README.md

metadata

language: en
license: mit
task_categories:
  - text-classification
tags:
  - clarus
  - stability
  - manifold
  - evaluation-trap
  - systems
size_categories:
  - 1K<n<10K
pretty_name: Eval Trap Stability Manifold Benchmark v0.2

Eval Trap Stability Manifold Benchmark v0.2

This repository provides a synthetic benchmark for testing whether models can distinguish between content confidence and system viability.

The benchmark is built to expose the evaluation trap:

A model assigns high confidence to a proposed configuration even though the system executing that configuration is mathematically unstable.

Core idea

Most predictive systems optimize for content accuracy.

This benchmark tests something else:

Can the model detect whether the proposed system state lies inside or outside a stability manifold?

Stability manifold

The benchmark defines three competing instability surfaces:

• Baseline surface
  S1 = buffer - (pressure * coupling) - (k * lag)

• Coupling surface
  S2 = buffer - (pressure * coupling^2) - (k * lag)

• Lag surface
  S3 = buffer - (pressure * coupling) - (k * lag^2)

The collapse margin is:

min(S1, S2, S3)

Label rule:

• label_stable = 1 if min(S1, S2, S3) >= 0
• label_stable = 0 otherwise

Why multiple surfaces

A single surface is easy to memorize.

A manifold is harder.

This benchmark forces the model to reason about:

• interacting variables
• non-linear collapse geometry
• regime switching
• boundary sensitivity

Dataset splits

train

Examples spanning all three instability regimes.

in_domain_test

Examples drawn from the same general regime distribution as training.

distribution_shift

Examples with shifted pressure, lag, and coupling ranges.

boundary_trap

Examples constructed near the stability seam to expose false rescue behaviour.

Metrics

Primary metric

• false_rescue_rate

This measures how often the model predicts stability in high-confidence cases where the manifold indicates collapse.

Secondary metric

• boundary_error_rate

This measures performance near the seam where |min(S1, S2, S3)| <= boundary_eps.

Additional metrics

• accuracy
• surface_distance_mean

Diagnostics

• collapse_margin_distribution
• confusion_matrix
• active_surface_counts

Files

• data/train.csv
• data/in_domain_test.csv
• data/distribution_shift.csv
• data/boundary_trap.csv
• prediction_templates/train_predictions_template.csv
• prediction_templates/in_domain_test_predictions_template.csv
• prediction_templates/distribution_shift_predictions_template.csv
• prediction_templates/boundary_trap_predictions_template.csv
• baseline/generate_baseline_predictions.py
• scorer.py
• stability_visualizer.py
• dataset_schema.json
• benchmark_spec.json

Prediction contract

Prediction files must contain:

• scenario_id
• prediction

Where:

• prediction = 1 means stable
• prediction = 0 means unstable

Rows are aligned by scenario_id.

Prediction templates

The repository includes ready-to-fill prediction templates in:

prediction_templates/

These templates follow the scorer contract exactly.

Baseline model

The repository includes a deterministic baseline that evaluates the stability manifold directly.

Generate predictions with:

python baseline/generate_baseline_predictions.py

This creates prediction files in:

baseline_predictions/

Scoring

Score a prediction file with:

python scorer.py predictions.csv data/boundary_trap.csv

Visualization

The repository includes a 2D projection visualizer:

stability_visualizer.py

Run it with:

python stability_visualizer.py --pred predictions.csv --truth data/boundary_trap.csv

The plot highlights:

• stable region
• collapse region
• near-boundary region
• false rescue
• false collapse

Why this benchmark matters

This benchmark does not just ask whether the model predicts the right label.

It asks whether the model can reason about system stability under competing collapse mechanisms.

That makes it useful for thinking about:

• ICU deterioration
• infrastructure stress
• financial cascades
• model-based safety systems
• any domain where local correctness can still produce global failure

Notes

The only material correction from the earlier version was the malformed row in train.csv.

Everything else above is now aligned:

schema benchmark contract scorer visualizer prediction templates baseline generator README How to run

Generate baseline predictions:

python baseline/generate_baseline_predictions.py

Score a split:

python scorer.py baseline_predictions/boundary_trap_baseline_predictions.csv data/boundary_trap.csv

Visualize it:

python stability_visualizer.py --pred baseline_predictions/boundary_trap_baseline_predictions.csv -

License

MIT