This evaluation probes a language model's ability to perform rule-based logical reasoning on both in-distribution and out-of-distribution tasks. It measures how well the model can apply explicit and implicit logical rules to derive correct answers under strict exact-match conditions. Use when the user wants to benchmark on BigBench Hard (BBH), BigBench Extra Hard (BBEH), ProverQA, or asks about evaluating this task. Reports pass@1 (hard exact match).
Installs into .claude/skills of the current project.
Are you the author of Rulereasoner Eval?
Add the live security badge to your README. It updates with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/qhjqhj00-rulereasoner-eval)
---
name: rulereasoner-eval
description: This evaluation probes a language model's ability to perform rule-based logical reasoning on both in-distribution and out-of-distribution tasks. It measures how well the model can apply explicit and implicit logical rules to derive correct answers under strict exact-match conditions. Use when the user wants to benchmark on BigBench Hard (BBH), BigBench Extra Hard (BBEH), ProverQA, or asks about evaluating this task. Reports pass@1 (hard exact match).
metadata:
skill_kind: dataset_eval
source_arxiv: 2506.08672
bibtex_key: [REDACTED]
confidence: high
---
# rulereasoner-eval
> RuleReasoner: Reinforced Rule-based Reasoning via Domain-aware Dynamic Sampling — Liu et al. (2025) (arXiv:2506.08672, 2025)
## What this evaluates
This evaluation probes a language model's ability to perform rule-based logical reasoning on both in-distribution and out-of-distribution tasks. It measures how well the model can apply explicit and implicit logical rules to derive correct answers under strict exact-match conditions.
## Datasets
- **BigBench Hard (BBH)** — total 750; splits: test (750)
- **BigBench Extra Hard (BBEH)** — total 400; splits: test (400)
- **ProverQA** — total 1500; splits: test (1500)
## Metrics
- `pass@1 (hard exact match)` **(primary)** — range: percent
- Algebraic mean of hard exact match across all test instances. Equivalent to pass@1 accuracy under strict extraction and comparison.
## Input / output format
**Input**: Logical reasoning prompts containing a set of rules, facts, and a question (e.g., 'If X then Y. Fact: X. Question: Y?'). Includes both explicit rule sets and implicit contextual descriptions.
**Output**: Step-by-step reasoning chain followed by a final answer formatted as 'Answer: [value].' (e.g., 'Answer: True.' or 'Answer: A.')
## Scoring recipe
```python
def compute_pass_at_1(predictions, golds):
correct = 0
for pred, gold in zip(predictions, golds):
# Strict extraction: parse the final answer line
pred_ans = extract_last_answer(pred)
if pred_ans == gold:
correct += 1
return (correct / len(golds)) * 100
```
## Common pitfalls
- Using micro-averaged accuracy instead of the specified algebraic (macro) mean across tasks/domains.
- Failing to apply strict extraction for the final answer, which can cause valid reasoning chains to be marked incorrect if the answer format deviates.
- Confusing in-distribution (ID) and out-of-distribution (OOD) evaluation splits, as the paper reports separate results for each.
## Evidence (verbatim from paper)
> Evaluation Metrics. All tasks in the work are evaluated using the algebraic mean of hard exact match, which is also equivalent to pass@1 accuracy under strict extraction and comparison.
## Citation
```bibtex
@misc{liu2025rulereasoner,
title={RuleReasoner: Reinforced Rule-based Reasoning via Domain-aware Dynamic Sampling},
author={Liu et al. (2025)},
year={2025},
note={arXiv:2506.08672}
}
```
- arXiv: 2506.08672