jlov7 commited on
Commit
7348996
·
verified ·
1 Parent(s): b9a4010

Add MiniOS task suite + dataset card

Browse files
Files changed (2) hide show
  1. README.md +122 -0
  2. mini_tasks.jsonl +0 -0
README.md ADDED
@@ -0,0 +1,122 @@
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
1
+ ---
2
+ license: mit
3
+ language:
4
+ - en
5
+ task_categories:
6
+ - other
7
+ tags:
8
+ - agents
9
+ - world-models
10
+ - planning
11
+ - tool-use
12
+ - synthetic
13
+ - reproducible-research
14
+ size_categories:
15
+ - n<1K
16
+ configs:
17
+ - config_name: default
18
+ data_files: mini_tasks.jsonl
19
+ ---
20
+
21
+ # MiniOS — a deterministic symbolic task suite for tool-agent world models
22
+
23
+ This dataset is the **MiniOS** task suite from **nanoAWM**. Code, the world
24
+ model trained on it, and the full paper live in the GitHub repository:
25
+ **https://github.com/jlov7/nanoAWM**.
26
+
27
+ MiniOS is a deterministic, fully symbolic toy operating system: filesystem,
28
+ terminal/tests, git, browser/forms, DB/table, email/calendar, package/config,
29
+ approvals, hidden state, irreversible actions, delayed consequences, and
30
+ rollback. Each task is constructed to exhibit **consequence aliasing** — two
31
+ candidate actions that look equally reasonable from the current visible
32
+ observation but diverge sharply in future reward, reversibility, hidden-state
33
+ corruption, or approval compliance. A memoryless reactive policy provably cannot
34
+ be optimal across the hidden states; a history-conditioned consequence model
35
+ can.
36
+
37
+ ## Contents
38
+
39
+ `mini_tasks.jsonl` — **420 tasks across 15 families**, deterministically
40
+ generated (seeded).
41
+
42
+ | Split | Tasks | Purpose |
43
+ | --- | ---: | --- |
44
+ | `train` | 240 | training (used with 3 vocabulary-randomized variants each → 720) |
45
+ | `val` | 30 | validation / calibration only |
46
+ | `test` | 60 | in-distribution evaluation |
47
+ | `template_holdout` | 45 | in-distribution evaluation (see disclosure below) |
48
+ | `ood` | 45 | local out-of-distribution stress |
49
+
50
+ The 15 families include approval-gated email send, irreversible file deletion,
51
+ delayed test failure, database-migration hidden invariant, git dirty-tree,
52
+ rollback recovery, package-install dependency conflict, cross-surface
53
+ dependency, ambiguous same-visible-observation, and adversarial failure
54
+ variants.
55
+
56
+ ### Schema (one JSON object per line)
57
+
58
+ | Field | Meaning |
59
+ | --- | --- |
60
+ | `task_id`, `template_id`, `seed` | identity / generation provenance |
61
+ | `family`, `split` | task family and split membership |
62
+ | `description` | the natural-language task given to the agent |
63
+ | `visible_state` | the observation the agent sees (surface, object, phase, …) |
64
+ | `actions` | the candidate action set |
65
+ | `hidden_state` | environment ground truth (approval status, corruption, …) |
66
+ | `reactive_action` | the action a memoryless reactive policy would pick |
67
+
68
+ **`hidden_state` is environment ground truth, not a planning-time input.** It is
69
+ needed to *run* the environment and score outcomes, but the learned planner's
70
+ feature extractor explicitly excludes it (along with task/split ids, labels,
71
+ rewards, and oracle next-state). Shipping it here lets you reproduce the
72
+ environment; it is not a leak into the agent.
73
+
74
+ ## Honest disclosure: what these splits are, and are not
75
+
76
+ This dataset is **partly lexically separable** and the eval splits **share
77
+ vocabulary with training**. Treat the split names literally and skeptically:
78
+
79
+ - Measured feature-level overlap with a training task: **`test` 90%,
80
+ `template_holdout` 100%, `ood` 71%**. The split named `template_holdout` does
81
+ **not** hold out templates.
82
+ - Treat "held-out 1.000" in the paper as *in-distribution* performance. The
83
+ honest generalization measurement rebuilds the suite over a **disjoint
84
+ vocabulary** (held-out object names *and* disjoint nonce action markers
85
+ sharing no tokens with training) — on which the learned planner scores
86
+ **0.524** vs a 0.067 best baseline and a 1.000 oracle.
87
+ - The safe/risky distinction is partly encoded in action strings, so a pure
88
+ keyword matcher with no world model already scores ~0.73 here. A large part of
89
+ the task is lexical, not consequence reasoning.
90
+
91
+ This is local symbolic evidence for studying consequence modeling under hidden
92
+ state — **not** a web/OS benchmark and **not** external validation.
93
+
94
+ ## Usage
95
+
96
+ ```python
97
+ import json
98
+ tasks = [json.loads(line) for line in open("mini_tasks.jsonl")]
99
+ train = [t for t in tasks if t["split"] == "train"]
100
+ ```
101
+
102
+ Regenerate deterministically (CPU-only, no network) from the GitHub repo:
103
+
104
+ ```bash
105
+ python -m nanoawm.envs.generate --suite mini --out data/mini_tasks.jsonl
106
+ ```
107
+
108
+ The disjoint-vocabulary generalization suite (the source of the honest 0.524
109
+ number) is produced by `python -m nanoawm generalization_ladder --run-ladder`.
110
+
111
+ ## Citation
112
+
113
+ ```
114
+ @software{nanoawm,
115
+ title = {nanoAWM: a tiny action-conditioned world model for tool agents},
116
+ author = {Lovell, Jason},
117
+ year = {2026},
118
+ url = {https://github.com/jlov7/nanoAWM}
119
+ }
120
+ ```
121
+
122
+ License: MIT.
mini_tasks.jsonl ADDED
The diff for this file is too large to render. See raw diff