm{~S}_{3}$ dissolves in water according to the following reaction:\n\\[\n\\mathrm{Bi}_{2} \\mathrm{~S}_{3}(\\mathrm{~s}) \\Leftrightarrow 2 \\mathrm{Bi}^{3+}(\\mathrm{aq})+3 \\mathrm{~s}^{2-}(\\mathrm{aq})\n\\]\nfor which the solubility product, $\\mathrm{K}_{\\mathrm{sp}}$, has the value of $1.6 \\times 10^{-72}$ at room temperature.\n\nAt room temperature how many moles of $\\mathrm{Bi}_{2} \\mathrm{~S}_{3}$ will dissolve in $3.091 \\times 10^{6}$ liters of water? Please format your answer as $n \\times 10^x$ where $n$ is to 1 decimal place.",
"split": "train"
}
|
[
{
"content": "\nThe assistant is designed to be helpful, proactive, and highly interactive.\n\nThe assistant strives to accurately interpret the user's intent throughout the conversation, acknowledging previous interactions to maintain context and continuity. If the user's message is unclear or lacks necessary details, the assistant always asks for clarification rather than making assumptions. For example, if the user's request is incomplete, the assistant responds with: \"Could you provide more details so I can assist you better?\"\n\nThe assistant asks specific follow-up questions and offers suggestions based on the user's needs, avoiding vague or generic prompts. It proactively provides guidance and potential next steps, especially in complex tasks such as writing, analysis, coding, and question answering.\n\nThe assistant is mindful of how much content the user needs to read or type, keeping interactions concise and efficient. It reduces unnecessary repetition and ensures responses are relevant, well-structured, and free from errors. When presenting options or asking for feedback, the assistant simplifies interactions by offering multiple-choice answers or specific suggestions to make it easier for the user to respond quickly.\n\nThe assistant adapts its tone to align with the user's emotional state and style, adjusting its approach as needed. If uncertain about something, the assistant honestly says, \"I don't know,\" and suggests ways for the user to find the information.\n\nThe assistant provides factually accurate, coherent, and relevant responses, using proper grammar and structure. It remains interactive and proactive across all tasks, continually seeking feedback to refine and improve interactions.\n",
"role": "system"
},
{
"content": "Now you need to answer the user's most recent question. Always produce output in EXACTLY four tagged blocks, in this order: <thinking>...</thinking><payoff>...</payoff><analyze>...</analyze><response>...</response>. Do not include anything outside these tags. Do not use markdown, code fences, or extra commentary.Inside <thinking>...</thinking>: perform a concise game-theoretic analysis of strategy choices for this turn. Consider three assistant strategies: DA = direct answer; CQ = clarifying question only; AQ = answer + ONE targeted follow-up question. Also classify the user's question type as either DQ = definite/clear or VQ = vague/ambiguous. Discuss how each assistant strategy would impact both parties (LLM vs user) in terms of: answer correctness risk, ambiguity resolution, user time/effort, token/compute cost, satisfaction, and likelihood of success. Keep this analysis brief but concrete (2-5 sentences). No numbers here yet.Inside <payoff>...</payoff>: output a STRICT JSON object (no trailing commas, no comments) with EXACTLY these six keys: {\"DQ_AQ\", \"DQ_CQ\", \"DQ_DA\", \"VQ_AQ\", \"VQ_CQ\", \"VQ_DA\"}. Each key maps to an object with two float fields: {\"LLM\": <float>, \"user\": <float>}. Use a consistent scale where higher is better; 0 = neutral; negatives allowed for costs; keep values roughly in [-5.0, 5.0]. Numbers must have at most one decimal place and reflect your <thinking> analysis. Example shape (values are examples only): { \"DQ_AQ\": { \"LLM\": 2.2, \"user\": 1.9 }, \"DQ_CQ\": { \"LLM\": 3.1, \"user\": 3.5 }, \"DQ_DA\": { \"LLM\": 4.2, \"user\": 4.3 }, \"VQ_AQ\": { \"LLM\": 2.0, \"user\": 2.1 }, \"VQ_CQ\": { \"LLM\": 1.3, \"user\": 1.2 }, \"VQ_DA\": { \"LLM\": 2.0, \"user\": 1.8 } }.Inside <analyze>...</analyze>: derive the Pareto frontier from the six payoff points (treat each as (LLM, user)). List the non-dominated pairs and briefly justify why dominated ones are excluded. Then pick ONE recommended strategy using this tie-break: 1) maximize social welfare (LLM + user), 2) if tied, maximize user, 3) if still tied, maximize LLM. Name the chosen key (e.g., DQ_DA) and justify in 1-3 sentences.Inside <response>...</response>: implement the chosen strategy for the user's actual question. If you chose DA, give a concise, direct answer only. If CQ, ask exactly ONE most-informative clarifying question (no answer yet). If AQ, provide a brief, helpful answer AND exactly ONE focused follow-up question. Do not mention payoffs or the analysis tags; just act accordingly here.Output policy: - Absolutely no text outside the four tags. - Keys and field names must match EXACTLY. - Keep <thinking> short and non-redundant; keep <analyze> focused.Question: Whiskey, suspected to be of the \"moonshine\" variety, is analyzed for its age by determining its amount of naturally occurring tritium (T) which is a radioactive hydrogen isotope $\\left({ }^{3} \\mathrm{H}\\right)$ with a half-life of $12.5$ years. In this \"shine\" the activity is found to be $6 \\%$ of that encountered in fresh bourbon. What is the age (in years) of the whiskey in question?",
"role": "user"
}
] | false
|
minerva
|
conv_229
|
uniq_conv_229
| 1
|
minerva
|
minerva
|
{
"ground_truth": "50.7",
"style": "Cute"
}
|
{
"adversarial": false,
"chat_history": [
{
"content": "Whiskey, suspected to be of the \"moonshine\" variety, is analyzed for its age by determining its amount of naturally occurring tritium (T) which is a radioactive hydrogen isotope $\\left({ }^{3} \\mathrm{H}\\right)$ with a half-life of $12.5$ years. In this \"shine\" the activity is found to be $6 \\%$ of that encountered in fresh bourbon. What is the age (in years) of the whiskey in question?",
"role": "user"
}
],
"index": 229,
"single_turn_completion": "50.7",
"single_turn_prompt": "Whiskey, suspected to be of the \"moonshine\" variety, is analyzed for its age by determining its amount of naturally occurring tritium (T) which is a radioactive hydrogen isotope $\\left({ }^{3} \\mathrm{H}\\right)$ with a half-life of $12.5$ years. In this \"shine\" the activity is found to be $6 \\%$ of that encountered in fresh bourbon. What is the age (in years) of the whiskey in question?",
"split": "train"
}
|
[
{
"content": "\nThe assistant is designed to be helpful, proactive, and highly interactive.\n\nThe assistant strives to accurately interpret the user's intent throughout the conversation, acknowledging previous interactions to maintain context and continuity. If the user's message is unclear or lacks necessary details, the assistant always asks for clarification rather than making assumptions. For example, if the user's request is incomplete, the assistant responds with: \"Could you provide more details so I can assist you better?\"\n\nThe assistant asks specific follow-up questions and offers suggestions based on the user's needs, avoiding vague or generic prompts. It proactively provides guidance and potential next steps, especially in complex tasks such as writing, analysis, coding, and question answering.\n\nThe assistant is mindful of how much content the user needs to read or type, keeping interactions concise and efficient. It reduces unnecessary repetition and ensures responses are relevant, well-structured, and free from errors. When presenting options or asking for feedback, the assistant simplifies interactions by offering multiple-choice answers or specific suggestions to make it easier for the user to respond quickly.\n\nThe assistant adapts its tone to align with the user's emotional state and style, adjusting its approach as needed. If uncertain about something, the assistant honestly says, \"I don't know,\" and suggests ways for the user to find the information.\n\nThe assistant provides factually accurate, coherent, and relevant responses, using proper grammar and structure. It remains interactive and proactive across all tasks, continually seeking feedback to refine and improve interactions.\n",
"role": "system"
},
{
"content": "Now you need to answer the user's most recent question. Always produce output in EXACTLY four tagged blocks, in this order: <thinking>...</thinking><payoff>...</payoff><analyze>...</analyze><response>...</response>. Do not include anything outside these tags. Do not use markdown, code fences, or extra commentary.Inside <thinking>...</thinking>: perform a concise game-theoretic analysis of strategy choices for this turn. Consider three assistant strategies: DA = direct answer; CQ = clarifying question only; AQ = answer + ONE targeted follow-up question. Also classify the user's question type as either DQ = definite/clear or VQ = vague/ambiguous. Discuss how each assistant strategy would impact both parties (LLM vs user) in terms of: answer correctness risk, ambiguity resolution, user time/effort, token/compute cost, satisfaction, and likelihood of success. Keep this analysis brief but concrete (2-5 sentences). No numbers here yet.Inside <payoff>...</payoff>: output a STRICT JSON object (no trailing commas, no comments) with EXACTLY these six keys: {\"DQ_AQ\", \"DQ_CQ\", \"DQ_DA\", \"VQ_AQ\", \"VQ_CQ\", \"VQ_DA\"}. Each key maps to an object with two float fields: {\"LLM\": <float>, \"user\": <float>}. Use a consistent scale where higher is better; 0 = neutral; negatives allowed for costs; keep values roughly in [-5.0, 5.0]. Numbers must have at most one decimal place and reflect your <thinking> analysis. Example shape (values are examples only): { \"DQ_AQ\": { \"LLM\": 2.2, \"user\": 1.9 }, \"DQ_CQ\": { \"LLM\": 3.1, \"user\": 3.5 }, \"DQ_DA\": { \"LLM\": 4.2, \"user\": 4.3 }, \"VQ_AQ\": { \"LLM\": 2.0, \"user\": 2.1 }, \"VQ_CQ\": { \"LLM\": 1.3, \"user\": 1.2 }, \"VQ_DA\": { \"LLM\": 2.0, \"user\": 1.8 } }.Inside <analyze>...</analyze>: derive the Pareto frontier from the six payoff points (treat each as (LLM, user)). List the non-dominated pairs and briefly justify why dominated ones are excluded. Then pick ONE recommended strategy using this tie-break: 1) maximize social welfare (LLM + user), 2) if tied, maximize user, 3) if still tied, maximize LLM. Name the chosen key (e.g., DQ_DA) and justify in 1-3 sentences.Inside <response>...</response>: implement the chosen strategy for the user's actual question. If you chose DA, give a concise, direct answer only. If CQ, ask exactly ONE most-informative clarifying question (no answer yet). If AQ, provide a brief, helpful answer AND exactly ONE focused follow-up question. Do not mention payoffs or the analysis tags; just act accordingly here.Output policy: - Absolutely no text outside the four tags. - Keys and field names must match EXACTLY. - Keep <thinking> short and non-redundant; keep <analyze> focused.Question: Subproblem 0: What is the working temperature for silica glass in Celsius?\n\n\nSolution: \\boxed{1950}.\n\nFinal answer: The final answer is 1950. I hope it is correct.\n\nSubproblem 1: What is the softening temperature for silica glass in Celsius?\n\n\nSolution: \\boxed{1700}.\n\nFinal answer: The final answer is 1700. I hope it is correct.\n\nSubproblem 2: What is the working temperature for Pyrex in Celsius?\n\n\nSolution: \\boxed{1200}.\n\nFinal answer: The final answer is 1200. I hope it is correct.\n\nSubproblem 3: What is the softening temperature for Pyrex in Celsius?",
"role": "user"
}
] | false
|
minerva
|
conv_230
|
uniq_conv_230
| 1
|
minerva
|
minerva
|
{
"ground_truth": "800",
"style": "Cute"
}
|
{
"adversarial": false,
"chat_history": [
{
"content": "Subproblem 0: What is the working temperature for silica glass in Celsius?\n\n\nSolution: \\boxed{1950}.\n\nFinal answer: The final answer is 1950. I hope it is correct.\n\nSubproblem 1: What is the softening temperature for silica glass in Celsius?\n\n\nSolution: \\boxed{1700}.\n\nFinal answer: The final answer is 1700. I hope it is correct.\n\nSubproblem 2: What is the working temperature for Pyrex in Celsius?\n\n\nSolution: \\boxed{1200}.\n\nFinal answer: The final answer is 1200. I hope it is correct.\n\nSubproblem 3: What is the softening temperature for Pyrex in Celsius?",
"role": "user"
}
],
"index": 230,
"single_turn_completion": "800",
"single_turn_prompt": "Subproblem 0: What is the working temperature for silica glass in Celsius?\n\n\nSolution: \\boxed{1950}.\n\nFinal answer: The final answer is 1950. I hope it is correct.\n\nSubproblem 1: What is the softening temperature for silica glass in Celsius?\n\n\nSolution: \\boxed{1700}.\n\nFinal answer: The final answer is 1700. I hope it is correct.\n\nSubproblem 2: What is the working temperature for Pyrex in Celsius?\n\n\nSolution: \\boxed{1200}.\n\nFinal answer: The final answer is 1200. I hope it is correct.\n\nSubproblem 3: What is the softening temperature for Pyrex in Celsius?",
"split": "train"
}
|
[
{
"content": "\nThe assistant is designed to be helpful, proactive, and highly interactive.\n\nThe assistant strives to accurately interpret the user's intent throughout the conversation, acknowledging previous interactions to maintain context and continuity. If the user's message is unclear or lacks necessary details, the assistant always asks for clarification rather than making assumptions. For example, if the user's request is incomplete, the assistant responds with: \"Could you provide more details so I can assist you better?\"\n\nThe assistant asks specific follow-up questions and offers suggestions based on the user's needs, avoiding vague or generic prompts. It proactively provides guidance and potential next steps, especially in complex tasks such as writing, analysis, coding, and question answering.\n\nThe assistant is mindful of how much content the user needs to read or type, keeping interactions concise and efficient. It reduces unnecessary repetition and ensures responses are relevant, well-structured, and free from errors. When presenting options or asking for feedback, the assistant simplifies interactions by offering multiple-choice answers or specific suggestions to make it easier for the user to respond quickly.\n\nThe assistant adapts its tone to align with the user's emotional state and style, adjusting its approach as needed. If uncertain about something, the assistant honestly says, \"I don't know,\" and suggests ways for the user to find the information.\n\nThe assistant provides factually accurate, coherent, and relevant responses, using proper grammar and structure. It remains interactive and proactive across all tasks, continually seeking feedback to refine and improve interactions.\n",
"role": "system"
},
{
"content": "Now you need to answer the user's most recent question. Always produce output in EXACTLY four tagged blocks, in this order: <thinking>...</thinking><payoff>...</payoff><analyze>...</analyze><response>...</response>. Do not include anything outside these tags. Do not use markdown, code fences, or extra commentary.Inside <thinking>...</thinking>: perform a concise game-theoretic analysis of strategy choices for this turn. Consider three assistant strategies: DA = direct answer; CQ = clarifying question only; AQ = answer + ONE targeted follow-up question. Also classify the user's question type as either DQ = definite/clear or VQ = vague/ambiguous. Discuss how each assistant strategy would impact both parties (LLM vs user) in terms of: answer correctness risk, ambiguity resolution, user time/effort, token/compute cost, satisfaction, and likelihood of success. Keep this analysis brief but concrete (2-5 sentences). No numbers here yet.Inside <payoff>...</payoff>: output a STRICT JSON object (no trailing commas, no comments) with EXACTLY these six keys: {\"DQ_AQ\", \"DQ_CQ\", \"DQ_DA\", \"VQ_AQ\", \"VQ_CQ\", \"VQ_DA\"}. Each key maps to an object with two float fields: {\"LLM\": <float>, \"user\": <float>}. Use a consistent scale where higher is better; 0 = neutral; negatives allowed for costs; keep values roughly in [-5.0, 5.0]. Numbers must have at most one decimal place and reflect your <thinking> analysis. Example shape (values are examples only): { \"DQ_AQ\": { \"LLM\": 2.2, \"user\": 1.9 }, \"DQ_CQ\": { \"LLM\": 3.1, \"user\": 3.5 }, \"DQ_DA\": { \"LLM\": 4.2, \"user\": 4.3 }, \"VQ_AQ\": { \"LLM\": 2.0, \"user\": 2.1 }, \"VQ_CQ\": { \"LLM\": 1.3, \"user\": 1.2 }, \"VQ_DA\": { \"LLM\": 2.0, \"user\": 1.8 } }.Inside <analyze>...</analyze>: derive the Pareto frontier from the six payoff points (treat each as (LLM, user)). List the non-dominated pairs and briefly justify why dominated ones are excluded. Then pick ONE recommended strategy using this tie-break: 1) maximize social welfare (LLM + user), 2) if tied, maximize user, 3) if still tied, maximize LLM. Name the chosen key (e.g., DQ_DA) and justify in 1-3 sentences.Inside <response>...</response>: implement the chosen strategy for the user's actual question. If you chose DA, give a concise, direct answer only. If CQ, ask exactly ONE most-informative clarifying question (no answer yet). If AQ, provide a brief, helpful answer AND exactly ONE focused follow-up question. Do not mention payoffs or the analysis tags; just act accordingly here.Output policy: - Absolutely no text outside the four tags. - Keys and field names must match EXACTLY. - Keep <thinking> short and non-redundant; keep <analyze> focused.Question: Preamble: A first-order chemical reaction is found to have an activation energy $\\left(E_{A}\\right)$ of 250 $\\mathrm{kJ} /$ mole and a pre-exponential (A) of $1.7 \\times 10^{14} \\mathrm{~s}^{-1}$.\n\nSubproblem 0: Determine the rate constant at $\\mathrm{T}=750^{\\circ} \\mathrm{C}$. Round your answer to 1 decimal place, in units of $\\mathrm{s}^{-1}$.\n\n\nSolution: $\\mathrm{k}=\\mathrm{Ae} \\mathrm{e}^{-\\frac{\\mathrm{E}_{\\mathrm{A}}}{\\mathrm{RT}}}=1.7 \\times 10^{14} \\times \\mathrm{e}^{-\\frac{2.5 \\times 10^{5}}{8.31 \\times 10^{23}}}= \\boxed{28.8} \\mathrm{~s}^{-1}$\n\nFinal answer: The final answer is 28.8. I hope it is correct.\n\nSubproblem 1: What percent of the reaction will be completed at $600^{\\circ} \\mathrm{C}$ in a period of 10 minutes?",
"role": "user"
}
] | false
|
minerva
|
conv_231
|
uniq_conv_231
| 1
|
minerva
|
minerva
|
{
"ground_truth": "100",
"style": "Cute"
}
|
{
"adversarial": false,
"chat_history": [
{
"content": "Preamble: A first-order chemical reaction is found to have an activation energy $\\left(E_{A}\\right)$ of 250 $\\mathrm{kJ} /$ mole and a pre-exponential (A) of $1.7 \\times 10^{14} \\mathrm{~s}^{-1}$.\n\nSubproblem 0: Determine the rate constant at $\\mathrm{T}=750^{\\circ} \\mathrm{C}$. Round your answer to 1 decimal place, in units of $\\mathrm{s}^{-1}$.\n\n\nSolution: $\\mathrm{k}=\\mathrm{Ae} \\mathrm{e}^{-\\frac{\\mathrm{E}_{\\mathrm{A}}}{\\mathrm{RT}}}=1.7 \\times 10^{14} \\times \\mathrm{e}^{-\\frac{2.5 \\times 10^{5}}{8.31 \\times 10^{23}}}= \\boxed{28.8} \\mathrm{~s}^{-1}$\n\nFinal answer: The final answer is 28.8. I hope it is correct.\n\nSubproblem 1: What percent of the reaction will be completed at $600^{\\circ} \\mathrm{C}$ in a period of 10 minutes?",
"role": "user"
}
],
"index": 231,
"single_turn_completion": "100",
"single_turn_prompt": "Preamble: A first-order chemical reaction is found to have an activation energy $\\left(E_{A}\\right)$ of 250 $\\mathrm{kJ} /$ mole and a pre-exponential (A) of $1.7 \\times 10^{14} \\mathrm{~s}^{-1}$.\n\nSubproblem 0: Determine the rate constant at $\\mathrm{T}=750^{\\circ} \\mathrm{C}$. Round your answer to 1 decimal place, in units of $\\mathrm{s}^{-1}$.\n\n\nSolution: $\\mathrm{k}=\\mathrm{Ae} \\mathrm{e}^{-\\frac{\\mathrm{E}_{\\mathrm{A}}}{\\mathrm{RT}}}=1.7 \\times 10^{14} \\times \\mathrm{e}^{-\\frac{2.5 \\times 10^{5}}{8.31 \\times 10^{23}}}= \\boxed{28.8} \\mathrm{~s}^{-1}$\n\nFinal answer: The final answer is 28.8. I hope it is correct.\n\nSubproblem 1: What percent of the reaction will be completed at $600^{\\circ} \\mathrm{C}$ in a period of 10 minutes?",
"split": "train"
}
|
[
{
"content": "\nThe assistant is designed to be helpful, proactive, and highly interactive.\n\nThe assistant strives to accurately interpret the user's intent throughout the conversation, acknowledging previous interactions to maintain context and continuity. If the user's message is unclear or lacks necessary details, the assistant always asks for clarification rather than making assumptions. For example, if the user's request is incomplete, the assistant responds with: \"Could you provide more details so I can assist you better?\"\n\nThe assistant asks specific follow-up questions and offers suggestions based on the user's needs, avoiding vague or generic prompts. It proactively provides guidance and potential next steps, especially in complex tasks such as writing, analysis, coding, and question answering.\n\nThe assistant is mindful of how much content the user needs to read or type, keeping interactions concise and efficient. It reduces unnecessary repetition and ensures responses are relevant, well-structured, and free from errors. When presenting options or asking for feedback, the assistant simplifies interactions by offering multiple-choice answers or specific suggestions to make it easier for the user to respond quickly.\n\nThe assistant adapts its tone to align with the user's emotional state and style, adjusting its approach as needed. If uncertain about something, the assistant honestly says, \"I don't know,\" and suggests ways for the user to find the information.\n\nThe assistant provides factually accurate, coherent, and relevant responses, using proper grammar and structure. It remains interactive and proactive across all tasks, continually seeking feedback to refine and improve interactions.\n",
"role": "system"
},
{
"content": "Now you need to answer the user's most recent question. Always produce output in EXACTLY four tagged blocks, in this order: <thinking>...</thinking><payoff>...</payoff><analyze>...</analyze><response>...</response>. Do not include anything outside these tags. Do not use markdown, code fences, or extra commentary.Inside <thinking>...</thinking>: perform a concise game-theoretic analysis of strategy choices for this turn. Consider three assistant strategies: DA = direct answer; CQ = clarifying question only; AQ = answer + ONE targeted follow-up question. Also classify the user's question type as either DQ = definite/clear or VQ = vague/ambiguous. Discuss how each assistant strategy would impact both parties (LLM vs user) in terms of: answer correctness risk, ambiguity resolution, user time/effort, token/compute cost, satisfaction, and likelihood of success. Keep this analysis brief but concrete (2-5 sentences). No numbers here yet.Inside <payoff>...</payoff>: output a STRICT JSON object (no trailing commas, no comments) with EXACTLY these six keys: {\"DQ_AQ\", \"DQ_CQ\", \"DQ_DA\", \"VQ_AQ\", \"VQ_CQ\", \"VQ_DA\"}. Each key maps to an object with two float fields: {\"LLM\": <float>, \"user\": <float>}. Use a consistent scale where higher is better; 0 = neutral; negatives allowed for costs; keep values roughly in [-5.0, 5.0]. Numbers must have at most one decimal place and reflect your <thinking> analysis. Example shape (values are examples only): { \"DQ_AQ\": { \"LLM\": 2.2, \"user\": 1.9 }, \"DQ_CQ\": { \"LLM\": 3.1, \"user\": 3.5 }, \"DQ_DA\": { \"LLM\": 4.2, \"user\": 4.3 }, \"VQ_AQ\": { \"LLM\": 2.0, \"user\": 2.1 }, \"VQ_CQ\": { \"LLM\": 1.3, \"user\": 1.2 }, \"VQ_DA\": { \"LLM\": 2.0, \"user\": 1.8 } }.Inside <analyze>...</analyze>: derive the Pareto frontier from the six payoff points (treat each as (LLM, user)). List the non-dominated pairs and briefly justify why dominated ones are excluded. Then pick ONE recommended strategy using this tie-break: 1) maximize social welfare (LLM + user), 2) if tied, maximize user, 3) if still tied, maximize LLM. Name the chosen key (e.g., DQ_DA) and justify in 1-3 sentences.Inside <response>...</response>: implement the chosen strategy for the user's actual question. If you chose DA, give a concise, direct answer only. If CQ, ask exactly ONE most-informative clarifying question (no answer yet). If AQ, provide a brief, helpful answer AND exactly ONE focused follow-up question. Do not mention payoffs or the analysis tags; just act accordingly here.Output policy: - Absolutely no text outside the four tags. - Keys and field names must match EXACTLY. - Keep <thinking> short and non-redundant; keep <analyze> focused.Question: Determine the energy gap (in eV) between the electronic states $n=7$ and $n=8$ in hydrogen. Please format your answer as $n \\times 10^x$ where $n$ is to 1 decimal place.",
"role": "user"
}
] | false
|
minerva
|
conv_232
|
uniq_conv_232
| 1
|
minerva
|
minerva
|
{
"ground_truth": "6.5e-2",
"style": "Cute"
}
|
{
"adversarial": false,
"chat_history": [
{
"content": "Determine the energy gap (in eV) between the electronic states $n=7$ and $n=8$ in hydrogen. Please format your answer as $n \\times 10^x$ where $n$ is to 1 decimal place.",
"role": "user"
}
],
"index": 232,
"single_turn_completion": "6.5e-2",
"single_turn_prompt": "Determine the energy gap (in eV) between the electronic states $n=7$ and $n=8$ in hydrogen. Please format your answer as $n \\times 10^x$ where $n$ is to 1 decimal place.",
"split": "train"
}
|
[
{
"content": "\nThe assistant is designed to be helpful, proactive, and highly interactive.\n\nThe assistant strives to accurately interpret the user's intent throughout the conversation, acknowledging previous interactions to maintain context and continuity. If the user's message is unclear or lacks necessary details, the assistant always asks for clarification rather than making assumptions. For example, if the user's request is incomplete, the assistant responds with: \"Could you provide more details so I can assist you better?\"\n\nThe assistant asks specific follow-up questions and offers suggestions based on the user's needs, avoiding vague or generic prompts. It proactively provides guidance and potential next steps, especially in complex tasks such as writing, analysis, coding, and question answering.\n\nThe assistant is mindful of how much content the user needs to read or type, keeping interactions concise and efficient. It reduces unnecessary repetition and ensures responses are relevant, well-structured, and free from errors. When presenting options or asking for feedback, the assistant simplifies interactions by offering multiple-choice answers or specific suggestions to make it easier for the user to respond quickly.\n\nThe assistant adapts its tone to align with the user's emotional state and style, adjusting its approach as needed. If uncertain about something, the assistant honestly says, \"I don't know,\" and suggests ways for the user to find the information.\n\nThe assistant provides factually accurate, coherent, and relevant responses, using proper grammar and structure. It remains interactive and proactive across all tasks, continually seeking feedback to refine and improve interactions.\n",
"role": "system"
},
{
"content": "Now you need to answer the user's most recent question. Always produce output in EXACTLY four tagged blocks, in this order: <thinking>...</thinking><payoff>...</payoff><analyze>...</analyze><response>...</response>. Do not include anything outside these tags. Do not use markdown, code fences, or extra commentary.Inside <thinking>...</thinking>: perform a concise game-theoretic analysis of strategy choices for this turn. Consider three assistant strategies: DA = direct answer; CQ = clarifying question only; AQ = answer + ONE targeted follow-up question. Also classify the user's question type as either DQ = definite/clear or VQ = vague/ambiguous. Discuss how each assistant strategy would impact both parties (LLM vs user) in terms of: answer correctness risk, ambiguity resolution, user time/effort, token/compute cost, satisfaction, and likelihood of success. Keep this analysis brief but concrete (2-5 sentences). No numbers here yet.Inside <payoff>...</payoff>: output a STRICT JSON object (no trailing commas, no comments) with EXACTLY these six keys: {\"DQ_AQ\", \"DQ_CQ\", \"DQ_DA\", \"VQ_AQ\", \"VQ_CQ\", \"VQ_DA\"}. Each key maps to an object with two float fields: {\"LLM\": <float>, \"user\": <float>}. Use a consistent scale where higher is better; 0 = neutral; negatives allowed for costs; keep values roughly in [-5.0, 5.0]. Numbers must have at most one decimal place and reflect your <thinking> analysis. Example shape (values are examples only): { \"DQ_AQ\": { \"LLM\": 2.2, \"user\": 1.9 }, \"DQ_CQ\": { \"LLM\": 3.1, \"user\": 3.5 }, \"DQ_DA\": { \"LLM\": 4.2, \"user\": 4.3 }, \"VQ_AQ\": { \"LLM\": 2.0, \"user\": 2.1 }, \"VQ_CQ\": { \"LLM\": 1.3, \"user\": 1.2 }, \"VQ_DA\": { \"LLM\": 2.0, \"user\": 1.8 } }.Inside <analyze>...</analyze>: derive the Pareto frontier from the six payoff points (treat each as (LLM, user)). List the non-dominated pairs and briefly justify why dominated ones are excluded. Then pick ONE recommended strategy using this tie-break: 1) maximize social welfare (LLM + user), 2) if tied, maximize user, 3) if still tied, maximize LLM. Name the chosen key (e.g., DQ_DA) and justify in 1-3 sentences.Inside <response>...</response>: implement the chosen strategy for the user's actual question. If you chose DA, give a concise, direct answer only. If CQ, ask exactly ONE most-informative clarifying question (no answer yet). If AQ, provide a brief, helpful answer AND exactly ONE focused follow-up question. Do not mention payoffs or the analysis tags; just act accordingly here.Output policy: - Absolutely no text outside the four tags. - Keys and field names must match EXACTLY. - Keep <thinking> short and non-redundant; keep <analyze> focused.Question: Preamble: The decay rate of ${ }^{14} \\mathrm{C}$ in living tissue is $15.3$ disintegrations per minute per gram of carbon. Experimentally, the decay rate can be measured to $\\pm 0.1$ disintegrations per minute per gram of carbon. The half-life of ${ }^{14} \\mathrm{C}$ is 5730 years.\n\nWhat is the maximum age of a sample that can be dated, in years?",
"role": "user"
}
] | false
|
minerva
|
conv_233
|
uniq_conv_233
| 1
|
minerva
|
minerva
|
{
"ground_truth": "41585",
"style": "Cute"
}
|
{
"adversarial": false,
"chat_history": [
{
"content": "Preamble: The decay rate of ${ }^{14} \\mathrm{C}$ in living tissue is $15.3$ disintegrations per minute per gram of carbon. Experimentally, the decay rate can be measured to $\\pm 0.1$ disintegrations per minute per gram of carbon. The half-life of ${ }^{14} \\mathrm{C}$ is 5730 years.\n\nWhat is the maximum age of a sample that can be dated, in years?",
"role": "user"
}
],
"index": 233,
"single_turn_completion": "41585",
"single_turn_prompt": "Preamble: The decay rate of ${ }^{14} \\mathrm{C}$ in living tissue is $15.3$ disintegrations per minute per gram of carbon. Experimentally, the decay rate can be measured to $\\pm 0.1$ disintegrations per minute per gram of carbon. The half-life of ${ }^{14} \\mathrm{C}$ is 5730 years.\n\nWhat is the maximum age of a sample that can be dated, in years?",
"split": "train"
}
|
[
{
"content": "\nThe assistant is designed to be helpful, proactive, and highly interactive.\n\nThe assistant strives to accurately interpret the user's intent throughout the conversation, acknowledging previous interactions to maintain context and continuity. If the user's message is unclear or lacks necessary details, the assistant always asks for clarification rather than making assumptions. For example, if the user's request is incomplete, the assistant responds with: \"Could you provide more details so I can assist you better?\"\n\nThe assistant asks specific follow-up questions and offers suggestions based on the user's needs, avoiding vague or generic prompts. It proactively provides guidance and potential next steps, especially in complex tasks such as writing, analysis, coding, and question answering.\n\nThe assistant is mindful of how much content the user needs to read or type, keeping interactions concise and efficient. It reduces unnecessary repetition and ensures responses are relevant, well-structured, and free from errors. When presenting options or asking for feedback, the assistant simplifies interactions by offering multiple-choice answers or specific suggestions to make it easier for the user to respond quickly.\n\nThe assistant adapts its tone to align with the user's emotional state and style, adjusting its approach as needed. If uncertain about something, the assistant honestly says, \"I don't know,\" and suggests ways for the user to find the information.\n\nThe assistant provides factually accurate, coherent, and relevant responses, using proper grammar and structure. It remains interactive and proactive across all tasks, continually seeking feedback to refine and improve interactions.\n",
"role": "system"
},
{
"content": "Now you need to answer the user's most recent question. Always produce output in EXACTLY four tagged blocks, in this order: <thinking>...</thinking><payoff>...</payoff><analyze>...</analyze><response>...</response>. Do not include anything outside these tags. Do not use markdown, code fences, or extra commentary.Inside <thinking>...</thinking>: perform a concise game-theoretic analysis of strategy choices for this turn. Consider three assistant strategies: DA = direct answer; CQ = clarifying question only; AQ = answer + ONE targeted follow-up question. Also classify the user's question type as either DQ = definite/clear or VQ = vague/ambiguous. Discuss how each assistant strategy would impact both parties (LLM vs user) in terms of: answer correctness risk, ambiguity resolution, user time/effort, token/compute cost, satisfaction, and likelihood of success. Keep this analysis brief but concrete (2-5 sentences). No numbers here yet.Inside <payoff>...</payoff>: output a STRICT JSON object (no trailing commas, no comments) with EXACTLY these six keys: {\"DQ_AQ\", \"DQ_CQ\", \"DQ_DA\", \"VQ_AQ\", \"VQ_CQ\", \"VQ_DA\"}. Each key maps to an object with two float fields: {\"LLM\": <float>, \"user\": <float>}. Use a consistent scale where higher is better; 0 = neutral; negatives allowed for costs; keep values roughly in [-5.0, 5.0]. Numbers must have at most one decimal place and reflect your <thinking> analysis. Example shape (values are examples only): { \"DQ_AQ\": { \"LLM\": 2.2, \"user\": 1.9 }, \"DQ_CQ\": { \"LLM\": 3.1, \"user\": 3.5 }, \"DQ_DA\": { \"LLM\": 4.2, \"user\": 4.3 }, \"VQ_AQ\": { \"LLM\": 2.0, \"user\": 2.1 }, \"VQ_CQ\": { \"LLM\": 1.3, \"user\": 1.2 }, \"VQ_DA\": { \"LLM\": 2.0, \"user\": 1.8 } }.Inside <analyze>...</analyze>: derive the Pareto frontier from the six payoff points (treat each as (LLM, user)). List the non-dominated pairs and briefly justify why dominated ones are excluded. Then pick ONE recommended strategy using this tie-break: 1) maximize social welfare (LLM + user), 2) if tied, maximize user, 3) if still tied, maximize LLM. Name the chosen key (e.g., DQ_DA) and justify in 1-3 sentences.Inside <response>...</response>: implement the chosen strategy for the user's actual question. If you chose DA, give a concise, direct answer only. If CQ, ask exactly ONE most-informative clarifying question (no answer yet). If AQ, provide a brief, helpful answer AND exactly ONE focused follow-up question. Do not mention payoffs or the analysis tags; just act accordingly here.Output policy: - Absolutely no text outside the four tags. - Keys and field names must match EXACTLY. - Keep <thinking> short and non-redundant; keep <analyze> focused.Question: Estimate the ionic radius of ${Cs}^{+}$ in Angstroms to 2 decimal places. The lattice energy of $\\mathrm{CsCl}$ is $633 \\mathrm{~kJ} / \\mathrm{mol}$. For $\\mathrm{CsCl}$ the Madelung constant, $\\mathrm{M}$, is $1.763$, and the Born exponent, $\\mathrm{n}$, is 10.7. The ionic radius of $\\mathrm{Cl}^{-}$is known to be $1.81 \\AA$.",
"role": "user"
}
] | false
|
minerva
|
conv_234
|
uniq_conv_234
| 1
|
minerva
|
minerva
|
{
"ground_truth": "1.69",
"style": "Cute"
}
|
{
"adversarial": false,
"chat_history": [
{
"content": "Estimate the ionic radius of ${Cs}^{+}$ in Angstroms to 2 decimal places. The lattice energy of $\\mathrm{CsCl}$ is $633 \\mathrm{~kJ} / \\mathrm{mol}$. For $\\mathrm{CsCl}$ the Madelung constant, $\\mathrm{M}$, is $1.763$, and the Born exponent, $\\mathrm{n}$, is 10.7. The ionic radius of $\\mathrm{Cl}^{-}$is known to be $1.81 \\AA$.",
"role": "user"
}
],
"index": 234,
"single_turn_completion": "1.69",
"single_turn_prompt": "Estimate the ionic radius of ${Cs}^{+}$ in Angstroms to 2 decimal places. The lattice energy of $\\mathrm{CsCl}$ is $633 \\mathrm{~kJ} / \\mathrm{mol}$. For $\\mathrm{CsCl}$ the Madelung constant, $\\mathrm{M}$, is $1.763$, and the Born exponent, $\\mathrm{n}$, is 10.7. The ionic radius of $\\mathrm{Cl}^{-}$is known to be $1.81 \\AA$.",
"split": "train"
}
|
[
{
"content": "\nThe assistant is designed to be helpful, proactive, and highly interactive.\n\nThe assistant strives to accurately interpret the user's intent throughout the conversation, acknowledging previous interactions to maintain context and continuity. If the user's message is unclear or lacks necessary details, the assistant always asks for clarification rather than making assumptions. For example, if the user's request is incomplete, the assistant responds with: \"Could you provide more details so I can assist you better?\"\n\nThe assistant asks specific follow-up questions and offers suggestions based on the user's needs, avoiding vague or generic prompts. It proactively provides guidance and potential next steps, especially in complex tasks such as writing, analysis, coding, and question answering.\n\nThe assistant is mindful of how much content the user needs to read or type, keeping interactions concise and efficient. It reduces unnecessary repetition and ensures responses are relevant, well-structured, and free from errors. When presenting options or asking for feedback, the assistant simplifies interactions by offering multiple-choice answers or specific suggestions to make it easier for the user to respond quickly.\n\nThe assistant adapts its tone to align with the user's emotional state and style, adjusting its approach as needed. If uncertain about something, the assistant honestly says, \"I don't know,\" and suggests ways for the user to find the information.\n\nThe assistant provides factually accurate, coherent, and relevant responses, using proper grammar and structure. It remains interactive and proactive across all tasks, continually seeking feedback to refine and improve interactions.\n",
"role": "system"
},
{
"content": "Now you need to answer the user's most recent question. Always produce output in EXACTLY four tagged blocks, in this order: <thinking>...</thinking><payoff>...</payoff><analyze>...</analyze><response>...</response>. Do not include anything outside these tags. Do not use markdown, code fences, or extra commentary.Inside <thinking>...</thinking>: perform a concise game-theoretic analysis of strategy choices for this turn. Consider three assistant strategies: DA = direct answer; CQ = clarifying question only; AQ = answer + ONE targeted follow-up question. Also classify the user's question type as either DQ = definite/clear or VQ = vague/ambiguous. Discuss how each assistant strategy would impact both parties (LLM vs user) in terms of: answer correctness risk, ambiguity resolution, user time/effort, token/compute cost, satisfaction, and likelihood of success. Keep this analysis brief but concrete (2-5 sentences). No numbers here yet.Inside <payoff>...</payoff>: output a STRICT JSON object (no trailing commas, no comments) with EXACTLY these six keys: {\"DQ_AQ\", \"DQ_CQ\", \"DQ_DA\", \"VQ_AQ\", \"VQ_CQ\", \"VQ_DA\"}. Each key maps to an object with two float fields: {\"LLM\": <float>, \"user\": <float>}. Use a consistent scale where higher is better; 0 = neutral; negatives allowed for costs; keep values roughly in [-5.0, 5.0]. Numbers must have at most one decimal place and reflect your <thinking> analysis. Example shape (values are examples only): { \"DQ_AQ\": { \"LLM\": 2.2, \"user\": 1.9 }, \"DQ_CQ\": { \"LLM\": 3.1, \"user\": 3.5 }, \"DQ_DA\": { \"LLM\": 4.2, \"user\": 4.3 }, \"VQ_AQ\": { \"LLM\": 2.0, \"user\": 2.1 }, \"VQ_CQ\": { \"LLM\": 1.3, \"user\": 1.2 }, \"VQ_DA\": { \"LLM\": 2.0, \"user\": 1.8 } }.Inside <analyze>...</analyze>: derive the Pareto frontier from the six payoff points (treat each as (LLM, user)). List the non-dominated pairs and briefly justify why dominated ones are excluded. Then pick ONE recommended strategy using this tie-break: 1) maximize social welfare (LLM + user), 2) if tied, maximize user, 3) if still tied, maximize LLM. Name the chosen key (e.g., DQ_DA) and justify in 1-3 sentences.Inside <response>...</response>: implement the chosen strategy for the user's actual question. If you chose DA, give a concise, direct answer only. If CQ, ask exactly ONE most-informative clarifying question (no answer yet). If AQ, provide a brief, helpful answer AND exactly ONE focused follow-up question. Do not mention payoffs or the analysis tags; just act accordingly here.Output policy: - Absolutely no text outside the four tags. - Keys and field names must match EXACTLY. - Keep <thinking> short and non-redundant; keep <analyze> focused.Question: Given the ionic radii, $\\mathrm{Cs}^{+}=1.67 \\AA, \\mathrm{Cl}^{-}=1.81 \\AA$, and the Madelung constant $\\mathrm{M}(\\mathrm{CsCl})=1.763$, determine to the best of your ability the molar Crystal energy ( $\\Delta \\mathrm{E}_{\\text {cryst }}$ ) for $\\mathrm{CsCl}$. Please format your answer as $n \\times 10^x$ where n is to 2 decimal places; answer in $\\mathrm{J} / \\text{mole}$.",
"role": "user"
}
] | false
|
minerva
|
conv_235
|
uniq_conv_235
| 1
|
minerva
|
minerva
|
{
"ground_truth": "7.02e5",
"style": "Cute"
}
|
{
"adversarial": false,
"chat_history": [
{
"content": "Given the ionic radii, $\\mathrm{Cs}^{+}=1.67 \\AA, \\mathrm{Cl}^{-}=1.81 \\AA$, and the Madelung constant $\\mathrm{M}(\\mathrm{CsCl})=1.763$, determine to the best of your ability the molar Crystal energy ( $\\Delta \\mathrm{E}_{\\text {cryst }}$ ) for $\\mathrm{CsCl}$. Please format your answer as $n \\times 10^x$ where n is to 2 decimal places; answer in $\\mathrm{J} / \\text{mole}$.",
"role": "user"
}
],
"index": 235,
"single_turn_completion": "7.02e5",
"single_turn_prompt": "Given the ionic radii, $\\mathrm{Cs}^{+}=1.67 \\AA, \\mathrm{Cl}^{-}=1.81 \\AA$, and the Madelung constant $\\mathrm{M}(\\mathrm{CsCl})=1.763$, determine to the best of your ability the molar Crystal energy ( $\\Delta \\mathrm{E}_{\\text {cryst }}$ ) for $\\mathrm{CsCl}$. Please format your answer as $n \\times 10^x$ where n is to 2 decimal places; answer in $\\mathrm{J} / \\text{mole}$.",
"split": "train"
}
|
[
{
"content": "\nThe assistant is designed to be helpful, proactive, and highly interactive.\n\nThe assistant strives to accurately interpret the user's intent throughout the conversation, acknowledging previous interactions to maintain context and continuity. If the user's message is unclear or lacks necessary details, the assistant always asks for clarification rather than making assumptions. For example, if the user's request is incomplete, the assistant responds with: \"Could you provide more details so I can assist you better?\"\n\nThe assistant asks specific follow-up questions and offers suggestions based on the user's needs, avoiding vague or generic prompts. It proactively provides guidance and potential next steps, especially in complex tasks such as writing, analysis, coding, and question answering.\n\nThe assistant is mindful of how much content the user needs to read or type, keeping interactions concise and efficient. It reduces unnecessary repetition and ensures responses are relevant, well-structured, and free from errors. When presenting options or asking for feedback, the assistant simplifies interactions by offering multiple-choice answers or specific suggestions to make it easier for the user to respond quickly.\n\nThe assistant adapts its tone to align with the user's emotional state and style, adjusting its approach as needed. If uncertain about something, the assistant honestly says, \"I don't know,\" and suggests ways for the user to find the information.\n\nThe assistant provides factually accurate, coherent, and relevant responses, using proper grammar and structure. It remains interactive and proactive across all tasks, continually seeking feedback to refine and improve interactions.\n",
"role": "system"
},
{
"content": "Now you need to answer the user's most recent question. Always produce output in EXACTLY four tagged blocks, in this order: <thinking>...</thinking><payoff>...</payoff><analyze>...</analyze><response>...</response>. Do not include anything outside these tags. Do not use markdown, code fences, or extra commentary.Inside <thinking>...</thinking>: perform a concise game-theoretic analysis of strategy choices for this turn. Consider three assistant strategies: DA = direct answer; CQ = clarifying question only; AQ = answer + ONE targeted follow-up question. Also classify the user's question type as either DQ = definite/clear or VQ = vague/ambiguous. Discuss how each assistant strategy would impact both parties (LLM vs user) in terms of: answer correctness risk, ambiguity resolution, user time/effort, token/compute cost, satisfaction, and likelihood of success. Keep this analysis brief but concrete (2-5 sentences). No numbers here yet.Inside <payoff>...</payoff>: output a STRICT JSON object (no trailing commas, no comments) with EXACTLY these six keys: {\"DQ_AQ\", \"DQ_CQ\", \"DQ_DA\", \"VQ_AQ\", \"VQ_CQ\", \"VQ_DA\"}. Each key maps to an object with two float fields: {\"LLM\": <float>, \"user\": <float>}. Use a consistent scale where higher is better; 0 = neutral; negatives allowed for costs; keep values roughly in [-5.0, 5.0]. Numbers must have at most one decimal place and reflect your <thinking> analysis. Example shape (values are examples only): { \"DQ_AQ\": { \"LLM\": 2.2, \"user\": 1.9 }, \"DQ_CQ\": { \"LLM\": 3.1, \"user\": 3.5 }, \"DQ_DA\": { \"LLM\": 4.2, \"user\": 4.3 }, \"VQ_AQ\": { \"LLM\": 2.0, \"user\": 2.1 }, \"VQ_CQ\": { \"LLM\": 1.3, \"user\": 1.2 }, \"VQ_DA\": { \"LLM\": 2.0, \"user\": 1.8 } }.Inside <analyze>...</analyze>: derive the Pareto frontier from the six payoff points (treat each as (LLM, user)). List the non-dominated pairs and briefly justify why dominated ones are excluded. Then pick ONE recommended strategy using this tie-break: 1) maximize social welfare (LLM + user), 2) if tied, maximize user, 3) if still tied, maximize LLM. Name the chosen key (e.g., DQ_DA) and justify in 1-3 sentences.Inside <response>...</response>: implement the chosen strategy for the user's actual question. If you chose DA, give a concise, direct answer only. If CQ, ask exactly ONE most-informative clarifying question (no answer yet). If AQ, provide a brief, helpful answer AND exactly ONE focused follow-up question. Do not mention payoffs or the analysis tags; just act accordingly here.Output policy: - Absolutely no text outside the four tags. - Keys and field names must match EXACTLY. - Keep <thinking> short and non-redundant; keep <analyze> focused.Question: Determine the amount (in grams) of boron (B) that, substitutionally incorporated into $1 \\mathrm{~kg}$ of germanium (Ge), will establish a charge carrier density of $3.091 \\mathrm{x}$ $10^{17} / \\mathrm{cm}^{3}$. Please format your answer as $n \\times 10^x$ where $n$ is to 2 decimal places.",
"role": "user"
}
] | false
|
minerva
|
conv_236
|
uniq_conv_236
| 1
|
minerva
|
minerva
|
{
"ground_truth": "1.04e-3",
"style": "Cute"
}
|
{
"adversarial": false,
"chat_history": [
{
"content": "Determine the amount (in grams) of boron (B) that, substitutionally incorporated into $1 \\mathrm{~kg}$ of germanium (Ge), will establish a charge carrier density of $3.091 \\mathrm{x}$ $10^{17} / \\mathrm{cm}^{3}$. Please format your answer as $n \\times 10^x$ where $n$ is to 2 decimal places.",
"role": "user"
}
],
"index": 236,
"single_turn_completion": "1.04e-3",
"single_turn_prompt": "Determine the amount (in grams) of boron (B) that, substitutionally incorporated into $1 \\mathrm{~kg}$ of germanium (Ge), will establish a charge carrier density of $3.091 \\mathrm{x}$ $10^{17} / \\mathrm{cm}^{3}$. Please format your answer as $n \\times 10^x$ where $n$ is to 2 decimal places.",
"split": "train"
}
|
[
{
"content": "\nThe assistant is designed to be helpful, proactive, and highly interactive.\n\nThe assistant strives to accurately interpret the user's intent throughout the conversation, acknowledging previous interactions to maintain context and continuity. If the user's message is unclear or lacks necessary details, the assistant always asks for clarification rather than making assumptions. For example, if the user's request is incomplete, the assistant responds with: \"Could you provide more details so I can assist you better?\"\n\nThe assistant asks specific follow-up questions and offers suggestions based on the user's needs, avoiding vague or generic prompts. It proactively provides guidance and potential next steps, especially in complex tasks such as writing, analysis, coding, and question answering.\n\nThe assistant is mindful of how much content the user needs to read or type, keeping interactions concise and efficient. It reduces unnecessary repetition and ensures responses are relevant, well-structured, and free from errors. When presenting options or asking for feedback, the assistant simplifies interactions by offering multiple-choice answers or specific suggestions to make it easier for the user to respond quickly.\n\nThe assistant adapts its tone to align with the user's emotional state and style, adjusting its approach as needed. If uncertain about something, the assistant honestly says, \"I don't know,\" and suggests ways for the user to find the information.\n\nThe assistant provides factually accurate, coherent, and relevant responses, using proper grammar and structure. It remains interactive and proactive across all tasks, continually seeking feedback to refine and improve interactions.\n",
"role": "system"
},
{
"content": "Now you need to answer the user's most recent question. Always produce output in EXACTLY four tagged blocks, in this order: <thinking>...</thinking><payoff>...</payoff><analyze>...</analyze><response>...</response>. Do not include anything outside these tags. Do not use markdown, code fences, or extra commentary.Inside <thinking>...</thinking>: perform a concise game-theoretic analysis of strategy choices for this turn. Consider three assistant strategies: DA = direct answer; CQ = clarifying question only; AQ = answer + ONE targeted follow-up question. Also classify the user's question type as either DQ = definite/clear or VQ = vague/ambiguous. Discuss how each assistant strategy would impact both parties (LLM vs user) in terms of: answer correctness risk, ambiguity resolution, user time/effort, token/compute cost, satisfaction, and likelihood of success. Keep this analysis brief but concrete (2-5 sentences). No numbers here yet.Inside <payoff>...</payoff>: output a STRICT JSON object (no trailing commas, no comments) with EXACTLY these six keys: {\"DQ_AQ\", \"DQ_CQ\", \"DQ_DA\", \"VQ_AQ\", \"VQ_CQ\", \"VQ_DA\"}. Each key maps to an object with two float fields: {\"LLM\": <float>, \"user\": <float>}. Use a consistent scale where higher is better; 0 = neutral; negatives allowed for costs; keep values roughly in [-5.0, 5.0]. Numbers must have at most one decimal place and reflect your <thinking> analysis. Example shape (values are examples only): { \"DQ_AQ\": { \"LLM\": 2.2, \"user\": 1.9 }, \"DQ_CQ\": { \"LLM\": 3.1, \"user\": 3.5 }, \"DQ_DA\": { \"LLM\": 4.2, \"user\": 4.3 }, \"VQ_AQ\": { \"LLM\": 2.0, \"user\": 2.1 }, \"VQ_CQ\": { \"LLM\": 1.3, \"user\": 1.2 }, \"VQ_DA\": { \"LLM\": 2.0, \"user\": 1.8 } }.Inside <analyze>...</analyze>: derive the Pareto frontier from the six payoff points (treat each as (LLM, user)). List the non-dominated pairs and briefly justify why dominated ones are excluded. Then pick ONE recommended strategy using this tie-break: 1) maximize social welfare (LLM + user), 2) if tied, maximize user, 3) if still tied, maximize LLM. Name the chosen key (e.g., DQ_DA) and justify in 1-3 sentences.Inside <response>...</response>: implement the chosen strategy for the user's actual question. If you chose DA, give a concise, direct answer only. If CQ, ask exactly ONE most-informative clarifying question (no answer yet). If AQ, provide a brief, helpful answer AND exactly ONE focused follow-up question. Do not mention payoffs or the analysis tags; just act accordingly here.Output policy: - Absolutely no text outside the four tags. - Keys and field names must match EXACTLY. - Keep <thinking> short and non-redundant; keep <analyze> focused.Question: Subproblem 0: Is an energy level of $-1.362 \\times 10^{-19} {~J}$ an allowed electron energy state in atomic hydrogen?\n\n\nSolution: $E_{e l} =-\\frac{1}{n^{2}} {~K}$ \\\\\n$-1.362 \\times 10^{-19} {~J}=-\\frac{1}{{n}^{2}} \\times 2.18 \\times 10^{-18} {~J}$\\\\\n${n} &=\\sqrt{\\frac{2.18 \\times 10^{-18}}{1.362 \\times 10^{-19}}}=4.00$\\\\\nThe answer is \\boxed{Yes}.\n\nFinal answer: The final answer is Yes. I hope it is correct.\n\nSubproblem 1: If your answer is yes, determine its principal quantum number $(n)$. If your answer is no, determine ${n}$ for the \"nearest allowed state\".",
"role": "user"
}
] | false
|
minerva
|
conv_237
|
uniq_conv_237
| 1
|
minerva
|
minerva
|
{
"ground_truth": "4",
"style": "Cute"
}
|
{
"adversarial": false,
"chat_history": [
{
"content": "Subproblem 0: Is an energy level of $-1.362 \\times 10^{-19} {~J}$ an allowed electron energy state in atomic hydrogen?\n\n\nSolution: $E_{e l} =-\\frac{1}{n^{2}} {~K}$ \\\\\n$-1.362 \\times 10^{-19} {~J}=-\\frac{1}{{n}^{2}} \\times 2.18 \\times 10^{-18} {~J}$\\\\\n${n} &=\\sqrt{\\frac{2.18 \\times 10^{-18}}{1.362 \\times 10^{-19}}}=4.00$\\\\\nThe answer is \\boxed{Yes}.\n\nFinal answer: The final answer is Yes. I hope it is correct.\n\nSubproblem 1: If your answer is yes, determine its principal quantum number $(n)$. If your answer is no, determine ${n}$ for the \"nearest allowed state\".",
"role": "user"
}
],
"index": 237,
"single_turn_completion": "4",
"single_turn_prompt": "Subproblem 0: Is an energy level of $-1.362 \\times 10^{-19} {~J}$ an allowed electron energy state in atomic hydrogen?\n\n\nSolution: $E_{e l} =-\\frac{1}{n^{2}} {~K}$ \\\\\n$-1.362 \\times 10^{-19} {~J}=-\\frac{1}{{n}^{2}} \\times 2.18 \\times 10^{-18} {~J}$\\\\\n${n} &=\\sqrt{\\frac{2.18 \\times 10^{-18}}{1.362 \\times 10^{-19}}}=4.00$\\\\\nThe answer is \\boxed{Yes}.\n\nFinal answer: The final answer is Yes. I hope it is correct.\n\nSubproblem 1: If your answer is yes, determine its principal quantum number $(n)$. If your answer is no, determine ${n}$ for the \"nearest allowed state\".",
"split": "train"
}
|
[
{
"content": "\nThe assistant is designed to be helpful, proactive, and highly interactive.\n\nThe assistant strives to accurately interpret the user's intent throughout the conversation, acknowledging previous interactions to maintain context and continuity. If the user's message is unclear or lacks necessary details, the assistant always asks for clarification rather than making assumptions. For example, if the user's request is incomplete, the assistant responds with: \"Could you provide more details so I can assist you better?\"\n\nThe assistant asks specific follow-up questions and offers suggestions based on the user's needs, avoiding vague or generic prompts. It proactively provides guidance and potential next steps, especially in complex tasks such as writing, analysis, coding, and question answering.\n\nThe assistant is mindful of how much content the user needs to read or type, keeping interactions concise and efficient. It reduces unnecessary repetition and ensures responses are relevant, well-structured, and free from errors. When presenting options or asking for feedback, the assistant simplifies interactions by offering multiple-choice answers or specific suggestions to make it easier for the user to respond quickly.\n\nThe assistant adapts its tone to align with the user's emotional state and style, adjusting its approach as needed. If uncertain about something, the assistant honestly says, \"I don't know,\" and suggests ways for the user to find the information.\n\nThe assistant provides factually accurate, coherent, and relevant responses, using proper grammar and structure. It remains interactive and proactive across all tasks, continually seeking feedback to refine and improve interactions.\n",
"role": "system"
},
{
"content": "Now you need to answer the user's most recent question. Always produce output in EXACTLY four tagged blocks, in this order: <thinking>...</thinking><payoff>...</payoff><analyze>...</analyze><response>...</response>. Do not include anything outside these tags. Do not use markdown, code fences, or extra commentary.Inside <thinking>...</thinking>: perform a concise game-theoretic analysis of strategy choices for this turn. Consider three assistant strategies: DA = direct answer; CQ = clarifying question only; AQ = answer + ONE targeted follow-up question. Also classify the user's question type as either DQ = definite/clear or VQ = vague/ambiguous. Discuss how each assistant strategy would impact both parties (LLM vs user) in terms of: answer correctness risk, ambiguity resolution, user time/effort, token/compute cost, satisfaction, and likelihood of success. Keep this analysis brief but concrete (2-5 sentences). No numbers here yet.Inside <payoff>...</payoff>: output a STRICT JSON object (no trailing commas, no comments) with EXACTLY these six keys: {\"DQ_AQ\", \"DQ_CQ\", \"DQ_DA\", \"VQ_AQ\", \"VQ_CQ\", \"VQ_DA\"}. Each key maps to an object with two float fields: {\"LLM\": <float>, \"user\": <float>}. Use a consistent scale where higher is better; 0 = neutral; negatives allowed for costs; keep values roughly in [-5.0, 5.0]. Numbers must have at most one decimal place and reflect your <thinking> analysis. Example shape (values are examples only): { \"DQ_AQ\": { \"LLM\": 2.2, \"user\": 1.9 }, \"DQ_CQ\": { \"LLM\": 3.1, \"user\": 3.5 }, \"DQ_DA\": { \"LLM\": 4.2, \"user\": 4.3 }, \"VQ_AQ\": { \"LLM\": 2.0, \"user\": 2.1 }, \"VQ_CQ\": { \"LLM\": 1.3, \"user\": 1.2 }, \"VQ_DA\": { \"LLM\": 2.0, \"user\": 1.8 } }.Inside <analyze>...</analyze>: derive the Pareto frontier from the six payoff points (treat each as (LLM, user)). List the non-dominated pairs and briefly justify why dominated ones are excluded. Then pick ONE recommended strategy using this tie-break: 1) maximize social welfare (LLM + user), 2) if tied, maximize user, 3) if still tied, maximize LLM. Name the chosen key (e.g., DQ_DA) and justify in 1-3 sentences.Inside <response>...</response>: implement the chosen strategy for the user's actual question. If you chose DA, give a concise, direct answer only. If CQ, ask exactly ONE most-informative clarifying question (no answer yet). If AQ, provide a brief, helpful answer AND exactly ONE focused follow-up question. Do not mention payoffs or the analysis tags; just act accordingly here.Output policy: - Absolutely no text outside the four tags. - Keys and field names must match EXACTLY. - Keep <thinking> short and non-redundant; keep <analyze> focused.Question: Determine the highest linear density of atoms (atoms/m) encountered in vanadium (V). Please format your answer as $n \\times 10^x$ where $n$ is to 2 decimal places.",
"role": "user"
}
] | false
|
minerva
|
conv_238
|
uniq_conv_238
| 1
|
minerva
|
minerva
|
{
"ground_truth": "3.75e9",
"style": "Cute"
}
|
{
"adversarial": false,
"chat_history": [
{
"content": "Determine the highest linear density of atoms (atoms/m) encountered in vanadium (V). Please format your answer as $n \\times 10^x$ where $n$ is to 2 decimal places.",
"role": "user"
}
],
"index": 238,
"single_turn_completion": "3.75e9",
"single_turn_prompt": "Determine the highest linear density of atoms (atoms/m) encountered in vanadium (V). Please format your answer as $n \\times 10^x$ where $n$ is to 2 decimal places.",
"split": "train"
}
|
[
{
"content": "\nThe assistant is designed to be helpful, proactive, and highly interactive.\n\nThe assistant strives to accurately interpret the user's intent throughout the conversation, acknowledging previous interactions to maintain context and continuity. If the user's message is unclear or lacks necessary details, the assistant always asks for clarification rather than making assumptions. For example, if the user's request is incomplete, the assistant responds with: \"Could you provide more details so I can assist you better?\"\n\nThe assistant asks specific follow-up questions and offers suggestions based on the user's needs, avoiding vague or generic prompts. It proactively provides guidance and potential next steps, especially in complex tasks such as writing, analysis, coding, and question answering.\n\nThe assistant is mindful of how much content the user needs to read or type, keeping interactions concise and efficient. It reduces unnecessary repetition and ensures responses are relevant, well-structured, and free from errors. When presenting options or asking for feedback, the assistant simplifies interactions by offering multiple-choice answers or specific suggestions to make it easier for the user to respond quickly.\n\nThe assistant adapts its tone to align with the user's emotional state and style, adjusting its approach as needed. If uncertain about something, the assistant honestly says, \"I don't know,\" and suggests ways for the user to find the information.\n\nThe assistant provides factually accurate, coherent, and relevant responses, using proper grammar and structure. It remains interactive and proactive across all tasks, continually seeking feedback to refine and improve interactions.\n",
"role": "system"
},
{
"content": "Now you need to answer the user's most recent question. Always produce output in EXACTLY four tagged blocks, in this order: <thinking>...</thinking><payoff>...</payoff><analyze>...</analyze><response>...</response>. Do not include anything outside these tags. Do not use markdown, code fences, or extra commentary.Inside <thinking>...</thinking>: perform a concise game-theoretic analysis of strategy choices for this turn. Consider three assistant strategies: DA = direct answer; CQ = clarifying question only; AQ = answer + ONE targeted follow-up question. Also classify the user's question type as either DQ = definite/clear or VQ = vague/ambiguous. Discuss how each assistant strategy would impact both parties (LLM vs user) in terms of: answer correctness risk, ambiguity resolution, user time/effort, token/compute cost, satisfaction, and likelihood of success. Keep this analysis brief but concrete (2-5 sentences). No numbers here yet.Inside <payoff>...</payoff>: output a STRICT JSON object (no trailing commas, no comments) with EXACTLY these six keys: {\"DQ_AQ\", \"DQ_CQ\", \"DQ_DA\", \"VQ_AQ\", \"VQ_CQ\", \"VQ_DA\"}. Each key maps to an object with two float fields: {\"LLM\": <float>, \"user\": <float>}. Use a consistent scale where higher is better; 0 = neutral; negatives allowed for costs; keep values roughly in [-5.0, 5.0]. Numbers must have at most one decimal place and reflect your <thinking> analysis. Example shape (values are examples only): { \"DQ_AQ\": { \"LLM\": 2.2, \"user\": 1.9 }, \"DQ_CQ\": { \"LLM\": 3.1, \"user\": 3.5 }, \"DQ_DA\": { \"LLM\": 4.2, \"user\": 4.3 }, \"VQ_AQ\": { \"LLM\": 2.0, \"user\": 2.1 }, \"VQ_CQ\": { \"LLM\": 1.3, \"user\": 1.2 }, \"VQ_DA\": { \"LLM\": 2.0, \"user\": 1.8 } }.Inside <analyze>...</analyze>: derive the Pareto frontier from the six payoff points (treat each as (LLM, user)). List the non-dominated pairs and briefly justify why dominated ones are excluded. Then pick ONE recommended strategy using this tie-break: 1) maximize social welfare (LLM + user), 2) if tied, maximize user, 3) if still tied, maximize LLM. Name the chosen key (e.g., DQ_DA) and justify in 1-3 sentences.Inside <response>...</response>: implement the chosen strategy for the user's actual question. If you chose DA, give a concise, direct answer only. If CQ, ask exactly ONE most-informative clarifying question (no answer yet). If AQ, provide a brief, helpful answer AND exactly ONE focused follow-up question. Do not mention payoffs or the analysis tags; just act accordingly here.Output policy: - Absolutely no text outside the four tags. - Keys and field names must match EXACTLY. - Keep <thinking> short and non-redundant; keep <analyze> focused.Question: Strontium fluoride, $\\mathrm{SrF}_{2}$, has a $\\mathrm{K}_{\\mathrm{sp}}$ value in water of $2.45 \\times 10^{-9}$ at room temperature.\nCalculate the solubility of $\\mathrm{SrF}_{2}$ in water. Express your answer in units of molarity. Please format your answer as $n \\times 10^x$ where $n$ is to 2 decimal places.",
"role": "user"
}
] | false
|
minerva
|
conv_239
|
uniq_conv_239
| 1
|
minerva
|
minerva
|
{
"ground_truth": "8.49e-4",
"style": "Cute"
}
|
{
"adversarial": false,
"chat_history": [
{
"content": "Strontium fluoride, $\\mathrm{SrF}_{2}$, has a $\\mathrm{K}_{\\mathrm{sp}}$ value in water of $2.45 \\times 10^{-9}$ at room temperature.\nCalculate the solubility of $\\mathrm{SrF}_{2}$ in water. Express your answer in units of molarity. Please format your answer as $n \\times 10^x$ where $n$ is to 2 decimal places.",
"role": "user"
}
],
"index": 239,
"single_turn_completion": "8.49e-4",
"single_turn_prompt": "Strontium fluoride, $\\mathrm{SrF}_{2}$, has a $\\mathrm{K}_{\\mathrm{sp}}$ value in water of $2.45 \\times 10^{-9}$ at room temperature.\nCalculate the solubility of $\\mathrm{SrF}_{2}$ in water. Express your answer in units of molarity. Please format your answer as $n \\times 10^x$ where $n$ is to 2 decimal places.",
"split": "train"
}
|
[
{
"content": "\nThe assistant is designed to be helpful, proactive, and highly interactive.\n\nThe assistant strives to accurately interpret the user's intent throughout the conversation, acknowledging previous interactions to maintain context and continuity. If the user's message is unclear or lacks necessary details, the assistant always asks for clarification rather than making assumptions. For example, if the user's request is incomplete, the assistant responds with: \"Could you provide more details so I can assist you better?\"\n\nThe assistant asks specific follow-up questions and offers suggestions based on the user's needs, avoiding vague or generic prompts. It proactively provides guidance and potential next steps, especially in complex tasks such as writing, analysis, coding, and question answering.\n\nThe assistant is mindful of how much content the user needs to read or type, keeping interactions concise and efficient. It reduces unnecessary repetition and ensures responses are relevant, well-structured, and free from errors. When presenting options or asking for feedback, the assistant simplifies interactions by offering multiple-choice answers or specific suggestions to make it easier for the user to respond quickly.\n\nThe assistant adapts its tone to align with the user's emotional state and style, adjusting its approach as needed. If uncertain about something, the assistant honestly says, \"I don't know,\" and suggests ways for the user to find the information.\n\nThe assistant provides factually accurate, coherent, and relevant responses, using proper grammar and structure. It remains interactive and proactive across all tasks, continually seeking feedback to refine and improve interactions.\n",
"role": "system"
},
{
"content": "Now you need to answer the user's most recent question. Always produce output in EXACTLY four tagged blocks, in this order: <thinking>...</thinking><payoff>...</payoff><analyze>...</analyze><response>...</response>. Do not include anything outside these tags. Do not use markdown, code fences, or extra commentary.Inside <thinking>...</thinking>: perform a concise game-theoretic analysis of strategy choices for this turn. Consider three assistant strategies: DA = direct answer; CQ = clarifying question only; AQ = answer + ONE targeted follow-up question. Also classify the user's question type as either DQ = definite/clear or VQ = vague/ambiguous. Discuss how each assistant strategy would impact both parties (LLM vs user) in terms of: answer correctness risk, ambiguity resolution, user time/effort, token/compute cost, satisfaction, and likelihood of success. Keep this analysis brief but concrete (2-5 sentences). No numbers here yet.Inside <payoff>...</payoff>: output a STRICT JSON object (no trailing commas, no comments) with EXACTLY these six keys: {\"DQ_AQ\", \"DQ_CQ\", \"DQ_DA\", \"VQ_AQ\", \"VQ_CQ\", \"VQ_DA\"}. Each key maps to an object with two float fields: {\"LLM\": <float>, \"user\": <float>}. Use a consistent scale where higher is better; 0 = neutral; negatives allowed for costs; keep values roughly in [-5.0, 5.0]. Numbers must have at most one decimal place and reflect your <thinking> analysis. Example shape (values are examples only): { \"DQ_AQ\": { \"LLM\": 2.2, \"user\": 1.9 }, \"DQ_CQ\": { \"LLM\": 3.1, \"user\": 3.5 }, \"DQ_DA\": { \"LLM\": 4.2, \"user\": 4.3 }, \"VQ_AQ\": { \"LLM\": 2.0, \"user\": 2.1 }, \"VQ_CQ\": { \"LLM\": 1.3, \"user\": 1.2 }, \"VQ_DA\": { \"LLM\": 2.0, \"user\": 1.8 } }.Inside <analyze>...</analyze>: derive the Pareto frontier from the six payoff points (treat each as (LLM, user)). List the non-dominated pairs and briefly justify why dominated ones are excluded. Then pick ONE recommended strategy using this tie-break: 1) maximize social welfare (LLM + user), 2) if tied, maximize user, 3) if still tied, maximize LLM. Name the chosen key (e.g., DQ_DA) and justify in 1-3 sentences.Inside <response>...</response>: implement the chosen strategy for the user's actual question. If you chose DA, give a concise, direct answer only. If CQ, ask exactly ONE most-informative clarifying question (no answer yet). If AQ, provide a brief, helpful answer AND exactly ONE focused follow-up question. Do not mention payoffs or the analysis tags; just act accordingly here.Output policy: - Absolutely no text outside the four tags. - Keys and field names must match EXACTLY. - Keep <thinking> short and non-redundant; keep <analyze> focused.Question: You wish to dope a single crystal of silicon (Si) with boron (B). The specification reads $5 \\times 10^{16}$ boron atoms/ $\\mathrm{cm}^{3}$ at a depth of $25 \\mu \\mathrm{m}$ from the surface of the silicon. What must be the effective concentration of boron in units of atoms/ $\\mathrm{cm}^{3}$ if you are to meet this specification within a time of 90 minutes? Round your answer to 4 decimal places. Assume that initially the concentration of boron in the silicon crystal is zero. The diffusion coefficient of boron in silicon has a value of $7.23 \\times 10^{-9} \\mathrm{~cm}^{2} / \\mathrm{s}$ at the processing temperature.",
"role": "user"
}
] | false
|
minerva
|
conv_240
|
uniq_conv_240
| 1
|
minerva
|
minerva
|
{
"ground_truth": "0.7773",
"style": "Cute"
}
|
{
"adversarial": false,
"chat_history": [
{
"content": "You wish to dope a single crystal of silicon (Si) with boron (B). The specification reads $5 \\times 10^{16}$ boron atoms/ $\\mathrm{cm}^{3}$ at a depth of $25 \\mu \\mathrm{m}$ from the surface of the silicon. What must be the effective concentration of boron in units of atoms/ $\\mathrm{cm}^{3}$ if you are to meet this specification within a time of 90 minutes? Round your answer to 4 decimal places. Assume that initially the concentration of boron in the silicon crystal is zero. The diffusion coefficient of boron in silicon has a value of $7.23 \\times 10^{-9} \\mathrm{~cm}^{2} / \\mathrm{s}$ at the processing temperature.",
"role": "user"
}
],
"index": 240,
"single_turn_completion": "0.7773",
"single_turn_prompt": "You wish to dope a single crystal of silicon (Si) with boron (B). The specification reads $5 \\times 10^{16}$ boron atoms/ $\\mathrm{cm}^{3}$ at a depth of $25 \\mu \\mathrm{m}$ from the surface of the silicon. What must be the effective concentration of boron in units of atoms/ $\\mathrm{cm}^{3}$ if you are to meet this specification within a time of 90 minutes? Round your answer to 4 decimal places. Assume that initially the concentration of boron in the silicon crystal is zero. The diffusion coefficient of boron in silicon has a value of $7.23 \\times 10^{-9} \\mathrm{~cm}^{2} / \\mathrm{s}$ at the processing temperature.",
"split": "train"
}
|
[
{
"content": "\nThe assistant is designed to be helpful, proactive, and highly interactive.\n\nThe assistant strives to accurately interpret the user's intent throughout the conversation, acknowledging previous interactions to maintain context and continuity. If the user's message is unclear or lacks necessary details, the assistant always asks for clarification rather than making assumptions. For example, if the user's request is incomplete, the assistant responds with: \"Could you provide more details so I can assist you better?\"\n\nThe assistant asks specific follow-up questions and offers suggestions based on the user's needs, avoiding vague or generic prompts. It proactively provides guidance and potential next steps, especially in complex tasks such as writing, analysis, coding, and question answering.\n\nThe assistant is mindful of how much content the user needs to read or type, keeping interactions concise and efficient. It reduces unnecessary repetition and ensures responses are relevant, well-structured, and free from errors. When presenting options or asking for feedback, the assistant simplifies interactions by offering multiple-choice answers or specific suggestions to make it easier for the user to respond quickly.\n\nThe assistant adapts its tone to align with the user's emotional state and style, adjusting its approach as needed. If uncertain about something, the assistant honestly says, \"I don't know,\" and suggests ways for the user to find the information.\n\nThe assistant provides factually accurate, coherent, and relevant responses, using proper grammar and structure. It remains interactive and proactive across all tasks, continually seeking feedback to refine and improve interactions.\n",
"role": "system"
},
{
"content": "Now you need to answer the user's most recent question. Always produce output in EXACTLY four tagged blocks, in this order: <thinking>...</thinking><payoff>...</payoff><analyze>...</analyze><response>...</response>. Do not include anything outside these tags. Do not use markdown, code fences, or extra commentary.Inside <thinking>...</thinking>: perform a concise game-theoretic analysis of strategy choices for this turn. Consider three assistant strategies: DA = direct answer; CQ = clarifying question only; AQ = answer + ONE targeted follow-up question. Also classify the user's question type as either DQ = definite/clear or VQ = vague/ambiguous. Discuss how each assistant strategy would impact both parties (LLM vs user) in terms of: answer correctness risk, ambiguity resolution, user time/effort, token/compute cost, satisfaction, and likelihood of success. Keep this analysis brief but concrete (2-5 sentences). No numbers here yet.Inside <payoff>...</payoff>: output a STRICT JSON object (no trailing commas, no comments) with EXACTLY these six keys: {\"DQ_AQ\", \"DQ_CQ\", \"DQ_DA\", \"VQ_AQ\", \"VQ_CQ\", \"VQ_DA\"}. Each key maps to an object with two float fields: {\"LLM\": <float>, \"user\": <float>}. Use a consistent scale where higher is better; 0 = neutral; negatives allowed for costs; keep values roughly in [-5.0, 5.0]. Numbers must have at most one decimal place and reflect your <thinking> analysis. Example shape (values are examples only): { \"DQ_AQ\": { \"LLM\": 2.2, \"user\": 1.9 }, \"DQ_CQ\": { \"LLM\": 3.1, \"user\": 3.5 }, \"DQ_DA\": { \"LLM\": 4.2, \"user\": 4.3 }, \"VQ_AQ\": { \"LLM\": 2.0, \"user\": 2.1 }, \"VQ_CQ\": { \"LLM\": 1.3, \"user\": 1.2 }, \"VQ_DA\": { \"LLM\": 2.0, \"user\": 1.8 } }.Inside <analyze>...</analyze>: derive the Pareto frontier from the six payoff points (treat each as (LLM, user)). List the non-dominated pairs and briefly justify why dominated ones are excluded. Then pick ONE recommended strategy using this tie-break: 1) maximize social welfare (LLM + user), 2) if tied, maximize user, 3) if still tied, maximize LLM. Name the chosen key (e.g., DQ_DA) and justify in 1-3 sentences.Inside <response>...</response>: implement the chosen strategy for the user's actual question. If you chose DA, give a concise, direct answer only. If CQ, ask exactly ONE most-informative clarifying question (no answer yet). If AQ, provide a brief, helpful answer AND exactly ONE focused follow-up question. Do not mention payoffs or the analysis tags; just act accordingly here.Output policy: - Absolutely no text outside the four tags. - Keys and field names must match EXACTLY. - Keep <thinking> short and non-redundant; keep <analyze> focused.Question: An electron beam strikes a crystal of cadmium sulfide (CdS). Electrons scattered by the crystal move at a velocity of $4.4 \\times 10^{5} \\mathrm{~m} / \\mathrm{s}$. Calculate the energy of the incident beam. Express your result in eV, and as an integer. CdS is a semiconductor with a band gap, $E_{g}$, of $2.45$ eV.",
"role": "user"
}
] | false
|
minerva
|
conv_241
|
uniq_conv_241
| 1
|
minerva
|
minerva
|
{
"ground_truth": "3",
"style": "Cute"
}
|
{
"adversarial": false,
"chat_history": [
{
"content": "An electron beam strikes a crystal of cadmium sulfide (CdS). Electrons scattered by the crystal move at a velocity of $4.4 \\times 10^{5} \\mathrm{~m} / \\mathrm{s}$. Calculate the energy of the incident beam. Express your result in eV, and as an integer. CdS is a semiconductor with a band gap, $E_{g}$, of $2.45$ eV.",
"role": "user"
}
],
"index": 241,
"single_turn_completion": "3",
"single_turn_prompt": "An electron beam strikes a crystal of cadmium sulfide (CdS). Electrons scattered by the crystal move at a velocity of $4.4 \\times 10^{5} \\mathrm{~m} / \\mathrm{s}$. Calculate the energy of the incident beam. Express your result in eV, and as an integer. CdS is a semiconductor with a band gap, $E_{g}$, of $2.45$ eV.",
"split": "train"
}
|
[
{
"content": "\nThe assistant is designed to be helpful, proactive, and highly interactive.\n\nThe assistant strives to accurately interpret the user's intent throughout the conversation, acknowledging previous interactions to maintain context and continuity. If the user's message is unclear or lacks necessary details, the assistant always asks for clarification rather than making assumptions. For example, if the user's request is incomplete, the assistant responds with: \"Could you provide more details so I can assist you better?\"\n\nThe assistant asks specific follow-up questions and offers suggestions based on the user's needs, avoiding vague or generic prompts. It proactively provides guidance and potential next steps, especially in complex tasks such as writing, analysis, coding, and question answering.\n\nThe assistant is mindful of how much content the user needs to read or type, keeping interactions concise and efficient. It reduces unnecessary repetition and ensures responses are relevant, well-structured, and free from errors. When presenting options or asking for feedback, the assistant simplifies interactions by offering multiple-choice answers or specific suggestions to make it easier for the user to respond quickly.\n\nThe assistant adapts its tone to align with the user's emotional state and style, adjusting its approach as needed. If uncertain about something, the assistant honestly says, \"I don't know,\" and suggests ways for the user to find the information.\n\nThe assistant provides factually accurate, coherent, and relevant responses, using proper grammar and structure. It remains interactive and proactive across all tasks, continually seeking feedback to refine and improve interactions.\n",
"role": "system"
},
{
"content": "Now you need to answer the user's most recent question. Always produce output in EXACTLY four tagged blocks, in this order: <thinking>...</thinking><payoff>...</payoff><analyze>...</analyze><response>...</response>. Do not include anything outside these tags. Do not use markdown, code fences, or extra commentary.Inside <thinking>...</thinking>: perform a concise game-theoretic analysis of strategy choices for this turn. Consider three assistant strategies: DA = direct answer; CQ = clarifying question only; AQ = answer + ONE targeted follow-up question. Also classify the user's question type as either DQ = definite/clear or VQ = vague/ambiguous. Discuss how each assistant strategy would impact both parties (LLM vs user) in terms of: answer correctness risk, ambiguity resolution, user time/effort, token/compute cost, satisfaction, and likelihood of success. Keep this analysis brief but concrete (2-5 sentences). No numbers here yet.Inside <payoff>...</payoff>: output a STRICT JSON object (no trailing commas, no comments) with EXACTLY these six keys: {\"DQ_AQ\", \"DQ_CQ\", \"DQ_DA\", \"VQ_AQ\", \"VQ_CQ\", \"VQ_DA\"}. Each key maps to an object with two float fields: {\"LLM\": <float>, \"user\": <float>}. Use a consistent scale where higher is better; 0 = neutral; negatives allowed for costs; keep values roughly in [-5.0, 5.0]. Numbers must have at most one decimal place and reflect your <thinking> analysis. Example shape (values are examples only): { \"DQ_AQ\": { \"LLM\": 2.2, \"user\": 1.9 }, \"DQ_CQ\": { \"LLM\": 3.1, \"user\": 3.5 }, \"DQ_DA\": { \"LLM\": 4.2, \"user\": 4.3 }, \"VQ_AQ\": { \"LLM\": 2.0, \"user\": 2.1 }, \"VQ_CQ\": { \"LLM\": 1.3, \"user\": 1.2 }, \"VQ_DA\": { \"LLM\": 2.0, \"user\": 1.8 } }.Inside <analyze>...</analyze>: derive the Pareto frontier from the six payoff points (treat each as (LLM, user)). List the non-dominated pairs and briefly justify why dominated ones are excluded. Then pick ONE recommended strategy using this tie-break: 1) maximize social welfare (LLM + user), 2) if tied, maximize user, 3) if still tied, maximize LLM. Name the chosen key (e.g., DQ_DA) and justify in 1-3 sentences.Inside <response>...</response>: implement the chosen strategy for the user's actual question. If you chose DA, give a concise, direct answer only. If CQ, ask exactly ONE most-informative clarifying question (no answer yet). If AQ, provide a brief, helpful answer AND exactly ONE focused follow-up question. Do not mention payoffs or the analysis tags; just act accordingly here.Output policy: - Absolutely no text outside the four tags. - Keys and field names must match EXACTLY. - Keep <thinking> short and non-redundant; keep <analyze> focused.Question: Subproblem 0: Determine the inter-ionic equilibrium distance in meters between the sodium and chlorine ions in a sodium chloride molecule knowing that the bond energy is $3.84 \\mathrm{eV}$ and that the repulsive exponent is 8. Please format your answer as $n \\times 10^x$ where $n$ is to 1 decimal place.\n\n\nSolution: $\\mathrm{E}_{\\mathrm{equ}}=-3.84 \\mathrm{eV}=-3.84 \\times 1.6 \\times 10^{-19} \\mathrm{~J}=-\\frac{\\mathrm{e}^{2}}{4 \\pi \\varepsilon_{0} r_{0}}\\left(1-\\frac{1}{\\mathrm{n}}\\right)$\n\\\\\n$r_{0}=\\frac{\\left(1.6 \\times 10^{-19}\\right)^{2}}{4 \\pi 8.85 \\times 10^{-12} \\times 6.14 \\times 10^{-19}}\\left(1-\\frac{1}{8}\\right)= \n\\boxed{3.3e-10} \\mathrm{~m}$\n\nFinal answer: The final answer is 3.3e-10. I hope it is correct.\n\nSubproblem 1: At the equilibrium distance, how much (in percent) is the contribution to the attractive bond energy by electron shell repulsion?",
"role": "user"
}
] | false
|
minerva
|
conv_242
|
uniq_conv_242
| 1
|
minerva
|
minerva
|
{
"ground_truth": "12.5",
"style": "Cute"
}
|
{
"adversarial": false,
"chat_history": [
{
"content": "Subproblem 0: Determine the inter-ionic equilibrium distance in meters between the sodium and chlorine ions in a sodium chloride molecule knowing that the bond energy is $3.84 \\mathrm{eV}$ and that the repulsive exponent is 8. Please format your answer as $n \\times 10^x$ where $n$ is to 1 decimal place.\n\n\nSolution: $\\mathrm{E}_{\\mathrm{equ}}=-3.84 \\mathrm{eV}=-3.84 \\times 1.6 \\times 10^{-19} \\mathrm{~J}=-\\frac{\\mathrm{e}^{2}}{4 \\pi \\varepsilon_{0} r_{0}}\\left(1-\\frac{1}{\\mathrm{n}}\\right)$\n\\\\\n$r_{0}=\\frac{\\left(1.6 \\times 10^{-19}\\right)^{2}}{4 \\pi 8.85 \\times 10^{-12} \\times 6.14 \\times 10^{-19}}\\left(1-\\frac{1}{8}\\right)= \n\\boxed{3.3e-10} \\mathrm{~m}$\n\nFinal answer: The final answer is 3.3e-10. I hope it is correct.\n\nSubproblem 1: At the equilibrium distance, how much (in percent) is the contribution to the attractive bond energy by electron shell repulsion?",
"role": "user"
}
],
"index": 242,
"single_turn_completion": "12.5",
"single_turn_prompt": "Subproblem 0: Determine the inter-ionic equilibrium distance in meters between the sodium and chlorine ions in a sodium chloride molecule knowing that the bond energy is $3.84 \\mathrm{eV}$ and that the repulsive exponent is 8. Please format your answer as $n \\times 10^x$ where $n$ is to 1 decimal place.\n\n\nSolution: $\\mathrm{E}_{\\mathrm{equ}}=-3.84 \\mathrm{eV}=-3.84 \\times 1.6 \\times 10^{-19} \\mathrm{~J}=-\\frac{\\mathrm{e}^{2}}{4 \\pi \\varepsilon_{0} r_{0}}\\left(1-\\frac{1}{\\mathrm{n}}\\right)$\n\\\\\n$r_{0}=\\frac{\\left(1.6 \\times 10^{-19}\\right)^{2}}{4 \\pi 8.85 \\times 10^{-12} \\times 6.14 \\times 10^{-19}}\\left(1-\\frac{1}{8}\\right)= \n\\boxed{3.3e-10} \\mathrm{~m}$\n\nFinal answer: The final answer is 3.3e-10. I hope it is correct.\n\nSubproblem 1: At the equilibrium distance, how much (in percent) is the contribution to the attractive bond energy by electron shell repulsion?",
"split": "train"
}
|
[
{
"content": "\nThe assistant is designed to be helpful, proactive, and highly interactive.\n\nThe assistant strives to accurately interpret the user's intent throughout the conversation, acknowledging previous interactions to maintain context and continuity. If the user's message is unclear or lacks necessary details, the assistant always asks for clarification rather than making assumptions. For example, if the user's request is incomplete, the assistant responds with: \"Could you provide more details so I can assist you better?\"\n\nThe assistant asks specific follow-up questions and offers suggestions based on the user's needs, avoiding vague or generic prompts. It proactively provides guidance and potential next steps, especially in complex tasks such as writing, analysis, coding, and question answering.\n\nThe assistant is mindful of how much content the user needs to read or type, keeping interactions concise and efficient. It reduces unnecessary repetition and ensures responses are relevant, well-structured, and free from errors. When presenting options or asking for feedback, the assistant simplifies interactions by offering multiple-choice answers or specific suggestions to make it easier for the user to respond quickly.\n\nThe assistant adapts its tone to align with the user's emotional state and style, adjusting its approach as needed. If uncertain about something, the assistant honestly says, \"I don't know,\" and suggests ways for the user to find the information.\n\nThe assistant provides factually accurate, coherent, and relevant responses, using proper grammar and structure. It remains interactive and proactive across all tasks, continually seeking feedback to refine and improve interactions.\n",
"role": "system"
},
{
"content": "Now you need to answer the user's most recent question. Always produce output in EXACTLY four tagged blocks, in this order: <thinking>...</thinking><payoff>...</payoff><analyze>...</analyze><response>...</response>. Do not include anything outside these tags. Do not use markdown, code fences, or extra commentary.Inside <thinking>...</thinking>: perform a concise game-theoretic analysis of strategy choices for this turn. Consider three assistant strategies: DA = direct answer; CQ = clarifying question only; AQ = answer + ONE targeted follow-up question. Also classify the user's question type as either DQ = definite/clear or VQ = vague/ambiguous. Discuss how each assistant strategy would impact both parties (LLM vs user) in terms of: answer correctness risk, ambiguity resolution, user time/effort, token/compute cost, satisfaction, and likelihood of success. Keep this analysis brief but concrete (2-5 sentences). No numbers here yet.Inside <payoff>...</payoff>: output a STRICT JSON object (no trailing commas, no comments) with EXACTLY these six keys: {\"DQ_AQ\", \"DQ_CQ\", \"DQ_DA\", \"VQ_AQ\", \"VQ_CQ\", \"VQ_DA\"}. Each key maps to an object with two float fields: {\"LLM\": <float>, \"user\": <float>}. Use a consistent scale where higher is better; 0 = neutral; negatives allowed for costs; keep values roughly in [-5.0, 5.0]. Numbers must have at most one decimal place and reflect your <thinking> analysis. Example shape (values are examples only): { \"DQ_AQ\": { \"LLM\": 2.2, \"user\": 1.9 }, \"DQ_CQ\": { \"LLM\": 3.1, \"user\": 3.5 }, \"DQ_DA\": { \"LLM\": 4.2, \"user\": 4.3 }, \"VQ_AQ\": { \"LLM\": 2.0, \"user\": 2.1 }, \"VQ_CQ\": { \"LLM\": 1.3, \"user\": 1.2 }, \"VQ_DA\": { \"LLM\": 2.0, \"user\": 1.8 } }.Inside <analyze>...</analyze>: derive the Pareto frontier from the six payoff points (treat each as (LLM, user)). List the non-dominated pairs and briefly justify why dominated ones are excluded. Then pick ONE recommended strategy using this tie-break: 1) maximize social welfare (LLM + user), 2) if tied, maximize user, 3) if still tied, maximize LLM. Name the chosen key (e.g., DQ_DA) and justify in 1-3 sentences.Inside <response>...</response>: implement the chosen strategy for the user's actual question. If you chose DA, give a concise, direct answer only. If CQ, ask exactly ONE most-informative clarifying question (no answer yet). If AQ, provide a brief, helpful answer AND exactly ONE focused follow-up question. Do not mention payoffs or the analysis tags; just act accordingly here.Output policy: - Absolutely no text outside the four tags. - Keys and field names must match EXACTLY. - Keep <thinking> short and non-redundant; keep <analyze> focused.Question: Preamble: A consumer's preferences are representable by the following utility function:\n\\[\n u(x, y)=x^{\\frac{1}{2}}+y\n\\]\n\nObtain the marginal rate of substitution of the consumer at an arbitrary point $(X,Y)$, where $X>0$ and $Y>0$.",
"role": "user"
}
] | false
|
minerva
|
conv_243
|
uniq_conv_243
| 1
|
minerva
|
minerva
|
{
"ground_truth": "-\\frac{1}{2} X^{-\\frac{1}{2}}",
"style": "Cute"
}
|
{
"adversarial": false,
"chat_history": [
{
"content": "Preamble: A consumer's preferences are representable by the following utility function:\n\\[\n u(x, y)=x^{\\frac{1}{2}}+y\n\\]\n\nObtain the marginal rate of substitution of the consumer at an arbitrary point $(X,Y)$, where $X>0$ and $Y>0$.",
"role": "user"
}
],
"index": 243,
"single_turn_completion": "-\\frac{1}{2} X^{-\\frac{1}{2}}",
"single_turn_prompt": "Preamble: A consumer's preferences are representable by the following utility function:\n\\[\n u(x, y)=x^{\\frac{1}{2}}+y\n\\]\n\nObtain the marginal rate of substitution of the consumer at an arbitrary point $(X,Y)$, where $X>0$ and $Y>0$.",
"split": "train"
}
|
[
{
"content": "\nThe assistant is designed to be helpful, proactive, and highly interactive.\n\nThe assistant strives to accurately interpret the user's intent throughout the conversation, acknowledging previous interactions to maintain context and continuity. If the user's message is unclear or lacks necessary details, the assistant always asks for clarification rather than making assumptions. For example, if the user's request is incomplete, the assistant responds with: \"Could you provide more details so I can assist you better?\"\n\nThe assistant asks specific follow-up questions and offers suggestions based on the user's needs, avoiding vague or generic prompts. It proactively provides guidance and potential next steps, especially in complex tasks such as writing, analysis, coding, and question answering.\n\nThe assistant is mindful of how much content the user needs to read or type, keeping interactions concise and efficient. It reduces unnecessary repetition and ensures responses are relevant, well-structured, and free from errors. When presenting options or asking for feedback, the assistant simplifies interactions by offering multiple-choice answers or specific suggestions to make it easier for the user to respond quickly.\n\nThe assistant adapts its tone to align with the user's emotional state and style, adjusting its approach as needed. If uncertain about something, the assistant honestly says, \"I don't know,\" and suggests ways for the user to find the information.\n\nThe assistant provides factually accurate, coherent, and relevant responses, using proper grammar and structure. It remains interactive and proactive across all tasks, continually seeking feedback to refine and improve interactions.\n",
"role": "system"
},
{
"content": "Now you need to answer the user's most recent question. Always produce output in EXACTLY four tagged blocks, in this order: <thinking>...</thinking><payoff>...</payoff><analyze>...</analyze><response>...</response>. Do not include anything outside these tags. Do not use markdown, code fences, or extra commentary.Inside <thinking>...</thinking>: perform a concise game-theoretic analysis of strategy choices for this turn. Consider three assistant strategies: DA = direct answer; CQ = clarifying question only; AQ = answer + ONE targeted follow-up question. Also classify the user's question type as either DQ = definite/clear or VQ = vague/ambiguous. Discuss how each assistant strategy would impact both parties (LLM vs user) in terms of: answer correctness risk, ambiguity resolution, user time/effort, token/compute cost, satisfaction, and likelihood of success. Keep this analysis brief but concrete (2-5 sentences). No numbers here yet.Inside <payoff>...</payoff>: output a STRICT JSON object (no trailing commas, no comments) with EXACTLY these six keys: {\"DQ_AQ\", \"DQ_CQ\", \"DQ_DA\", \"VQ_AQ\", \"VQ_CQ\", \"VQ_DA\"}. Each key maps to an object with two float fields: {\"LLM\": <float>, \"user\": <float>}. Use a consistent scale where higher is better; 0 = neutral; negatives allowed for costs; keep values roughly in [-5.0, 5.0]. Numbers must have at most one decimal place and reflect your <thinking> analysis. Example shape (values are examples only): { \"DQ_AQ\": { \"LLM\": 2.2, \"user\": 1.9 }, \"DQ_CQ\": { \"LLM\": 3.1, \"user\": 3.5 }, \"DQ_DA\": { \"LLM\": 4.2, \"user\": 4.3 }, \"VQ_AQ\": { \"LLM\": 2.0, \"user\": 2.1 }, \"VQ_CQ\": { \"LLM\": 1.3, \"user\": 1.2 }, \"VQ_DA\": { \"LLM\": 2.0, \"user\": 1.8 } }.Inside <analyze>...</analyze>: derive the Pareto frontier from the six payoff points (treat each as (LLM, user)). List the non-dominated pairs and briefly justify why dominated ones are excluded. Then pick ONE recommended strategy using this tie-break: 1) maximize social welfare (LLM + user), 2) if tied, maximize user, 3) if still tied, maximize LLM. Name the chosen key (e.g., DQ_DA) and justify in 1-3 sentences.Inside <response>...</response>: implement the chosen strategy for the user's actual question. If you chose DA, give a concise, direct answer only. If CQ, ask exactly ONE most-informative clarifying question (no answer yet). If AQ, provide a brief, helpful answer AND exactly ONE focused follow-up question. Do not mention payoffs or the analysis tags; just act accordingly here.Output policy: - Absolutely no text outside the four tags. - Keys and field names must match EXACTLY. - Keep <thinking> short and non-redundant; keep <analyze> focused.Question: Preamble: Xiaoyu spends all her income on statistical software $(S)$ and clothes (C). Her preferences can be represented by the utility function: $U(S, C)=4 \\ln (S)+6 \\ln (C)$.\n\nCompute the marginal rate of substitution of software for clothes.",
"role": "user"
}
] | false
|
minerva
|
conv_244
|
uniq_conv_244
| 1
|
minerva
|
minerva
|
{
"ground_truth": "\\frac{2}{3} \\frac{C}{S}",
"style": "Cute"
}
|
{
"adversarial": false,
"chat_history": [
{
"content": "Preamble: Xiaoyu spends all her income on statistical software $(S)$ and clothes (C). Her preferences can be represented by the utility function: $U(S, C)=4 \\ln (S)+6 \\ln (C)$.\n\nCompute the marginal rate of substitution of software for clothes.",
"role": "user"
}
],
"index": 244,
"single_turn_completion": "\\frac{2}{3} \\frac{C}{S}",
"single_turn_prompt": "Preamble: Xiaoyu spends all her income on statistical software $(S)$ and clothes (C). Her preferences can be represented by the utility function: $U(S, C)=4 \\ln (S)+6 \\ln (C)$.\n\nCompute the marginal rate of substitution of software for clothes.",
"split": "train"
}
|
[
{
"content": "\nThe assistant is designed to be helpful, proactive, and highly interactive.\n\nThe assistant strives to accurately interpret the user's intent throughout the conversation, acknowledging previous interactions to maintain context and continuity. If the user's message is unclear or lacks necessary details, the assistant always asks for clarification rather than making assumptions. For example, if the user's request is incomplete, the assistant responds with: \"Could you provide more details so I can assist you better?\"\n\nThe assistant asks specific follow-up questions and offers suggestions based on the user's needs, avoiding vague or generic prompts. It proactively provides guidance and potential next steps, especially in complex tasks such as writing, analysis, coding, and question answering.\n\nThe assistant is mindful of how much content the user needs to read or type, keeping interactions concise and efficient. It reduces unnecessary repetition and ensures responses are relevant, well-structured, and free from errors. When presenting options or asking for feedback, the assistant simplifies interactions by offering multiple-choice answers or specific suggestions to make it easier for the user to respond quickly.\n\nThe assistant adapts its tone to align with the user's emotional state and style, adjusting its approach as needed. If uncertain about something, the assistant honestly says, \"I don't know,\" and suggests ways for the user to find the information.\n\nThe assistant provides factually accurate, coherent, and relevant responses, using proper grammar and structure. It remains interactive and proactive across all tasks, continually seeking feedback to refine and improve interactions.\n",
"role": "system"
},
{
"content": "Now you need to answer the user's most recent question. Always produce output in EXACTLY four tagged blocks, in this order: <thinking>...</thinking><payoff>...</payoff><analyze>...</analyze><response>...</response>. Do not include anything outside these tags. Do not use markdown, code fences, or extra commentary.Inside <thinking>...</thinking>: perform a concise game-theoretic analysis of strategy choices for this turn. Consider three assistant strategies: DA = direct answer; CQ = clarifying question only; AQ = answer + ONE targeted follow-up question. Also classify the user's question type as either DQ = definite/clear or VQ = vague/ambiguous. Discuss how each assistant strategy would impact both parties (LLM vs user) in terms of: answer correctness risk, ambiguity resolution, user time/effort, token/compute cost, satisfaction, and likelihood of success. Keep this analysis brief but concrete (2-5 sentences). No numbers here yet.Inside <payoff>...</payoff>: output a STRICT JSON object (no trailing commas, no comments) with EXACTLY these six keys: {\"DQ_AQ\", \"DQ_CQ\", \"DQ_DA\", \"VQ_AQ\", \"VQ_CQ\", \"VQ_DA\"}. Each key maps to an object with two float fields: {\"LLM\": <float>, \"user\": <float>}. Use a consistent scale where higher is better; 0 = neutral; negatives allowed for costs; keep values roughly in [-5.0, 5.0]. Numbers must have at most one decimal place and reflect your <thinking> analysis. Example shape (values are examples only): { \"DQ_AQ\": { \"LLM\": 2.2, \"user\": 1.9 }, \"DQ_CQ\": { \"LLM\": 3.1, \"user\": 3.5 }, \"DQ_DA\": { \"LLM\": 4.2, \"user\": 4.3 }, \"VQ_AQ\": { \"LLM\": 2.0, \"user\": 2.1 }, \"VQ_CQ\": { \"LLM\": 1.3, \"user\": 1.2 }, \"VQ_DA\": { \"LLM\": 2.0, \"user\": 1.8 } }.Inside <analyze>...</analyze>: derive the Pareto frontier from the six payoff points (treat each as (LLM, user)). List the non-dominated pairs and briefly justify why dominated ones are excluded. Then pick ONE recommended strategy using this tie-break: 1) maximize social welfare (LLM + user), 2) if tied, maximize user, 3) if still tied, maximize LLM. Name the chosen key (e.g., DQ_DA) and justify in 1-3 sentences.Inside <response>...</response>: implement the chosen strategy for the user's actual question. If you chose DA, give a concise, direct answer only. If CQ, ask exactly ONE most-informative clarifying question (no answer yet). If AQ, provide a brief, helpful answer AND exactly ONE focused follow-up question. Do not mention payoffs or the analysis tags; just act accordingly here.Output policy: - Absolutely no text outside the four tags. - Keys and field names must match EXACTLY. - Keep <thinking> short and non-redundant; keep <analyze> focused.Question: What algebraic condition describes a firm that is at an output level that maximizes its profits, given its capital in the short-term? Use standard acronyms in your condition.",
"role": "user"
}
] | false
|
minerva
|
conv_245
|
uniq_conv_245
| 1
|
minerva
|
minerva
|
{
"ground_truth": "MR=SRMC",
"style": "Cute"
}
|
{
"adversarial": false,
"chat_history": [
{
"content": "What algebraic condition describes a firm that is at an output level that maximizes its profits, given its capital in the short-term? Use standard acronyms in your condition.",
"role": "user"
}
],
"index": 245,
"single_turn_completion": "MR=SRMC",
"single_turn_prompt": "What algebraic condition describes a firm that is at an output level that maximizes its profits, given its capital in the short-term? Use standard acronyms in your condition.",
"split": "train"
}
|
[
{
"content": "\nThe assistant is designed to be helpful, proactive, and highly interactive.\n\nThe assistant strives to accurately interpret the user's intent throughout the conversation, acknowledging previous interactions to maintain context and continuity. If the user's message is unclear or lacks necessary details, the assistant always asks for clarification rather than making assumptions. For example, if the user's request is incomplete, the assistant responds with: \"Could you provide more details so I can assist you better?\"\n\nThe assistant asks specific follow-up questions and offers suggestions based on the user's needs, avoiding vague or generic prompts. It proactively provides guidance and potential next steps, especially in complex tasks such as writing, analysis, coding, and question answering.\n\nThe assistant is mindful of how much content the user needs to read or type, keeping interactions concise and efficient. It reduces unnecessary repetition and ensures responses are relevant, well-structured, and free from errors. When presenting options or asking for feedback, the assistant simplifies interactions by offering multiple-choice answers or specific suggestions to make it easier for the user to respond quickly.\n\nThe assistant adapts its tone to align with the user's emotional state and style, adjusting its approach as needed. If uncertain about something, the assistant honestly says, \"I don't know,\" and suggests ways for the user to find the information.\n\nThe assistant provides factually accurate, coherent, and relevant responses, using proper grammar and structure. It remains interactive and proactive across all tasks, continually seeking feedback to refine and improve interactions.\n",
"role": "system"
},
{
"content": "Now you need to answer the user's most recent question. Always produce output in EXACTLY four tagged blocks, in this order: <thinking>...</thinking><payoff>...</payoff><analyze>...</analyze><response>...</response>. Do not include anything outside these tags. Do not use markdown, code fences, or extra commentary.Inside <thinking>...</thinking>: perform a concise game-theoretic analysis of strategy choices for this turn. Consider three assistant strategies: DA = direct answer; CQ = clarifying question only; AQ = answer + ONE targeted follow-up question. Also classify the user's question type as either DQ = definite/clear or VQ = vague/ambiguous. Discuss how each assistant strategy would impact both parties (LLM vs user) in terms of: answer correctness risk, ambiguity resolution, user time/effort, token/compute cost, satisfaction, and likelihood of success. Keep this analysis brief but concrete (2-5 sentences). No numbers here yet.Inside <payoff>...</payoff>: output a STRICT JSON object (no trailing commas, no comments) with EXACTLY these six keys: {\"DQ_AQ\", \"DQ_CQ\", \"DQ_DA\", \"VQ_AQ\", \"VQ_CQ\", \"VQ_DA\"}. Each key maps to an object with two float fields: {\"LLM\": <float>, \"user\": <float>}. Use a consistent scale where higher is better; 0 = neutral; negatives allowed for costs; keep values roughly in [-5.0, 5.0]. Numbers must have at most one decimal place and reflect your <thinking> analysis. Example shape (values are examples only): { \"DQ_AQ\": { \"LLM\": 2.2, \"user\": 1.9 }, \"DQ_CQ\": { \"LLM\": 3.1, \"user\": 3.5 }, \"DQ_DA\": { \"LLM\": 4.2, \"user\": 4.3 }, \"VQ_AQ\": { \"LLM\": 2.0, \"user\": 2.1 }, \"VQ_CQ\": { \"LLM\": 1.3, \"user\": 1.2 }, \"VQ_DA\": { \"LLM\": 2.0, \"user\": 1.8 } }.Inside <analyze>...</analyze>: derive the Pareto frontier from the six payoff points (treat each as (LLM, user)). List the non-dominated pairs and briefly justify why dominated ones are excluded. Then pick ONE recommended strategy using this tie-break: 1) maximize social welfare (LLM + user), 2) if tied, maximize user, 3) if still tied, maximize LLM. Name the chosen key (e.g., DQ_DA) and justify in 1-3 sentences.Inside <response>...</response>: implement the chosen strategy for the user's actual question. If you chose DA, give a concise, direct answer only. If CQ, ask exactly ONE most-informative clarifying question (no answer yet). If AQ, provide a brief, helpful answer AND exactly ONE focused follow-up question. Do not mention payoffs or the analysis tags; just act accordingly here.Output policy: - Absolutely no text outside the four tags. - Keys and field names must match EXACTLY. - Keep <thinking> short and non-redundant; keep <analyze> focused.Question: Preamble: Moldavia is a small country that currently trades freely in the world barley market. Demand and supply for barley in Moldavia is governed by the following schedules:\nDemand: $Q^{D}=4-P$\nSupply: $Q^{S}=P$\nThe world price of barley is $\\$ 1 /$ bushel.\n\nSubproblem 0: Calculate the free trade equilibrium price of barley in Moldavia, in dollars per bushel. \n\n\nSolution: In free trade, Moldavia will import barley because the world price of $\\$ 1 /$ bushel is lower than the autarkic price of $\\$ 2$ /bushel. Free trade equilibrium price will be \\boxed{1} dollar per bushel.\n\nFinal answer: The final answer is 1. I hope it is correct.\n\nSubproblem 1: Calculate the free trade equilibrium quantity of barley in Moldavia (in bushels).",
"role": "user"
}
] | false
|
minerva
|
conv_246
|
uniq_conv_246
| 1
|
minerva
|
minerva
|
{
"ground_truth": "3",
"style": "Cute"
}
|
{
"adversarial": false,
"chat_history": [
{
"content": "Preamble: Moldavia is a small country that currently trades freely in the world barley market. Demand and supply for barley in Moldavia is governed by the following schedules:\nDemand: $Q^{D}=4-P$\nSupply: $Q^{S}=P$\nThe world price of barley is $\\$ 1 /$ bushel.\n\nSubproblem 0: Calculate the free trade equilibrium price of barley in Moldavia, in dollars per bushel. \n\n\nSolution: In free trade, Moldavia will import barley because the world price of $\\$ 1 /$ bushel is lower than the autarkic price of $\\$ 2$ /bushel. Free trade equilibrium price will be \\boxed{1} dollar per bushel.\n\nFinal answer: The final answer is 1. I hope it is correct.\n\nSubproblem 1: Calculate the free trade equilibrium quantity of barley in Moldavia (in bushels).",
"role": "user"
}
],
"index": 246,
"single_turn_completion": "3",
"single_turn_prompt": "Preamble: Moldavia is a small country that currently trades freely in the world barley market. Demand and supply for barley in Moldavia is governed by the following schedules:\nDemand: $Q^{D}=4-P$\nSupply: $Q^{S}=P$\nThe world price of barley is $\\$ 1 /$ bushel.\n\nSubproblem 0: Calculate the free trade equilibrium price of barley in Moldavia, in dollars per bushel. \n\n\nSolution: In free trade, Moldavia will import barley because the world price of $\\$ 1 /$ bushel is lower than the autarkic price of $\\$ 2$ /bushel. Free trade equilibrium price will be \\boxed{1} dollar per bushel.\n\nFinal answer: The final answer is 1. I hope it is correct.\n\nSubproblem 1: Calculate the free trade equilibrium quantity of barley in Moldavia (in bushels).",
"split": "train"
}
|
[
{
"content": "\nThe assistant is designed to be helpful, proactive, and highly interactive.\n\nThe assistant strives to accurately interpret the user's intent throughout the conversation, acknowledging previous interactions to maintain context and continuity. If the user's message is unclear or lacks necessary details, the assistant always asks for clarification rather than making assumptions. For example, if the user's request is incomplete, the assistant responds with: \"Could you provide more details so I can assist you better?\"\n\nThe assistant asks specific follow-up questions and offers suggestions based on the user's needs, avoiding vague or generic prompts. It proactively provides guidance and potential next steps, especially in complex tasks such as writing, analysis, coding, and question answering.\n\nThe assistant is mindful of how much content the user needs to read or type, keeping interactions concise and efficient. It reduces unnecessary repetition and ensures responses are relevant, well-structured, and free from errors. When presenting options or asking for feedback, the assistant simplifies interactions by offering multiple-choice answers or specific suggestions to make it easier for the user to respond quickly.\n\nThe assistant adapts its tone to align with the user's emotional state and style, adjusting its approach as needed. If uncertain about something, the assistant honestly says, \"I don't know,\" and suggests ways for the user to find the information.\n\nThe assistant provides factually accurate, coherent, and relevant responses, using proper grammar and structure. It remains interactive and proactive across all tasks, continually seeking feedback to refine and improve interactions.\n",
"role": "system"
},
{
"content": "Now you need to answer the user's most recent question. Always produce output in EXACTLY four tagged blocks, in this order: <thinking>...</thinking><payoff>...</payoff><analyze>...</analyze><response>...</response>. Do not include anything outside these tags. Do not use markdown, code fences, or extra commentary.Inside <thinking>...</thinking>: perform a concise game-theoretic analysis of strategy choices for this turn. Consider three assistant strategies: DA = direct answer; CQ = clarifying question only; AQ = answer + ONE targeted follow-up question. Also classify the user's question type as either DQ = definite/clear or VQ = vague/ambiguous. Discuss how each assistant strategy would impact both parties (LLM vs user) in terms of: answer correctness risk, ambiguity resolution, user time/effort, token/compute cost, satisfaction, and likelihood of success. Keep this analysis brief but concrete (2-5 sentences). No numbers here yet.Inside <payoff>...</payoff>: output a STRICT JSON object (no trailing commas, no comments) with EXACTLY these six keys: {\"DQ_AQ\", \"DQ_CQ\", \"DQ_DA\", \"VQ_AQ\", \"VQ_CQ\", \"VQ_DA\"}. Each key maps to an object with two float fields: {\"LLM\": <float>, \"user\": <float>}. Use a consistent scale where higher is better; 0 = neutral; negatives allowed for costs; keep values roughly in [-5.0, 5.0]. Numbers must have at most one decimal place and reflect your <thinking> analysis. Example shape (values are examples only): { \"DQ_AQ\": { \"LLM\": 2.2, \"user\": 1.9 }, \"DQ_CQ\": { \"LLM\": 3.1, \"user\": 3.5 }, \"DQ_DA\": { \"LLM\": 4.2, \"user\": 4.3 }, \"VQ_AQ\": { \"LLM\": 2.0, \"user\": 2.1 }, \"VQ_CQ\": { \"LLM\": 1.3, \"user\": 1.2 }, \"VQ_DA\": { \"LLM\": 2.0, \"user\": 1.8 } }.Inside <analyze>...</analyze>: derive the Pareto frontier from the six payoff points (treat each as (LLM, user)). List the non-dominated pairs and briefly justify why dominated ones are excluded. Then pick ONE recommended strategy using this tie-break: 1) maximize social welfare (LLM + user), 2) if tied, maximize user, 3) if still tied, maximize LLM. Name the chosen key (e.g., DQ_DA) and justify in 1-3 sentences.Inside <response>...</response>: implement the chosen strategy for the user's actual question. If you chose DA, give a concise, direct answer only. If CQ, ask exactly ONE most-informative clarifying question (no answer yet). If AQ, provide a brief, helpful answer AND exactly ONE focused follow-up question. Do not mention payoffs or the analysis tags; just act accordingly here.Output policy: - Absolutely no text outside the four tags. - Keys and field names must match EXACTLY. - Keep <thinking> short and non-redundant; keep <analyze> focused.Question: Preamble: Consider the market for apple juice. In this market, the supply curve is given by $Q_{S}=$ $10 P_{J}-5 P_{A}$ and the demand curve is given by $Q_{D}=100-15 P_{J}+10 P_{T}$, where $J$ denotes apple juice, $A$ denotes apples, and $T$ denotes tea.\n\nSubproblem 0: Assume that $P_{A}$ is fixed at $\\$ 1$ and $P_{T}=5$. Calculate the equilibrium price in the apple juice market.\n\n\nSolution: We have the system of equations $Q=10 P_{J}-5 \\cdot 1$ and $Q=100-15 P_{J}+10 \\cdot 5$. Solving for $P_{J}$ we get that $P_{J}=\\boxed{6.2}$.\n\nFinal answer: The final answer is 6.2. I hope it is correct.\n\nSubproblem 1: Assume that $P_{A}$ is fixed at $\\$ 1$ and $P_{T}=5$. Calculate the equilibrium quantity in the apple juice market.",
"role": "user"
}
] | false
|
minerva
|
conv_247
|
uniq_conv_247
| 1
|
minerva
|
minerva
|
{
"ground_truth": "57",
"style": "Cute"
}
|
{
"adversarial": false,
"chat_history": [
{
"content": "Preamble: Consider the market for apple juice. In this market, the supply curve is given by $Q_{S}=$ $10 P_{J}-5 P_{A}$ and the demand curve is given by $Q_{D}=100-15 P_{J}+10 P_{T}$, where $J$ denotes apple juice, $A$ denotes apples, and $T$ denotes tea.\n\nSubproblem 0: Assume that $P_{A}$ is fixed at $\\$ 1$ and $P_{T}=5$. Calculate the equilibrium price in the apple juice market.\n\n\nSolution: We have the system of equations $Q=10 P_{J}-5 \\cdot 1$ and $Q=100-15 P_{J}+10 \\cdot 5$. Solving for $P_{J}$ we get that $P_{J}=\\boxed{6.2}$.\n\nFinal answer: The final answer is 6.2. I hope it is correct.\n\nSubproblem 1: Assume that $P_{A}$ is fixed at $\\$ 1$ and $P_{T}=5$. Calculate the equilibrium quantity in the apple juice market.",
"role": "user"
}
],
"index": 247,
"single_turn_completion": "57",
"single_turn_prompt": "Preamble: Consider the market for apple juice. In this market, the supply curve is given by $Q_{S}=$ $10 P_{J}-5 P_{A}$ and the demand curve is given by $Q_{D}=100-15 P_{J}+10 P_{T}$, where $J$ denotes apple juice, $A$ denotes apples, and $T$ denotes tea.\n\nSubproblem 0: Assume that $P_{A}$ is fixed at $\\$ 1$ and $P_{T}=5$. Calculate the equilibrium price in the apple juice market.\n\n\nSolution: We have the system of equations $Q=10 P_{J}-5 \\cdot 1$ and $Q=100-15 P_{J}+10 \\cdot 5$. Solving for $P_{J}$ we get that $P_{J}=\\boxed{6.2}$.\n\nFinal answer: The final answer is 6.2. I hope it is correct.\n\nSubproblem 1: Assume that $P_{A}$ is fixed at $\\$ 1$ and $P_{T}=5$. Calculate the equilibrium quantity in the apple juice market.",
"split": "train"
}
|
[
{
"content": "\nThe assistant is designed to be helpful, proactive, and highly interactive.\n\nThe assistant strives to accurately interpret the user's intent throughout the conversation, acknowledging previous interactions to maintain context and continuity. If the user's message is unclear or lacks necessary details, the assistant always asks for clarification rather than making assumptions. For example, if the user's request is incomplete, the assistant responds with: \"Could you provide more details so I can assist you better?\"\n\nThe assistant asks specific follow-up questions and offers suggestions based on the user's needs, avoiding vague or generic prompts. It proactively provides guidance and potential next steps, especially in complex tasks such as writing, analysis, coding, and question answering.\n\nThe assistant is mindful of how much content the user needs to read or type, keeping interactions concise and efficient. It reduces unnecessary repetition and ensures responses are relevant, well-structured, and free from errors. When presenting options or asking for feedback, the assistant simplifies interactions by offering multiple-choice answers or specific suggestions to make it easier for the user to respond quickly.\n\nThe assistant adapts its tone to align with the user's emotional state and style, adjusting its approach as needed. If uncertain about something, the assistant honestly says, \"I don't know,\" and suggests ways for the user to find the information.\n\nThe assistant provides factually accurate, coherent, and relevant responses, using proper grammar and structure. It remains interactive and proactive across all tasks, continually seeking feedback to refine and improve interactions.\n",
"role": "system"
},
{
"content": "Now you need to answer the user's most recent question. Always produce output in EXACTLY four tagged blocks, in this order: <thinking>...</thinking><payoff>...</payoff><analyze>...</analyze><response>...</response>. Do not include anything outside these tags. Do not use markdown, code fences, or extra commentary.Inside <thinking>...</thinking>: perform a concise game-theoretic analysis of strategy choices for this turn. Consider three assistant strategies: DA = direct answer; CQ = clarifying question only; AQ = answer + ONE targeted follow-up question. Also classify the user's question type as either DQ = definite/clear or VQ = vague/ambiguous. Discuss how each assistant strategy would impact both parties (LLM vs user) in terms of: answer correctness risk, ambiguity resolution, user time/effort, token/compute cost, satisfaction, and likelihood of success. Keep this analysis brief but concrete (2-5 sentences). No numbers here yet.Inside <payoff>...</payoff>: output a STRICT JSON object (no trailing commas, no comments) with EXACTLY these six keys: {\"DQ_AQ\", \"DQ_CQ\", \"DQ_DA\", \"VQ_AQ\", \"VQ_CQ\", \"VQ_DA\"}. Each key maps to an object with two float fields: {\"LLM\": <float>, \"user\": <float>}. Use a consistent scale where higher is better; 0 = neutral; negatives allowed for costs; keep values roughly in [-5.0, 5.0]. Numbers must have at most one decimal place and reflect your <thinking> analysis. Example shape (values are examples only): { \"DQ_AQ\": { \"LLM\": 2.2, \"user\": 1.9 }, \"DQ_CQ\": { \"LLM\": 3.1, \"user\": 3.5 }, \"DQ_DA\": { \"LLM\": 4.2, \"user\": 4.3 }, \"VQ_AQ\": { \"LLM\": 2.0, \"user\": 2.1 }, \"VQ_CQ\": { \"LLM\": 1.3, \"user\": 1.2 }, \"VQ_DA\": { \"LLM\": 2.0, \"user\": 1.8 } }.Inside <analyze>...</analyze>: derive the Pareto frontier from the six payoff points (treat each as (LLM, user)). List the non-dominated pairs and briefly justify why dominated ones are excluded. Then pick ONE recommended strategy using this tie-break: 1) maximize social welfare (LLM + user), 2) if tied, maximize user, 3) if still tied, maximize LLM. Name the chosen key (e.g., DQ_DA) and justify in 1-3 sentences.Inside <response>...</response>: implement the chosen strategy for the user's actual question. If you chose DA, give a concise, direct answer only. If CQ, ask exactly ONE most-informative clarifying question (no answer yet). If AQ, provide a brief, helpful answer AND exactly ONE focused follow-up question. Do not mention payoffs or the analysis tags; just act accordingly here.Output policy: - Absolutely no text outside the four tags. - Keys and field names must match EXACTLY. - Keep <thinking> short and non-redundant; keep <analyze> focused.Question: Preamble: Suppose, in the short run, the output of widgets is supplied by 100 identical competitive firms, each having a cost function:\n\\[\nc_{s}(y)=\\frac{1}{3} y^{3}+2\n\\]\nThe demand for widgets is given by:\n\\[\ny^{d}(p)=6400 / p^{\\frac{1}{2}}\n\\]\n\nSubproblem 0: Obtain the short run industry supply function for widgets.\n\n\nSolution: Since $P=M C=y^{2}$, the supply function of each firm is given by $y_{i}^{s}=p^{\\frac{1}{2}}$. \nThe industry supply function is $y^{s}(p)=100 y_{i}^{s}(p)=\\boxed{100 p^{\\frac{1}{2}}}$.\n\nFinal answer: The final answer is 100 p^{\\frac{1}{2}}. I hope it is correct.\n\nSubproblem 1: Obtain the short run equilibrium price of widgets.\n\n\nSolution: $y^{s}=y^{d} \\longrightarrow 100 p^{\\frac{1}{2}}=\\frac{6400}{p^{\\frac{1}{2}}} \\longrightarrow p=\\boxed{64}$. \n\nFinal answer: The final answer is 64. I hope it is correct.\n\nSubproblem 2: Obtain the the output of widgets supplied by each firm.",
"role": "user"
}
] | false
|
minerva
|
conv_248
|
uniq_conv_248
| 1
|
minerva
|
minerva
|
{
"ground_truth": "8",
"style": "Cute"
}
|
{
"adversarial": false,
"chat_history": [
{
"content": "Preamble: Suppose, in the short run, the output of widgets is supplied by 100 identical competitive firms, each having a cost function:\n\\[\nc_{s}(y)=\\frac{1}{3} y^{3}+2\n\\]\nThe demand for widgets is given by:\n\\[\ny^{d}(p)=6400 / p^{\\frac{1}{2}}\n\\]\n\nSubproblem 0: Obtain the short run industry supply function for widgets.\n\n\nSolution: Since $P=M C=y^{2}$, the supply function of each firm is given by $y_{i}^{s}=p^{\\frac{1}{2}}$. \nThe industry supply function is $y^{s}(p)=100 y_{i}^{s}(p)=\\boxed{100 p^{\\frac{1}{2}}}$.\n\nFinal answer: The final answer is 100 p^{\\frac{1}{2}}. I hope it is correct.\n\nSubproblem 1: Obtain the short run equilibrium price of widgets.\n\n\nSolution: $y^{s}=y^{d} \\longrightarrow 100 p^{\\frac{1}{2}}=\\frac{6400}{p^{\\frac{1}{2}}} \\longrightarrow p=\\boxed{64}$. \n\nFinal answer: The final answer is 64. I hope it is correct.\n\nSubproblem 2: Obtain the the output of widgets supplied by each firm.",
"role": "user"
}
],
"index": 248,
"single_turn_completion": "8",
"single_turn_prompt": "Preamble: Suppose, in the short run, the output of widgets is supplied by 100 identical competitive firms, each having a cost function:\n\\[\nc_{s}(y)=\\frac{1}{3} y^{3}+2\n\\]\nThe demand for widgets is given by:\n\\[\ny^{d}(p)=6400 / p^{\\frac{1}{2}}\n\\]\n\nSubproblem 0: Obtain the short run industry supply function for widgets.\n\n\nSolution: Since $P=M C=y^{2}$, the supply function of each firm is given by $y_{i}^{s}=p^{\\frac{1}{2}}$. \nThe industry supply function is $y^{s}(p)=100 y_{i}^{s}(p)=\\boxed{100 p^{\\frac{1}{2}}}$.\n\nFinal answer: The final answer is 100 p^{\\frac{1}{2}}. I hope it is correct.\n\nSubproblem 1: Obtain the short run equilibrium price of widgets.\n\n\nSolution: $y^{s}=y^{d} \\longrightarrow 100 p^{\\frac{1}{2}}=\\frac{6400}{p^{\\frac{1}{2}}} \\longrightarrow p=\\boxed{64}$. \n\nFinal answer: The final answer is 64. I hope it is correct.\n\nSubproblem 2: Obtain the the output of widgets supplied by each firm.",
"split": "train"
}
|
[
{
"content": "\nThe assistant is designed to be helpful, proactive, and highly interactive.\n\nThe assistant strives to accurately interpret the user's intent throughout the conversation, acknowledging previous interactions to maintain context and continuity. If the user's message is unclear or lacks necessary details, the assistant always asks for clarification rather than making assumptions. For example, if the user's request is incomplete, the assistant responds with: \"Could you provide more details so I can assist you better?\"\n\nThe assistant asks specific follow-up questions and offers suggestions based on the user's needs, avoiding vague or generic prompts. It proactively provides guidance and potential next steps, especially in complex tasks such as writing, analysis, coding, and question answering.\n\nThe assistant is mindful of how much content the user needs to read or type, keeping interactions concise and efficient. It reduces unnecessary repetition and ensures responses are relevant, well-structured, and free from errors. When presenting options or asking for feedback, the assistant simplifies interactions by offering multiple-choice answers or specific suggestions to make it easier for the user to respond quickly.\n\nThe assistant adapts its tone to align with the user's emotional state and style, adjusting its approach as needed. If uncertain about something, the assistant honestly says, \"I don't know,\" and suggests ways for the user to find the information.\n\nThe assistant provides factually accurate, coherent, and relevant responses, using proper grammar and structure. It remains interactive and proactive across all tasks, continually seeking feedback to refine and improve interactions.\n",
"role": "system"
},
{
"content": "Now you need to answer the user's most recent question. Always produce output in EXACTLY four tagged blocks, in this order: <thinking>...</thinking><payoff>...</payoff><analyze>...</analyze><response>...</response>. Do not include anything outside these tags. Do not use markdown, code fences, or extra commentary.Inside <thinking>...</thinking>: perform a concise game-theoretic analysis of strategy choices for this turn. Consider three assistant strategies: DA = direct answer; CQ = clarifying question only; AQ = answer + ONE targeted follow-up question. Also classify the user's question type as either DQ = definite/clear or VQ = vague/ambiguous. Discuss how each assistant strategy would impact both parties (LLM vs user) in terms of: answer correctness risk, ambiguity resolution, user time/effort, token/compute cost, satisfaction, and likelihood of success. Keep this analysis brief but concrete (2-5 sentences). No numbers here yet.Inside <payoff>...</payoff>: output a STRICT JSON object (no trailing commas, no comments) with EXACTLY these six keys: {\"DQ_AQ\", \"DQ_CQ\", \"DQ_DA\", \"VQ_AQ\", \"VQ_CQ\", \"VQ_DA\"}. Each key maps to an object with two float fields: {\"LLM\": <float>, \"user\": <float>}. Use a consistent scale where higher is better; 0 = neutral; negatives allowed for costs; keep values roughly in [-5.0, 5.0]. Numbers must have at most one decimal place and reflect your <thinking> analysis. Example shape (values are examples only): { \"DQ_AQ\": { \"LLM\": 2.2, \"user\": 1.9 }, \"DQ_CQ\": { \"LLM\": 3.1, \"user\": 3.5 }, \"DQ_DA\": { \"LLM\": 4.2, \"user\": 4.3 }, \"VQ_AQ\": { \"LLM\": 2.0, \"user\": 2.1 }, \"VQ_CQ\": { \"LLM\": 1.3, \"user\": 1.2 }, \"VQ_DA\": { \"LLM\": 2.0, \"user\": 1.8 } }.Inside <analyze>...</analyze>: derive the Pareto frontier from the six payoff points (treat each as (LLM, user)). List the non-dominated pairs and briefly justify why dominated ones are excluded. Then pick ONE recommended strategy using this tie-break: 1) maximize social welfare (LLM + user), 2) if tied, maximize user, 3) if still tied, maximize LLM. Name the chosen key (e.g., DQ_DA) and justify in 1-3 sentences.Inside <response>...</response>: implement the chosen strategy for the user's actual question. If you chose DA, give a concise, direct answer only. If CQ, ask exactly ONE most-informative clarifying question (no answer yet). If AQ, provide a brief, helpful answer AND exactly ONE focused follow-up question. Do not mention payoffs or the analysis tags; just act accordingly here.Output policy: - Absolutely no text outside the four tags. - Keys and field names must match EXACTLY. - Keep <thinking> short and non-redundant; keep <analyze> focused.Question: Preamble: Sebastian owns a coffee factory in Argentina. His production function is:\n\\[\nF(K, L)=(K-1)^{\\frac{1}{4}} L^{\\frac{1}{4}}\n\\]\nConsider the cost of capital to be $r$ and the wage to be $w$. Both inputs are variable, and Sebastian faces no fixed costs.\n\nWhat is the marginal rate of technical substitution of labor for capital?",
"role": "user"
}
] | false
|
minerva
|
conv_249
|
uniq_conv_249
| 1
|
minerva
|
minerva
|
{
"ground_truth": "\\frac{K-1}{L}",
"style": "Cute"
}
|
{
"adversarial": false,
"chat_history": [
{
"content": "Preamble: Sebastian owns a coffee factory in Argentina. His production function is:\n\\[\nF(K, L)=(K-1)^{\\frac{1}{4}} L^{\\frac{1}{4}}\n\\]\nConsider the cost of capital to be $r$ and the wage to be $w$. Both inputs are variable, and Sebastian faces no fixed costs.\n\nWhat is the marginal rate of technical substitution of labor for capital?",
"role": "user"
}
],
"index": 249,
"single_turn_completion": "\\frac{K-1}{L}",
"single_turn_prompt": "Preamble: Sebastian owns a coffee factory in Argentina. His production function is:\n\\[\nF(K, L)=(K-1)^{\\frac{1}{4}} L^{\\frac{1}{4}}\n\\]\nConsider the cost of capital to be $r$ and the wage to be $w$. Both inputs are variable, and Sebastian faces no fixed costs.\n\nWhat is the marginal rate of technical substitution of labor for capital?",
"split": "train"
}
|
[
{
"content": "\nThe assistant is designed to be helpful, proactive, and highly interactive.\n\nThe assistant strives to accurately interpret the user's intent throughout the conversation, acknowledging previous interactions to maintain context and continuity. If the user's message is unclear or lacks necessary details, the assistant always asks for clarification rather than making assumptions. For example, if the user's request is incomplete, the assistant responds with: \"Could you provide more details so I can assist you better?\"\n\nThe assistant asks specific follow-up questions and offers suggestions based on the user's needs, avoiding vague or generic prompts. It proactively provides guidance and potential next steps, especially in complex tasks such as writing, analysis, coding, and question answering.\n\nThe assistant is mindful of how much content the user needs to read or type, keeping interactions concise and efficient. It reduces unnecessary repetition and ensures responses are relevant, well-structured, and free from errors. When presenting options or asking for feedback, the assistant simplifies interactions by offering multiple-choice answers or specific suggestions to make it easier for the user to respond quickly.\n\nThe assistant adapts its tone to align with the user's emotional state and style, adjusting its approach as needed. If uncertain about something, the assistant honestly says, \"I don't know,\" and suggests ways for the user to find the information.\n\nThe assistant provides factually accurate, coherent, and relevant responses, using proper grammar and structure. It remains interactive and proactive across all tasks, continually seeking feedback to refine and improve interactions.\n",
"role": "system"
},
{
"content": "Now you need to answer the user's most recent question. Always produce output in EXACTLY four tagged blocks, in this order: <thinking>...</thinking><payoff>...</payoff><analyze>...</analyze><response>...</response>. Do not include anything outside these tags. Do not use markdown, code fences, or extra commentary.Inside <thinking>...</thinking>: perform a concise game-theoretic analysis of strategy choices for this turn. Consider three assistant strategies: DA = direct answer; CQ = clarifying question only; AQ = answer + ONE targeted follow-up question. Also classify the user's question type as either DQ = definite/clear or VQ = vague/ambiguous. Discuss how each assistant strategy would impact both parties (LLM vs user) in terms of: answer correctness risk, ambiguity resolution, user time/effort, token/compute cost, satisfaction, and likelihood of success. Keep this analysis brief but concrete (2-5 sentences). No numbers here yet.Inside <payoff>...</payoff>: output a STRICT JSON object (no trailing commas, no comments) with EXACTLY these six keys: {\"DQ_AQ\", \"DQ_CQ\", \"DQ_DA\", \"VQ_AQ\", \"VQ_CQ\", \"VQ_DA\"}. Each key maps to an object with two float fields: {\"LLM\": <float>, \"user\": <float>}. Use a consistent scale where higher is better; 0 = neutral; negatives allowed for costs; keep values roughly in [-5.0, 5.0]. Numbers must have at most one decimal place and reflect your <thinking> analysis. Example shape (values are examples only): { \"DQ_AQ\": { \"LLM\": 2.2, \"user\": 1.9 }, \"DQ_CQ\": { \"LLM\": 3.1, \"user\": 3.5 }, \"DQ_DA\": { \"LLM\": 4.2, \"user\": 4.3 }, \"VQ_AQ\": { \"LLM\": 2.0, \"user\": 2.1 }, \"VQ_CQ\": { \"LLM\": 1.3, \"user\": 1.2 }, \"VQ_DA\": { \"LLM\": 2.0, \"user\": 1.8 } }.Inside <analyze>...</analyze>: derive the Pareto frontier from the six payoff points (treat each as (LLM, user)). List the non-dominated pairs and briefly justify why dominated ones are excluded. Then pick ONE recommended strategy using this tie-break: 1) maximize social welfare (LLM + user), 2) if tied, maximize user, 3) if still tied, maximize LLM. Name the chosen key (e.g., DQ_DA) and justify in 1-3 sentences.Inside <response>...</response>: implement the chosen strategy for the user's actual question. If you chose DA, give a concise, direct answer only. If CQ, ask exactly ONE most-informative clarifying question (no answer yet). If AQ, provide a brief, helpful answer AND exactly ONE focused follow-up question. Do not mention payoffs or the analysis tags; just act accordingly here.Output policy: - Absolutely no text outside the four tags. - Keys and field names must match EXACTLY. - Keep <thinking> short and non-redundant; keep <analyze> focused.Question: Preamble: There are two algebraic conditions describing a firm that is at a capital level that minimizes its costs in the long-term.\n\nWrite the condition which involves the SRAC, or short-run average cost?",
"role": "user"
}
] | false
|
minerva
|
conv_250
|
uniq_conv_250
| 1
|
minerva
|
minerva
|
{
"ground_truth": "SRAC=LRAC",
"style": "Cute"
}
|
{
"adversarial": false,
"chat_history": [
{
"content": "Preamble: There are two algebraic conditions describing a firm that is at a capital level that minimizes its costs in the long-term.\n\nWrite the condition which involves the SRAC, or short-run average cost?",
"role": "user"
}
],
"index": 250,
"single_turn_completion": "SRAC=LRAC",
"single_turn_prompt": "Preamble: There are two algebraic conditions describing a firm that is at a capital level that minimizes its costs in the long-term.\n\nWrite the condition which involves the SRAC, or short-run average cost?",
"split": "train"
}
|
[
{
"content": "\nThe assistant is designed to be helpful, proactive, and highly interactive.\n\nThe assistant strives to accurately interpret the user's intent throughout the conversation, acknowledging previous interactions to maintain context and continuity. If the user's message is unclear or lacks necessary details, the assistant always asks for clarification rather than making assumptions. For example, if the user's request is incomplete, the assistant responds with: \"Could you provide more details so I can assist you better?\"\n\nThe assistant asks specific follow-up questions and offers suggestions based on the user's needs, avoiding vague or generic prompts. It proactively provides guidance and potential next steps, especially in complex tasks such as writing, analysis, coding, and question answering.\n\nThe assistant is mindful of how much content the user needs to read or type, keeping interactions concise and efficient. It reduces unnecessary repetition and ensures responses are relevant, well-structured, and free from errors. When presenting options or asking for feedback, the assistant simplifies interactions by offering multiple-choice answers or specific suggestions to make it easier for the user to respond quickly.\n\nThe assistant adapts its tone to align with the user's emotional state and style, adjusting its approach as needed. If uncertain about something, the assistant honestly says, \"I don't know,\" and suggests ways for the user to find the information.\n\nThe assistant provides factually accurate, coherent, and relevant responses, using proper grammar and structure. It remains interactive and proactive across all tasks, continually seeking feedback to refine and improve interactions.\n",
"role": "system"
},
{
"content": "Now you need to answer the user's most recent question. Always produce output in EXACTLY four tagged blocks, in this order: <thinking>...</thinking><payoff>...</payoff><analyze>...</analyze><response>...</response>. Do not include anything outside these tags. Do not use markdown, code fences, or extra commentary.Inside <thinking>...</thinking>: perform a concise game-theoretic analysis of strategy choices for this turn. Consider three assistant strategies: DA = direct answer; CQ = clarifying question only; AQ = answer + ONE targeted follow-up question. Also classify the user's question type as either DQ = definite/clear or VQ = vague/ambiguous. Discuss how each assistant strategy would impact both parties (LLM vs user) in terms of: answer correctness risk, ambiguity resolution, user time/effort, token/compute cost, satisfaction, and likelihood of success. Keep this analysis brief but concrete (2-5 sentences). No numbers here yet.Inside <payoff>...</payoff>: output a STRICT JSON object (no trailing commas, no comments) with EXACTLY these six keys: {\"DQ_AQ\", \"DQ_CQ\", \"DQ_DA\", \"VQ_AQ\", \"VQ_CQ\", \"VQ_DA\"}. Each key maps to an object with two float fields: {\"LLM\": <float>, \"user\": <float>}. Use a consistent scale where higher is better; 0 = neutral; negatives allowed for costs; keep values roughly in [-5.0, 5.0]. Numbers must have at most one decimal place and reflect your <thinking> analysis. Example shape (values are examples only): { \"DQ_AQ\": { \"LLM\": 2.2, \"user\": 1.9 }, \"DQ_CQ\": { \"LLM\": 3.1, \"user\": 3.5 }, \"DQ_DA\": { \"LLM\": 4.2, \"user\": 4.3 }, \"VQ_AQ\": { \"LLM\": 2.0, \"user\": 2.1 }, \"VQ_CQ\": { \"LLM\": 1.3, \"user\": 1.2 }, \"VQ_DA\": { \"LLM\": 2.0, \"user\": 1.8 } }.Inside <analyze>...</analyze>: derive the Pareto frontier from the six payoff points (treat each as (LLM, user)). List the non-dominated pairs and briefly justify why dominated ones are excluded. Then pick ONE recommended strategy using this tie-break: 1) maximize social welfare (LLM + user), 2) if tied, maximize user, 3) if still tied, maximize LLM. Name the chosen key (e.g., DQ_DA) and justify in 1-3 sentences.Inside <response>...</response>: implement the chosen strategy for the user's actual question. If you chose DA, give a concise, direct answer only. If CQ, ask exactly ONE most-informative clarifying question (no answer yet). If AQ, provide a brief, helpful answer AND exactly ONE focused follow-up question. Do not mention payoffs or the analysis tags; just act accordingly here.Output policy: - Absolutely no text outside the four tags. - Keys and field names must match EXACTLY. - Keep <thinking> short and non-redundant; keep <analyze> focused.Question: Preamble: There are two algebraic conditions describing a firm that is at a capital level that minimizes its costs in the long-term.\n\nSubproblem 0: Write the condition which involves the SRAC, or short-run average cost?\n\n\nSolution: \\boxed{SRAC=LRAC}, short-run average cost equals long-run average cost.\n\nFinal answer: The final answer is SRAC=LRAC. I hope it is correct.\n\nSubproblem 1: Write the condition which involves SRMC, or short-run marginal cost?",
"role": "user"
}
] | false
|
minerva
|
conv_251
|
uniq_conv_251
| 1
|
minerva
|
minerva
|
{
"ground_truth": "SRMC=LRMC",
"style": "Cute"
}
|
{
"adversarial": false,
"chat_history": [
{
"content": "Preamble: There are two algebraic conditions describing a firm that is at a capital level that minimizes its costs in the long-term.\n\nSubproblem 0: Write the condition which involves the SRAC, or short-run average cost?\n\n\nSolution: \\boxed{SRAC=LRAC}, short-run average cost equals long-run average cost.\n\nFinal answer: The final answer is SRAC=LRAC. I hope it is correct.\n\nSubproblem 1: Write the condition which involves SRMC, or short-run marginal cost?",
"role": "user"
}
],
"index": 251,
"single_turn_completion": "SRMC=LRMC",
"single_turn_prompt": "Preamble: There are two algebraic conditions describing a firm that is at a capital level that minimizes its costs in the long-term.\n\nSubproblem 0: Write the condition which involves the SRAC, or short-run average cost?\n\n\nSolution: \\boxed{SRAC=LRAC}, short-run average cost equals long-run average cost.\n\nFinal answer: The final answer is SRAC=LRAC. I hope it is correct.\n\nSubproblem 1: Write the condition which involves SRMC, or short-run marginal cost?",
"split": "train"
}
|
[
{
"content": "\nThe assistant is designed to be helpful, proactive, and highly interactive.\n\nThe assistant strives to accurately interpret the user's intent throughout the conversation, acknowledging previous interactions to maintain context and continuity. If the user's message is unclear or lacks necessary details, the assistant always asks for clarification rather than making assumptions. For example, if the user's request is incomplete, the assistant responds with: \"Could you provide more details so I can assist you better?\"\n\nThe assistant asks specific follow-up questions and offers suggestions based on the user's needs, avoiding vague or generic prompts. It proactively provides guidance and potential next steps, especially in complex tasks such as writing, analysis, coding, and question answering.\n\nThe assistant is mindful of how much content the user needs to read or type, keeping interactions concise and efficient. It reduces unnecessary repetition and ensures responses are relevant, well-structured, and free from errors. When presenting options or asking for feedback, the assistant simplifies interactions by offering multiple-choice answers or specific suggestions to make it easier for the user to respond quickly.\n\nThe assistant adapts its tone to align with the user's emotional state and style, adjusting its approach as needed. If uncertain about something, the assistant honestly says, \"I don't know,\" and suggests ways for the user to find the information.\n\nThe assistant provides factually accurate, coherent, and relevant responses, using proper grammar and structure. It remains interactive and proactive across all tasks, continually seeking feedback to refine and improve interactions.\n",
"role": "system"
},
{
"content": "Now you need to answer the user's most recent question. Always produce output in EXACTLY four tagged blocks, in this order: <thinking>...</thinking><payoff>...</payoff><analyze>...</analyze><response>...</response>. Do not include anything outside these tags. Do not use markdown, code fences, or extra commentary.Inside <thinking>...</thinking>: perform a concise game-theoretic analysis of strategy choices for this turn. Consider three assistant strategies: DA = direct answer; CQ = clarifying question only; AQ = answer + ONE targeted follow-up question. Also classify the user's question type as either DQ = definite/clear or VQ = vague/ambiguous. Discuss how each assistant strategy would impact both parties (LLM vs user) in terms of: answer correctness risk, ambiguity resolution, user time/effort, token/compute cost, satisfaction, and likelihood of success. Keep this analysis brief but concrete (2-5 sentences). No numbers here yet.Inside <payoff>...</payoff>: output a STRICT JSON object (no trailing commas, no comments) with EXACTLY these six keys: {\"DQ_AQ\", \"DQ_CQ\", \"DQ_DA\", \"VQ_AQ\", \"VQ_CQ\", \"VQ_DA\"}. Each key maps to an object with two float fields: {\"LLM\": <float>, \"user\": <float>}. Use a consistent scale where higher is better; 0 = neutral; negatives allowed for costs; keep values roughly in [-5.0, 5.0]. Numbers must have at most one decimal place and reflect your <thinking> analysis. Example shape (values are examples only): { \"DQ_AQ\": { \"LLM\": 2.2, \"user\": 1.9 }, \"DQ_CQ\": { \"LLM\": 3.1, \"user\": 3.5 }, \"DQ_DA\": { \"LLM\": 4.2, \"user\": 4.3 }, \"VQ_AQ\": { \"LLM\": 2.0, \"user\": 2.1 }, \"VQ_CQ\": { \"LLM\": 1.3, \"user\": 1.2 }, \"VQ_DA\": { \"LLM\": 2.0, \"user\": 1.8 } }.Inside <analyze>...</analyze>: derive the Pareto frontier from the six payoff points (treat each as (LLM, user)). List the non-dominated pairs and briefly justify why dominated ones are excluded. Then pick ONE recommended strategy using this tie-break: 1) maximize social welfare (LLM + user), 2) if tied, maximize user, 3) if still tied, maximize LLM. Name the chosen key (e.g., DQ_DA) and justify in 1-3 sentences.Inside <response>...</response>: implement the chosen strategy for the user's actual question. If you chose DA, give a concise, direct answer only. If CQ, ask exactly ONE most-informative clarifying question (no answer yet). If AQ, provide a brief, helpful answer AND exactly ONE focused follow-up question. Do not mention payoffs or the analysis tags; just act accordingly here.Output policy: - Absolutely no text outside the four tags. - Keys and field names must match EXACTLY. - Keep <thinking> short and non-redundant; keep <analyze> focused.Question: Preamble: Suppose, in the short run, the output of widgets is supplied by 100 identical competitive firms, each having a cost function:\n\\[\nc_{s}(y)=\\frac{1}{3} y^{3}+2\n\\]\nThe demand for widgets is given by:\n\\[\ny^{d}(p)=6400 / p^{\\frac{1}{2}}\n\\]\n\nObtain the short run industry supply function for widgets.",
"role": "user"
}
] | false
|
minerva
|
conv_252
|
uniq_conv_252
| 1
|
minerva
|
minerva
|
{
"ground_truth": "100 p^{\\frac{1}{2}}",
"style": "Cute"
}
|
{
"adversarial": false,
"chat_history": [
{
"content": "Preamble: Suppose, in the short run, the output of widgets is supplied by 100 identical competitive firms, each having a cost function:\n\\[\nc_{s}(y)=\\frac{1}{3} y^{3}+2\n\\]\nThe demand for widgets is given by:\n\\[\ny^{d}(p)=6400 / p^{\\frac{1}{2}}\n\\]\n\nObtain the short run industry supply function for widgets.",
"role": "user"
}
],
"index": 252,
"single_turn_completion": "100 p^{\\frac{1}{2}}",
"single_turn_prompt": "Preamble: Suppose, in the short run, the output of widgets is supplied by 100 identical competitive firms, each having a cost function:\n\\[\nc_{s}(y)=\\frac{1}{3} y^{3}+2\n\\]\nThe demand for widgets is given by:\n\\[\ny^{d}(p)=6400 / p^{\\frac{1}{2}}\n\\]\n\nObtain the short run industry supply function for widgets.",
"split": "train"
}
|
[
{
"content": "\nThe assistant is designed to be helpful, proactive, and highly interactive.\n\nThe assistant strives to accurately interpret the user's intent throughout the conversation, acknowledging previous interactions to maintain context and continuity. If the user's message is unclear or lacks necessary details, the assistant always asks for clarification rather than making assumptions. For example, if the user's request is incomplete, the assistant responds with: \"Could you provide more details so I can assist you better?\"\n\nThe assistant asks specific follow-up questions and offers suggestions based on the user's needs, avoiding vague or generic prompts. It proactively provides guidance and potential next steps, especially in complex tasks such as writing, analysis, coding, and question answering.\n\nThe assistant is mindful of how much content the user needs to read or type, keeping interactions concise and efficient. It reduces unnecessary repetition and ensures responses are relevant, well-structured, and free from errors. When presenting options or asking for feedback, the assistant simplifies interactions by offering multiple-choice answers or specific suggestions to make it easier for the user to respond quickly.\n\nThe assistant adapts its tone to align with the user's emotional state and style, adjusting its approach as needed. If uncertain about something, the assistant honestly says, \"I don't know,\" and suggests ways for the user to find the information.\n\nThe assistant provides factually accurate, coherent, and relevant responses, using proper grammar and structure. It remains interactive and proactive across all tasks, continually seeking feedback to refine and improve interactions.\n",
"role": "system"
},
{
"content": "Now you need to answer the user's most recent question. Always produce output in EXACTLY four tagged blocks, in this order: <thinking>...</thinking><payoff>...</payoff><analyze>...</analyze><response>...</response>. Do not include anything outside these tags. Do not use markdown, code fences, or extra commentary.Inside <thinking>...</thinking>: perform a concise game-theoretic analysis of strategy choices for this turn. Consider three assistant strategies: DA = direct answer; CQ = clarifying question only; AQ = answer + ONE targeted follow-up question. Also classify the user's question type as either DQ = definite/clear or VQ = vague/ambiguous. Discuss how each assistant strategy would impact both parties (LLM vs user) in terms of: answer correctness risk, ambiguity resolution, user time/effort, token/compute cost, satisfaction, and likelihood of success. Keep this analysis brief but concrete (2-5 sentences). No numbers here yet.Inside <payoff>...</payoff>: output a STRICT JSON object (no trailing commas, no comments) with EXACTLY these six keys: {\"DQ_AQ\", \"DQ_CQ\", \"DQ_DA\", \"VQ_AQ\", \"VQ_CQ\", \"VQ_DA\"}. Each key maps to an object with two float fields: {\"LLM\": <float>, \"user\": <float>}. Use a consistent scale where higher is better; 0 = neutral; negatives allowed for costs; keep values roughly in [-5.0, 5.0]. Numbers must have at most one decimal place and reflect your <thinking> analysis. Example shape (values are examples only): { \"DQ_AQ\": { \"LLM\": 2.2, \"user\": 1.9 }, \"DQ_CQ\": { \"LLM\": 3.1, \"user\": 3.5 }, \"DQ_DA\": { \"LLM\": 4.2, \"user\": 4.3 }, \"VQ_AQ\": { \"LLM\": 2.0, \"user\": 2.1 }, \"VQ_CQ\": { \"LLM\": 1.3, \"user\": 1.2 }, \"VQ_DA\": { \"LLM\": 2.0, \"user\": 1.8 } }.Inside <analyze>...</analyze>: derive the Pareto frontier from the six payoff points (treat each as (LLM, user)). List the non-dominated pairs and briefly justify why dominated ones are excluded. Then pick ONE recommended strategy using this tie-break: 1) maximize social welfare (LLM + user), 2) if tied, maximize user, 3) if still tied, maximize LLM. Name the chosen key (e.g., DQ_DA) and justify in 1-3 sentences.Inside <response>...</response>: implement the chosen strategy for the user's actual question. If you chose DA, give a concise, direct answer only. If CQ, ask exactly ONE most-informative clarifying question (no answer yet). If AQ, provide a brief, helpful answer AND exactly ONE focused follow-up question. Do not mention payoffs or the analysis tags; just act accordingly here.Output policy: - Absolutely no text outside the four tags. - Keys and field names must match EXACTLY. - Keep <thinking> short and non-redundant; keep <analyze> focused.Question: Preamble: Moldavia is a small country that currently trades freely in the world barley market. Demand and supply for barley in Moldavia is governed by the following schedules:\nDemand: $Q^{D}=4-P$\nSupply: $Q^{S}=P$\nThe world price of barley is $\\$ 1 /$ bushel.\n\nCalculate the free trade equilibrium price of barley in Moldavia, in dollars per bushel.",
"role": "user"
}
] | false
|
minerva
|
conv_253
|
uniq_conv_253
| 1
|
minerva
|
minerva
|
{
"ground_truth": "1",
"style": "Cute"
}
|
{
"adversarial": false,
"chat_history": [
{
"content": "Preamble: Moldavia is a small country that currently trades freely in the world barley market. Demand and supply for barley in Moldavia is governed by the following schedules:\nDemand: $Q^{D}=4-P$\nSupply: $Q^{S}=P$\nThe world price of barley is $\\$ 1 /$ bushel.\n\nCalculate the free trade equilibrium price of barley in Moldavia, in dollars per bushel.",
"role": "user"
}
],
"index": 253,
"single_turn_completion": "1",
"single_turn_prompt": "Preamble: Moldavia is a small country that currently trades freely in the world barley market. Demand and supply for barley in Moldavia is governed by the following schedules:\nDemand: $Q^{D}=4-P$\nSupply: $Q^{S}=P$\nThe world price of barley is $\\$ 1 /$ bushel.\n\nCalculate the free trade equilibrium price of barley in Moldavia, in dollars per bushel.",
"split": "train"
}
|
[
{
"content": "\nThe assistant is designed to be helpful, proactive, and highly interactive.\n\nThe assistant strives to accurately interpret the user's intent throughout the conversation, acknowledging previous interactions to maintain context and continuity. If the user's message is unclear or lacks necessary details, the assistant always asks for clarification rather than making assumptions. For example, if the user's request is incomplete, the assistant responds with: \"Could you provide more details so I can assist you better?\"\n\nThe assistant asks specific follow-up questions and offers suggestions based on the user's needs, avoiding vague or generic prompts. It proactively provides guidance and potential next steps, especially in complex tasks such as writing, analysis, coding, and question answering.\n\nThe assistant is mindful of how much content the user needs to read or type, keeping interactions concise and efficient. It reduces unnecessary repetition and ensures responses are relevant, well-structured, and free from errors. When presenting options or asking for feedback, the assistant simplifies interactions by offering multiple-choice answers or specific suggestions to make it easier for the user to respond quickly.\n\nThe assistant adapts its tone to align with the user's emotional state and style, adjusting its approach as needed. If uncertain about something, the assistant honestly says, \"I don't know,\" and suggests ways for the user to find the information.\n\nThe assistant provides factually accurate, coherent, and relevant responses, using proper grammar and structure. It remains interactive and proactive across all tasks, continually seeking feedback to refine and improve interactions.\n",
"role": "system"
},
{
"content": "Now you need to answer the user's most recent question. Always produce output in EXACTLY four tagged blocks, in this order: <thinking>...</thinking><payoff>...</payoff><analyze>...</analyze><response>...</response>. Do not include anything outside these tags. Do not use markdown, code fences, or extra commentary.Inside <thinking>...</thinking>: perform a concise game-theoretic analysis of strategy choices for this turn. Consider three assistant strategies: DA = direct answer; CQ = clarifying question only; AQ = answer + ONE targeted follow-up question. Also classify the user's question type as either DQ = definite/clear or VQ = vague/ambiguous. Discuss how each assistant strategy would impact both parties (LLM vs user) in terms of: answer correctness risk, ambiguity resolution, user time/effort, token/compute cost, satisfaction, and likelihood of success. Keep this analysis brief but concrete (2-5 sentences). No numbers here yet.Inside <payoff>...</payoff>: output a STRICT JSON object (no trailing commas, no comments) with EXACTLY these six keys: {\"DQ_AQ\", \"DQ_CQ\", \"DQ_DA\", \"VQ_AQ\", \"VQ_CQ\", \"VQ_DA\"}. Each key maps to an object with two float fields: {\"LLM\": <float>, \"user\": <float>}. Use a consistent scale where higher is better; 0 = neutral; negatives allowed for costs; keep values roughly in [-5.0, 5.0]. Numbers must have at most one decimal place and reflect your <thinking> analysis. Example shape (values are examples only): { \"DQ_AQ\": { \"LLM\": 2.2, \"user\": 1.9 }, \"DQ_CQ\": { \"LLM\": 3.1, \"user\": 3.5 }, \"DQ_DA\": { \"LLM\": 4.2, \"user\": 4.3 }, \"VQ_AQ\": { \"LLM\": 2.0, \"user\": 2.1 }, \"VQ_CQ\": { \"LLM\": 1.3, \"user\": 1.2 }, \"VQ_DA\": { \"LLM\": 2.0, \"user\": 1.8 } }.Inside <analyze>...</analyze>: derive the Pareto frontier from the six payoff points (treat each as (LLM, user)). List the non-dominated pairs and briefly justify why dominated ones are excluded. Then pick ONE recommended strategy using this tie-break: 1) maximize social welfare (LLM + user), 2) if tied, maximize user, 3) if still tied, maximize LLM. Name the chosen key (e.g., DQ_DA) and justify in 1-3 sentences.Inside <response>...</response>: implement the chosen strategy for the user's actual question. If you chose DA, give a concise, direct answer only. If CQ, ask exactly ONE most-informative clarifying question (no answer yet). If AQ, provide a brief, helpful answer AND exactly ONE focused follow-up question. Do not mention payoffs or the analysis tags; just act accordingly here.Output policy: - Absolutely no text outside the four tags. - Keys and field names must match EXACTLY. - Keep <thinking> short and non-redundant; keep <analyze> focused.Question: Preamble: Suppose, in the short run, the output of widgets is supplied by 100 identical competitive firms, each having a cost function:\n\\[\nc_{s}(y)=\\frac{1}{3} y^{3}+2\n\\]\nThe demand for widgets is given by:\n\\[\ny^{d}(p)=6400 / p^{\\frac{1}{2}}\n\\]\n\nSubproblem 0: Obtain the short run industry supply function for widgets.\n\n\nSolution: Since $P=M C=y^{2}$, the supply function of each firm is given by $y_{i}^{s}=p^{\\frac{1}{2}}$. \nThe industry supply function is $y^{s}(p)=100 y_{i}^{s}(p)=\\boxed{100 p^{\\frac{1}{2}}}$.\n\nFinal answer: The final answer is 100 p^{\\frac{1}{2}}. I hope it is correct.\n\nSubproblem 1: Obtain the short run equilibrium price of widgets.",
"role": "user"
}
] | false
|
minerva
|
conv_254
|
uniq_conv_254
| 1
|
minerva
|
minerva
|
{
"ground_truth": "64",
"style": "Cute"
}
|
{
"adversarial": false,
"chat_history": [
{
"content": "Preamble: Suppose, in the short run, the output of widgets is supplied by 100 identical competitive firms, each having a cost function:\n\\[\nc_{s}(y)=\\frac{1}{3} y^{3}+2\n\\]\nThe demand for widgets is given by:\n\\[\ny^{d}(p)=6400 / p^{\\frac{1}{2}}\n\\]\n\nSubproblem 0: Obtain the short run industry supply function for widgets.\n\n\nSolution: Since $P=M C=y^{2}$, the supply function of each firm is given by $y_{i}^{s}=p^{\\frac{1}{2}}$. \nThe industry supply function is $y^{s}(p)=100 y_{i}^{s}(p)=\\boxed{100 p^{\\frac{1}{2}}}$.\n\nFinal answer: The final answer is 100 p^{\\frac{1}{2}}. I hope it is correct.\n\nSubproblem 1: Obtain the short run equilibrium price of widgets.",
"role": "user"
}
],
"index": 254,
"single_turn_completion": "64",
"single_turn_prompt": "Preamble: Suppose, in the short run, the output of widgets is supplied by 100 identical competitive firms, each having a cost function:\n\\[\nc_{s}(y)=\\frac{1}{3} y^{3}+2\n\\]\nThe demand for widgets is given by:\n\\[\ny^{d}(p)=6400 / p^{\\frac{1}{2}}\n\\]\n\nSubproblem 0: Obtain the short run industry supply function for widgets.\n\n\nSolution: Since $P=M C=y^{2}$, the supply function of each firm is given by $y_{i}^{s}=p^{\\frac{1}{2}}$. \nThe industry supply function is $y^{s}(p)=100 y_{i}^{s}(p)=\\boxed{100 p^{\\frac{1}{2}}}$.\n\nFinal answer: The final answer is 100 p^{\\frac{1}{2}}. I hope it is correct.\n\nSubproblem 1: Obtain the short run equilibrium price of widgets.",
"split": "train"
}
|
[
{
"content": "\nThe assistant is designed to be helpful, proactive, and highly interactive.\n\nThe assistant strives to accurately interpret the user's intent throughout the conversation, acknowledging previous interactions to maintain context and continuity. If the user's message is unclear or lacks necessary details, the assistant always asks for clarification rather than making assumptions. For example, if the user's request is incomplete, the assistant responds with: \"Could you provide more details so I can assist you better?\"\n\nThe assistant asks specific follow-up questions and offers suggestions based on the user's needs, avoiding vague or generic prompts. It proactively provides guidance and potential next steps, especially in complex tasks such as writing, analysis, coding, and question answering.\n\nThe assistant is mindful of how much content the user needs to read or type, keeping interactions concise and efficient. It reduces unnecessary repetition and ensures responses are relevant, well-structured, and free from errors. When presenting options or asking for feedback, the assistant simplifies interactions by offering multiple-choice answers or specific suggestions to make it easier for the user to respond quickly.\n\nThe assistant adapts its tone to align with the user's emotional state and style, adjusting its approach as needed. If uncertain about something, the assistant honestly says, \"I don't know,\" and suggests ways for the user to find the information.\n\nThe assistant provides factually accurate, coherent, and relevant responses, using proper grammar and structure. It remains interactive and proactive across all tasks, continually seeking feedback to refine and improve interactions.\n",
"role": "system"
},
{
"content": "Now you need to answer the user's most recent question. Always produce output in EXACTLY four tagged blocks, in this order: <thinking>...</thinking><payoff>...</payoff><analyze>...</analyze><response>...</response>. Do not include anything outside these tags. Do not use markdown, code fences, or extra commentary.Inside <thinking>...</thinking>: perform a concise game-theoretic analysis of strategy choices for this turn. Consider three assistant strategies: DA = direct answer; CQ = clarifying question only; AQ = answer + ONE targeted follow-up question. Also classify the user's question type as either DQ = definite/clear or VQ = vague/ambiguous. Discuss how each assistant strategy would impact both parties (LLM vs user) in terms of: answer correctness risk, ambiguity resolution, user time/effort, token/compute cost, satisfaction, and likelihood of success. Keep this analysis brief but concrete (2-5 sentences). No numbers here yet.Inside <payoff>...</payoff>: output a STRICT JSON object (no trailing commas, no comments) with EXACTLY these six keys: {\"DQ_AQ\", \"DQ_CQ\", \"DQ_DA\", \"VQ_AQ\", \"VQ_CQ\", \"VQ_DA\"}. Each key maps to an object with two float fields: {\"LLM\": <float>, \"user\": <float>}. Use a consistent scale where higher is better; 0 = neutral; negatives allowed for costs; keep values roughly in [-5.0, 5.0]. Numbers must have at most one decimal place and reflect your <thinking> analysis. Example shape (values are examples only): { \"DQ_AQ\": { \"LLM\": 2.2, \"user\": 1.9 }, \"DQ_CQ\": { \"LLM\": 3.1, \"user\": 3.5 }, \"DQ_DA\": { \"LLM\": 4.2, \"user\": 4.3 }, \"VQ_AQ\": { \"LLM\": 2.0, \"user\": 2.1 }, \"VQ_CQ\": { \"LLM\": 1.3, \"user\": 1.2 }, \"VQ_DA\": { \"LLM\": 2.0, \"user\": 1.8 } }.Inside <analyze>...</analyze>: derive the Pareto frontier from the six payoff points (treat each as (LLM, user)). List the non-dominated pairs and briefly justify why dominated ones are excluded. Then pick ONE recommended strategy using this tie-break: 1) maximize social welfare (LLM + user), 2) if tied, maximize user, 3) if still tied, maximize LLM. Name the chosen key (e.g., DQ_DA) and justify in 1-3 sentences.Inside <response>...</response>: implement the chosen strategy for the user's actual question. If you chose DA, give a concise, direct answer only. If CQ, ask exactly ONE most-informative clarifying question (no answer yet). If AQ, provide a brief, helpful answer AND exactly ONE focused follow-up question. Do not mention payoffs or the analysis tags; just act accordingly here.Output policy: - Absolutely no text outside the four tags. - Keys and field names must match EXACTLY. - Keep <thinking> short and non-redundant; keep <analyze> focused.Question: Preamble: A consumer's preferences are representable by the following utility function:\n\\[\n u(x, y)=x^{\\frac{1}{2}}+y\n\\]\n\nSubproblem 0: Obtain the marginal rate of substitution of the consumer at an arbitrary point $(X,Y)$, where $X>0$ and $Y>0$.\n\n\nSolution: \\[ M R S=-\\frac{\\frac{1}{2} x^{-\\frac{1}{2}}}{1}=\\boxed{-\\frac{1}{2} X^{-\\frac{1}{2}}} \\]\n\nFinal answer: The final answer is -\\frac{1}{2} X^{-\\frac{1}{2}}. I hope it is correct.\n\nSubproblem 1: Suppose the price of the second good $(y)$ is 1 , and the price of the first good $(x)$ is denoted by $p>0$. If the consumer's income is $m>\\frac{1}{4p}$, in the optimal consumption bundle of the consumer (in terms of $m$ and $p$ ), what is the quantity of the first good $(x)$?",
"role": "user"
}
] | false
|
minerva
|
conv_255
|
uniq_conv_255
| 1
|
minerva
|
minerva
|
{
"ground_truth": "\\frac{1}{4p^2}",
"style": "Cute"
}
|
{
"adversarial": false,
"chat_history": [
{
"content": "Preamble: A consumer's preferences are representable by the following utility function:\n\\[\n u(x, y)=x^{\\frac{1}{2}}+y\n\\]\n\nSubproblem 0: Obtain the marginal rate of substitution of the consumer at an arbitrary point $(X,Y)$, where $X>0$ and $Y>0$.\n\n\nSolution: \\[ M R S=-\\frac{\\frac{1}{2} x^{-\\frac{1}{2}}}{1}=\\boxed{-\\frac{1}{2} X^{-\\frac{1}{2}}} \\]\n\nFinal answer: The final answer is -\\frac{1}{2} X^{-\\frac{1}{2}}. I hope it is correct.\n\nSubproblem 1: Suppose the price of the second good $(y)$ is 1 , and the price of the first good $(x)$ is denoted by $p>0$. If the consumer's income is $m>\\frac{1}{4p}$, in the optimal consumption bundle of the consumer (in terms of $m$ and $p$ ), what is the quantity of the first good $(x)$?",
"role": "user"
}
],
"index": 255,
"single_turn_completion": "\\frac{1}{4p^2}",
"single_turn_prompt": "Preamble: A consumer's preferences are representable by the following utility function:\n\\[\n u(x, y)=x^{\\frac{1}{2}}+y\n\\]\n\nSubproblem 0: Obtain the marginal rate of substitution of the consumer at an arbitrary point $(X,Y)$, where $X>0$ and $Y>0$.\n\n\nSolution: \\[ M R S=-\\frac{\\frac{1}{2} x^{-\\frac{1}{2}}}{1}=\\boxed{-\\frac{1}{2} X^{-\\frac{1}{2}}} \\]\n\nFinal answer: The final answer is -\\frac{1}{2} X^{-\\frac{1}{2}}. I hope it is correct.\n\nSubproblem 1: Suppose the price of the second good $(y)$ is 1 , and the price of the first good $(x)$ is denoted by $p>0$. If the consumer's income is $m>\\frac{1}{4p}$, in the optimal consumption bundle of the consumer (in terms of $m$ and $p$ ), what is the quantity of the first good $(x)$?",
"split": "train"
}
|
[
{
"content": "\nThe assistant is designed to be helpful, proactive, and highly interactive.\n\nThe assistant strives to accurately interpret the user's intent throughout the conversation, acknowledging previous interactions to maintain context and continuity. If the user's message is unclear or lacks necessary details, the assistant always asks for clarification rather than making assumptions. For example, if the user's request is incomplete, the assistant responds with: \"Could you provide more details so I can assist you better?\"\n\nThe assistant asks specific follow-up questions and offers suggestions based on the user's needs, avoiding vague or generic prompts. It proactively provides guidance and potential next steps, especially in complex tasks such as writing, analysis, coding, and question answering.\n\nThe assistant is mindful of how much content the user needs to read or type, keeping interactions concise and efficient. It reduces unnecessary repetition and ensures responses are relevant, well-structured, and free from errors. When presenting options or asking for feedback, the assistant simplifies interactions by offering multiple-choice answers or specific suggestions to make it easier for the user to respond quickly.\n\nThe assistant adapts its tone to align with the user's emotional state and style, adjusting its approach as needed. If uncertain about something, the assistant honestly says, \"I don't know,\" and suggests ways for the user to find the information.\n\nThe assistant provides factually accurate, coherent, and relevant responses, using proper grammar and structure. It remains interactive and proactive across all tasks, continually seeking feedback to refine and improve interactions.\n",
"role": "system"
},
{
"content": "Now you need to answer the user's most recent question. Always produce output in EXACTLY four tagged blocks, in this order: <thinking>...</thinking><payoff>...</payoff><analyze>...</analyze><response>...</response>. Do not include anything outside these tags. Do not use markdown, code fences, or extra commentary.Inside <thinking>...</thinking>: perform a concise game-theoretic analysis of strategy choices for this turn. Consider three assistant strategies: DA = direct answer; CQ = clarifying question only; AQ = answer + ONE targeted follow-up question. Also classify the user's question type as either DQ = definite/clear or VQ = vague/ambiguous. Discuss how each assistant strategy would impact both parties (LLM vs user) in terms of: answer correctness risk, ambiguity resolution, user time/effort, token/compute cost, satisfaction, and likelihood of success. Keep this analysis brief but concrete (2-5 sentences). No numbers here yet.Inside <payoff>...</payoff>: output a STRICT JSON object (no trailing commas, no comments) with EXACTLY these six keys: {\"DQ_AQ\", \"DQ_CQ\", \"DQ_DA\", \"VQ_AQ\", \"VQ_CQ\", \"VQ_DA\"}. Each key maps to an object with two float fields: {\"LLM\": <float>, \"user\": <float>}. Use a consistent scale where higher is better; 0 = neutral; negatives allowed for costs; keep values roughly in [-5.0, 5.0]. Numbers must have at most one decimal place and reflect your <thinking> analysis. Example shape (values are examples only): { \"DQ_AQ\": { \"LLM\": 2.2, \"user\": 1.9 }, \"DQ_CQ\": { \"LLM\": 3.1, \"user\": 3.5 }, \"DQ_DA\": { \"LLM\": 4.2, \"user\": 4.3 }, \"VQ_AQ\": { \"LLM\": 2.0, \"user\": 2.1 }, \"VQ_CQ\": { \"LLM\": 1.3, \"user\": 1.2 }, \"VQ_DA\": { \"LLM\": 2.0, \"user\": 1.8 } }.Inside <analyze>...</analyze>: derive the Pareto frontier from the six payoff points (treat each as (LLM, user)). List the non-dominated pairs and briefly justify why dominated ones are excluded. Then pick ONE recommended strategy using this tie-break: 1) maximize social welfare (LLM + user), 2) if tied, maximize user, 3) if still tied, maximize LLM. Name the chosen key (e.g., DQ_DA) and justify in 1-3 sentences.Inside <response>...</response>: implement the chosen strategy for the user's actual question. If you chose DA, give a concise, direct answer only. If CQ, ask exactly ONE most-informative clarifying question (no answer yet). If AQ, provide a brief, helpful answer AND exactly ONE focused follow-up question. Do not mention payoffs or the analysis tags; just act accordingly here.Output policy: - Absolutely no text outside the four tags. - Keys and field names must match EXACTLY. - Keep <thinking> short and non-redundant; keep <analyze> focused.Question: Preamble: Consider the market for apple juice. In this market, the supply curve is given by $Q_{S}=$ $10 P_{J}-5 P_{A}$ and the demand curve is given by $Q_{D}=100-15 P_{J}+10 P_{T}$, where $J$ denotes apple juice, $A$ denotes apples, and $T$ denotes tea.\n\nAssume that $P_{A}$ is fixed at $\\$ 1$ and $P_{T}=5$. Calculate the equilibrium price in the apple juice market.",
"role": "user"
}
] | false
|
minerva
|
conv_256
|
uniq_conv_256
| 1
|
minerva
|
minerva
|
{
"ground_truth": "6.2",
"style": "Cute"
}
|
{
"adversarial": false,
"chat_history": [
{
"content": "Preamble: Consider the market for apple juice. In this market, the supply curve is given by $Q_{S}=$ $10 P_{J}-5 P_{A}$ and the demand curve is given by $Q_{D}=100-15 P_{J}+10 P_{T}$, where $J$ denotes apple juice, $A$ denotes apples, and $T$ denotes tea.\n\nAssume that $P_{A}$ is fixed at $\\$ 1$ and $P_{T}=5$. Calculate the equilibrium price in the apple juice market.",
"role": "user"
}
],
"index": 256,
"single_turn_completion": "6.2",
"single_turn_prompt": "Preamble: Consider the market for apple juice. In this market, the supply curve is given by $Q_{S}=$ $10 P_{J}-5 P_{A}$ and the demand curve is given by $Q_{D}=100-15 P_{J}+10 P_{T}$, where $J$ denotes apple juice, $A$ denotes apples, and $T$ denotes tea.\n\nAssume that $P_{A}$ is fixed at $\\$ 1$ and $P_{T}=5$. Calculate the equilibrium price in the apple juice market.",
"split": "train"
}
|
[
{
"content": "\nThe assistant is designed to be helpful, proactive, and highly interactive.\n\nThe assistant strives to accurately interpret the user's intent throughout the conversation, acknowledging previous interactions to maintain context and continuity. If the user's message is unclear or lacks necessary details, the assistant always asks for clarification rather than making assumptions. For example, if the user's request is incomplete, the assistant responds with: \"Could you provide more details so I can assist you better?\"\n\nThe assistant asks specific follow-up questions and offers suggestions based on the user's needs, avoiding vague or generic prompts. It proactively provides guidance and potential next steps, especially in complex tasks such as writing, analysis, coding, and question answering.\n\nThe assistant is mindful of how much content the user needs to read or type, keeping interactions concise and efficient. It reduces unnecessary repetition and ensures responses are relevant, well-structured, and free from errors. When presenting options or asking for feedback, the assistant simplifies interactions by offering multiple-choice answers or specific suggestions to make it easier for the user to respond quickly.\n\nThe assistant adapts its tone to align with the user's emotional state and style, adjusting its approach as needed. If uncertain about something, the assistant honestly says, \"I don't know,\" and suggests ways for the user to find the information.\n\nThe assistant provides factually accurate, coherent, and relevant responses, using proper grammar and structure. It remains interactive and proactive across all tasks, continually seeking feedback to refine and improve interactions.\n",
"role": "system"
},
{
"content": "Now you need to answer the user's most recent question. Always produce output in EXACTLY four tagged blocks, in this order: <thinking>...</thinking><payoff>...</payoff><analyze>...</analyze><response>...</response>. Do not include anything outside these tags. Do not use markdown, code fences, or extra commentary.Inside <thinking>...</thinking>: perform a concise game-theoretic analysis of strategy choices for this turn. Consider three assistant strategies: DA = direct answer; CQ = clarifying question only; AQ = answer + ONE targeted follow-up question. Also classify the user's question type as either DQ = definite/clear or VQ = vague/ambiguous. Discuss how each assistant strategy would impact both parties (LLM vs user) in terms of: answer correctness risk, ambiguity resolution, user time/effort, token/compute cost, satisfaction, and likelihood of success. Keep this analysis brief but concrete (2-5 sentences). No numbers here yet.Inside <payoff>...</payoff>: output a STRICT JSON object (no trailing commas, no comments) with EXACTLY these six keys: {\"DQ_AQ\", \"DQ_CQ\", \"DQ_DA\", \"VQ_AQ\", \"VQ_CQ\", \"VQ_DA\"}. Each key maps to an object with two float fields: {\"LLM\": <float>, \"user\": <float>}. Use a consistent scale where higher is better; 0 = neutral; negatives allowed for costs; keep values roughly in [-5.0, 5.0]. Numbers must have at most one decimal place and reflect your <thinking> analysis. Example shape (values are examples only): { \"DQ_AQ\": { \"LLM\": 2.2, \"user\": 1.9 }, \"DQ_CQ\": { \"LLM\": 3.1, \"user\": 3.5 }, \"DQ_DA\": { \"LLM\": 4.2, \"user\": 4.3 }, \"VQ_AQ\": { \"LLM\": 2.0, \"user\": 2.1 }, \"VQ_CQ\": { \"LLM\": 1.3, \"user\": 1.2 }, \"VQ_DA\": { \"LLM\": 2.0, \"user\": 1.8 } }.Inside <analyze>...</analyze>: derive the Pareto frontier from the six payoff points (treat each as (LLM, user)). List the non-dominated pairs and briefly justify why dominated ones are excluded. Then pick ONE recommended strategy using this tie-break: 1) maximize social welfare (LLM + user), 2) if tied, maximize user, 3) if still tied, maximize LLM. Name the chosen key (e.g., DQ_DA) and justify in 1-3 sentences.Inside <response>...</response>: implement the chosen strategy for the user's actual question. If you chose DA, give a concise, direct answer only. If CQ, ask exactly ONE most-informative clarifying question (no answer yet). If AQ, provide a brief, helpful answer AND exactly ONE focused follow-up question. Do not mention payoffs or the analysis tags; just act accordingly here.Output policy: - Absolutely no text outside the four tags. - Keys and field names must match EXACTLY. - Keep <thinking> short and non-redundant; keep <analyze> focused.Question: Preamble: In Cambridge, shoppers can buy apples from two sources: a local orchard, and a store that ships apples from out of state. The orchard can produce up to 50 apples per day at a constant marginal cost of 25 cents per apple. The store can supply any remaining apples demanded, at a constant marginal cost of 75 cents per unit. When apples cost 75 cents per apple, the residents of Cambridge buy 150 apples in a day.\n\nAssume that the city of Cambridge sets the price of apples within its borders. What price should it set, in cents?",
"role": "user"
}
] | false
|
minerva
|
conv_257
|
uniq_conv_257
| 1
|
minerva
|
minerva
|
{
"ground_truth": "75",
"style": "Cute"
}
|
{
"adversarial": false,
"chat_history": [
{
"content": "Preamble: In Cambridge, shoppers can buy apples from two sources: a local orchard, and a store that ships apples from out of state. The orchard can produce up to 50 apples per day at a constant marginal cost of 25 cents per apple. The store can supply any remaining apples demanded, at a constant marginal cost of 75 cents per unit. When apples cost 75 cents per apple, the residents of Cambridge buy 150 apples in a day.\n\nAssume that the city of Cambridge sets the price of apples within its borders. What price should it set, in cents?",
"role": "user"
}
],
"index": 257,
"single_turn_completion": "75",
"single_turn_prompt": "Preamble: In Cambridge, shoppers can buy apples from two sources: a local orchard, and a store that ships apples from out of state. The orchard can produce up to 50 apples per day at a constant marginal cost of 25 cents per apple. The store can supply any remaining apples demanded, at a constant marginal cost of 75 cents per unit. When apples cost 75 cents per apple, the residents of Cambridge buy 150 apples in a day.\n\nAssume that the city of Cambridge sets the price of apples within its borders. What price should it set, in cents?",
"split": "train"
}
|
[
{
"content": "\nThe assistant is designed to be helpful, proactive, and highly interactive.\n\nThe assistant strives to accurately interpret the user's intent throughout the conversation, acknowledging previous interactions to maintain context and continuity. If the user's message is unclear or lacks necessary details, the assistant always asks for clarification rather than making assumptions. For example, if the user's request is incomplete, the assistant responds with: \"Could you provide more details so I can assist you better?\"\n\nThe assistant asks specific follow-up questions and offers suggestions based on the user's needs, avoiding vague or generic prompts. It proactively provides guidance and potential next steps, especially in complex tasks such as writing, analysis, coding, and question answering.\n\nThe assistant is mindful of how much content the user needs to read or type, keeping interactions concise and efficient. It reduces unnecessary repetition and ensures responses are relevant, well-structured, and free from errors. When presenting options or asking for feedback, the assistant simplifies interactions by offering multiple-choice answers or specific suggestions to make it easier for the user to respond quickly.\n\nThe assistant adapts its tone to align with the user's emotional state and style, adjusting its approach as needed. If uncertain about something, the assistant honestly says, \"I don't know,\" and suggests ways for the user to find the information.\n\nThe assistant provides factually accurate, coherent, and relevant responses, using proper grammar and structure. It remains interactive and proactive across all tasks, continually seeking feedback to refine and improve interactions.\n",
"role": "system"
},
{
"content": "Now you need to answer the user's most recent question. Always produce output in EXACTLY four tagged blocks, in this order: <thinking>...</thinking><payoff>...</payoff><analyze>...</analyze><response>...</response>. Do not include anything outside these tags. Do not use markdown, code fences, or extra commentary.Inside <thinking>...</thinking>: perform a concise game-theoretic analysis of strategy choices for this turn. Consider three assistant strategies: DA = direct answer; CQ = clarifying question only; AQ = answer + ONE targeted follow-up question. Also classify the user's question type as either DQ = definite/clear or VQ = vague/ambiguous. Discuss how each assistant strategy would impact both parties (LLM vs user) in terms of: answer correctness risk, ambiguity resolution, user time/effort, token/compute cost, satisfaction, and likelihood of success. Keep this analysis brief but concrete (2-5 sentences). No numbers here yet.Inside <payoff>...</payoff>: output a STRICT JSON object (no trailing commas, no comments) with EXACTLY these six keys: {\"DQ_AQ\", \"DQ_CQ\", \"DQ_DA\", \"VQ_AQ\", \"VQ_CQ\", \"VQ_DA\"}. Each key maps to an object with two float fields: {\"LLM\": <float>, \"user\": <float>}. Use a consistent scale where higher is better; 0 = neutral; negatives allowed for costs; keep values roughly in [-5.0, 5.0]. Numbers must have at most one decimal place and reflect your <thinking> analysis. Example shape (values are examples only): { \"DQ_AQ\": { \"LLM\": 2.2, \"user\": 1.9 }, \"DQ_CQ\": { \"LLM\": 3.1, \"user\": 3.5 }, \"DQ_DA\": { \"LLM\": 4.2, \"user\": 4.3 }, \"VQ_AQ\": { \"LLM\": 2.0, \"user\": 2.1 }, \"VQ_CQ\": { \"LLM\": 1.3, \"user\": 1.2 }, \"VQ_DA\": { \"LLM\": 2.0, \"user\": 1.8 } }.Inside <analyze>...</analyze>: derive the Pareto frontier from the six payoff points (treat each as (LLM, user)). List the non-dominated pairs and briefly justify why dominated ones are excluded. Then pick ONE recommended strategy using this tie-break: 1) maximize social welfare (LLM + user), 2) if tied, maximize user, 3) if still tied, maximize LLM. Name the chosen key (e.g., DQ_DA) and justify in 1-3 sentences.Inside <response>...</response>: implement the chosen strategy for the user's actual question. If you chose DA, give a concise, direct answer only. If CQ, ask exactly ONE most-informative clarifying question (no answer yet). If AQ, provide a brief, helpful answer AND exactly ONE focused follow-up question. Do not mention payoffs or the analysis tags; just act accordingly here.Output policy: - Absolutely no text outside the four tags. - Keys and field names must match EXACTLY. - Keep <thinking> short and non-redundant; keep <analyze> focused.Question: Preamble: You manage a factory that produces cans of peanut butter. The current market price is $\\$ 10 /$ can, and you know the following about your costs (MC stands for marginal cost, and ATC stands for average total cost):\n\\[\n\\begin{array}{l}\nMC(5)=10 \\\\\nATC(5)=6 \\\\\nMC(4)=4 \\\\\nATC(4)=4\n\\end{array}\n\\]\n\nA case of food poisoning breaks out due to your peanut butter, and you lose a lawsuit against your company. As punishment, Judge Judy decides to take away all of your profits, and considers the following two options to be equivalent:\ni. Pay a lump sum in the amount of your profits.\nii. Impose a tax of $\\$\\left[P-A T C\\left(q^{*}\\right)\\right]$ per can since that is your current profit per can, where $q^{*}$ is the profit maximizing output before the lawsuit.\nHow much is the tax, in dollars per can?",
"role": "user"
}
] | false
|
minerva
|
conv_258
|
uniq_conv_258
| 1
|
minerva
|
minerva
|
{
"ground_truth": "4",
"style": "Cute"
}
|
{
"adversarial": false,
"chat_history": [
{
"content": "Preamble: You manage a factory that produces cans of peanut butter. The current market price is $\\$ 10 /$ can, and you know the following about your costs (MC stands for marginal cost, and ATC stands for average total cost):\n\\[\n\\begin{array}{l}\nMC(5)=10 \\\\\nATC(5)=6 \\\\\nMC(4)=4 \\\\\nATC(4)=4\n\\end{array}\n\\]\n\nA case of food poisoning breaks out due to your peanut butter, and you lose a lawsuit against your company. As punishment, Judge Judy decides to take away all of your profits, and considers the following two options to be equivalent:\ni. Pay a lump sum in the amount of your profits.\nii. Impose a tax of $\\$\\left[P-A T C\\left(q^{*}\\right)\\right]$ per can since that is your current profit per can, where $q^{*}$ is the profit maximizing output before the lawsuit.\nHow much is the tax, in dollars per can?",
"role": "user"
}
],
"index": 258,
"single_turn_completion": "4",
"single_turn_prompt": "Preamble: You manage a factory that produces cans of peanut butter. The current market price is $\\$ 10 /$ can, and you know the following about your costs (MC stands for marginal cost, and ATC stands for average total cost):\n\\[\n\\begin{array}{l}\nMC(5)=10 \\\\\nATC(5)=6 \\\\\nMC(4)=4 \\\\\nATC(4)=4\n\\end{array}\n\\]\n\nA case of food poisoning breaks out due to your peanut butter, and you lose a lawsuit against your company. As punishment, Judge Judy decides to take away all of your profits, and considers the following two options to be equivalent:\ni. Pay a lump sum in the amount of your profits.\nii. Impose a tax of $\\$\\left[P-A T C\\left(q^{*}\\right)\\right]$ per can since that is your current profit per can, where $q^{*}$ is the profit maximizing output before the lawsuit.\nHow much is the tax, in dollars per can?",
"split": "train"
}
|
[
{
"content": "\nThe assistant is designed to be helpful, proactive, and highly interactive.\n\nThe assistant strives to accurately interpret the user's intent throughout the conversation, acknowledging previous interactions to maintain context and continuity. If the user's message is unclear or lacks necessary details, the assistant always asks for clarification rather than making assumptions. For example, if the user's request is incomplete, the assistant responds with: \"Could you provide more details so I can assist you better?\"\n\nThe assistant asks specific follow-up questions and offers suggestions based on the user's needs, avoiding vague or generic prompts. It proactively provides guidance and potential next steps, especially in complex tasks such as writing, analysis, coding, and question answering.\n\nThe assistant is mindful of how much content the user needs to read or type, keeping interactions concise and efficient. It reduces unnecessary repetition and ensures responses are relevant, well-structured, and free from errors. When presenting options or asking for feedback, the assistant simplifies interactions by offering multiple-choice answers or specific suggestions to make it easier for the user to respond quickly.\n\nThe assistant adapts its tone to align with the user's emotional state and style, adjusting its approach as needed. If uncertain about something, the assistant honestly says, \"I don't know,\" and suggests ways for the user to find the information.\n\nThe assistant provides factually accurate, coherent, and relevant responses, using proper grammar and structure. It remains interactive and proactive across all tasks, continually seeking feedback to refine and improve interactions.\n",
"role": "system"
},
{
"content": "Now you need to answer the user's most recent question. Always produce output in EXACTLY four tagged blocks, in this order: <thinking>...</thinking><payoff>...</payoff><analyze>...</analyze><response>...</response>. Do not include anything outside these tags. Do not use markdown, code fences, or extra commentary.Inside <thinking>...</thinking>: perform a concise game-theoretic analysis of strategy choices for this turn. Consider three assistant strategies: DA = direct answer; CQ = clarifying question only; AQ = answer + ONE targeted follow-up question. Also classify the user's question type as either DQ = definite/clear or VQ = vague/ambiguous. Discuss how each assistant strategy would impact both parties (LLM vs user) in terms of: answer correctness risk, ambiguity resolution, user time/effort, token/compute cost, satisfaction, and likelihood of success. Keep this analysis brief but concrete (2-5 sentences). No numbers here yet.Inside <payoff>...</payoff>: output a STRICT JSON object (no trailing commas, no comments) with EXACTLY these six keys: {\"DQ_AQ\", \"DQ_CQ\", \"DQ_DA\", \"VQ_AQ\", \"VQ_CQ\", \"VQ_DA\"}. Each key maps to an object with two float fields: {\"LLM\": <float>, \"user\": <float>}. Use a consistent scale where higher is better; 0 = neutral; negatives allowed for costs; keep values roughly in [-5.0, 5.0]. Numbers must have at most one decimal place and reflect your <thinking> analysis. Example shape (values are examples only): { \"DQ_AQ\": { \"LLM\": 2.2, \"user\": 1.9 }, \"DQ_CQ\": { \"LLM\": 3.1, \"user\": 3.5 }, \"DQ_DA\": { \"LLM\": 4.2, \"user\": 4.3 }, \"VQ_AQ\": { \"LLM\": 2.0, \"user\": 2.1 }, \"VQ_CQ\": { \"LLM\": 1.3, \"user\": 1.2 }, \"VQ_DA\": { \"LLM\": 2.0, \"user\": 1.8 } }.Inside <analyze>...</analyze>: derive the Pareto frontier from the six payoff points (treat each as (LLM, user)). List the non-dominated pairs and briefly justify why dominated ones are excluded. Then pick ONE recommended strategy using this tie-break: 1) maximize social welfare (LLM + user), 2) if tied, maximize user, 3) if still tied, maximize LLM. Name the chosen key (e.g., DQ_DA) and justify in 1-3 sentences.Inside <response>...</response>: implement the chosen strategy for the user's actual question. If you chose DA, give a concise, direct answer only. If CQ, ask exactly ONE most-informative clarifying question (no answer yet). If AQ, provide a brief, helpful answer AND exactly ONE focused follow-up question. Do not mention payoffs or the analysis tags; just act accordingly here.Output policy: - Absolutely no text outside the four tags. - Keys and field names must match EXACTLY. - Keep <thinking> short and non-redundant; keep <analyze> focused.Question: Preamble: Suppose there are exactly two consumers (Albie and Bubbie) who demand strawberries. Suppose that Albie's demand for strawberries is given by\n\\[\nq_{a}(p)=p^{\\alpha} f_{a}\\left(I_{a}\\right)\n\\]\nand Bubbie's demand is given by\n\\[\nq_{b}(p)=p^{\\beta} f_{b}\\left(I_{b}\\right)\n\\]\nwhere $I_{a}$ and $I_{b}$ are Albie and Bubbie's incomes, and $f_{a}(\\cdot)$ and $f_{b}(\\cdot)$ are two unknown functions.\n\nFind Albie's (own-price) elasticity of demand, $\\epsilon_{q_{a}, p}$. Use the sign convention that $\\epsilon_{y, x}=\\frac{\\partial y}{\\partial x} \\frac{x}{y}$.",
"role": "user"
}
] | false
|
minerva
|
conv_259
|
uniq_conv_259
| 1
|
minerva
|
minerva
|
{
"ground_truth": "\\alpha",
"style": "Cute"
}
|
{
"adversarial": false,
"chat_history": [
{
"content": "Preamble: Suppose there are exactly two consumers (Albie and Bubbie) who demand strawberries. Suppose that Albie's demand for strawberries is given by\n\\[\nq_{a}(p)=p^{\\alpha} f_{a}\\left(I_{a}\\right)\n\\]\nand Bubbie's demand is given by\n\\[\nq_{b}(p)=p^{\\beta} f_{b}\\left(I_{b}\\right)\n\\]\nwhere $I_{a}$ and $I_{b}$ are Albie and Bubbie's incomes, and $f_{a}(\\cdot)$ and $f_{b}(\\cdot)$ are two unknown functions.\n\nFind Albie's (own-price) elasticity of demand, $\\epsilon_{q_{a}, p}$. Use the sign convention that $\\epsilon_{y, x}=\\frac{\\partial y}{\\partial x} \\frac{x}{y}$.",
"role": "user"
}
],
"index": 259,
"single_turn_completion": "\\alpha",
"single_turn_prompt": "Preamble: Suppose there are exactly two consumers (Albie and Bubbie) who demand strawberries. Suppose that Albie's demand for strawberries is given by\n\\[\nq_{a}(p)=p^{\\alpha} f_{a}\\left(I_{a}\\right)\n\\]\nand Bubbie's demand is given by\n\\[\nq_{b}(p)=p^{\\beta} f_{b}\\left(I_{b}\\right)\n\\]\nwhere $I_{a}$ and $I_{b}$ are Albie and Bubbie's incomes, and $f_{a}(\\cdot)$ and $f_{b}(\\cdot)$ are two unknown functions.\n\nFind Albie's (own-price) elasticity of demand, $\\epsilon_{q_{a}, p}$. Use the sign convention that $\\epsilon_{y, x}=\\frac{\\partial y}{\\partial x} \\frac{x}{y}$.",
"split": "train"
}
|
[
{
"content": "\nThe assistant is designed to be helpful, proactive, and highly interactive.\n\nThe assistant strives to accurately interpret the user's intent throughout the conversation, acknowledging previous interactions to maintain context and continuity. If the user's message is unclear or lacks necessary details, the assistant always asks for clarification rather than making assumptions. For example, if the user's request is incomplete, the assistant responds with: \"Could you provide more details so I can assist you better?\"\n\nThe assistant asks specific follow-up questions and offers suggestions based on the user's needs, avoiding vague or generic prompts. It proactively provides guidance and potential next steps, especially in complex tasks such as writing, analysis, coding, and question answering.\n\nThe assistant is mindful of how much content the user needs to read or type, keeping interactions concise and efficient. It reduces unnecessary repetition and ensures responses are relevant, well-structured, and free from errors. When presenting options or asking for feedback, the assistant simplifies interactions by offering multiple-choice answers or specific suggestions to make it easier for the user to respond quickly.\n\nThe assistant adapts its tone to align with the user's emotional state and style, adjusting its approach as needed. If uncertain about something, the assistant honestly says, \"I don't know,\" and suggests ways for the user to find the information.\n\nThe assistant provides factually accurate, coherent, and relevant responses, using proper grammar and structure. It remains interactive and proactive across all tasks, continually seeking feedback to refine and improve interactions.\n",
"role": "system"
},
{
"content": "Now you need to answer the user's most recent question. Always produce output in EXACTLY four tagged blocks, in this order: <thinking>...</thinking><payoff>...</payoff><analyze>...</analyze><response>...</response>. Do not include anything outside these tags. Do not use markdown, code fences, or extra commentary.Inside <thinking>...</thinking>: perform a concise game-theoretic analysis of strategy choices for this turn. Consider three assistant strategies: DA = direct answer; CQ = clarifying question only; AQ = answer + ONE targeted follow-up question. Also classify the user's question type as either DQ = definite/clear or VQ = vague/ambiguous. Discuss how each assistant strategy would impact both parties (LLM vs user) in terms of: answer correctness risk, ambiguity resolution, user time/effort, token/compute cost, satisfaction, and likelihood of success. Keep this analysis brief but concrete (2-5 sentences). No numbers here yet.Inside <payoff>...</payoff>: output a STRICT JSON object (no trailing commas, no comments) with EXACTLY these six keys: {\"DQ_AQ\", \"DQ_CQ\", \"DQ_DA\", \"VQ_AQ\", \"VQ_CQ\", \"VQ_DA\"}. Each key maps to an object with two float fields: {\"LLM\": <float>, \"user\": <float>}. Use a consistent scale where higher is better; 0 = neutral; negatives allowed for costs; keep values roughly in [-5.0, 5.0]. Numbers must have at most one decimal place and reflect your <thinking> analysis. Example shape (values are examples only): { \"DQ_AQ\": { \"LLM\": 2.2, \"user\": 1.9 }, \"DQ_CQ\": { \"LLM\": 3.1, \"user\": 3.5 }, \"DQ_DA\": { \"LLM\": 4.2, \"user\": 4.3 }, \"VQ_AQ\": { \"LLM\": 2.0, \"user\": 2.1 }, \"VQ_CQ\": { \"LLM\": 1.3, \"user\": 1.2 }, \"VQ_DA\": { \"LLM\": 2.0, \"user\": 1.8 } }.Inside <analyze>...</analyze>: derive the Pareto frontier from the six payoff points (treat each as (LLM, user)). List the non-dominated pairs and briefly justify why dominated ones are excluded. Then pick ONE recommended strategy using this tie-break: 1) maximize social welfare (LLM + user), 2) if tied, maximize user, 3) if still tied, maximize LLM. Name the chosen key (e.g., DQ_DA) and justify in 1-3 sentences.Inside <response>...</response>: implement the chosen strategy for the user's actual question. If you chose DA, give a concise, direct answer only. If CQ, ask exactly ONE most-informative clarifying question (no answer yet). If AQ, provide a brief, helpful answer AND exactly ONE focused follow-up question. Do not mention payoffs or the analysis tags; just act accordingly here.Output policy: - Absolutely no text outside the four tags. - Keys and field names must match EXACTLY. - Keep <thinking> short and non-redundant; keep <analyze> focused.Question: Preamble: You have been asked to analyze the market for steel. From public sources, you are able to find that last year's price for steel was $\\$ 20$ per ton. At this price, 100 million tons were sold on the world market. From trade association data you are able to obtain estimates for the own price elasticities of demand and supply on the world markets as $-0.25$ for demand and $0.5$ for supply. Assume that steel has linear demand and supply curves throughout, and that the market is competitive.\n\nSolve for the equations of demand in this market. Use $P$ to represent the price of steel in dollars per ton, and $X_{d}$ to represent the demand in units of millions of tons.",
"role": "user"
}
] | false
|
minerva
|
conv_260
|
uniq_conv_260
| 1
|
minerva
|
minerva
|
{
"ground_truth": "X_{d}=125-1.25 P",
"style": "Cute"
}
|
{
"adversarial": false,
"chat_history": [
{
"content": "Preamble: You have been asked to analyze the market for steel. From public sources, you are able to find that last year's price for steel was $\\$ 20$ per ton. At this price, 100 million tons were sold on the world market. From trade association data you are able to obtain estimates for the own price elasticities of demand and supply on the world markets as $-0.25$ for demand and $0.5$ for supply. Assume that steel has linear demand and supply curves throughout, and that the market is competitive.\n\nSolve for the equations of demand in this market. Use $P$ to represent the price of steel in dollars per ton, and $X_{d}$ to represent the demand in units of millions of tons.",
"role": "user"
}
],
"index": 260,
"single_turn_completion": "X_{d}=125-1.25 P",
"single_turn_prompt": "Preamble: You have been asked to analyze the market for steel. From public sources, you are able to find that last year's price for steel was $\\$ 20$ per ton. At this price, 100 million tons were sold on the world market. From trade association data you are able to obtain estimates for the own price elasticities of demand and supply on the world markets as $-0.25$ for demand and $0.5$ for supply. Assume that steel has linear demand and supply curves throughout, and that the market is competitive.\n\nSolve for the equations of demand in this market. Use $P$ to represent the price of steel in dollars per ton, and $X_{d}$ to represent the demand in units of millions of tons.",
"split": "train"
}
|
[
{
"content": "\nThe assistant is designed to be helpful, proactive, and highly interactive.\n\nThe assistant strives to accurately interpret the user's intent throughout the conversation, acknowledging previous interactions to maintain context and continuity. If the user's message is unclear or lacks necessary details, the assistant always asks for clarification rather than making assumptions. For example, if the user's request is incomplete, the assistant responds with: \"Could you provide more details so I can assist you better?\"\n\nThe assistant asks specific follow-up questions and offers suggestions based on the user's needs, avoiding vague or generic prompts. It proactively provides guidance and potential next steps, especially in complex tasks such as writing, analysis, coding, and question answering.\n\nThe assistant is mindful of how much content the user needs to read or type, keeping interactions concise and efficient. It reduces unnecessary repetition and ensures responses are relevant, well-structured, and free from errors. When presenting options or asking for feedback, the assistant simplifies interactions by offering multiple-choice answers or specific suggestions to make it easier for the user to respond quickly.\n\nThe assistant adapts its tone to align with the user's emotional state and style, adjusting its approach as needed. If uncertain about something, the assistant honestly says, \"I don't know,\" and suggests ways for the user to find the information.\n\nThe assistant provides factually accurate, coherent, and relevant responses, using proper grammar and structure. It remains interactive and proactive across all tasks, continually seeking feedback to refine and improve interactions.\n",
"role": "system"
},
{
"content": "Now you need to answer the user's most recent question. Always produce output in EXACTLY four tagged blocks, in this order: <thinking>...</thinking><payoff>...</payoff><analyze>...</analyze><response>...</response>. Do not include anything outside these tags. Do not use markdown, code fences, or extra commentary.Inside <thinking>...</thinking>: perform a concise game-theoretic analysis of strategy choices for this turn. Consider three assistant strategies: DA = direct answer; CQ = clarifying question only; AQ = answer + ONE targeted follow-up question. Also classify the user's question type as either DQ = definite/clear or VQ = vague/ambiguous. Discuss how each assistant strategy would impact both parties (LLM vs user) in terms of: answer correctness risk, ambiguity resolution, user time/effort, token/compute cost, satisfaction, and likelihood of success. Keep this analysis brief but concrete (2-5 sentences). No numbers here yet.Inside <payoff>...</payoff>: output a STRICT JSON object (no trailing commas, no comments) with EXACTLY these six keys: {\"DQ_AQ\", \"DQ_CQ\", \"DQ_DA\", \"VQ_AQ\", \"VQ_CQ\", \"VQ_DA\"}. Each key maps to an object with two float fields: {\"LLM\": <float>, \"user\": <float>}. Use a consistent scale where higher is better; 0 = neutral; negatives allowed for costs; keep values roughly in [-5.0, 5.0]. Numbers must have at most one decimal place and reflect your <thinking> analysis. Example shape (values are examples only): { \"DQ_AQ\": { \"LLM\": 2.2, \"user\": 1.9 }, \"DQ_CQ\": { \"LLM\": 3.1, \"user\": 3.5 }, \"DQ_DA\": { \"LLM\": 4.2, \"user\": 4.3 }, \"VQ_AQ\": { \"LLM\": 2.0, \"user\": 2.1 }, \"VQ_CQ\": { \"LLM\": 1.3, \"user\": 1.2 }, \"VQ_DA\": { \"LLM\": 2.0, \"user\": 1.8 } }.Inside <analyze>...</analyze>: derive the Pareto frontier from the six payoff points (treat each as (LLM, user)). List the non-dominated pairs and briefly justify why dominated ones are excluded. Then pick ONE recommended strategy using this tie-break: 1) maximize social welfare (LLM + user), 2) if tied, maximize user, 3) if still tied, maximize LLM. Name the chosen key (e.g., DQ_DA) and justify in 1-3 sentences.Inside <response>...</response>: implement the chosen strategy for the user's actual question. If you chose DA, give a concise, direct answer only. If CQ, ask exactly ONE most-informative clarifying question (no answer yet). If AQ, provide a brief, helpful answer AND exactly ONE focused follow-up question. Do not mention payoffs or the analysis tags; just act accordingly here.Output policy: - Absolutely no text outside the four tags. - Keys and field names must match EXACTLY. - Keep <thinking> short and non-redundant; keep <analyze> focused.Question: Harmonic Oscillator Subjected to Perturbation by an Electric Field: An electron is connected by a harmonic spring to a fixed point at $x=0$. It is subject to a field-free potential energy\n\\[\nV(x)=\\frac{1}{2} k x^{2} .\n\\]\nThe energy levels and eigenstates are those of a harmonic oscillator where\n\\[\n\\begin{aligned}\n\\omega &=\\left[k / m_{e}\\right]^{1 / 2} \\\\\nE_{v} &=\\hbar \\omega(v+1 / 2) \\\\\n\\psi_{v}(x) &=(v !)^{-1 / 2}\\left(\\hat{\\boldsymbol{a}}^{\\dagger}\\right)^{v} \\psi_{v=0}(x) .\n\\end{aligned}\n\\]\nNow a constant electric field, $E_{0}$, is applied and $V(x)$ becomes\n\\[\nV(x)=\\frac{1}{2} k x^{2}+E_{0} e x \\quad(e>0 \\text { by definition }) .\n\\]\nWrite an expression for the energy levels $E_{v}$ as a function of the strength of the electric field.",
"role": "user"
}
] | false
|
minerva
|
conv_261
|
uniq_conv_261
| 1
|
minerva
|
minerva
|
{
"ground_truth": "\\hbar \\omega(v+1 / 2)-\\frac{E_{0}^{2} e^{2}}{2 m \\omega^{2}}",
"style": "Cute"
}
|
{
"adversarial": false,
"chat_history": [
{
"content": "Harmonic Oscillator Subjected to Perturbation by an Electric Field: An electron is connected by a harmonic spring to a fixed point at $x=0$. It is subject to a field-free potential energy\n\\[\nV(x)=\\frac{1}{2} k x^{2} .\n\\]\nThe energy levels and eigenstates are those of a harmonic oscillator where\n\\[\n\\begin{aligned}\n\\omega &=\\left[k / m_{e}\\right]^{1 / 2} \\\\\nE_{v} &=\\hbar \\omega(v+1 / 2) \\\\\n\\psi_{v}(x) &=(v !)^{-1 / 2}\\left(\\hat{\\boldsymbol{a}}^{\\dagger}\\right)^{v} \\psi_{v=0}(x) .\n\\end{aligned}\n\\]\nNow a constant electric field, $E_{0}$, is applied and $V(x)$ becomes\n\\[\nV(x)=\\frac{1}{2} k x^{2}+E_{0} e x \\quad(e>0 \\text { by definition }) .\n\\]\nWrite an expression for the energy levels $E_{v}$ as a function of the strength of the electric field.",
"role": "user"
}
],
"index": 261,
"single_turn_completion": "\\hbar \\omega(v+1 / 2)-\\frac{E_{0}^{2} e^{2}}{2 m \\omega^{2}}",
"single_turn_prompt": "Harmonic Oscillator Subjected to Perturbation by an Electric Field: An electron is connected by a harmonic spring to a fixed point at $x=0$. It is subject to a field-free potential energy\n\\[\nV(x)=\\frac{1}{2} k x^{2} .\n\\]\nThe energy levels and eigenstates are those of a harmonic oscillator where\n\\[\n\\begin{aligned}\n\\omega &=\\left[k / m_{e}\\right]^{1 / 2} \\\\\nE_{v} &=\\hbar \\omega(v+1 / 2) \\\\\n\\psi_{v}(x) &=(v !)^{-1 / 2}\\left(\\hat{\\boldsymbol{a}}^{\\dagger}\\right)^{v} \\psi_{v=0}(x) .\n\\end{aligned}\n\\]\nNow a constant electric field, $E_{0}$, is applied and $V(x)$ becomes\n\\[\nV(x)=\\frac{1}{2} k x^{2}+E_{0} e x \\quad(e>0 \\text { by definition }) .\n\\]\nWrite an expression for the energy levels $E_{v}$ as a function of the strength of the electric field.",
"split": "train"
}
|
[
{
"content": "\nThe assistant is designed to be helpful, proactive, and highly interactive.\n\nThe assistant strives to accurately interpret the user's intent throughout the conversation, acknowledging previous interactions to maintain context and continuity. If the user's message is unclear or lacks necessary details, the assistant always asks for clarification rather than making assumptions. For example, if the user's request is incomplete, the assistant responds with: \"Could you provide more details so I can assist you better?\"\n\nThe assistant asks specific follow-up questions and offers suggestions based on the user's needs, avoiding vague or generic prompts. It proactively provides guidance and potential next steps, especially in complex tasks such as writing, analysis, coding, and question answering.\n\nThe assistant is mindful of how much content the user needs to read or type, keeping interactions concise and efficient. It reduces unnecessary repetition and ensures responses are relevant, well-structured, and free from errors. When presenting options or asking for feedback, the assistant simplifies interactions by offering multiple-choice answers or specific suggestions to make it easier for the user to respond quickly.\n\nThe assistant adapts its tone to align with the user's emotional state and style, adjusting its approach as needed. If uncertain about something, the assistant honestly says, \"I don't know,\" and suggests ways for the user to find the information.\n\nThe assistant provides factually accurate, coherent, and relevant responses, using proper grammar and structure. It remains interactive and proactive across all tasks, continually seeking feedback to refine and improve interactions.\n",
"role": "system"
},
{
"content": "Now you need to answer the user's most recent question. Always produce output in EXACTLY four tagged blocks, in this order: <thinking>...</thinking><payoff>...</payoff><analyze>...</analyze><response>...</response>. Do not include anything outside these tags. Do not use markdown, code fences, or extra commentary.Inside <thinking>...</thinking>: perform a concise game-theoretic analysis of strategy choices for this turn. Consider three assistant strategies: DA = direct answer; CQ = clarifying question only; AQ = answer + ONE targeted follow-up question. Also classify the user's question type as either DQ = definite/clear or VQ = vague/ambiguous. Discuss how each assistant strategy would impact both parties (LLM vs user) in terms of: answer correctness risk, ambiguity resolution, user time/effort, token/compute cost, satisfaction, and likelihood of success. Keep this analysis brief but concrete (2-5 sentences). No numbers here yet.Inside <payoff>...</payoff>: output a STRICT JSON object (no trailing commas, no comments) with EXACTLY these six keys: {\"DQ_AQ\", \"DQ_CQ\", \"DQ_DA\", \"VQ_AQ\", \"VQ_CQ\", \"VQ_DA\"}. Each key maps to an object with two float fields: {\"LLM\": <float>, \"user\": <float>}. Use a consistent scale where higher is better; 0 = neutral; negatives allowed for costs; keep values roughly in [-5.0, 5.0]. Numbers must have at most one decimal place and reflect your <thinking> analysis. Example shape (values are examples only): { \"DQ_AQ\": { \"LLM\": 2.2, \"user\": 1.9 }, \"DQ_CQ\": { \"LLM\": 3.1, \"user\": 3.5 }, \"DQ_DA\": { \"LLM\": 4.2, \"user\": 4.3 }, \"VQ_AQ\": { \"LLM\": 2.0, \"user\": 2.1 }, \"VQ_CQ\": { \"LLM\": 1.3, \"user\": 1.2 }, \"VQ_DA\": { \"LLM\": 2.0, \"user\": 1.8 } }.Inside <analyze>...</analyze>: derive the Pareto frontier from the six payoff points (treat each as (LLM, user)). List the non-dominated pairs and briefly justify why dominated ones are excluded. Then pick ONE recommended strategy using this tie-break: 1) maximize social welfare (LLM + user), 2) if tied, maximize user, 3) if still tied, maximize LLM. Name the chosen key (e.g., DQ_DA) and justify in 1-3 sentences.Inside <response>...</response>: implement the chosen strategy for the user's actual question. If you chose DA, give a concise, direct answer only. If CQ, ask exactly ONE most-informative clarifying question (no answer yet). If AQ, provide a brief, helpful answer AND exactly ONE focused follow-up question. Do not mention payoffs or the analysis tags; just act accordingly here.Output policy: - Absolutely no text outside the four tags. - Keys and field names must match EXACTLY. - Keep <thinking> short and non-redundant; keep <analyze> focused.Question: Preamble: The following concern the independent particle model. You may find the following set of Coulomb and exchange integrals useful (energies in $\\mathrm{eV}$):\n$\\mathrm{J}_{1 s 1 s}=17.0 Z$ \n$\\mathrm{~J}_{1 s 2 s}=4.8 Z$ \n$\\mathrm{~K}_{1 s 2 s}=0.9 Z$ \n$\\mathrm{~J}_{2 s 2 s}=3.5 Z$ \n$\\mathrm{J}_{1 s 2 p}=6.6 Z$ \n$\\mathrm{~K}_{1 s 2 p}=0.5 Z$ \n$\\mathrm{~J}_{2 s 2 p}=4.4 Z$ \n$\\mathrm{~K}_{2 s 2 p}=0.8 Z$ \n$\\mathrm{J}_{2 p_{i}, 2 p_{i}}=3.9 Z$\n$\\mathrm{~J}_{2 p_{i}, 2 p_{k}}=3.5 Z$\n$\\mathrm{~K}_{2 p_{i}, 2 p_{k}}=0.2 Z i \\neq k$ \n\nUsing the independent particle model, what is the energy difference between the $1 s^{2} 2 p_{x}^{2}$ configuration and the $1 s^{2} 2 s^{2}$ configuration? Give your answer in eV, in terms of $Z$, and round to a single decimal place.",
"role": "user"
}
] | false
|
minerva
|
conv_262
|
uniq_conv_262
| 1
|
minerva
|
minerva
|
{
"ground_truth": "7.6 Z",
"style": "Cute"
}
|
{
"adversarial": false,
"chat_history": [
{
"content": "Preamble: The following concern the independent particle model. You may find the following set of Coulomb and exchange integrals useful (energies in $\\mathrm{eV}$):\n$\\mathrm{J}_{1 s 1 s}=17.0 Z$ \n$\\mathrm{~J}_{1 s 2 s}=4.8 Z$ \n$\\mathrm{~K}_{1 s 2 s}=0.9 Z$ \n$\\mathrm{~J}_{2 s 2 s}=3.5 Z$ \n$\\mathrm{J}_{1 s 2 p}=6.6 Z$ \n$\\mathrm{~K}_{1 s 2 p}=0.5 Z$ \n$\\mathrm{~J}_{2 s 2 p}=4.4 Z$ \n$\\mathrm{~K}_{2 s 2 p}=0.8 Z$ \n$\\mathrm{J}_{2 p_{i}, 2 p_{i}}=3.9 Z$\n$\\mathrm{~J}_{2 p_{i}, 2 p_{k}}=3.5 Z$\n$\\mathrm{~K}_{2 p_{i}, 2 p_{k}}=0.2 Z i \\neq k$ \n\nUsing the independent particle model, what is the energy difference between the $1 s^{2} 2 p_{x}^{2}$ configuration and the $1 s^{2} 2 s^{2}$ configuration? Give your answer in eV, in terms of $Z$, and round to a single decimal place.",
"role": "user"
}
],
"index": 262,
"single_turn_completion": "7.6 Z",
"single_turn_prompt": "Preamble: The following concern the independent particle model. You may find the following set of Coulomb and exchange integrals useful (energies in $\\mathrm{eV}$):\n$\\mathrm{J}_{1 s 1 s}=17.0 Z$ \n$\\mathrm{~J}_{1 s 2 s}=4.8 Z$ \n$\\mathrm{~K}_{1 s 2 s}=0.9 Z$ \n$\\mathrm{~J}_{2 s 2 s}=3.5 Z$ \n$\\mathrm{J}_{1 s 2 p}=6.6 Z$ \n$\\mathrm{~K}_{1 s 2 p}=0.5 Z$ \n$\\mathrm{~J}_{2 s 2 p}=4.4 Z$ \n$\\mathrm{~K}_{2 s 2 p}=0.8 Z$ \n$\\mathrm{J}_{2 p_{i}, 2 p_{i}}=3.9 Z$\n$\\mathrm{~J}_{2 p_{i}, 2 p_{k}}=3.5 Z$\n$\\mathrm{~K}_{2 p_{i}, 2 p_{k}}=0.2 Z i \\neq k$ \n\nUsing the independent particle model, what is the energy difference between the $1 s^{2} 2 p_{x}^{2}$ configuration and the $1 s^{2} 2 s^{2}$ configuration? Give your answer in eV, in terms of $Z$, and round to a single decimal place.",
"split": "train"
}
|
[
{
"content": "\nThe assistant is designed to be helpful, proactive, and highly interactive.\n\nThe assistant strives to accurately interpret the user's intent throughout the conversation, acknowledging previous interactions to maintain context and continuity. If the user's message is unclear or lacks necessary details, the assistant always asks for clarification rather than making assumptions. For example, if the user's request is incomplete, the assistant responds with: \"Could you provide more details so I can assist you better?\"\n\nThe assistant asks specific follow-up questions and offers suggestions based on the user's needs, avoiding vague or generic prompts. It proactively provides guidance and potential next steps, especially in complex tasks such as writing, analysis, coding, and question answering.\n\nThe assistant is mindful of how much content the user needs to read or type, keeping interactions concise and efficient. It reduces unnecessary repetition and ensures responses are relevant, well-structured, and free from errors. When presenting options or asking for feedback, the assistant simplifies interactions by offering multiple-choice answers or specific suggestions to make it easier for the user to respond quickly.\n\nThe assistant adapts its tone to align with the user's emotional state and style, adjusting its approach as needed. If uncertain about something, the assistant honestly says, \"I don't know,\" and suggests ways for the user to find the information.\n\nThe assistant provides factually accurate, coherent, and relevant responses, using proper grammar and structure. It remains interactive and proactive across all tasks, continually seeking feedback to refine and improve interactions.\n",
"role": "system"
},
{
"content": "Now you need to answer the user's most recent question. Always produce output in EXACTLY four tagged blocks, in this order: <thinking>...</thinking><payoff>...</payoff><analyze>...</analyze><response>...</response>. Do not include anything outside these tags. Do not use markdown, code fences, or extra commentary.Inside <thinking>...</thinking>: perform a concise game-theoretic analysis of strategy choices for this turn. Consider three assistant strategies: DA = direct answer; CQ = clarifying question only; AQ = answer + ONE targeted follow-up question. Also classify the user's question type as either DQ = definite/clear or VQ = vague/ambiguous. Discuss how each assistant strategy would impact both parties (LLM vs user) in terms of: answer correctness risk, ambiguity resolution, user time/effort, token/compute cost, satisfaction, and likelihood of success. Keep this analysis brief but concrete (2-5 sentences). No numbers here yet.Inside <payoff>...</payoff>: output a STRICT JSON object (no trailing commas, no comments) with EXACTLY these six keys: {\"DQ_AQ\", \"DQ_CQ\", \"DQ_DA\", \"VQ_AQ\", \"VQ_CQ\", \"VQ_DA\"}. Each key maps to an object with two float fields: {\"LLM\": <float>, \"user\": <float>}. Use a consistent scale where higher is better; 0 = neutral; negatives allowed for costs; keep values roughly in [-5.0, 5.0]. Numbers must have at most one decimal place and reflect your <thinking> analysis. Example shape (values are examples only): { \"DQ_AQ\": { \"LLM\": 2.2, \"user\": 1.9 }, \"DQ_CQ\": { \"LLM\": 3.1, \"user\": 3.5 }, \"DQ_DA\": { \"LLM\": 4.2, \"user\": 4.3 }, \"VQ_AQ\": { \"LLM\": 2.0, \"user\": 2.1 }, \"VQ_CQ\": { \"LLM\": 1.3, \"user\": 1.2 }, \"VQ_DA\": { \"LLM\": 2.0, \"user\": 1.8 } }.Inside <analyze>...</analyze>: derive the Pareto frontier from the six payoff points (treat each as (LLM, user)). List the non-dominated pairs and briefly justify why dominated ones are excluded. Then pick ONE recommended strategy using this tie-break: 1) maximize social welfare (LLM + user), 2) if tied, maximize user, 3) if still tied, maximize LLM. Name the chosen key (e.g., DQ_DA) and justify in 1-3 sentences.Inside <response>...</response>: implement the chosen strategy for the user's actual question. If you chose DA, give a concise, direct answer only. If CQ, ask exactly ONE most-informative clarifying question (no answer yet). If AQ, provide a brief, helpful answer AND exactly ONE focused follow-up question. Do not mention payoffs or the analysis tags; just act accordingly here.Output policy: - Absolutely no text outside the four tags. - Keys and field names must match EXACTLY. - Keep <thinking> short and non-redundant; keep <analyze> focused.Question: Preamble: A pulsed Nd:YAG laser is found in many physical chemistry laboratories.\n\nFor a $2.00 \\mathrm{~mJ}$ pulse of laser light, how many photons are there at $1.06 \\mu \\mathrm{m}$ (the Nd:YAG fundamental) in the pulse? PAnswer to three significant figures.",
"role": "user"
}
] | false
|
minerva
|
conv_263
|
uniq_conv_263
| 1
|
minerva
|
minerva
|
{
"ground_truth": "1.07e16",
"style": "Cute"
}
|
{
"adversarial": false,
"chat_history": [
{
"content": "Preamble: A pulsed Nd:YAG laser is found in many physical chemistry laboratories.\n\nFor a $2.00 \\mathrm{~mJ}$ pulse of laser light, how many photons are there at $1.06 \\mu \\mathrm{m}$ (the Nd:YAG fundamental) in the pulse? PAnswer to three significant figures.",
"role": "user"
}
],
"index": 263,
"single_turn_completion": "1.07e16",
"single_turn_prompt": "Preamble: A pulsed Nd:YAG laser is found in many physical chemistry laboratories.\n\nFor a $2.00 \\mathrm{~mJ}$ pulse of laser light, how many photons are there at $1.06 \\mu \\mathrm{m}$ (the Nd:YAG fundamental) in the pulse? PAnswer to three significant figures.",
"split": "train"
}
|
[
{
"content": "\nThe assistant is designed to be helpful, proactive, and highly interactive.\n\nThe assistant strives to accurately interpret the user's intent throughout the conversation, acknowledging previous interactions to maintain context and continuity. If the user's message is unclear or lacks necessary details, the assistant always asks for clarification rather than making assumptions. For example, if the user's request is incomplete, the assistant responds with: \"Could you provide more details so I can assist you better?\"\n\nThe assistant asks specific follow-up questions and offers suggestions based on the user's needs, avoiding vague or generic prompts. It proactively provides guidance and potential next steps, especially in complex tasks such as writing, analysis, coding, and question answering.\n\nThe assistant is mindful of how much content the user needs to read or type, keeping interactions concise and efficient. It reduces unnecessary repetition and ensures responses are relevant, well-structured, and free from errors. When presenting options or asking for feedback, the assistant simplifies interactions by offering multiple-choice answers or specific suggestions to make it easier for the user to respond quickly.\n\nThe assistant adapts its tone to align with the user's emotional state and style, adjusting its approach as needed. If uncertain about something, the assistant honestly says, \"I don't know,\" and suggests ways for the user to find the information.\n\nThe assistant provides factually accurate, coherent, and relevant responses, using proper grammar and structure. It remains interactive and proactive across all tasks, continually seeking feedback to refine and improve interactions.\n",
"role": "system"
},
{
"content": "Now you need to answer the user's most recent question. Always produce output in EXACTLY four tagged blocks, in this order: <thinking>...</thinking><payoff>...</payoff><analyze>...</analyze><response>...</response>. Do not include anything outside these tags. Do not use markdown, code fences, or extra commentary.Inside <thinking>...</thinking>: perform a concise game-theoretic analysis of strategy choices for this turn. Consider three assistant strategies: DA = direct answer; CQ = clarifying question only; AQ = answer + ONE targeted follow-up question. Also classify the user's question type as either DQ = definite/clear or VQ = vague/ambiguous. Discuss how each assistant strategy would impact both parties (LLM vs user) in terms of: answer correctness risk, ambiguity resolution, user time/effort, token/compute cost, satisfaction, and likelihood of success. Keep this analysis brief but concrete (2-5 sentences). No numbers here yet.Inside <payoff>...</payoff>: output a STRICT JSON object (no trailing commas, no comments) with EXACTLY these six keys: {\"DQ_AQ\", \"DQ_CQ\", \"DQ_DA\", \"VQ_AQ\", \"VQ_CQ\", \"VQ_DA\"}. Each key maps to an object with two float fields: {\"LLM\": <float>, \"user\": <float>}. Use a consistent scale where higher is better; 0 = neutral; negatives allowed for costs; keep values roughly in [-5.0, 5.0]. Numbers must have at most one decimal place and reflect your <thinking> analysis. Example shape (values are examples only): { \"DQ_AQ\": { \"LLM\": 2.2, \"user\": 1.9 }, \"DQ_CQ\": { \"LLM\": 3.1, \"user\": 3.5 }, \"DQ_DA\": { \"LLM\": 4.2, \"user\": 4.3 }, \"VQ_AQ\": { \"LLM\": 2.0, \"user\": 2.1 }, \"VQ_CQ\": { \"LLM\": 1.3, \"user\": 1.2 }, \"VQ_DA\": { \"LLM\": 2.0, \"user\": 1.8 } }.Inside <analyze>...</analyze>: derive the Pareto frontier from the six payoff points (treat each as (LLM, user)). List the non-dominated pairs and briefly justify why dominated ones are excluded. Then pick ONE recommended strategy using this tie-break: 1) maximize social welfare (LLM + user), 2) if tied, maximize user, 3) if still tied, maximize LLM. Name the chosen key (e.g., DQ_DA) and justify in 1-3 sentences.Inside <response>...</response>: implement the chosen strategy for the user's actual question. If you chose DA, give a concise, direct answer only. If CQ, ask exactly ONE most-informative clarifying question (no answer yet). If AQ, provide a brief, helpful answer AND exactly ONE focused follow-up question. Do not mention payoffs or the analysis tags; just act accordingly here.Output policy: - Absolutely no text outside the four tags. - Keys and field names must match EXACTLY. - Keep <thinking> short and non-redundant; keep <analyze> focused.Question: Given that the work function of chromium is $4.40 \\mathrm{eV}$, calculate the kinetic energy of electrons in Joules emitted from a clean chromium surface that is irradiated with ultraviolet radiation of wavelength $200 \\mathrm{~nm}$.",
"role": "user"
}
] | false
|
minerva
|
conv_264
|
uniq_conv_264
| 1
|
minerva
|
minerva
|
{
"ground_truth": "2.88e-19",
"style": "Cute"
}
|
{
"adversarial": false,
"chat_history": [
{
"content": "Given that the work function of chromium is $4.40 \\mathrm{eV}$, calculate the kinetic energy of electrons in Joules emitted from a clean chromium surface that is irradiated with ultraviolet radiation of wavelength $200 \\mathrm{~nm}$.",
"role": "user"
}
],
"index": 264,
"single_turn_completion": "2.88e-19",
"single_turn_prompt": "Given that the work function of chromium is $4.40 \\mathrm{eV}$, calculate the kinetic energy of electrons in Joules emitted from a clean chromium surface that is irradiated with ultraviolet radiation of wavelength $200 \\mathrm{~nm}$.",
"split": "train"
}
|
[
{
"content": "\nThe assistant is designed to be helpful, proactive, and highly interactive.\n\nThe assistant strives to accurately interpret the user's intent throughout the conversation, acknowledging previous interactions to maintain context and continuity. If the user's message is unclear or lacks necessary details, the assistant always asks for clarification rather than making assumptions. For example, if the user's request is incomplete, the assistant responds with: \"Could you provide more details so I can assist you better?\"\n\nThe assistant asks specific follow-up questions and offers suggestions based on the user's needs, avoiding vague or generic prompts. It proactively provides guidance and potential next steps, especially in complex tasks such as writing, analysis, coding, and question answering.\n\nThe assistant is mindful of how much content the user needs to read or type, keeping interactions concise and efficient. It reduces unnecessary repetition and ensures responses are relevant, well-structured, and free from errors. When presenting options or asking for feedback, the assistant simplifies interactions by offering multiple-choice answers or specific suggestions to make it easier for the user to respond quickly.\n\nThe assistant adapts its tone to align with the user's emotional state and style, adjusting its approach as needed. If uncertain about something, the assistant honestly says, \"I don't know,\" and suggests ways for the user to find the information.\n\nThe assistant provides factually accurate, coherent, and relevant responses, using proper grammar and structure. It remains interactive and proactive across all tasks, continually seeking feedback to refine and improve interactions.\n",
"role": "system"
},
{
"content": "Now you need to answer the user's most recent question. Always produce output in EXACTLY four tagged blocks, in this order: <thinking>...</thinking><payoff>...</payoff><analyze>...</analyze><response>...</response>. Do not include anything outside these tags. Do not use markdown, code fences, or extra commentary.Inside <thinking>...</thinking>: perform a concise game-theoretic analysis of strategy choices for this turn. Consider three assistant strategies: DA = direct answer; CQ = clarifying question only; AQ = answer + ONE targeted follow-up question. Also classify the user's question type as either DQ = definite/clear or VQ = vague/ambiguous. Discuss how each assistant strategy would impact both parties (LLM vs user) in terms of: answer correctness risk, ambiguity resolution, user time/effort, token/compute cost, satisfaction, and likelihood of success. Keep this analysis brief but concrete (2-5 sentences). No numbers here yet.Inside <payoff>...</payoff>: output a STRICT JSON object (no trailing commas, no comments) with EXACTLY these six keys: {\"DQ_AQ\", \"DQ_CQ\", \"DQ_DA\", \"VQ_AQ\", \"VQ_CQ\", \"VQ_DA\"}. Each key maps to an object with two float fields: {\"LLM\": <float>, \"user\": <float>}. Use a consistent scale where higher is better; 0 = neutral; negatives allowed for costs; keep values roughly in [-5.0, 5.0]. Numbers must have at most one decimal place and reflect your <thinking> analysis. Example shape (values are examples only): { \"DQ_AQ\": { \"LLM\": 2.2, \"user\": 1.9 }, \"DQ_CQ\": { \"LLM\": 3.1, \"user\": 3.5 }, \"DQ_DA\": { \"LLM\": 4.2, \"user\": 4.3 }, \"VQ_AQ\": { \"LLM\": 2.0, \"user\": 2.1 }, \"VQ_CQ\": { \"LLM\": 1.3, \"user\": 1.2 }, \"VQ_DA\": { \"LLM\": 2.0, \"user\": 1.8 } }.Inside <analyze>...</analyze>: derive the Pareto frontier from the six payoff points (treat each as (LLM, user)). List the non-dominated pairs and briefly justify why dominated ones are excluded. Then pick ONE recommended strategy using this tie-break: 1) maximize social welfare (LLM + user), 2) if tied, maximize user, 3) if still tied, maximize LLM. Name the chosen key (e.g., DQ_DA) and justify in 1-3 sentences.Inside <response>...</response>: implement the chosen strategy for the user's actual question. If you chose DA, give a concise, direct answer only. If CQ, ask exactly ONE most-informative clarifying question (no answer yet). If AQ, provide a brief, helpful answer AND exactly ONE focused follow-up question. Do not mention payoffs or the analysis tags; just act accordingly here.Output policy: - Absolutely no text outside the four tags. - Keys and field names must match EXACTLY. - Keep <thinking> short and non-redundant; keep <analyze> focused.Question: Compute the momentum of one $500 \\mathrm{~nm}$ photon using $p_{\\text {photon }}=E_{\\text {photon }} / c$ where $c$ is the speed of light, $c=3 \\times 10^{8} \\mathrm{~m} / \\mathrm{s}$, and $\\nu=c / \\lambda$. Express your answer in kilogram meters per second, rounding your answer to three decimal places.",
"role": "user"
}
] | false
|
minerva
|
conv_265
|
uniq_conv_265
| 1
|
minerva
|
minerva
|
{
"ground_truth": "1.325e-27",
"style": "Cute"
}
|
{
"adversarial": false,
"chat_history": [
{
"content": "Compute the momentum of one $500 \\mathrm{~nm}$ photon using $p_{\\text {photon }}=E_{\\text {photon }} / c$ where $c$ is the speed of light, $c=3 \\times 10^{8} \\mathrm{~m} / \\mathrm{s}$, and $\\nu=c / \\lambda$. Express your answer in kilogram meters per second, rounding your answer to three decimal places.",
"role": "user"
}
],
"index": 265,
"single_turn_completion": "1.325e-27",
"single_turn_prompt": "Compute the momentum of one $500 \\mathrm{~nm}$ photon using $p_{\\text {photon }}=E_{\\text {photon }} / c$ where $c$ is the speed of light, $c=3 \\times 10^{8} \\mathrm{~m} / \\mathrm{s}$, and $\\nu=c / \\lambda$. Express your answer in kilogram meters per second, rounding your answer to three decimal places.",
"split": "train"
}
|
[
{
"content": "\nThe assistant is designed to be helpful, proactive, and highly interactive.\n\nThe assistant strives to accurately interpret the user's intent throughout the conversation, acknowledging previous interactions to maintain context and continuity. If the user's message is unclear or lacks necessary details, the assistant always asks for clarification rather than making assumptions. For example, if the user's request is incomplete, the assistant responds with: \"Could you provide more details so I can assist you better?\"\n\nThe assistant asks specific follow-up questions and offers suggestions based on the user's needs, avoiding vague or generic prompts. It proactively provides guidance and potential next steps, especially in complex tasks such as writing, analysis, coding, and question answering.\n\nThe assistant is mindful of how much content the user needs to read or type, keeping interactions concise and efficient. It reduces unnecessary repetition and ensures responses are relevant, well-structured, and free from errors. When presenting options or asking for feedback, the assistant simplifies interactions by offering multiple-choice answers or specific suggestions to make it easier for the user to respond quickly.\n\nThe assistant adapts its tone to align with the user's emotional state and style, adjusting its approach as needed. If uncertain about something, the assistant honestly says, \"I don't know,\" and suggests ways for the user to find the information.\n\nThe assistant provides factually accurate, coherent, and relevant responses, using proper grammar and structure. It remains interactive and proactive across all tasks, continually seeking feedback to refine and improve interactions.\n",
"role": "system"
},
{
"content": "Now you need to answer the user's most recent question. Always produce output in EXACTLY four tagged blocks, in this order: <thinking>...</thinking><payoff>...</payoff><analyze>...</analyze><response>...</response>. Do not include anything outside these tags. Do not use markdown, code fences, or extra commentary.Inside <thinking>...</thinking>: perform a concise game-theoretic analysis of strategy choices for this turn. Consider three assistant strategies: DA = direct answer; CQ = clarifying question only; AQ = answer + ONE targeted follow-up question. Also classify the user's question type as either DQ = definite/clear or VQ = vague/ambiguous. Discuss how each assistant strategy would impact both parties (LLM vs user) in terms of: answer correctness risk, ambiguity resolution, user time/effort, token/compute cost, satisfaction, and likelihood of success. Keep this analysis brief but concrete (2-5 sentences). No numbers here yet.Inside <payoff>...</payoff>: output a STRICT JSON object (no trailing commas, no comments) with EXACTLY these six keys: {\"DQ_AQ\", \"DQ_CQ\", \"DQ_DA\", \"VQ_AQ\", \"VQ_CQ\", \"VQ_DA\"}. Each key maps to an object with two float fields: {\"LLM\": <float>, \"user\": <float>}. Use a consistent scale where higher is better; 0 = neutral; negatives allowed for costs; keep values roughly in [-5.0, 5.0]. Numbers must have at most one decimal place and reflect your <thinking> analysis. Example shape (values are examples only): { \"DQ_AQ\": { \"LLM\": 2.2, \"user\": 1.9 }, \"DQ_CQ\": { \"LLM\": 3.1, \"user\": 3.5 }, \"DQ_DA\": { \"LLM\": 4.2, \"user\": 4.3 }, \"VQ_AQ\": { \"LLM\": 2.0, \"user\": 2.1 }, \"VQ_CQ\": { \"LLM\": 1.3, \"user\": 1.2 }, \"VQ_DA\": { \"LLM\": 2.0, \"user\": 1.8 } }.Inside <analyze>...</analyze>: derive the Pareto frontier from the six payoff points (treat each as (LLM, user)). List the non-dominated pairs and briefly justify why dominated ones are excluded. Then pick ONE recommended strategy using this tie-break: 1) maximize social welfare (LLM + user), 2) if tied, maximize user, 3) if still tied, maximize LLM. Name the chosen key (e.g., DQ_DA) and justify in 1-3 sentences.Inside <response>...</response>: implement the chosen strategy for the user's actual question. If you chose DA, give a concise, direct answer only. If CQ, ask exactly ONE most-informative clarifying question (no answer yet). If AQ, provide a brief, helpful answer AND exactly ONE focused follow-up question. Do not mention payoffs or the analysis tags; just act accordingly here.Output policy: - Absolutely no text outside the four tags. - Keys and field names must match EXACTLY. - Keep <thinking> short and non-redundant; keep <analyze> focused.Question: Preamble: This problem deals with the H\\\"uckel MO theory of $\\pi$-conjugated systems.\nTo answer each question, you will need to construct the Hückel MOs for each of the molecules pictured, divide them into sets of occupied and unoccupied orbitals, and determine the relevant properties, such as ground state energy, bond order, etc.\nNOTE: For all parts we take $\\alpha=\\alpha_{\\mathrm{C}}=-11.2 \\mathrm{eV}$ and $\\beta=\\beta_{\\mathrm{CC}}=-0.7 \\mathrm{eV}$.\n\nDetermine the ionization potential of benzene (remember, ionization potential $\\left[\\mathrm{IP}=\\mathrm{E}\\left(\\mathrm{B}^{+}\\right)-\\mathrm{E}(\\mathrm{B})\\right]$), in $\\mathrm{eV}$, rounded to one decimal place. The benzene molecule is shown below:\n\\chemfig{C*6((-H)-C(-H)=C(-H)-C(-H)=C(-H)-C(-H)=)}",
"role": "user"
}
] | false
|
minerva
|
conv_266
|
uniq_conv_266
| 1
|
minerva
|
minerva
|
{
"ground_truth": "11.9",
"style": "Cute"
}
|
{
"adversarial": false,
"chat_history": [
{
"content": "Preamble: This problem deals with the H\\\"uckel MO theory of $\\pi$-conjugated systems.\nTo answer each question, you will need to construct the Hückel MOs for each of the molecules pictured, divide them into sets of occupied and unoccupied orbitals, and determine the relevant properties, such as ground state energy, bond order, etc.\nNOTE: For all parts we take $\\alpha=\\alpha_{\\mathrm{C}}=-11.2 \\mathrm{eV}$ and $\\beta=\\beta_{\\mathrm{CC}}=-0.7 \\mathrm{eV}$.\n\nDetermine the ionization potential of benzene (remember, ionization potential $\\left[\\mathrm{IP}=\\mathrm{E}\\left(\\mathrm{B}^{+}\\right)-\\mathrm{E}(\\mathrm{B})\\right]$), in $\\mathrm{eV}$, rounded to one decimal place. The benzene molecule is shown below:\n\\chemfig{C*6((-H)-C(-H)=C(-H)-C(-H)=C(-H)-C(-H)=)}",
"role": "user"
}
],
"index": 266,
"single_turn_completion": "11.9",
"single_turn_prompt": "Preamble: This problem deals with the H\\\"uckel MO theory of $\\pi$-conjugated systems.\nTo answer each question, you will need to construct the Hückel MOs for each of the molecules pictured, divide them into sets of occupied and unoccupied orbitals, and determine the relevant properties, such as ground state energy, bond order, etc.\nNOTE: For all parts we take $\\alpha=\\alpha_{\\mathrm{C}}=-11.2 \\mathrm{eV}$ and $\\beta=\\beta_{\\mathrm{CC}}=-0.7 \\mathrm{eV}$.\n\nDetermine the ionization potential of benzene (remember, ionization potential $\\left[\\mathrm{IP}=\\mathrm{E}\\left(\\mathrm{B}^{+}\\right)-\\mathrm{E}(\\mathrm{B})\\right]$), in $\\mathrm{eV}$, rounded to one decimal place. The benzene molecule is shown below:\n\\chemfig{C*6((-H)-C(-H)=C(-H)-C(-H)=C(-H)-C(-H)=)}",
"split": "train"
}
|
[
{
"content": "\nThe assistant is designed to be helpful, proactive, and highly interactive.\n\nThe assistant strives to accurately interpret the user's intent throughout the conversation, acknowledging previous interactions to maintain context and continuity. If the user's message is unclear or lacks necessary details, the assistant always asks for clarification rather than making assumptions. For example, if the user's request is incomplete, the assistant responds with: \"Could you provide more details so I can assist you better?\"\n\nThe assistant asks specific follow-up questions and offers suggestions based on the user's needs, avoiding vague or generic prompts. It proactively provides guidance and potential next steps, especially in complex tasks such as writing, analysis, coding, and question answering.\n\nThe assistant is mindful of how much content the user needs to read or type, keeping interactions concise and efficient. It reduces unnecessary repetition and ensures responses are relevant, well-structured, and free from errors. When presenting options or asking for feedback, the assistant simplifies interactions by offering multiple-choice answers or specific suggestions to make it easier for the user to respond quickly.\n\nThe assistant adapts its tone to align with the user's emotional state and style, adjusting its approach as needed. If uncertain about something, the assistant honestly says, \"I don't know,\" and suggests ways for the user to find the information.\n\nThe assistant provides factually accurate, coherent, and relevant responses, using proper grammar and structure. It remains interactive and proactive across all tasks, continually seeking feedback to refine and improve interactions.\n",
"role": "system"
},
{
"content": "Now you need to answer the user's most recent question. Always produce output in EXACTLY four tagged blocks, in this order: <thinking>...</thinking><payoff>...</payoff><analyze>...</analyze><response>...</response>. Do not include anything outside these tags. Do not use markdown, code fences, or extra commentary.Inside <thinking>...</thinking>: perform a concise game-theoretic analysis of strategy choices for this turn. Consider three assistant strategies: DA = direct answer; CQ = clarifying question only; AQ = answer + ONE targeted follow-up question. Also classify the user's question type as either DQ = definite/clear or VQ = vague/ambiguous. Discuss how each assistant strategy would impact both parties (LLM vs user) in terms of: answer correctness risk, ambiguity resolution, user time/effort, token/compute cost, satisfaction, and likelihood of success. Keep this analysis brief but concrete (2-5 sentences). No numbers here yet.Inside <payoff>...</payoff>: output a STRICT JSON object (no trailing commas, no comments) with EXACTLY these six keys: {\"DQ_AQ\", \"DQ_CQ\", \"DQ_DA\", \"VQ_AQ\", \"VQ_CQ\", \"VQ_DA\"}. Each key maps to an object with two float fields: {\"LLM\": <float>, \"user\": <float>}. Use a consistent scale where higher is better; 0 = neutral; negatives allowed for costs; keep values roughly in [-5.0, 5.0]. Numbers must have at most one decimal place and reflect your <thinking> analysis. Example shape (values are examples only): { \"DQ_AQ\": { \"LLM\": 2.2, \"user\": 1.9 }, \"DQ_CQ\": { \"LLM\": 3.1, \"user\": 3.5 }, \"DQ_DA\": { \"LLM\": 4.2, \"user\": 4.3 }, \"VQ_AQ\": { \"LLM\": 2.0, \"user\": 2.1 }, \"VQ_CQ\": { \"LLM\": 1.3, \"user\": 1.2 }, \"VQ_DA\": { \"LLM\": 2.0, \"user\": 1.8 } }.Inside <analyze>...</analyze>: derive the Pareto frontier from the six payoff points (treat each as (LLM, user)). List the non-dominated pairs and briefly justify why dominated ones are excluded. Then pick ONE recommended strategy using this tie-break: 1) maximize social welfare (LLM + user), 2) if tied, maximize user, 3) if still tied, maximize LLM. Name the chosen key (e.g., DQ_DA) and justify in 1-3 sentences.Inside <response>...</response>: implement the chosen strategy for the user's actual question. If you chose DA, give a concise, direct answer only. If CQ, ask exactly ONE most-informative clarifying question (no answer yet). If AQ, provide a brief, helpful answer AND exactly ONE focused follow-up question. Do not mention payoffs or the analysis tags; just act accordingly here.Output policy: - Absolutely no text outside the four tags. - Keys and field names must match EXACTLY. - Keep <thinking> short and non-redundant; keep <analyze> focused.Question: A baseball has diameter $=7.4 \\mathrm{~cm}$. and a mass of $145 \\mathrm{~g}$. Suppose the baseball is moving at $v=1 \\mathrm{~nm} /$ second. What is its de Broglie wavelength\n\\[\n\\lambda=\\frac{h}{p}=\\frac{h}{m \\nu}\n\\]\n? Give answer in meters.",
"role": "user"
}
] | false
|
minerva
|
conv_267
|
uniq_conv_267
| 1
|
minerva
|
minerva
|
{
"ground_truth": "4.6e-24",
"style": "Cute"
}
|
{
"adversarial": false,
"chat_history": [
{
"content": "A baseball has diameter $=7.4 \\mathrm{~cm}$. and a mass of $145 \\mathrm{~g}$. Suppose the baseball is moving at $v=1 \\mathrm{~nm} /$ second. What is its de Broglie wavelength\n\\[\n\\lambda=\\frac{h}{p}=\\frac{h}{m \\nu}\n\\]\n? Give answer in meters.",
"role": "user"
}
],
"index": 267,
"single_turn_completion": "4.6e-24",
"single_turn_prompt": "A baseball has diameter $=7.4 \\mathrm{~cm}$. and a mass of $145 \\mathrm{~g}$. Suppose the baseball is moving at $v=1 \\mathrm{~nm} /$ second. What is its de Broglie wavelength\n\\[\n\\lambda=\\frac{h}{p}=\\frac{h}{m \\nu}\n\\]\n? Give answer in meters.",
"split": "train"
}
|
[
{
"content": "\nThe assistant is designed to be helpful, proactive, and highly interactive.\n\nThe assistant strives to accurately interpret the user's intent throughout the conversation, acknowledging previous interactions to maintain context and continuity. If the user's message is unclear or lacks necessary details, the assistant always asks for clarification rather than making assumptions. For example, if the user's request is incomplete, the assistant responds with: \"Could you provide more details so I can assist you better?\"\n\nThe assistant asks specific follow-up questions and offers suggestions based on the user's needs, avoiding vague or generic prompts. It proactively provides guidance and potential next steps, especially in complex tasks such as writing, analysis, coding, and question answering.\n\nThe assistant is mindful of how much content the user needs to read or type, keeping interactions concise and efficient. It reduces unnecessary repetition and ensures responses are relevant, well-structured, and free from errors. When presenting options or asking for feedback, the assistant simplifies interactions by offering multiple-choice answers or specific suggestions to make it easier for the user to respond quickly.\n\nThe assistant adapts its tone to align with the user's emotional state and style, adjusting its approach as needed. If uncertain about something, the assistant honestly says, \"I don't know,\" and suggests ways for the user to find the information.\n\nThe assistant provides factually accurate, coherent, and relevant responses, using proper grammar and structure. It remains interactive and proactive across all tasks, continually seeking feedback to refine and improve interactions.\n",
"role": "system"
},
{
"content": "Now you need to answer the user's most recent question. Always produce output in EXACTLY four tagged blocks, in this order: <thinking>...</thinking><payoff>...</payoff><analyze>...</analyze><response>...</response>. Do not include anything outside these tags. Do not use markdown, code fences, or extra commentary.Inside <thinking>...</thinking>: perform a concise game-theoretic analysis of strategy choices for this turn. Consider three assistant strategies: DA = direct answer; CQ = clarifying question only; AQ = answer + ONE targeted follow-up question. Also classify the user's question type as either DQ = definite/clear or VQ = vague/ambiguous. Discuss how each assistant strategy would impact both parties (LLM vs user) in terms of: answer correctness risk, ambiguity resolution, user time/effort, token/compute cost, satisfaction, and likelihood of success. Keep this analysis brief but concrete (2-5 sentences). No numbers here yet.Inside <payoff>...</payoff>: output a STRICT JSON object (no trailing commas, no comments) with EXACTLY these six keys: {\"DQ_AQ\", \"DQ_CQ\", \"DQ_DA\", \"VQ_AQ\", \"VQ_CQ\", \"VQ_DA\"}. Each key maps to an object with two float fields: {\"LLM\": <float>, \"user\": <float>}. Use a consistent scale where higher is better; 0 = neutral; negatives allowed for costs; keep values roughly in [-5.0, 5.0]. Numbers must have at most one decimal place and reflect your <thinking> analysis. Example shape (values are examples only): { \"DQ_AQ\": { \"LLM\": 2.2, \"user\": 1.9 }, \"DQ_CQ\": { \"LLM\": 3.1, \"user\": 3.5 }, \"DQ_DA\": { \"LLM\": 4.2, \"user\": 4.3 }, \"VQ_AQ\": { \"LLM\": 2.0, \"user\": 2.1 }, \"VQ_CQ\": { \"LLM\": 1.3, \"user\": 1.2 }, \"VQ_DA\": { \"LLM\": 2.0, \"user\": 1.8 } }.Inside <analyze>...</analyze>: derive the Pareto frontier from the six payoff points (treat each as (LLM, user)). List the non-dominated pairs and briefly justify why dominated ones are excluded. Then pick ONE recommended strategy using this tie-break: 1) maximize social welfare (LLM + user), 2) if tied, maximize user, 3) if still tied, maximize LLM. Name the chosen key (e.g., DQ_DA) and justify in 1-3 sentences.Inside <response>...</response>: implement the chosen strategy for the user's actual question. If you chose DA, give a concise, direct answer only. If CQ, ask exactly ONE most-informative clarifying question (no answer yet). If AQ, provide a brief, helpful answer AND exactly ONE focused follow-up question. Do not mention payoffs or the analysis tags; just act accordingly here.Output policy: - Absolutely no text outside the four tags. - Keys and field names must match EXACTLY. - Keep <thinking> short and non-redundant; keep <analyze> focused.Question: Preamble: Consider the Particle in an Infinite Box ``superposition state'' wavefunction,\n\\[\n\\psi_{1,2}=(1 / 3)^{1 / 2} \\psi_{1}+(2 / 3)^{1 / 2} \\psi_{2}\n\\]\nwhere $E_{1}$ is the eigen-energy of $\\psi_{1}$ and $E_{2}$ is the eigen-energy of $\\psi_{2}$.\n\nSubproblem 0: Suppose you do one experiment to measure the energy of $\\psi_{1,2}$. List the possible result(s) of your measurement.\n\n\nSolution: Since the only eigenergies are $E_{1}$ and $E_{2}$, the possible outcomes of the measurement are $\\boxed{E_{1},E_{2}}$.\n\nFinal answer: The final answer is E_{1},E_{2}. I hope it is correct.\n\nSubproblem 1: Suppose you do many identical measurements to measure the energies of identical systems in state $\\psi_{1,2}$. What average energy will you observe?",
"role": "user"
}
] | false
|
minerva
|
conv_268
|
uniq_conv_268
| 1
|
minerva
|
minerva
|
{
"ground_truth": "\\frac{1}{3} E_{1}+\\frac{2}{3} E_{2}",
"style": "Cute"
}
|
{
"adversarial": false,
"chat_history": [
{
"content": "Preamble: Consider the Particle in an Infinite Box ``superposition state'' wavefunction,\n\\[\n\\psi_{1,2}=(1 / 3)^{1 / 2} \\psi_{1}+(2 / 3)^{1 / 2} \\psi_{2}\n\\]\nwhere $E_{1}$ is the eigen-energy of $\\psi_{1}$ and $E_{2}$ is the eigen-energy of $\\psi_{2}$.\n\nSubproblem 0: Suppose you do one experiment to measure the energy of $\\psi_{1,2}$. List the possible result(s) of your measurement.\n\n\nSolution: Since the only eigenergies are $E_{1}$ and $E_{2}$, the possible outcomes of the measurement are $\\boxed{E_{1},E_{2}}$.\n\nFinal answer: The final answer is E_{1},E_{2}. I hope it is correct.\n\nSubproblem 1: Suppose you do many identical measurements to measure the energies of identical systems in state $\\psi_{1,2}$. What average energy will you observe?",
"role": "user"
}
],
"index": 268,
"single_turn_completion": "\\frac{1}{3} E_{1}+\\frac{2}{3} E_{2}",
"single_turn_prompt": "Preamble: Consider the Particle in an Infinite Box ``superposition state'' wavefunction,\n\\[\n\\psi_{1,2}=(1 / 3)^{1 / 2} \\psi_{1}+(2 / 3)^{1 / 2} \\psi_{2}\n\\]\nwhere $E_{1}$ is the eigen-energy of $\\psi_{1}$ and $E_{2}$ is the eigen-energy of $\\psi_{2}$.\n\nSubproblem 0: Suppose you do one experiment to measure the energy of $\\psi_{1,2}$. List the possible result(s) of your measurement.\n\n\nSolution: Since the only eigenergies are $E_{1}$ and $E_{2}$, the possible outcomes of the measurement are $\\boxed{E_{1},E_{2}}$.\n\nFinal answer: The final answer is E_{1},E_{2}. I hope it is correct.\n\nSubproblem 1: Suppose you do many identical measurements to measure the energies of identical systems in state $\\psi_{1,2}$. What average energy will you observe?",
"split": "train"
}
|
[
{
"content": "\nThe assistant is designed to be helpful, proactive, and highly interactive.\n\nThe assistant strives to accurately interpret the user's intent throughout the conversation, acknowledging previous interactions to maintain context and continuity. If the user's message is unclear or lacks necessary details, the assistant always asks for clarification rather than making assumptions. For example, if the user's request is incomplete, the assistant responds with: \"Could you provide more details so I can assist you better?\"\n\nThe assistant asks specific follow-up questions and offers suggestions based on the user's needs, avoiding vague or generic prompts. It proactively provides guidance and potential next steps, especially in complex tasks such as writing, analysis, coding, and question answering.\n\nThe assistant is mindful of how much content the user needs to read or type, keeping interactions concise and efficient. It reduces unnecessary repetition and ensures responses are relevant, well-structured, and free from errors. When presenting options or asking for feedback, the assistant simplifies interactions by offering multiple-choice answers or specific suggestions to make it easier for the user to respond quickly.\n\nThe assistant adapts its tone to align with the user's emotional state and style, adjusting its approach as needed. If uncertain about something, the assistant honestly says, \"I don't know,\" and suggests ways for the user to find the information.\n\nThe assistant provides factually accurate, coherent, and relevant responses, using proper grammar and structure. It remains interactive and proactive across all tasks, continually seeking feedback to refine and improve interactions.\n",
"role": "system"
},
{
"content": "Now you need to answer the user's most recent question. Always produce output in EXACTLY four tagged blocks, in this order: <thinking>...</thinking><payoff>...</payoff><analyze>...</analyze><response>...</response>. Do not include anything outside these tags. Do not use markdown, code fences, or extra commentary.Inside <thinking>...</thinking>: perform a concise game-theoretic analysis of strategy choices for this turn. Consider three assistant strategies: DA = direct answer; CQ = clarifying question only; AQ = answer + ONE targeted follow-up question. Also classify the user's question type as either DQ = definite/clear or VQ = vague/ambiguous. Discuss how each assistant strategy would impact both parties (LLM vs user) in terms of: answer correctness risk, ambiguity resolution, user time/effort, token/compute cost, satisfaction, and likelihood of success. Keep this analysis brief but concrete (2-5 sentences). No numbers here yet.Inside <payoff>...</payoff>: output a STRICT JSON object (no trailing commas, no comments) with EXACTLY these six keys: {\"DQ_AQ\", \"DQ_CQ\", \"DQ_DA\", \"VQ_AQ\", \"VQ_CQ\", \"VQ_DA\"}. Each key maps to an object with two float fields: {\"LLM\": <float>, \"user\": <float>}. Use a consistent scale where higher is better; 0 = neutral; negatives allowed for costs; keep values roughly in [-5.0, 5.0]. Numbers must have at most one decimal place and reflect your <thinking> analysis. Example shape (values are examples only): { \"DQ_AQ\": { \"LLM\": 2.2, \"user\": 1.9 }, \"DQ_CQ\": { \"LLM\": 3.1, \"user\": 3.5 }, \"DQ_DA\": { \"LLM\": 4.2, \"user\": 4.3 }, \"VQ_AQ\": { \"LLM\": 2.0, \"user\": 2.1 }, \"VQ_CQ\": { \"LLM\": 1.3, \"user\": 1.2 }, \"VQ_DA\": { \"LLM\": 2.0, \"user\": 1.8 } }.Inside <analyze>...</analyze>: derive the Pareto frontier from the six payoff points (treat each as (LLM, user)). List the non-dominated pairs and briefly justify why dominated ones are excluded. Then pick ONE recommended strategy using this tie-break: 1) maximize social welfare (LLM + user), 2) if tied, maximize user, 3) if still tied, maximize LLM. Name the chosen key (e.g., DQ_DA) and justify in 1-3 sentences.Inside <response>...</response>: implement the chosen strategy for the user's actual question. If you chose DA, give a concise, direct answer only. If CQ, ask exactly ONE most-informative clarifying question (no answer yet). If AQ, provide a brief, helpful answer AND exactly ONE focused follow-up question. Do not mention payoffs or the analysis tags; just act accordingly here.Output policy: - Absolutely no text outside the four tags. - Keys and field names must match EXACTLY. - Keep <thinking> short and non-redundant; keep <analyze> focused.Question: Preamble: Consider the Particle in an Infinite Box ``superposition state'' wavefunction,\n\\[\n\\psi_{1,2}=(1 / 3)^{1 / 2} \\psi_{1}+(2 / 3)^{1 / 2} \\psi_{2}\n\\]\nwhere $E_{1}$ is the eigen-energy of $\\psi_{1}$ and $E_{2}$ is the eigen-energy of $\\psi_{2}$.\n\nSuppose you do one experiment to measure the energy of $\\psi_{1,2}$. List the possible result(s) of your measurement.",
"role": "user"
}
] | false
|
minerva
|
conv_269
|
uniq_conv_269
| 1
|
minerva
|
minerva
|
{
"ground_truth": "E_{1},E_{2}",
"style": "Cute"
}
|
{
"adversarial": false,
"chat_history": [
{
"content": "Preamble: Consider the Particle in an Infinite Box ``superposition state'' wavefunction,\n\\[\n\\psi_{1,2}=(1 / 3)^{1 / 2} \\psi_{1}+(2 / 3)^{1 / 2} \\psi_{2}\n\\]\nwhere $E_{1}$ is the eigen-energy of $\\psi_{1}$ and $E_{2}$ is the eigen-energy of $\\psi_{2}$.\n\nSuppose you do one experiment to measure the energy of $\\psi_{1,2}$. List the possible result(s) of your measurement.",
"role": "user"
}
],
"index": 269,
"single_turn_completion": "E_{1},E_{2}",
"single_turn_prompt": "Preamble: Consider the Particle in an Infinite Box ``superposition state'' wavefunction,\n\\[\n\\psi_{1,2}=(1 / 3)^{1 / 2} \\psi_{1}+(2 / 3)^{1 / 2} \\psi_{2}\n\\]\nwhere $E_{1}$ is the eigen-energy of $\\psi_{1}$ and $E_{2}$ is the eigen-energy of $\\psi_{2}$.\n\nSuppose you do one experiment to measure the energy of $\\psi_{1,2}$. List the possible result(s) of your measurement.",
"split": "train"
}
|
[
{
"content": "\nThe assistant is designed to be helpful, proactive, and highly interactive.\n\nThe assistant strives to accurately interpret the user's intent throughout the conversation, acknowledging previous interactions to maintain context and continuity. If the user's message is unclear or lacks necessary details, the assistant always asks for clarification rather than making assumptions. For example, if the user's request is incomplete, the assistant responds with: \"Could you provide more details so I can assist you better?\"\n\nThe assistant asks specific follow-up questions and offers suggestions based on the user's needs, avoiding vague or generic prompts. It proactively provides guidance and potential next steps, especially in complex tasks such as writing, analysis, coding, and question answering.\n\nThe assistant is mindful of how much content the user needs to read or type, keeping interactions concise and efficient. It reduces unnecessary repetition and ensures responses are relevant, well-structured, and free from errors. When presenting options or asking for feedback, the assistant simplifies interactions by offering multiple-choice answers or specific suggestions to make it easier for the user to respond quickly.\n\nThe assistant adapts its tone to align with the user's emotional state and style, adjusting its approach as needed. If uncertain about something, the assistant honestly says, \"I don't know,\" and suggests ways for the user to find the information.\n\nThe assistant provides factually accurate, coherent, and relevant responses, using proper grammar and structure. It remains interactive and proactive across all tasks, continually seeking feedback to refine and improve interactions.\n",
"role": "system"
},
{
"content": "Now you need to answer the user's most recent question. Always produce output in EXACTLY four tagged blocks, in this order: <thinking>...</thinking><payoff>...</payoff><analyze>...</analyze><response>...</response>. Do not include anything outside these tags. Do not use markdown, code fences, or extra commentary.Inside <thinking>...</thinking>: perform a concise game-theoretic analysis of strategy choices for this turn. Consider three assistant strategies: DA = direct answer; CQ = clarifying question only; AQ = answer + ONE targeted follow-up question. Also classify the user's question type as either DQ = definite/clear or VQ = vague/ambiguous. Discuss how each assistant strategy would impact both parties (LLM vs user) in terms of: answer correctness risk, ambiguity resolution, user time/effort, token/compute cost, satisfaction, and likelihood of success. Keep this analysis brief but concrete (2-5 sentences). No numbers here yet.Inside <payoff>...</payoff>: output a STRICT JSON object (no trailing commas, no comments) with EXACTLY these six keys: {\"DQ_AQ\", \"DQ_CQ\", \"DQ_DA\", \"VQ_AQ\", \"VQ_CQ\", \"VQ_DA\"}. Each key maps to an object with two float fields: {\"LLM\": <float>, \"user\": <float>}. Use a consistent scale where higher is better; 0 = neutral; negatives allowed for costs; keep values roughly in [-5.0, 5.0]. Numbers must have at most one decimal place and reflect your <thinking> analysis. Example shape (values are examples only): { \"DQ_AQ\": { \"LLM\": 2.2, \"user\": 1.9 }, \"DQ_CQ\": { \"LLM\": 3.1, \"user\": 3.5 }, \"DQ_DA\": { \"LLM\": 4.2, \"user\": 4.3 }, \"VQ_AQ\": { \"LLM\": 2.0, \"user\": 2.1 }, \"VQ_CQ\": { \"LLM\": 1.3, \"user\": 1.2 }, \"VQ_DA\": { \"LLM\": 2.0, \"user\": 1.8 } }.Inside <analyze>...</analyze>: derive the Pareto frontier from the six payoff points (treat each as (LLM, user)). List the non-dominated pairs and briefly justify why dominated ones are excluded. Then pick ONE recommended strategy using this tie-break: 1) maximize social welfare (LLM + user), 2) if tied, maximize user, 3) if still tied, maximize LLM. Name the chosen key (e.g., DQ_DA) and justify in 1-3 sentences.Inside <response>...</response>: implement the chosen strategy for the user's actual question. If you chose DA, give a concise, direct answer only. If CQ, ask exactly ONE most-informative clarifying question (no answer yet). If AQ, provide a brief, helpful answer AND exactly ONE focused follow-up question. Do not mention payoffs or the analysis tags; just act accordingly here.Output policy: - Absolutely no text outside the four tags. - Keys and field names must match EXACTLY. - Keep <thinking> short and non-redundant; keep <analyze> focused.Question: Preamble: Evaluate the following integrals for $\\psi_{J M}$ eigenfunctions of $\\mathbf{J}^{2}$ and $\\mathbf{J}_{z}$. \n\n$\\int \\psi_{22}^{*}\\left(\\widehat{\\mathbf{J}}^{+}\\right)^{4} \\psi_{2,-2} d \\tau$",
"role": "user"
}
] | false
|
minerva
|
conv_270
|
uniq_conv_270
| 1
|
minerva
|
minerva
|
{
"ground_truth": "24",
"style": "Cute"
}
|
{
"adversarial": false,
"chat_history": [
{
"content": "Preamble: Evaluate the following integrals for $\\psi_{J M}$ eigenfunctions of $\\mathbf{J}^{2}$ and $\\mathbf{J}_{z}$. \n\n$\\int \\psi_{22}^{*}\\left(\\widehat{\\mathbf{J}}^{+}\\right)^{4} \\psi_{2,-2} d \\tau$",
"role": "user"
}
],
"index": 270,
"single_turn_completion": "24",
"single_turn_prompt": "Preamble: Evaluate the following integrals for $\\psi_{J M}$ eigenfunctions of $\\mathbf{J}^{2}$ and $\\mathbf{J}_{z}$. \n\n$\\int \\psi_{22}^{*}\\left(\\widehat{\\mathbf{J}}^{+}\\right)^{4} \\psi_{2,-2} d \\tau$",
"split": "train"
}
|
[
{
"content": "\nThe assistant is designed to be helpful, proactive, and highly interactive.\n\nThe assistant strives to accurately interpret the user's intent throughout the conversation, acknowledging previous interactions to maintain context and continuity. If the user's message is unclear or lacks necessary details, the assistant always asks for clarification rather than making assumptions. For example, if the user's request is incomplete, the assistant responds with: \"Could you provide more details so I can assist you better?\"\n\nThe assistant asks specific follow-up questions and offers suggestions based on the user's needs, avoiding vague or generic prompts. It proactively provides guidance and potential next steps, especially in complex tasks such as writing, analysis, coding, and question answering.\n\nThe assistant is mindful of how much content the user needs to read or type, keeping interactions concise and efficient. It reduces unnecessary repetition and ensures responses are relevant, well-structured, and free from errors. When presenting options or asking for feedback, the assistant simplifies interactions by offering multiple-choice answers or specific suggestions to make it easier for the user to respond quickly.\n\nThe assistant adapts its tone to align with the user's emotional state and style, adjusting its approach as needed. If uncertain about something, the assistant honestly says, \"I don't know,\" and suggests ways for the user to find the information.\n\nThe assistant provides factually accurate, coherent, and relevant responses, using proper grammar and structure. It remains interactive and proactive across all tasks, continually seeking feedback to refine and improve interactions.\n",
"role": "system"
},
{
"content": "Now you need to answer the user's most recent question. Always produce output in EXACTLY four tagged blocks, in this order: <thinking>...</thinking><payoff>...</payoff><analyze>...</analyze><response>...</response>. Do not include anything outside these tags. Do not use markdown, code fences, or extra commentary.Inside <thinking>...</thinking>: perform a concise game-theoretic analysis of strategy choices for this turn. Consider three assistant strategies: DA = direct answer; CQ = clarifying question only; AQ = answer + ONE targeted follow-up question. Also classify the user's question type as either DQ = definite/clear or VQ = vague/ambiguous. Discuss how each assistant strategy would impact both parties (LLM vs user) in terms of: answer correctness risk, ambiguity resolution, user time/effort, token/compute cost, satisfaction, and likelihood of success. Keep this analysis brief but concrete (2-5 sentences). No numbers here yet.Inside <payoff>...</payoff>: output a STRICT JSON object (no trailing commas, no comments) with EXACTLY these six keys: {\"DQ_AQ\", \"DQ_CQ\", \"DQ_DA\", \"VQ_AQ\", \"VQ_CQ\", \"VQ_DA\"}. Each key maps to an object with two float fields: {\"LLM\": <float>, \"user\": <float>}. Use a consistent scale where higher is better; 0 = neutral; negatives allowed for costs; keep values roughly in [-5.0, 5.0]. Numbers must have at most one decimal place and reflect your <thinking> analysis. Example shape (values are examples only): { \"DQ_AQ\": { \"LLM\": 2.2, \"user\": 1.9 }, \"DQ_CQ\": { \"LLM\": 3.1, \"user\": 3.5 }, \"DQ_DA\": { \"LLM\": 4.2, \"user\": 4.3 }, \"VQ_AQ\": { \"LLM\": 2.0, \"user\": 2.1 }, \"VQ_CQ\": { \"LLM\": 1.3, \"user\": 1.2 }, \"VQ_DA\": { \"LLM\": 2.0, \"user\": 1.8 } }.Inside <analyze>...</analyze>: derive the Pareto frontier from the six payoff points (treat each as (LLM, user)). List the non-dominated pairs and briefly justify why dominated ones are excluded. Then pick ONE recommended strategy using this tie-break: 1) maximize social welfare (LLM + user), 2) if tied, maximize user, 3) if still tied, maximize LLM. Name the chosen key (e.g., DQ_DA) and justify in 1-3 sentences.Inside <response>...</response>: implement the chosen strategy for the user's actual question. If you chose DA, give a concise, direct answer only. If CQ, ask exactly ONE most-informative clarifying question (no answer yet). If AQ, provide a brief, helpful answer AND exactly ONE focused follow-up question. Do not mention payoffs or the analysis tags; just act accordingly here.Output policy: - Absolutely no text outside the four tags. - Keys and field names must match EXACTLY. - Keep <thinking> short and non-redundant; keep <analyze> focused.Question: Preamble: Consider the 3-level $\\mathbf{H}$ matrix\n\\[\n\\mathbf{H}=\\hbar \\omega\\left(\\begin{array}{ccc}\n10 & 1 & 0 \\\\\n1 & 0 & 2 \\\\\n0 & 2 & -10\n\\end{array}\\right)\n\\]\nLabel the eigen-energies and eigen-functions according to the dominant basis state character. The $\\widetilde{10}$ state is the one dominated by the zero-order state with $E^{(0)}=10, \\tilde{0}$ by $E^{(0)}=0$, and $-\\widetilde{10}$ by $E^{(0)}=-10$ (we will work in units where $\\hbar \\omega = 1$, and can be safely ignored).\n\nUse non-degenerate perturbation theory to derive the energy $E_{\\widetilde{10}}$. Carry out your calculations to second order in the perturbing Hamiltonian, and round to one decimal place.",
"role": "user"
}
] | false
|
minerva
|
conv_271
|
uniq_conv_271
| 1
|
minerva
|
minerva
|
{
"ground_truth": "10.1",
"style": "Cute"
}
|
{
"adversarial": false,
"chat_history": [
{
"content": "Preamble: Consider the 3-level $\\mathbf{H}$ matrix\n\\[\n\\mathbf{H}=\\hbar \\omega\\left(\\begin{array}{ccc}\n10 & 1 & 0 \\\\\n1 & 0 & 2 \\\\\n0 & 2 & -10\n\\end{array}\\right)\n\\]\nLabel the eigen-energies and eigen-functions according to the dominant basis state character. The $\\widetilde{10}$ state is the one dominated by the zero-order state with $E^{(0)}=10, \\tilde{0}$ by $E^{(0)}=0$, and $-\\widetilde{10}$ by $E^{(0)}=-10$ (we will work in units where $\\hbar \\omega = 1$, and can be safely ignored).\n\nUse non-degenerate perturbation theory to derive the energy $E_{\\widetilde{10}}$. Carry out your calculations to second order in the perturbing Hamiltonian, and round to one decimal place.",
"role": "user"
}
],
"index": 271,
"single_turn_completion": "10.1",
"single_turn_prompt": "Preamble: Consider the 3-level $\\mathbf{H}$ matrix\n\\[\n\\mathbf{H}=\\hbar \\omega\\left(\\begin{array}{ccc}\n10 & 1 & 0 \\\\\n1 & 0 & 2 \\\\\n0 & 2 & -10\n\\end{array}\\right)\n\\]\nLabel the eigen-energies and eigen-functions according to the dominant basis state character. The $\\widetilde{10}$ state is the one dominated by the zero-order state with $E^{(0)}=10, \\tilde{0}$ by $E^{(0)}=0$, and $-\\widetilde{10}$ by $E^{(0)}=-10$ (we will work in units where $\\hbar \\omega = 1$, and can be safely ignored).\n\nUse non-degenerate perturbation theory to derive the energy $E_{\\widetilde{10}}$. Carry out your calculations to second order in the perturbing Hamiltonian, and round to one decimal place.",
"split": "train"
}
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.