ai training teams

Abstract: Recent progress in large language model reasoning has been driven by benchmarks and reinforcement learning environments with automatically verifiable rewards, particularly in mathematics, code, and formal logic. These settings make model accuracy easier to evaluate and optimize, but it remains unclear how far success under fixed problem specifications and stable evaluation criteria transfers to reasoning outside such domains. Real-world reasoning often proceeds under incomplete and revisable information: conclusions may be supported provisionally, defeated by counter-evidence, reinstated by further arguments, or revised when stronger reasons become available. Reasoning of this kind is generally referred to as defeasible reasoning. We introduce ArgGYM, a procedural benchmark and RLVR-compatible training environment for structured defeasible reasoning. ArgGYM decomposes this reasoning into twelve tasks and grounds task-specific scoring in a symbolic argumentation engine that computes the formal states used to evaluate model outputs. It includes a frozen benchmark of 1,440 verified instances across fifteen curriculum configurations, two argument preference orderings (weakest-link and last-link), and two set orderings (elitist and democratic), while the same generators and verifiers can produce fresh instances for evaluation that reduces dependence on static test sets and for verifiable-reward training. On the frozen benchmark, frontier and open-weight models show sharply different reasoning profiles: they can recover substantial parts of structured answers without solving the complete task, and performance declines in later curriculum configurations with longer dependencies and more interacting structures. We release the benchmark, generators, and verifiers for reproducible evaluation and RLVR training.

Abstract: Studying how fine-tuning shapes refusal and noncompliance behaviour requires identifying training examples that refuse, evade or otherwise fail to fulfil the requested task. But existing annotation covers evaluation sets of a few thousand prompts at most. We present CompOrca, a compliance labelling over the entirety of the 4,233,923-example OpenOrca corpus. Every example was classified as compliant or noncompliant by five independent passes of an open-weight LLM judge (LongCat-2.0, 1.6T parameters), and the corpus is released as unanimous compliance (94.75%), unanimous noncompliance (1.28%), and nonunanimous rows (3.97%) along with the raw vote counts. A single pass flags 2.7-3.2% of the corpus as noncompliant, while only 1.28% is flagged by all five, allowing for filtering the most ambiguous samples. Against 450 human-annotated examples, 150 of them annotated twice (human-human $κ= 0.93$), the unanimous compliance and noncompliance labels are 97.3% and 86.7% precise, the latter a high-precision subset, not a complete enumeration, of noncompliance. Published refusal-detection methods recall only between 0.4% and 94.1% of the noncompliance class. We release the full corpus with its per-row labels and vote counts at https://huggingface.co/datasets/cemiu/CompOrca