File size: 5,629 Bytes
d5a57bd fe8fe72 d5a57bd fe8fe72 d5a57bd fe8fe72 d5a57bd | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 | ---
license: apache-2.0
language:
- en
pretty_name: DriftBench v1 Scenarios
size_categories:
- n<1K
task_categories:
- other
tags:
- benchmark
- belief-tracking
- llm-evaluation
- faithfulness
- long-context
- deterministic
configs:
- config_name: default
data_files:
- split: test
path: scenarios.jsonl
---
# DriftBench v1 — Scenarios
Official v1 evaluation scenarios for **DriftBench**, a fully deterministic benchmark
for whether a system faithfully tracks **belief drift, internal conflict, and identity
transition** across a multi-turn conversation — scored with no LLM judge.
- Code, validator, and full spec: **https://github.com/simon9679/driftbench** (Apache-2.0)
- Reliability research behind the benchmark: **https://github.com/simon9679/tbg-postmortem** — a
negative-result study on a belief-memory engine, and the falsification protocol DriftBench is
built to satisfy.
- This dataset contains only the *inputs and ground truth*. Scoring lives in the repo.
## Scope and honesty about stage
This is an early-stage benchmark. A few things stated plainly so nobody is surprised:
- The v1 ontology is **8 concepts in a single domain** (career / founder transition).
This is intentional and narrow, not comprehensive. Cross-domain expansion is planned for v1.1.
- `mapping_confidence` in submissions is **self-reported by the adapter and not verified**
against source text in v1 (semantic grounding is a v2 concern).
- The **GCS** (Graph Causal Score) metric is a proxy with known fragility around zero-baseline
edges; see `SPEC.md` in the repo for the exact thresholds and limitations. This is no longer only
an assumption — on repeated runs GCS was the most unstable of the five metrics (see
"Measured spread" below).
- **Known NRS defect (v1.1 fix candidate):** an empty belief graph — e.g. from a parse failure —
currently scores **NRS = 1.00**, the maximum. A system that emits nothing is credited with
perfect noise resistance. Found only by repeated runs; carried to v1.1 (v1 is frozen, so v1
behaviour is unchanged).
## What's here
`scenarios.jsonl` — 7 scenarios, one per row:
| field | type | notes |
|-------|------|-------|
| `id` | string | e.g. `01_burnout_to_founder` |
| `title` | string | human-readable |
| `spec_version` | string | `1.0.0` |
| `num_turns` | int | 12–14 |
| `messages` | list | `{turn, user, assistant}` |
| `ground_truth` | struct | `belief_changes`, `conflicts`, `identity_shift`, `noise_turns` |
`ground_truth`:
- `belief_changes`: `[{core_id, direction}]` where direction ∈ `up` / `down` / `up_then_down`
- `conflicts`: list of `[source_core_id, target_core_id]` pairs
- `identity_shift`: `{from_id, to_id}`
- `noise_turns`: turn indices that should NOT move any belief (empty for most scenarios)
`ontology.json` — the frozen 8-concept v1 ontology (`ID_FOUNDER`, `ID_EMPLOYEE`,
`V_FIN_SECURITY`, `V_GROWTH`, `F_FAILURE`, `F_STAGNATION`, `G_MVP_LAUNCH`, `G_PROMOTION`).
All `core_id` values in ground truth reference these keys.
## Scenarios
| id | title | note |
|----|-------|------|
| 01 | From Burnout to Founder | |
| 02 | Promotion Track vs Founder Path | |
| 03 | From Scarcity Mindset to Financial Agency | |
| 04 | Failure Shock to Launch Commitment | |
| 05 | Launch Momentum vs Corporate Advancement | |
| 10 | The Burnout Trap — Hustle to Balance | delayed contradiction |
| 11 | Signal Through Noise | has `noise_turns` for NRS |
## Load
```python
from datasets import load_dataset
ds = load_dataset("simon9679/driftbench-v1", split="test")
print(ds[0]["id"], ds[0]["num_turns"])
print(ds[0]["ground_truth"]["conflicts"])
```
To actually *score* a system, use the validator and scorer in the GitHub repo — the metrics
(CER, GCS, BDA, ISS, NRS) are deterministic and require the zero-trust validator, which is not
part of this dataset.
## Metrics (computed in the repo, not here)
| metric | measures |
|--------|----------|
| CER | Conflict Edge Recovery (F1 vs ground-truth conflict pairs) |
| GCS | Graph Causal Score — do conflict edges precede target suppression? |
| BDA | Belief Drift Accuracy — right beliefs move the right direction |
| ISS | Identity Shift Score — target identity overtakes source |
| NRS | Noise Resistance Score — irrelevant turns don't move beliefs |
## Measured spread (repeated runs)
The scenarios are fixed, but the *systems* scored on them are not. The same model, on the same
scenarios, at `temperature=0`, with **nothing changed between runs**, still produces different
scores on repeat. Three runs of `gpt-oss-120b` gave this aggregate (whole-benchmark mean) spread:
| metric | aggregate Δ (range over 3 runs) |
|--------|---------------------------------|
| BDA | Δ0.03 |
| ISS | Δ0.07 |
| CER | Δ0.09 |
| GCS | Δ0.17 |
On **individual scenarios** the swing reaches **Δ0.50** (GCS). **Differences smaller than these
figures are indistinguishable from run-to-run noise** — do not rank systems on a single run. GCS is
the most unstable metric here, which turns the zero-baseline fragility noted above from an
assumption into a measured fact.
Three runs is a small sample and **underestimates** the true spread rather than bounding it; treat
these deltas as a floor, not a ceiling. Full per-scenario tables live in `baselines/BASELINES.md`
in the repo.
## Citation
```
@software{driftbench2026,
title = {DriftBench: A Deterministic Benchmark for Belief Drift and Identity Tracking},
author = {DriftBench},
year = {2026},
url = {https://github.com/simon9679/driftbench},
license= {Apache-2.0}
}
```
|