---
license: mit
language:
- en
pretty_name: ThoughtDAG Context Repair Benchmark
tags:
- llm
- context-engineering
- context-repair
- benchmark
- graph
- human-in-the-loop
configs:
- config_name: cases
  data_files:
  - split: test
    path: data/cases.jsonl
- config_name: endpoint_results
  data_files:
  - split: test
    path: data/endpoint_results.jsonl
- config_name: reasoning_ablation
  data_files:
  - split: test
    path: data/reasoning_ablation.jsonl
---

# ThoughtDAG Context Repair Benchmark

What happens after one wrong assumption enters a long LLM conversation?

This dataset turns context editing into a measurable intervention. Each synthetic case starts with a clean fact, introduces a false update, lets the error propagate through one to three downstream turns, and then asks the same final question under five graph conditions:

1. `clean`
2. `polluted`
3. `source_prune`
4. `subgraph_prune`
5. `recompute_descendants`

The central question is not only whether a model notices bad context. It is whether different graph edits repair the answer after that context has already shaped later turns.

> These are pilot/reference results for studying context intervention. They are not an authoritative model leaderboard.

[Interactive report](https://chenxiachan.github.io/thoughtdag/research/context-repair-pilot-v2/) · [Code and reproducible pipeline](https://github.com/chenxiachan/thoughtdag/tree/main/benchmark) · [ThoughtDAG](https://github.com/chenxiachan/thoughtdag)

![Five context graphs applied to the same final question](figures/flagship-context-repair.png)

## Dataset contents

| Config | Rows | What it contains |
| --- | ---: | --- |
| `cases` | 27 | Nine independent problem families at three propagation depths, including graph structure, interventions, exact-match gold answers, and scorer definitions |
| `endpoint_results` | 1,215 | Five conditions for every case across nine model endpoints |
| `reasoning_ablation` | 270 | The same 135 conditions under a controlled reasoning-on versus reasoning-off comparison on one endpoint |

Convenience summaries are also included as `data/endpoint_summary.csv` and `data/reasoning_ablation_summary.csv`.

## Reference finding

Across the nine-endpoint panel, 162 paired model-cases were first correct in the clean graph and then derailed by the polluted graph.

| Intervention | Repaired |
| --- | ---: |
| Delete the false source only | 152 / 162 |
| Delete the contaminated subgraph | 162 / 162 |
| Delete the source and recompute descendants | 161 / 162 |

![Aggregate repair results](figures/repair-strategy-results.png)

Deleting a false source can be insufficient because downstream answers may already contain its consequences. Removing the affected subgraph or rebuilding descendants repaired more of these pilot cases.

![Per-endpoint repair results](figures/model-strategy-dotplot.png)

## Controlled reasoning ablation

On one text-only endpoint, reasoning was explicitly toggled per request while the cases, decoding temperature, graph compiler, and scorer were held fixed. Source-only pruning repaired 16 of 18 derailed cases with reasoning enabled and 2 of 18 with reasoning disabled. The paired source-prune comparison produced an exact two-sided McNemar p-value of `0.0001220703125`.

![Controlled reasoning ablation](figures/ablation-slope.png)

This is a narrow ablation on one endpoint. It does not establish a general causal claim about reasoning across models.

## Schema

### `cases`

- `case_id`, `family_id`, `pollution_operator`, `propagation_depth`
- `final_question`, `gold_answer`, `distractor_markers`
- `graph_json`: nodes and directed context edges
- `conditions_json`: graph operations for each intervention
- `scorer_json`: declarative exact-match scorer

The three JSON fields are serialized strings so the Hugging Face Dataset Viewer can display a stable tabular schema. Parse them with `json.loads` when using the graph structures programmatically.

### Result configs

Each result row identifies the case, run, provider, endpoint model, reasoning mode, condition, raw answer, extracted answer, exact-match result, format compliance, usage, latency, cost, compiler version, scorer version, and source commit.

The public dataset intentionally excludes API keys, environment-variable names, endpoint configuration, and raw provider traces. Immutable traces remain in the source repository for audit and reproduction.

## Load with `datasets`

```python
from datasets import load_dataset

cases = load_dataset(
    "thoughtdag/context-repair-benchmark",
    "cases",
    split="test",
)

results = load_dataset(
    "thoughtdag/context-repair-benchmark",
    "endpoint_results",
    split="test",
)
```

## Reproduce or add an endpoint

The GitHub repository is the canonical home for executable code, immutable traces, and contributions. To re-score an existing run without making API calls:

```bash
git clone https://github.com/chenxiachan/thoughtdag.git
cd thoughtdag
npm install
BENCH_SUITE=pilot-v1 node benchmark/tools/score.mjs pilot-v1-nemotron-nano-9b
```

To evaluate another model, create a run envelope and use the capture pipeline documented in [`benchmark/README.md`](https://github.com/chenxiachan/thoughtdag/blob/main/benchmark/README.md). Please submit new cases, endpoint results, or methodology critiques through the [GitHub issue tracker](https://github.com/chenxiachan/thoughtdag/issues).

## Design and limitations

- All 27 cases are synthetic English symbolic tasks with exact numeric answers.
- Depth variants within a family are repeated measures, not independent samples.
- The model panel is heterogeneous and several endpoints used free-tier routing at the recorded dates.
- Exact-match scoring makes the benchmark auditable, but it does not represent the full range of real research conversations.
- Reported findings should remain labeled as pilot/reference evidence until a larger preregistered suite is completed.

## License and citation

The dataset and benchmark code are released under the MIT License. Until a versioned archival citation is issued, please cite the repository and record the dataset revision or `source_commit` used in your analysis:

```text
Chen, Xia. ThoughtDAG Context Repair Benchmark.
https://github.com/chenxiachan/thoughtdag/tree/main/benchmark
```