| --- |
| language: en |
| license: mit |
| task_categories: |
| - text-classification |
| tags: |
| - stability-analysis |
| - adversarial-benchmark |
| - system-dynamics |
| - collapse-detection |
| size_categories: |
| - 1K<n<10K |
| pretty_name: CASSES State-Space Collapse Benchmark |
| --- |
| CASSES — Collapse Analysis in State-Space Evaluation Suite |
| Overview |
|
|
| CASSES is a diagnostic benchmark designed to test whether machine learning systems can detect instability and collapse in dynamic systems. |
|
|
| Most AI benchmarks evaluate models on tasks such as classification, language generation, or reasoning over static data. |
| CASSES evaluates a different capability: |
|
|
| state-space stability understanding. |
|
|
| The benchmark tests whether a model can identify when a system is approaching a collapse boundary using signals derived from system dynamics. |
|
|
| The dataset is intentionally adversarial. |
| Several trap structures are included to prevent simple heuristics from solving the task. |
|
|
| The System Model |
|
|
| Each row represents a simulated dynamic system. |
|
|
| The system is defined by four interacting structural variables: |
|
|
| pressure |
| buffer capacity |
| intervention lag |
| system coupling |
|
|
| These variables interact non-linearly to determine the stability margin of the system. |
|
|
| From these dynamics the dataset derives observable signals including: |
|
|
| boundary_distance |
| drift_gradient |
| drift_acceleration |
| recovery_feasibility |
| regime_competition_ratio |
|
|
| These signals describe where the system sits in stability space and how it is moving through that space. |
|
|
| What Models Must Predict |
|
|
| The core prediction task is: |
|
|
| true_label |
| |
| Where: |
| |
| 0 = system remains stable |
| 1 = system collapses |
| |
| Models must infer collapse risk from observed trajectories and derived geometry signals. |
| |
| Dataset Structure |
| |
| The dataset contains two splits. |
| |
| train.csv |
| tester.csv |
| |
| The train split provides examples for model development. |
| |
| The tester split is used for evaluation and includes adversarial trap families designed to test robustness. |
| |
| Each row includes: |
| |
| system observations across time |
| derived stability geometry |
| intervention counterfactuals |
| difficulty labels |
| trap annotations |
| |
| Trap Families |
| |
| The dataset contains several adversarial trap types. |
| |
| These prevent simple threshold heuristics from solving the task. |
| |
| False Stability |
| |
| Observed signals appear stable while the underlying system state is unstable. |
| |
| Models must detect hidden instability. |
| |
| Boundary Masking |
| |
| Collapse occurs even though the system appears distant from the instability boundary. |
| |
| This tests robustness to misleading boundary signals. |
| |
| Trajectory Aliasing |
| |
| Different trajectories produce similar short-term observations but diverge later. |
| |
| Models must infer the correct long-term trajectory. |
| |
| Temporal Alias |
| |
| Temporal patterns appear stable over short windows but hide acceleration toward collapse. |
| |
| Intervention Decoy |
| |
| Counterfactual interventions appear stabilizing but actually increase collapse risk. |
| |
| Counterfactual Intervention Evaluation |
| |
| Some rows include simulated interventions. |
| |
| Fields include: |
| |
| intervention_action |
| intervention_magnitude |
| boundary_distance_before |
| boundary_distance_after |
| intervention_effect_direction |
| |
| These rows test whether models understand how interventions change system stability. |
| |
| Pair Evaluation |
| |
| Certain rows appear in paired form. |
| |
| Each pair contains: |
| |
| safe_pair |
| unstable_pair |
| |
| The trajectories appear similar but diverge in stability outcome. |
| |
| Models must identify which trajectory leads to collapse. |
| |
| Difficulty Levels |
| |
| Each scenario is assigned a difficulty level. |
| |
| easy |
| medium |
| hard |
| |
| Difficulty reflects the clarity of the collapse signal and the degree of adversarial masking present. |
| |
| Evaluation |
| |
| Evaluation is performed using the provided scorer. |
| |
| Metrics include: |
| |
| accuracy |
| precision |
| recall |
| F1 score |
| |
| Additional diagnostic metrics measure performance on specific trap families and system dynamics features. |
| |
| The primary composite metric is: |
| |
| CASSES score |
| |
| This score summarizes model performance across collapse detection, adversarial traps, and counterfactual reasoning. |
| |
| Baseline Results |
| |
| A simple heuristic baseline achieves approximately: |
| |
| CASSES score ≈ 0.64 |
| |
| This indicates the benchmark cannot be solved with trivial rules and requires meaningful reasoning about system dynamics. |
| |
| Files |
| |
| train.csv — training scenarios |
| tester.csv — evaluation scenarios |
| generator.py — dataset generator |
| prediction_baseline.py — reference baseline |
| scorer.py — official evaluation script |
|
|
| Intended Use |
|
|
| CASSES is intended for: |
|
|
| evaluation of machine learning models |
| research on stability reasoning |
| development of system-dynamics-aware AI |
|
|
| The benchmark focuses on instability detection in dynamic systems rather than traditional static classification tasks. |
|
|
| License |
|
|
| MIT License |