{"kind":"task","effective_mode":"full","benchmark":{"kind":"benchmark","effective_mode":"full","slug":"mmlu-pro","formal_name":"MMLU-Pro","introduction":"MMLU-Pro rebuilds MMLU with ten answer options instead of four and removes items that no longer separate models. Questions span fourteen academic and professional subjects.","introduction_ja":"","introduction_en":"","category":"Category not supplied","task_count":null,"acquisition_status":"Acquisition status not supplied","official_url":"https://huggingface.co/datasets/TIGER-Lab/MMLU-Pro","indexing_mode":"index","profile":{"resources":[],"task_format":"","scoring":"","metric":"","size":"","answer_access":"","license":"","citation":"","maintainer":"","released":"","why_hard":"","related":[],"history":"","construction":"","limitations":"","saturation":"","scores":[]}},"task_id":"9648820f-0649-5e8f-8597-ec657c4e83f1","task_key":"default--test--1532","task_revision_id":"1","upstream_id":"1532","short_description":"While relaxing at poolside one Sunday afternoon, a homeowner was struck by a…","config":"default","split":"test","body":"{\"category\":\"law\",\"options\":\"[\\\"The boy is not liable, because he did not intentionally cause the golf ball to traverse onto theplaintiff's property.\\\", \\\"Because the golf ball did not substantiallyinterfere with the plaintiff's use and enjoymentof his land, the boy would not be held liable.\\\", 'The boy is not liable because the golf course should have better protective measures to prevent golf balls from entering neighboring properties.', \\\"The boy would be liable only if he was aware that his golf balls regularly traversed onto the homeowner's property.\\\", \\\"The boy is liable because the frequency of golf balls entering the homeowner's property suggests a lack of care in his play.\\\", \\\"The boy would be liable for the unpermittedintrusion of the golf ball onto the plaintiff'sproperty.\\\", \\\"The boy is liable because he was negligent in hitting the golf ball in the direction of the homeowner's property.\\\"]\",\"question\":\"While relaxing at poolside one Sunday afternoon, a homeowner was struck by a golf ball driven by a 14-year-old boy who was playing the ninth hole at the local golf course. The fairway for the ninth hole was 65 feet wide and 437 yards long, with a dogleg in an easterly direction. Between the fairway and the homeowner's property was a \\\"rough,\\\" containing brush and low-lying trees. The boy had hit a towering shot down the middle of the fairway that deflected off a tree and struck the homeowner in the head. The homeowner brought suit against the boy for his injuries suffered when he was hit by the golf ball. At trial, the boy offered uncontested evidence that golf balls from the golf course regularly traversed onto the homeowner's property two to three times a day. Which of the following statements is most accurate regarding the boy's liability for trespass?\",\"src\":\"ori_mmlu-professional_law\"}","display_format":"text","language":"","answer_status":"published","assets":[],"source_url":"https://huggingface.co/datasets/TIGER-Lab/MMLU-Pro","history":"initial import","indexing_mode":"index","subproblems":[],"grids":[]}