{"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":"a826a666-c01d-546b-b4ea-b52587b5e54f","task_key":"default--test--964","task_revision_id":"1","upstream_id":"964","short_description":"A father died leaving a will by which he devised a 100-acre tract to his…","config":"default","split":"test","body":"{\"category\":\"law\",\"options\":\"['lose, because the buyer did not have a legal claim to the five-acre tract', 'lose, because the foreclosure proceedings were properly executed', \\\"win, because the farmer's threat to sue to quiet title was not legally binding\\\", 'win, because the deed from the farmer to the buyer was a quitclaim deed.', 'win, because the quitclaim deed from the farmer to the buyer was subsequent to the deed from the daughter to the buyer and to the mortgage.', 'lose, because the buyer defaulted on the mortgage debt', 'win, because the daughter purchased the tract at her own foreclosure sale', 'lose, because the doctrine of after-acquired title controls.', 'win, because the mortgage instrument described the property interest as covering all 100 acres of the tract.']\",\"question\":\"A father died leaving a will by which he devised a 100-acre tract to his daughter. At the time of the father's death, he believed that he owned all of the 100-acre tract. However, the father actually owned 95 acres of the tract. The other five acres were owned by a farmer. After taking possession of the tract, the daughter executed and delivered a warranty deed to a buyer, purporting to convey all 100 acres of the tract. The agreed purchase price was $100,000. According to the terms of the sale, the buyer paid the daughter a down payment of $25,000, with the unpaid portion of the purchase price (i. e. , $75,000) secured by a mortgage. The mortgage instrument described the property interest as covering all 100 acres of the tract. After the daughter €”buyer transaction was completed, the farmer came forward and informed the parties that she was the true record owner of five acres of the 100-acre tract. Upon the farmer's threat to sue to quiet title, the daughter negotiated a deal whereby she paid the farmer $5,000 for the five-acre tract. As part of their agreement, the farmer executed and delivered a quitclaim deed quitclaiming to the buyer all of her interest in the five-acre parcel. Thereafter, the buyer defaulted on the mortgage debt, and the daughter properly consummated foreclosure proceedings, becoming the purchaser of the tract at her own foreclosure sale. The description of the deed in the foreclosure sale referred to the tract as consisting of all 100 acres. After the foreclosure sale was finalized, the buyer brought suit claiming title in fee simple to the five-acre tract, formerly owned by the farmer. In an appropriate action to determine the title to the said five-acre tract, the buyer will\",\"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":[]}